i

National Assessment of Learning

Achievement in Basic Education

in Nigeria

JUNIOR SECONDARY TWO

ii

NALABE 2017

Published by Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) UBEC Building, 7, Gwani Street, Wuse Zone 4, P.M.B. 5089, Post Code 900284, Abuja, Nigeria. E-mail: ubecnigeria@yahoo.com Website: www.ubec.gov.ng www.ubeconline.com © Universal Basic Education Commission ISBN: 978-978-52091-4-3 All Rights Reserved

Except for the purposes of research, review or critique, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording

or otherwise, without the express permission of Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC).

iii

Preface

In September 1999, the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) launched Universal Basic

Education Programme (UBEP) to support state and local governments in the provision of

quality basic education in the country. This was followed by an Act establishing Universal

Basic Education Commission in 2004. The goal was to ensure access, equity and quality in

the provision of basic education. This was in line with the World declaration on “Education for All” in Jomtien 1990 and Dakar 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) now Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The declarations focused on the provision of free

and compulsory education to all children.

In 2001, under the UBE Programme, the first edition of National Assessment on Learning

Achievement in Basic Education was conducted on primary four learners, teachers, parents

and Headteachers. The findings from the study were used in furthering support to state and

local governments, particularly in the areas of teacher development, instructional materials

and infrastructure.

In 2003, the second edition of the study was carried out using Primary classes 4, 5, 6 and

junior secondary classes 1 and 2. The study was a follow-up to the first one. However, the

scope of the second edition was increased to include primary 5, 6, JSS 1 and 2. Findings from

this study were used in reviewing the entire strategy for support to state and local

governments in areas of inputs and processes. Arising from the result of the two studies, the

World Bank Supported Primary Education Project (PEP II) to conduct an Action Research on

improving teaching and learning with far-reaching recommendations on quality of teaching

and learning.

In 2006, the third edition of the study on National Assessment was conducted as a follow-up

to the earlier ones. This edition examined learners‟ performance in primary 6 and junior secondary classes 1 and 2, so as to gauge the progress made in basic education delivery. The

result was used to make some changes in the strategies for teacher development and provision

of instructional materials to schools.

The fourth edition of the Assessment was conducted in 2011. It took five years to be

conducted as against the traditional triennial period. The study focused on primary classes 4,

5 and 6 and junior secondary 1. Thus far, it is the only study available for use by the

stakeholders interested in basic education in the country. The acronym, NAUBEP was also

changed to National Assessment of Learning Achievement in Basic Education (NALABE),

because of the new status the programme assumed following the promulgation of Universal

Basic Education Act 2004.

The Commission began preparation for the fifth-edition in the series in 2014. The preparation

had series of activities, which involved generation of test items using curriculum experts,

specialists in Educational Measurement and Evaluation, and classroom teachers who taught

the core subjects at primary and junior secondary levels, trial-testing, and final selection of

the test items for test administration. The test administration was eventually conducted in

November 2017 while data entry and analysis were effected in March 2018 and the report

finalised in May, 2018.

iv

The National Assessment of Learning Achievement in Basic Education provides empirical

evidence on learning outcomes and their contexts. It is essential for determining strengths and

weaknesses of the subsystems as it offers useful recommendations for review of the existing

strategies for improvement and innovation.

I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the participation and immense contributions from

our partners who had provided time to be in some of our activities from the beginning to the

end of this study. To mention but just a few are the FME, NERDC, NECO, JAMB, UNICEF,

DFID, SUBEBs, LGEAs, Headteachers/Principals, Teachers, National and State Secretariat

of the NYSC for release of corps members who served as test administrators and various

security agencies for providing security during the test administration.

I wish to acknowledge the roles played by groups and individuals towards the realisation of

this study. Amongst them are members of the Technical Working Committee comprised Dr

Sharon Oriero-Oviemuno (Deputy Executive Secretary-Technical), Alh. Dauda Alhasan

(Former Ag. Director, Special Programme), Dr T. T. Onosode (Ag. Director, Planning,

Research and Statistics), Mal. Wadatau Madawaki (Ag. Director, Academic Services); the

subject specialists Ada Veronica Ogwuche, Aleshin Mayowa, Deborah Dajep, Aliyu Shaba

Imam, Ziporah Panguro, Vincent Egwuzoro and Nneka Okafor; the Report Writing Team;

Prof. Gidado Tahir (Chairman), Prof. C. O. Onocha (Vice Chairman), Prof. Tony Afemikhe,

Prof O. Oyedeji, Prof Abubakar Hamman-Tukur, Prof Ismaila Tsiga, Prof. Gbenga Adewale,

Dr I. E. Anyanwu, Dr C. C. Agomoh and Dr Ishaku Usman Gadzama; the Technical support

Team: Mal. Jibo Abdullahi (Former Director, Quality Assurance), Mr Sylvester Enyinnaya

(Ag. Director, Quality Assurance), Arit Akpan (Head, Assessment Unit), Julius Adedoja

(Desk Officer) and Abdulrasheed Ayangbayi; and finally the Secretariat staff Tina

Emuekpere, Patrick Agu, John Umoru and Yohana Wobin.

It is my strong belief that this report will provide our key stakeholders: State and Local

Governments, Civil Society Organisations, Community Based Organisations the Academia,

International Development Partners, the Private sector, philanthropists and individuals the

opportunity to appreciate the progress or otherwise being made in the achievement of the

objectives of basic education in Nigeria. Finally, I wish to urge all the stakeholders to be

more dedicated towards the improvement of basic education delivery in the country through

action research, technology-driven process and innovations that will uplift the programme to

higher level. Education for all is the responsibility of all.

v

Executive Summary

One of the major concerns in the provision of Basic Education in Nigeria has been quality

and Universal Basic Education (UBE) in Nigeria was established through an all-inclusive

right-based policy reform. The focus of UBE is to meet the Education For All (EFA),

Millennium Development Goals and the more contemporaneous Sustainable Development

Goals and targets. There has been an appreciable increase in government investment in Basic

Education lately with a corresponding increase in the same by the donor community.

However, this has not translated into any remarkable improvement in quality learning

outcomes in the nation‟s Basic Education sub-sector, this explains why NALABE was carried

out. This is the 4th study and the objectives were to: assess level of achievement of learners in

primary 6 in the four core subjects of English Studies, Mathematics, Basic Science and

Technology and Social Studies; synthesise basic information on primary and junior

secondary schools in Nigeria, and use same to explain learners‟ achievement, access to schools as well as school-community relationships; and assess contextual variables that might

be used as explanatory variables for the levels of competency acquired in the various skill

areas.

The samplings were done in four stages: six Local Government Education Authorities

(LGEAs) were randomly selected from each of the 35 States while three each were randomly

selected from Bayelsa and FCT. Secondly, five primary schools were randomly sampled in

each of the 35 States and three from FCT and Bayelsa. At the third stage, a class was

randomly selected from the number of streams in the primary six. At the fourth stage, random

sampling was undertaken to select 20 learners where there were more than 20 learners in the

selected classes. In all, 216 LGEAs, 1,080 primary schools, 21,600 primary 6 learners, 3,240

primary 6 teachers and 12,960 parents of primary 6 learners were used. The following were

done in the test development: a review and update of the frameworks of curriculum content

domains for the subjects: English studies, Social Studies, Basic Science and Technology and

Mathematics; developing items and scoring guides in accordance with the specifications of

content and cognitive domains in the frameworks; conducting trials of the items on

equivalent samples and conducting item analysis; and selection of items. The test items were

administered on equivalent samples of the respective populations in five schools and in four

states. In all, 1,199 Multiple Choice Test responses and 50 constructed response scripts were

obtained. The development of four context questionnaires for pupils/learners, teachers, head-

teachers /principals and parents was similar to the Tests. Previous National Assessments

conducted by the Commission were anchored on the Classical Test Theory (CTT) but the

Item Response Theory (IRT) was used in analysing 2017 NALABE. The results are presented

in the next paragraphs.

Learners' Home and Support The first training ground for a child is the home. For a child to adjust very well in school depends largely on the type of support the child receives from the home. The home and neighbourhoods are complex social environments which intricately interact and impact positively or otherwise on the growth, development and school achievement of learners.

vi

Therefore, the home plays a vital role in the overall achievement of a child. This sub-section illustrates the type of support learners receive from the home.

Majority (88.0 percent) of the learners lived with their parents; 73.5 percent of learners ate breakfast at home while the rest had other means of taking theirs. Learners ate between 1-4 times per day. Ownership of textbooks facilitated independent home study and work on learning tasks and assignments and directly impacted on academic performance. However, only about 50.0 percent of the learners owned English Studies and Mathematics textbooks. Only 8.70 percent of them spent up to three hours or more on homework per week. Learners obtained assistance in accomplishing homework from several sources within and outside the home. Other forms of home support included response to teachers‟ invitation for discussion or call by many parents, provision of learning resources, commuting the learners to school, etc. A majority of them were positive that their parents liked them.

Teachers in Schools

Apart from homes, teachers are significant component of the learners‟ education. The Nigerian National Policy on Education appreciates the fact that no education system rises above the quality of its teachers. It is therefore imperative that any national study on assessment should understand the teacher within the context of the school. Therefore, this subsection presents the teachers (including the head-teachers) in the study.

The head teacher, a primus inter pares occupies a unique position and plays an important role in a school. About 83.4 percent of the teachers have 0-20 years teaching experience; 87.0 percent of the head-teachers and 78.2 percent of the teachers were married, 50.1 percent of the head-teachers and 28.6 percent of teachers had degrees with teaching qualification. Generally, 84.0 percent of the head-teachers attended in-service training/workshops in the past five years. These included conferences/seminars/workshops and cluster training (53.20 percent). The class attendance register was marked twice daily by 93.80 percent of the teachers. Many of the teachers (57.40 percent) taught all subjects. Teachers prepared their lesson notes and their frequency varied. Learners received between 1-30 lessons per week. The average duration of lessons was between 21 and 40 minutes. The number of weeks spent on teaching in a year was between 21 and 40 weeks. About half of the teachers (49.30 percent) gave learners homework/assignment in English Studies, Mathematics and Science daily. Teachers (44.30 percent) spent between 1-10 hours per week correcting learners‟ homework, 7.30 percent spent more than 10 hours. The instructional materials used often by 80.30 percent of the teachers were published textbooks while 15.10 percent often used audio-visual materials. Teachers applied different teaching methods in their work and used a variety of techniques in assigning marks to the learners.

Teachers had average morale, high morale and low morale, respectively reason being self-motivation. Generally, About 98.00 percent of the teachers liked teaching, 13.10 percent of the headteachers liked their role in modeling the future generation/building the nation and 10.50 percent enjoyed the daily knowledge/skills acquisition. The headteachers did not like their poor salary/delay in salary, poor working environment, lack of societal recognition, attitude of some of the parents to the learners‟ discipline and lateness. The headteachers in public schools liked the UBE Programme for the provision of infrastructural facilities, learning/instructional materials/educational support and others. However, these were not provided in private schools.

vii

The School and the Community

The school does not exist in isolation; it is a sub-set of the community, therefore, it exerts some level of influence on the community and the community also plays a significant role in making school achieve its objectives. This sub-section describes the school and the community. The distance of home from school is important in the choice of schools for learners. Since boarding facilities were not available in most primary schools, learners commuted from home to school via walking, use of bicycle, taxi/bus, family car and motorcycle/tricycle. The average distance of the schools away from the homes of a majority of the learners was < 1 kilometer (55.50 percent). About 70.00 percent of the schools had well-demarcated compounds, secured from encroachment and large enough for buildings, playgrounds and gardens. Apart from the compound in terms of its size, 47.20 percent of the school compounds were free from erosion problems, 36.10 percent bore evidence of erosion problems and 9.90 percent of the school compounds had serious erosion problems. Teaching and learning processes are facilitated by a learner-friendly environment such as the availability of water, toilets, recreational facilities, disposal facilities, etc. The main source of water supply in the 850 sampled schools was the borehole (31.60 percent). However, there was no established source of water in 31.10 percent of the schools. Toilets were available in 60.80 percent of the schools. Components of school security were fencing and types of fencing and engagement of security personnel.

The community had many roles and responsibilities in supporting the school. These included rendering assistance to their schools in various other ways like security (24.70 percent), land (23.40 percent), money (12.40 percent), auxiliary teachers (10.40 percent), buildings (9.80 percent), and equipment (6.90 percent). The attitude of communities towards their schools was positive in school activities, solving problems relating to the learners and their conduct, etc. One major avenue through which the communities rendered assistance to their schools was the Parent-Teachers‟ Association (PTA), through the association, such school infrastructure and facilities such as the library, classrooms, furniture, ICT services, football fields, school garden/farms, weather stations, auditorium/halls and administrative blocks and were partly provided and maintained.

Attitude of Learners English Studies and Mathematics were the subjects most liked. Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies were those least liked. About 90.70 percent liked their teachers. Some learners liked schooling for other reasons. Learners’ Achievement: English Studies Learners‟ achievements in four subjects (English Studies; Mathematics; Basic Science and Technology; and Social Studies) were used. The national, zonal and state achievement scores showed no significant differences in performance between the levels of each variable (gender, location and type of school) for both tests in all the four subjects, although, there were variations from state to state. For English Studies, learners were good in the Multiple Choice test, whereas, they were only fair in the Essay test. State performance on content and cognitive domains showed that scores were higher in reading (59.59) than in grammar (53.66). Learners performed higher in Comprehension (63.43) than in Knowledge (56.65) and Higher Order objectives (53.41). The performance in the multiple-choice test was higher than that of the essay in urban locations in North-Central, South-East, South-West and South-South.

viii

The relational analysis showed that the performance at low level of engagement in non-learning activities was higher than that at moderate level which, in turn, was higher than high level of engagement. Learners, whose parents did farming/fishing had performed higher than other occupations. Learners whose parents were workers (private/public) performed best in 17 states. The performance of learners was in increasing order for mothers who were into working (Public/Private) (57.70), farming/fishing (57.50), business/trading (57.00) and „others‟ (55.40). The best performance at the national level was exhibited by learners who went to school by family car and with taxi/bus and okada/bicycle/tricycle.

Learners’ Achievement: Mathematics

In Mathematics, the learners were good in the Multiple Choice Test whereas but only fair in the Essay Test. Learners‟ performance in Mathematics by the content domains, the national mean scores was highest in Numbers and numeration (64.40), Algebraic process (59.11), Basic operations (51.04) and least in Everyday Mathematics (34.48). By cognitive domains, the national mean scores were Comprehension (60.47), Knowledge (59.54) and Higher Order (54.31).

The relational analysis showed that the national mean scores on assistance with homework were moderate level (59.70), low level (59.60) and high level (58.30); on the availability of facilities, were low level (58.40), moderate level (59.50) and high level (60.50). On moderate engagement in non-learning activities were high (60.00), low level (59.50) and high level (58.10). Learners whose fathers were into business/trading had the best performance (60.90), followed by „others‟ (60.50), farming/fishing (59.00), and workers (public/private) (59.00). Learners whose mothers did farming/fishing scored 59.60, followed by business/trading (58.80), etc. Learners who travelled > 3 kilometers had a high mean performance, 1 to 2 kilometers had least performance while the best-performing learners travelled between 2-3 kilometers to school daily. Learners with textbooks (60.50) scored higher than those without textbooks (57.70).

Learners’ Achievement: Basic Science and Technology In Basic Science and Technology, the learners were fair in both Multiple Choice and Essay Tests. By content domains, the learners‟ scores were: You and Environment (54.42 percent); Science and Development (51.34 percent); Living and Non-Living Things (40.86 percent); and You and Energy (42.45 percent). Learners‟ scores in the cognitive domains were Higher order (54.62 percent), Knowledge (51.48 percent) and Comprehension (42.20 percent). Learners‟ performances were decomposed by (gender, location and type of school) for both tests.

The relational analysis showed that the national mean for the three levels of assistance, (48.00), moderate (47.70) and high (47.3), tended to give a pattern that increased in relation to amount of assistance received. On moderate engagement in non-learning activities means for the three levels of engagement were high level (47.90), low level (47.80) and moderate level (47.50).

Learners whose fathers were into others had the best performance (48.00), followed by „others‟ business/trading (48.00), farming/fishing (47.70), and workers (public/private) (47.30). business/trading had the best performance (62.60) followed by children of mothers whose occupations were classified as „others‟ (62.20), the children of mothers who worked (public/private) and were into farming/fishing had the least performance (61.90). The national means of the performance of learners based on distance covered were as follows: < 1 kilometer (47.70), 1 to 2 kilometers (49.90) which had the best perfomance, > 2 to 3

ix

kilometers (49.60), > 3 kilometers (47.80). with textbooks(60.50) scored higher than those without textbooks(57.70).

Performance was highest with one or two meals a day (47.80) and thereafter diminished for 3 meals (47.20) and then four meals per day (46.60). Performance of learners without textbooks (47.90) was higher than that for learners with textbooks (47.40) though the difference was not significant. The performance of learners who liked their teachers (49.70) was higher than that of learners who did not (48.4) and the performance of learners who did not like school was 48.80 percent as against 49.70 percent for those who did not.

Learners’ Achievement: Social Studies In Social Studies, the learners performed fairly well both in the Multiple Choice and Essay Tests. There were no significant differences in performance between the levels of each variable (gender, location and type of school) for both tests. The national means for the different themes were as follows: Family (69.23), Culture (65.51), National Economy (50.31), Infrastructural Facilities/Services (66.89), Health Issues (67.02), People and their Environment (60.02) and Social Issues and Problems (62.45). The national means for the cognitive domains were Knowledge (62.75), Comprehension (61.80) and finally Higher Order (61.77). The national mean score for the multiple-choice test was 49.98 and that for the essay test was 49.35. Thus, the performance level of learners in the multiple-choice Test was higher than their performance in the essay test.

The means for levels of assistance with homework were high (62.50), low (62.20), and moderate (62.00). Availability of learning facilities resulted in low level (62.40), moderate level (62.30) and high level (61.60). Levels of engagement in after-school were low (62.1), moderate (62.00), and high (62.00). The national means scores based on fathers‟ occupations were business/trading (62.50), worker (public/private) (62.10) and farming/fishing (62.00) while the mothers‟ occupations were business/trading (62.60), „others‟ (62.20), worker (public/private) (61.90) and farming/fishing (61.90). The means for the modes of transportation to school were taxis/buses (46.90), family cars (45.50), Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle (43.90), walking (45.50) while their distances were < 1 kilometer (62.20), 1-2 kilometers (56.20), >2-3 kilometers (63.70) and > 3 kilometers (60.90); numbers of meals were once (62.00), twice (62.80), thrice (62.50) and four times (62.40). The mean score for learners without textbooks (62.60) was higher than that for learners with textbooks (61.90). The mean for learners who liked their teachers (46.20) was higher than that of learners who did not like their teachers (45.50). The mean of learners who did not like schooling was 45.90 and that for those who liked schooling was 45.50.

x

Content

Preface iii

Executive Summary v

List of Figures xii

List of Tables xvii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xix

Section One: Background and Methodology 1

Chapter One: Background of the Study 1

Introduction 1

National Assessment 1 The 2017 National Assessment of Basic Education (NALABE) 2

Chapter Two: Methods and Procedures 4

Project Design 4

Sample Design 4

Data Administration Plan 8

Data Analysis Procedures 10 Chapter Three: Learners’ Home and Support 13

Introduction 13 Background Information 13 Types of Support from Home 15 Observation and Challenges 19

Chapter Four: Teachers in Schools 20

Profile of Principals and Teachers 20 Staff Situation in Schools 23 Professional Development 24 School Discipline and Climate 26 Decision Making 26 Job Satisfaction and Morale 28 Teaching and Evaluation Practices 29 Teachers‟ Needs 31 Learners' Problems 35 Observation and Challenges 36

Chapter Five: The School and the Community 37

The School in Perspective 37 Parents Relationship with the School 38 Parental Support of the School 40 School Fence and Security Provision 41 School Compound and Buildings 42 Students‟ Enrolment, Dropouts and Repeaters 43 Classroom Spaces and Open Classrooms 46 Facilities in Schools 47

xi

The Child Friendly School Environment 49 Water Supply Sources 51 Availability of Useable Games/Sports Facilities in School 51 Curriculum Materials 53 Types of Instructional Materials 55 Observation and Challenges 56

Chapter Six: Attitude of Learners 57

Parents Liking for Learners 57 Attitude towards School Subjects 58 Attitude towards Teachers 60 Attitude to Schooling 61 Observation and Challenges 63

Chapter Seven: English Studies 65

National Achievement 65 Achievement across Geopolitical Zones 67 Relational Analysis 85 Observation and Challenges 101

Chapter Eight: Achievement in Mathematics 102

Introduction 102 National Achievement 102 Learners‟ Achievement at State Level 106 Achievement of Learners in Mathematics Based on Content Domain 112 Relation Analysis 121 Observation and Challenges 136

Chapter Nine: Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 137

National Achievement 137 Achievement at Zonal level 139 Achievement at State Level 142 Relational Analysis of Performance 150

Chapter Ten: Achievement in Social Studies 165

National Achievement 165 Achievement in Geopolitical Zonal 167 State Level Achievement for Test Forms 170 Relational Analysis 179 Observation and Challenges 194

Chapter Eleven: Major Findings, Implications for Policy and Recommendations 195

Contextual Variables 195 Implications for Policy 197 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Parents 197 Support from Home 198

Learners‟ Contributions at Home through Co-Curricular Activities 199 Teachers in Schools 199 Professional Development 200

xii

School Discipline and Climate 201 Decision Making 201 Job satisfaction and Moral 202 Teaching and Evaluation Practices 202 Teachers‟ Needs 202 The School and the Community 203 Distance to School 203 Community Assistance to Schools 203 Relationship between the School and the Community 203 Space for School Buildings, Playgrounds and Gardens 204 Male and Female Enrolment 204 School Dropout Rate 204 Availability of Toilets in the Schools 205 Non-Availability of Curriculum Materials 205 Appropriateness of Classroom Facilities 205 Disparity among Schools in Classrooms and Spaces 205 Availability of Textbooks 206 Water Supply 206 Lack of Refuse Disposal Facilities 206 Attitude of the Learners 206 Parents like the Teachers 206 Subjects the Learners Disliked Most 206 The Learners like Their Teachers and Schooling 207

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Parents / Guardians Occupation 13 Figure 3.2: Types of Residence 13 Figure: 3.3: Number of Children in Schools 14 Figure 3.4: Children in the Immediate / Nuclear Family 14 Figure 3.5: Distance to School from Home 17 Figure 4.1: Age of Principals 20 Figure 4.2: Qualification of Principals 21 Figure 4.2.1: Age Distribution of Teachers 21 Figure 4.3: Highest Educational Qualification of Teachers 22 Figure 4.4: Teachers‟ Teaching Experience 22 Figure 4.3.1: Type of Training Attended in the Past Five Years 24 Figure 4.3.2: Workshop/Training Attended by Teachers in the Past Five Years 25 Figure 4.3.3: Training Courses Attended in the Past 3 Years by Teachers 25 Figure 4.4.1: Type of Disciplinary Cases 26 Figure 4.6.1: Things which Principals do not like about their Job 29 Figure 4.7.1: Use of Instructional Materials by Subject Teachers 30 Figure 4.7.2: Use of Evaluation Instruments by Subject Teachers 30 Figure 4.8.1 Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Instructional Activities 32 Figure 4.8.2: Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Management Practices 33 Figure 4.8.3: Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Co-curricular Activities 34 Figure 4.8.4:Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Instructional Materials and Evaluation Practices 34 Figure 5.1.1: Shift System Run in School 37 Figure 5.1.2: Distance of School from Home 38 Figure 5.2.1: How often PTA Meets 39 Figure 5.2.2: Chart of Attendance at PTA Meetings by Parents 39 Figure 5.2.3: Subject Teachers Visit to Parents 39 Figure 5.2.4: Chart of Parents‟ Visit to Schools 40 Figure 5.3.1: Level of Assistance Rendered by Parents to School 40 Figure 5.3.2: Chart of Levies and Other Charges Payment by Parents 41 Figure 5.3.3: Relationship between the School and the Community 41 Figure 5.4.1: Type of Fence 42 Figure 5.4.2: Type of Security Engaged by School 42 Figure 5.7.1: Chart of Repeaters and Dropouts across States 44 Figure 5.7.1: Reasons for Learners Dropping Out of School 45 Figure 5.8.1: Distribution of Classroom Spaces and Open Classrooms by States 46 Figure 5.9.1: Condition of Some Facilities in Schools 48 Figure 5.9.2: Distribution of Furniture 49 Figure 5.11.1: Sources of Water Supply 51 Figure 5.12.1: Available Useable Games/Sports Facilities 51 Figure 5.12.2: Availability of Refuse Disposal Facilities in School 52 Figure 5.12.3: Usability of Refuse Disposal Facilities in School 52 Figure 5.12.4: Availability of Usable Recreational Facilities in Schools 53 Figure 5.13.1: Availability of Curriculum Materials 54 Figure 5.13.2: Quality of Curriculum Materials 54 Figure 5.13.3: Adequacy of the Curriculum Materials 55 Figure 6.1.1: Percentage of Parents Liking the Learners 57

xiv

Figure 6.1.2: Reasons Parents Like Children 58 Figure 6.1.3: Reasons Parents do not like Children 58 Figure 6.2.1: Subjects Liked and not Liked by Learners 59 Figure 6.2.2: Reasons for not Liking the Subject 60 Figure 6.3.1: Percentage of Learners‟ Liking for the Teacher 60 Figure 6.3.2: Reasons for Liking Teacher 61 Figure 6.4.1: Reasons for Liking Schooling 62 Figure 7.2: Percentile of JS 2 Learners in Multiple Choice and Essay tests 65 Figure 7.3Learners‟ Achievement in Content Domains 66 Figure 7.4 Achievement in Cognitive Domains 67 Figure 7.5 Distribution of Mean Scores in Multiple Choice in Geopolitical Zones 67 Figure 7.6: Achievement Tests of Learners in Essay in Geopolitical Zones 67 Figure 7.7: Distribution of Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Test across Zones 68 Figure 7.8 Achievement in Content Domains across the Geopolitical Zones 70 Figure 7.9: Distribution of Mean Score by Geo-political Zone on the Level of Cognition of English Studies 71 Figure 7.10 : Distributions of Score in Multiple Choice across States Based on Gender 72 Figure 7.11: Learners' Achievement in Speech across States 77 Figure 7.12 Learners' Achievement in Writing across States 78 Figure 7.13: Learners' Achievement in Reading across States 79 Figure 7.14: Learners' Achievement in Grammatical Accuracy across States 80 Figure 7.15: Learners' Achievement in Literature across States 81 Figure 7.16: Learner Achievement in Knowledge across States 82 Figure 7.17: Learners' Achievement in Comprehension across States 83 Figure 7.18: Learner Achievement in Higher Order across States 84 Figure 7.19: Mother's Occupation 92 Figure 8.1: Achievement of Learners in the Multiple Choice and Essay Tests 102 Figure 8.2: Percentile Scores in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests 103 Figure 8.3: Mean Scores of Learners‟ Achievement

in Essay and Multiple Choice by Gender 103 Figure 8.4: Mean Scores of Learners‟ Achievement in Essay and Multiple Choice by School Location 104 Figure 8.5: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Test across Geopolitical Zones 104 Figure 8.6: Distribution of Learners Average Scores in Essay Test across Geopolitical Zones 105 Figure 8.7: Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in Mathematics 107 Figure 8.8: Achievement of Learners across States Based on Content

(Number and Numeration) 112 Figure 8.9: Achievement of Learners across States Based on Content (Basic Operation) 113 Figure 8.10: Achievement of Learners across States on Algebraic Process 114 Figure 8.11: Achievement of Learners across States on Geometric Mensuration 115 Figure 8.12: Achievement of Learners across States Based on Content

(Everyday Mathematics) 116 Figure 8.13: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States Based on Knowledge Objective 118 Figure 8.14: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States Based on Comprehension Objectives 119

xv

Figure 8.15: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States Based on Higher Order Objective 120 Figure 8.16: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across States on

Homework Assistance 122 Figure 8.17: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across States Based on Availability of Learning Materials 123 Figure 8.18: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across states Based on Non-Learning Engagement 124 Figure 8.19: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across the States Based on Occupation of Father 125 Figure 9.1: National Average Scores for Multiple Choice and Essay Tests 137 Figure 9.2: National Distribution of Score Ranges in Basic Science and Technology 137 Figure 9.3: Percentile for Essay and Multiple Choice Tests 138 Figure 9.2.1: Gender Achievement by Zone on Multiple Choice Test 139 Figure 9.2.3: Distribution of Mean Scores by Geo-Political Zone on the

Objectives Domains 141 Figure 9.3.1: Mean Score in Basic Science and Technology 143 Figure 10.1: National Average for Multiple Choice and Essay Type Tests 165 Fig. 10.2: Percentiles for Multiple Choice and Essay Tests at National Level 166 Figure 10.3: Mean in Multiple Choice test across Geo-Political Zones 166 Figure 10.4: Mean Essay Test across Geo- Political Zones 167 Figure 10.6: Achievement by Zone on Content across Geopolitical Zones 169 Figure 10.7: Mean Score by Zone on The Social Studies Cognitive Domains 170 Figure 10.8: Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in Social Studies 171 Figure 10.8: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Based on Gender across States 172

xvi

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Test Characteristics 7

Table 3.1: Number of Students with Textbooks in Core Subjects 15

Table 3.2:Assistance on Homework by Parents 15

Table 3.3: Educational Facilities Provided 15

Table 3.4: Average Time Spent Daily on Home Work 16

Table 3.5: Number of Meals Per Day 16

Table 3.6: Regular Collection of Pocket Money 17

Table 3.7: Number of Uniform Learners have 17

Table 3.8:Means of Going to School 17

Table 3.9: Attendance of PTA Meetings 18

Table 3.10: Parents Like for Learners 18

Table 3.11: Learners‟ Activities after School 18

Table 4.2.1: Qualification of Teachers (Excluding Religious Instructors) 23

Table 4.5.1: Principals‟ Freedom in Decision Making about School Activities 27

Table 4.5.2: Freedom of Teachers in Decision Making 28 Table 4.6.1: Things Principals Like about their Job 28 Table 4.7.1: Teachers‟ Use of Evaluation Techniques for Diagnosing Learners‟ Weakness 31 Table 4.9.1: Problems Encountered as Classroom Teacher 35 Table 4.9.2: Problems Teachers Encounter with Students 35

Table 5.1.1: Means of Going to School 38 Table 5.6.1: Description of School Compound 43 Table 5.10.1: Number of Toilets for Learners 50 Table 5.10.2: Toilets for Teachers 50 Table 5.14.1: Types of Instructional Materials Available in Schools 55 Table 6.1: Reasons for not Liking Schools 62 Table7.1: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Performance in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests by Location, School Type and Gender 66 Table 7.2: Distribution of Mean Scores in Essay Test across Geo-political Zones based on Gender 68 Table 7.3: Learners‟ Performance in Multiple and Essay Tests across Geo-political and School Location 69 Table 7.4: Achievement across the States based on Gender in Essay Test 73 Table 7.5: Achievement in Type of Test by Location 74 Table 7.6: Homework Support as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies 86 Table 7.7 Level of Availability of Learning Materials and Achievement in English Studies 88 Table 7.8: Out of School Non Learning Engagements as Related to Achievement 89 Table 7.9: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies 91 Table 7.10: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in JS2 Mathematics 92

xvii

Table 7.11: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Achievement in English Studies 94 Table 7.12: Distance between learners‟ Home and Schools Related to Achievement 95 Table 7.13: Number of Meals Per Day as Related to Achievement 97 Table 7.14: Learners‟ Possession of Textbook in English Language as Related to Performance 98 Table 7.15: Liking the Teacher as Related to Performance in English Studies 99 Table 7.16: Liking for Schooling as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies 100 Table 8.1: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of Mathematics Achievement in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests for Zones by Gender 105 Table 8.2: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of Performance in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests for Zones by Location 106 Table 8.3: Multiple Choice Test and Essay Tests Score in Mathematics by Gender 108 Table 8.4: Multiple Choice and Essay Test Scores by School Location 110 Table 8.10: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in JS 2 Mathematics 126 Table 8.11: Mode of Transportation to School as Related to Achievement in Mathematics 128 Table 8.12: Distance between Learners‟ Home and Schools Related to Performance in Mathematics 129 Table 8.13: Number of Meal per Day as Related to Achievement in Mathematics 131 Table 8.14: Relationship of Learners with Textbook and Achievement on Mathematics 132 Table 8.15: Relationship between Liking of Teachers and Achievement in Mathematics 133 Table 8.16: Liking Schooling and Achievement in Mathematics Relationship 135 Table 9.1 Mean and SE of Achievement in Multiple Choice Test and Essay byLocation, and Gender in Basic Science and Technology 138 Table 9.2. 1: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Location 140 Table 9.2.2: Means on Content Domains across Geopolitical Zones 140 Table 9.4: Mean of Multiple Choice and Essay Test in Basic Science and Technology by Gender 144 Table 9.5: Mean of Multiple Choice and Essay Test in Basic Science and Technology by Location 146 Table 9.7: Mean Scores by State on the Content across States 147 Table 9.8: Distribution of Mean Score by State on the Behavioural Objectives 149 Table 9.9: Relationship between Achievement and Level of Assistance with Homework in Basic Science and Technology 150 Table 9.10: Level of Availability of Learning Materials as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 152 Table 9.11: Level Out of School Non Learning Engagement and Performance in Basic Science and Technology 153 Table 9.12: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in

Basic Science and Technology 154 Table 9.13: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 155

xviii

Table 9.14: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 157 Table 9.15: Distance between Learners‟ Home and School as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 158 Table 9.16: Number of Meals Per Day as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 159 Table 9.17: Learners‟ Possession of Textbook on Basic Science and Technology as Related to Achievement 161 Table 9.18: Liking Teacher and Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 162 Table 9.19: Liking Schooling and Achievement in Basic Science and Technology 163 Table 10.1: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests by Location, Type of School and Gender Social Studies 166 Table 10.2: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Gender 167 Table 10.3: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Location 168 Table 10.4: Mean Scores in Essay Based on Gender across States 173 Table 10.5: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice and Essay Based on Location across States 175 Table 10.6: Distribution of Mean Scores by State on Content across States 176 Table 10.7: Distribution of Mean Score by State on the Behavioural Objectives 178 Table 10.4.1: Homework Assistance as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 179 Table 10.4.2: Level of Availability of Learning Materials and Achievement in Social Studies 181 Table 10.4.3: Out of School Non Learning Engagements as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 182 Table 10.4.4: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 183 Table 10.4.5: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 185 Table 10.4.6: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Performance in Social Studies 186 Table 10.4.7: Distance between Learners‟ Home and School as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 187 Table 10.4.8: Number of Meal Daily as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 189 Table 10.4.9: Learners‟ Possession of Textbook on Social Studies and Achievement of Learners 190 Table 10.4.10: Liking of Teacher as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 191 Table 10.4.11: Liking Schooling as Related to Achievement in Social Studies 193

xix

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACE - Associate Certificate in Education

CCT - Classical Test Theory

DFID - Department for International Development

EFA - Education for All

FCT - Federal Capital Territory

FGN - Federal Government of Nigeria

FME - Federal Ministry of Education

FSLC - First School Leaving Certificate

GCE - General Certificate of Education

ICT - Information and Communication Technology

IRT - Item Response Theory

IRTPRO - Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcomes

ISCED - International Standard Classification of Education

JAMB - Joint Admission and Matriculation Board

JSS - Junior Secondary School

LGEA - Local Government Education Authority

MDGs - Millennium Development Goals

NALABE - National Assessment of Learning Achievement in Basic Education

NAUBEP - National Assessment of Universal Basic Education Programme

NCCE - National Commission for Colleges of Education

NCE - Nigeria Certificate in Education

NECO - National Examinations Council

NERDC - Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council

NTI - National Teachers Institute

NYSC - National Youth Service Corp

PEP - Primary Education Project

PISA - Programme for International Student Assessment

PTA - Parent–Teachers Associations

SDGs - Sustainable Development Goals

SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SSCE - Secondary School Certificate Examination

SUBEBs - State Universal Basic Education Boards

TIMSS - Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

UBE - Universal Basic Education

UBEC - Universal Basic Education Commission

UBEP - Universal Basic Education Programme

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF - United Nations Children Education Fund

WAEC - West African Examination Council

1

Section One: Background and Methodology

Chapter One

Background of the Study

1.1 Introduction

Quality has been a major concern in the provision of Basic Education in Nigeria as far

back as the colonial period. However, it is one educational challenge that continues to

elude developing countries ostensibly because of the complexity that is involved in

ensuring that it is achieved. Universal Basic Education in Nigeria is an all-inclusive

right-based policy reform which had to contend with meeting the Education For All

(EFA), Millennium Development Goals and the more contemporaneous Sustainable

Development Goals and targets. It has been acknowledged that the access targets of the

first two global initiatives have been almost half-way realised in Nigeria, although a lot

more challenges remain elusive. Furthermore, it is on record that there has been

appreciable increase in government investment in Basic Education lately with a

corresponding increase in the same by the donor community. However, this has not

translated into any remarkable improvement in quality learning outcomes in the nation‟s Basic Education sub-sector.

Since the last National Assessment in 2011, a number of policy changes and fairly robust

financial investment have been witnessed in this sub-sector. It is only expedient therefore

to embark on yet another exercise with the view to appreciating the extent to which these

interventions have impacted on learning outcomes. In other words, do the Ministerial and

Commission‟s UBE related policies and increased funding have any positive impact on the classroom activities with consequential effect on improved quality of learning

outcomes on a more sustainable basis?

1.2 National Assessment

Conceptually, National Assessment is a procedure that is used to assess students‟ learning at the system level. It is variously referred to as learning assessment, system

assessment, assessment of learning outcomes, or national /international assessment. It is

applied to a survey of schools and students that is designed to provide evidence about

learners‟ achievements in identified curriculum areas, such as reading/literacy, mathematics/numeracy, science and other skills, for a clearly defined part of the

education system.

Assessment entails measurement of learning, analysis to diagnose problems, and use of

the findings to guide remedial action. An effective national assessment policy demands

real political commitment to action based on results, such as reallocation of resources,

curriculum reform and/or reorientation of teaching. The overriding goal is to learn more

about factors that influence learners‟ attitude and achievement which may be

2

manipulated to bring about improvement in attitudes and achievement, or efficiencies in

the education system. Large-scale assessments by themselves cannot result in quality

improvement, unless the system is ready to reflect on the findings and use them for

improving the quality of teaching and learning.

The typical outcome of most national surveys of educational progress are: i) a detailed

description of the knowledge and skills possessed by learners of a particular age or grade

level in a given domain, and ii) a further description of contextual variables believed to

be related to the former, and within each group of measures. The outcome as well as

further analysis of the data collected facilitates comparison of achievements with local

standards, monitoring of progress over time, comparison between various population

groups and delineation of possible correlates of achievement.

1.3 The 2017 National Assessment of Basic Education (NALABE)

1.3.1 Rationale

From its inception in 2001, when NALABE was conducted by the Universal Basic

Education Commission, it has officially been a triennial large-scale survey, which

attempts to evaluate the Basic Education sub-system in Nigeria. The Commission had

previously conducted four studies, in 2001, 2003, 2006 and 2011 respectively. Although

in the ensuing years, the triennial cycle was disrupted partly because of paucity of funds

and frequent changes in the Commission‟s leadership, nonetheless, the urge for

conducting a large scale system assessment has never veered.

Unlike the previous Basic Education assessments, the 2017 exercise assessed learners in

the two senior classes of the two levels of the programme in all of the four core subjects.

Thus, the 2017 NALABE assessed 43,200 learners in primary classes five and six;

17,280 learners in junior secondary school classes two and three; in Mathematics,

English Studies, Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies. In addition, 38,880

parents; 3,888 and 1,512 headteachers respectively in primary and junior secondary

schools participated in the exercise. However, like the previous assessments, the 2017

NALABE also assessed the impact of the characteristics of learners and their parents,

teachers and headteachers on Basic Education development, in addition to providing a

framework for systemic “health check” for policy implementation and school improvement.

1.3.2 Objectives

The aim of the NALABE 2017 is to assess the level of achievement of primary and junior secondary school learners in Nigeria in four core subjects, English Studies, Mathematics, Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies with a view to identifying gaps and diagnose aspects of policy and practice that need improvement. Specifically the objectives of the study are to:

i) assess level of achievement of learners in primary classes 5 and 6 and JSS classes 2 and 3 in the four core subjects of English Studies, Mathematics, Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies; and

3

ii.) assess contextual variables that might be used as explanatory variables for the levels of achievement attained acquired in the various areas of the core subjects.

1.3.3 Focus

The 2017 NALABE focused on both the aggregate performance of learners and item-

level data at each of the class levels. Data on aggregate performance were provided on

state and national levels, whereas data on item-level performance were provided on a

national level only. State level aggregate performance data provided reference data

(norms) which each state could use for planning purposes and monitoring

performance of learners in future assessments.

The 2017 assessment, like others before it, also focused on non-cognitive

characteristics of learners, teachers, head teachers and parents, as well as the influence

of some explanatory variables on the learners‟ aggregate performance (relational analyses).

1.3.4 Scope

This study covered the last two classes of primary and junior secondary levels of Basic Education in Nigeria. Learners were assessed on the aforementioned four content of subject areas. Furthermore, non-cognitive measures were also obtained using the questionnaires for the learners, teachers, head teachers and parents at both Basic Education in our country.

4

Chapter Two

Methods and Procedures

2.1 Project Design

This chapter provides technical details on methods and standard procedures undertaken to

ensure that results of the survey are reliable, comparable across States and reflect differences

in the achievement of learners measured within schools and across States.

NALABE 2017, as in previous studies and some international large scale assessments used a

variety of instruments to obtain measures of what learners know and can do in the

classrooms, after interactions with teachers and instructional materials. Large-scale

assessments are usually of the survey type research involving large and representative

samples that are not subjected to experimental manipulations but focusing on after the fact

observations and collection of measurements.

2.2 Sample Design

2.2.1 Populations Investigated

The target population used in the SURVEY was described as level 1 in accordance with

UNESCO‟s International Standard Classification of Education, ISCED 2011(ISCED, 2012) which describes the full range of schools from pre-primary (level 0) to doctoral level (level

8). Level 1 corresponds to the first stage of basic education in the Nigerian system “which coincides with the transition point in an educational system where systematic teaching and

learning in reading, writing and mathematics begin” (UNESCO, 2012, p.30). Specifically, the target population: Junior Secondary two i.e. all students enrolled in this class that represent 8

years of schooling counting from the first year of ISCED level 1;

All learners in this target population were exposed to the same National Curriculum and

instructional experiences, and were therefore eligible to participate in the survey. Box 1

provides National Education Statistics for the Primary subsystem. Also in Box 1, the statistics

of the population assessed were segregated from the national data.

Box 1: National Education Statistics.

Number of Junior Secondary schools: 12,570

Student Enrolment: 5,330,606

Male: 2,781,334 (52 percent)

Female: 2,549,272 (48 percent)

Teachers: 20,294

Males: 10,838 (53 percent)

Females: 9,456 (47 percent)

Sub- Populations

Junior school Two: 1,711,370

Males: 923,249 (53.4 percent)

Females: 803,135 (46.6 percent)

5

2.2.2 Sampling Procedures for Representativeness

A four stage sampling design was employed in the selection of schools‟ classrooms and

learners. The sampling frame of each population provided basis for selection. The

Commission has a robust quality assurance structure with offices in the 36 states and the

FCT. The states offices updated the sampling frame for the population prior to sampling.

In the first stage, six Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs) were randomly

selected from each of 35 States while Bayelsa and the FCT had three each. The LGEAs were

stratified into urban and rural locations. In each of the 35 States, selection ensured equity

participation of urban and rural schools whereas participation in FCT and Bayelsa was in the

ratio 2:1 in favour of urban location. Stratification was to ensure the inclusion of all segments

of the populations. The decision to sample 50 percent of LGEAs in Bayelsa and the FCT was

one of numbers, since the two States have eight and six LGEAs respectively.

The second stage of sampling focused on the selection of schools. Two JS schools with at

least 20 learners in a class (this is to be sure there were no schools with less than 20 learners

in JS 2 especially in the rural schools) were randomly sampled in each of the 35 States and

one each from FCT and Bayelsa. Therefore, from each of the 216 LGEAs, two schools (one

urban and one rural) were randomly selected.

At the third stage, that is, school level sampling, a class was randomly selected from the

number of streams in the school six. At the fourth stage, random sampling was undertaken to

select 15 learners where there were more than 15 learners in the selected classes.

Box 2: Sampled Statistics from the Population of LGAs, Schools, Classes and Learners

LGEAs: 216

Junior Schools: 432

JS 2 Classrooms: 432

Students: 8,640

Parents: 6,480 (15 per class)

2.2.2.1 Sample Size Determination

Sample size determination and representativeness are central to the effective generalisation

and comparability of results across the populations surveyed in the country of study and out-

countries. After much deliberation by Technical team, the following standards were agreed

upon:

Box 3: Sampling Statistics

Margin error of estimate set at 0.031

Confidence interval = 95 percent

Standard Deviation for Primary = 2.289

Calculations

ME = t S/√n

Where

ME = Margin Error

t = t distribution score

Junior Secondary Class Sample

0.031 = 1.96 x 1.41/√n

0.031√n = (1.96 x 1.41) √n = (1.96 x 1.41)/0.031

= 7953.874

6

n = sample size Sample per State = 7953.874/36

= 220.941 = 240 (Approx.)

Samples in each of Bayelsa and FCT = 120

Sample in each of the remaining 35 State = 240

Responses on Mathematics were used because it is a high stake subject where large variance

is always observed.

The team decided to increase sample size in each of the 36 states to 240 from the estimated

220.94, which consequently increased the national sample to 8,640. Therefore, the

statistically representative sample was 8,640 for Junior secondary school populations.

Ensuring how a sample represents the population where it is drawn remains a challenge in

carrying out assessment surveys. However, NALABE 2017 adapted TIMSS 2015 sampling

approach to select participants to ensure the credibility of the results and findings. To obtain

estimates of learners‟ proficiency in Basic Science and Technology, English Language, Mathematics and Social Studies, simple random sampling technique was used to sample

learners from 36 states and Federal Capital Territory. To deal with envisaged uncertainty in

the reported statistics, such as the means and percentages computed to estimate population

parameters, sampling errors were also estimated. Each statistics, especially the mean in the

NALABE Reports is accompanied by an estimate of its standard error. For statistics reporting

learners‟ achievement, which are based on plausible values, standard errors play important roles. An approach that reflects the uncertainty due to generalising from learners samples to

the entire populations, referred to as sampling variance was used in this survey. The second

approach that reflects uncertainty due to inferring learners‟ achievement on the entire

assessment from achievement on the subset of items, known as imputation variance, was not

adapted because its methodology made provisions for every pupil/learner to take the entire

Test on every subject.

For parameter estimates of variables that are not plausible values, standard errors are based

entirely on sampling variance. For estimating sampling variance, NALABE 2017 made

extensive use of probability sampling to derive achievement results from national samples of

learners across States. The rationale behind this was that, many such samples are possible but

only one sample is drawn, some uncertainty about how well the sample represents the

population is to be expected. The uncertainty caused by sampling learners from a target

population, known as sampling variance, had been taken care of in reporting through the

estimation of standard errors. From the sampled results, the maximum average standard error

estimated across the four classes was 0.74, an indication of how close each sample was, in

representing its own population. It also authenticates the validity of the intended results.

2.2.3 Instruments Development

Achievement Tests Items: The following steps were undertaken:

1. a review and updating the frameworks of curriculum content domains for the subjects:

English studies, Social Studies, Basic Science and Technology and Mathematics;

2. a review of item bank from past assessment cycles;

7

3. developing items and scoring guides in accordance with the specifications of content and

cognitive domains in the frameworks;

4. conducting trials of the items on equivalent samples and conducting item analysis; and

5. selecting items from step 4 and a pool of existing items in the item bank.

These processes started in June 2014 and involved Assessment Unit staff in the Commission,

experienced measurement experts and subject specialists from the universities, which were

concluded in April 2017. Steps 1 and 2 were fairly straightforward since there were no

changes in the national curricula for the subjects tested. Also, the item bank was secured for

current use.

2.3.2 Developing Items and Scoring Guides

The item writing experts for the four subjects had three workshops during which extensive

examination of the content of previous tests, weight assigned to topics and cognitive

domains, percentage of weight assigned to topics, themes and domains for both Multiple

Choice tests and constructed response items. In addition, the Item Writing Guidelines

provided “streetwise” information for writing items and scoring in order to obtain good

measurements from the field. As has been the practice, twice the number of items required in

each test for the main assessment were developed for the trial testing version for each subject

and their corresponding populations. As a consequence, 1,280 items for the Multiple Choice

tests items and 256 items for the constructed response component were selected from the

pool. The item writing tasks generated a minimum of 250 items for each subject and target

populations. However, it is noteworthy that Tables of specifications developed for each test

are presented in Appendices 2.1 to 2.9.

2.3.2.1 Pilot Trial of the Items

Field test items, 80 for each subject and population, were administered on equivalent samples

of the population in five schools and in four states. In all, 1,018 Multiple Choice test

responses and 50 constructed response scripts were obtained for each Test.

Table 2.1 Test Characteristics

S/N Subject Number of

test forms

Number

of items KR 20

1 English Studies 5 259 From 0.698 to 0.725

2 Mathematics 4 204 From 0.681 to 0.771

3 Basic Science and Technology 3 169 From 0.687 to 0.792

4 Social Studies 7 386 From 0.782 to 0.827

The scripts for constructed response items were used for intensive training of practising

subject teachers for marking responsibilities by the subject specialists. Indeed, the majority of

the teachers have varied years of experience in marking responsibility with the West African

Examination Council (WAEC) and the National Examinations Council (NECO). Several

trials and moderations achieved a minimum inter marker reliability of .88.

8

The field test results were used by the Technical team to examine the item statistics. Several

items which had weak measurement properties were eliminated. For some subjects, surviving

items were less than 40 and as such the technical team revisited the reserved pool of items to

select items and compose a test booklet for each subject. Again, such versions were filtered

through the field testing and item analysis processes. On the whole, 16 text booklets were

developed for the four subjects.

Development of Context Questionnaires

The development of four context questionnaires for pupils/learners, teachers, head-teachers

/principals and parents was similar to the tests. Reliability estimates ranged from 0.78 – 0.89.

2.4 Data Administration Plan

The plan had three inclusive components:

1. The Technical Committee for the project meticulously selected 1,512 Test administrators

from the Commission, State Education Boards, Local Government Education Authorities

and the National Youth Service Corps

2. A comprehensive Test Administration Manual was developed on which test

administrators received intensive training in the mechanics of collecting data from the

participants. Several trial sessions were held to ensure high quality data collection

3. Each test administrator was assigned to a school with the responsibility of administering

the 16 test booklets and questionnaires for learners, teachers, head teachers/principals and

parents in five working days. The instruments were administered in four days. The fifth

day was for collation and follow up on outstanding response sheets and instruments.

2.4.1 Quality Assurance

The following actions and processes were undertaken to ensure technical objectivity and

reliability of the measurements obtained from the data collection, data management and

analysis:

2.4.1.1 Data Administration

Participation rates were determined prior to the field work as follows:

I. A minimum participation rate of 85 percent of the originally sampled schools,

II. A minimum class participation rate of 95 percent from the originally sampled

schools,

III. A minimum learners‟ participation rate of 85 percent from sampled schools or

IV. Minimum combined schools, classrooms and learners‟ participation rate of 75percent

based on originally sampled schools.

9

2.4.1.2: Data Administration Monitoring

Teams of experts from the academia, development partners and civil societies were engaged

in the quality monitoring processes. Each sampled school had unscheduled visits from the

monitoring teams and local education officers.

The extensive and robust test administration and monitoring procedures were designed to

ensure consistency across states and schools such that differences in achievement will not be

attributable to factors unrelated to achievement. Furthermore, precision in data collection and

submission from field staff were effectively managed to minimise both systematic and

random error sources. Specifically, test administrators and monitors ensured similar testing

environments. Increased precision improves the quality of results and the confidence placed

on the statistical analyses. Indeed, consistent administration procedures and precision of data

from a representative sample strengthened the power to generalise that the results accurately

reflect achievement levels of learners in the four target populations.

2.4.1.3: Data Management

The responsibility of data collation, sorting and entry was assigned to staff of the ICT unit of

the Commission. Although some key staff of the Unit have 12- 15 years experience in data

entry processes, a data management and analysis agency was contracted to work with the in-

house team to ensure parsimony of the database for objective analysis. Data entry plans of the

Commission and data analysis plan from the outside agency were harmonised and used to

scrutinise the data. The sessions resolved issues of missing files, inappropriate entry codes

and “out of the world” entries, thereby ensuring that only clean files were used for analysis.

Furthermore, the Commission‟s technical team spent two working days monitoring the data

analysis procedures of the contract agency. As expected in large scale data management,

several issues were observed and resolved. In few cases, the ICT Unit had to undertake a

review of field data for some schools.

The last phase of data management standards and Quality Assurance had in attendance

technical staff of the Commission, data management and analysis agency and the team

contracted to write the reports. At the two-day workshop, fresh issues were thrown up and

resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Computation of Achieved Sample

S/N Criteria (PISA, OECD

Standards 2015) Proposed Achieved

percent

Achieved

1 A minimum participation rate of 85 percent of the originally sampled school

432 428 99.07

2

A minimum class participation rate of 95 percent from the originally sampled schools

432 428 99.07

10

3

A minimum students‟ participation rate of 85 percent from sampled schools

8640 7512 86.94

The data above shows that the study sample satisfied the minimum acceptable criteria

established prior to data administration as well as underscores data integrity.

2.5 Data Analysis Procedures

2.5.1 Conversion of Data to Analysis Software

The basic software used for data capturing were Microsoft access and Microsoft Excel.

Options were coded in words. Open-ended items included in the four questionnaires-

Teacher, Learner, Parent and Head teacher/Principal were systematically captured by

obtaining universe of options for the items. Numerical codes were used to replace the options

coded in words. Miss-spell of some of the options at the level of data coding constituted a

challenge, but this was overcome at data cleaning level. The data were imported to Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software where final data editing and cleaning was done.

Responses on Cognitive Tests (Basic Science and Technology, English, Mathematics and

Social Studies) were scored and coded dichotomously as well on Microsoft Excel before

importing to SPSS for further analysis.

2.5.2 Classical Test Theory versus Item Response Theory

Previous National Assessments conducted by the Commission were anchored on Classical

Test Theory (CTT). With the engagement of measurement experts for data analysis and

reporting, major limitations of the old procedures were highlighted. CTT is approximately

100 years old, and still remains commonly used because it is simple enough that it can be

used by researchers without formal training in psychometrics. Most statistics are limited to

means, proportions, and correlations. However, it lacks the sophistication to deal with a

number of very important measurement problems.

Here are just a few comparisons between Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response

Theory (IRT) to justify the adoption of IRT for NALABE 2017.

Sample dependency: Classical statistics are all sample dependent, and unusable on a

different sample; results from IRT are sample-independent within a linear transformation

(that is, two samples of different ability levels can be easily converted onto the same

scale)

Test dependency: Classical statistics are tied to a specific Test form, and do not deal well

with sparse matrices introduced by multiple forms, linear on the fly Testing, or adaptive

Testing which are the strengths of IRT

Weak linking/equating/Scaling: CTT has a number of methods for linking multiple forms,

but they are weak compared to IRT

11

Measuring the range of learners: Classical Tests are built for the average learner, and do

not measure high or low learners very well; conversely, statistics for very difficult or easy

items are suspect. IRT offers opportunity to extremely high and low ability Testees to

exhibit their proficiency.

Lack of accounting for guessing: CTT does not account for guessing on Multiple Choice

examinations whereas IRT does.

Scoring: Scoring in classical Test theory does not take into account item difficulty. Each

item is assumed to have equal difficulty whereas it is not so. IRT allows for estimating

the difficulty of each item and build the same into individual score.

Anchor Items: CTT is sample dependent, hence linking scores using anchor items is not

practicable but using Anchors item under IRT to allow for future prediction is feasible.

2.5.2.1 Adoption of Item Response Theory (IRT)

Item Response Theory (IRT) provides a score scale that is more useful for many purposes

(e.g., for the construction of developmental scales or for the calibration of tests comprising

different types of items or exercises). Its usage also extends to sum score, percentage correct,

or percentile scales. IRT family provides models for which the summed score is a sufficient

statistics for the characterisation of the latent variable (𝛉) (Masters & Wright, 1984; Rasch,

1960). In IRT models, each response pattern is usually associated with a unique estimate of 𝛉. These estimates of 𝛉 can be used as scaled response pattern scores; with the advantage of

extracting all information available in the item responses, especially if the model is

appropriate for the data. In addition, the IRT model produces estimates of the probability that

each response pattern will be observed in a sample from a specified population. However, it

is often desirable to consider the implications of IRT analysis for summed scores, rather than

response patterns in applied measurement contexts. For example, in a large-scale testing

program it may be desirable to tabulate the IRT scaled scores associated with each summed

score on operational forms, using item parameter estimates obtained from item data.

Measurement experts evaluated a good number of IRT software to estimate item parameters

and the scoring for each testee. Two IRT software were adopted: NOHAM to establish the

dimensionality of each test and IRTPRO 3 for estimations and scoring. The efficacy of IRT

over the normal Classical approach became obvious from the sample analysis.

For the two models, the same approach-percentile approach was used for the classifications

into Low (0 to 25th), moderate (Above 25th to 75th) and High (Above 75th to 100th). There

were 305 scores Classical Test Theory (CTT) categorised as low but IRT classified them as

moderate. Also 393 classified as moderate by CTT but High by IRT. IRT therefore generates

true scores than CTT.

The implication of this is that Item Response Theory method of scoring produced different

test scores for learners‟ who have the same raw scores under the classical test theory method. The differences observed in the test scores of the learners‟ under the item response theory

method of scoring emanates from the disparity in the discrimination and difficulty indices.

12

Item statistics are always taken into consideration in the process of estimating learners‟ Test scores under Item Response Theory scoring method.

2.5.2.2 Predicting Future Achievement Using IRT

NALABE 2017 has introduced a new dimension to assessment in Nigeria. Anchor items were

built into cognitive tests for the four populations sampled across the four core subjects (Basic

Science and Technology, English, Mathematics and Social Studies). Iyala (2009) proposed

two variants of the anchor-item non-equivalent groups design. This will allow for comparing

achievements for different years and also provides opportunity for future prediction of

achievement. The first variant, internal common items, includes the achievement on the

common items part of the observed score. In the second variant, external common items, the

individuals‟ achievement on the common items is not considered part of their observed scores. It is believed that when administering the external common items, achievement can be

influenced by fatigue, motivation, learning, practice and so on due to the fact that their

administration always come outside that time for actual form of the test. Considering the

appropriateness of internal common items in linking and predicting scores, NALABE 2017,

adopted internal approach. This will serve as a strong foundation for the next NALABE

survey and also enhance achievement comparison, progress tracking and future achievement

prediction.

2.5.3 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the basic features of the data in this study. They

provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures. Together with simple graphics

analysis, they form the basis of virtually every quantitative analysis of data. The basic

components of descriptive statistics used in this study were: mean, standard error of mean,

percentages and graphs.

2.5.3.1 Mean and Standard Error of Mean

The "mean" is the "average” where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the

number of numbers. A standard error is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of

a statistic. Standard error is a statistical term that measures the accuracy with which a sample

represents a population. In statistics, if a sample mean deviates from the actual mean of a

population; this deviation is the standard error. With the systematic approach adopted, the

estimated mean for each of the State is likely to be close to the population mean on each of

the subjects investigated- Basic Science and Technology, English, Mathematics and Social

Studies. Standard errors of mean are expected to be minimal, as confirmation for sample

means being true representatives of population means.

13

Chapter Three

Learners’ Home and Support

3.1 Introduction

The home is the first place available for children to learn, it thus prepares the learners for

school and exerts great influences on their social development. The home and

neighbourhoods are complex social environments which intricately interact and impact

positively or otherwise on the growth, development and school performance of learners. The

learner inherits the genetic makeup of parents that is nature, while the various environments

that is nurture, have tremendous influences on inherited traits. The best genetic inheritance is

nurtured in sustainable environments where there is demonstrable parental love and care,

stable family life, social and educational support, sense of encouragement, safety and

security. A weak home without environmental support throws up a poorly prepared and

demotivated learner from home to school.

3.2 Background Information

This section describes the socio-demographic characteristics of the learners and the parents. Pieces of information were obtained from Parent, Learner and Teacher Questionnaires. The

pool of items consists of 16 items from Learner Questionnaire, 14 items from Parent Questionnaire, and three items from Teacher Questionnaire. The results set out in various graphs provide some salient observations on the homes of learners. The achieved sample for this class of learners was 7,512 and comprised 52.4 percent males and 46.1 percent females while

1.5 percent did not respond to the item. A majority (86 percent) of the learners were living with their parents while few (only 0.5 percent) were living alone. Parents‟ sample was 5,277, of which 63.3 percent were fathers or male guardians and 35.5 percent were mothers or female guardians. In respect of parental qualifications, 10.8 percent had no formal education; 45.5 percent had below NCE; 11.1 had either NCE or HND; while 9.3 percent had first degree and above. However, 20.3 percent did not respond on qualification. Information about the learners‟ home and support was obtained from 850 teachers (57.9 percent males and 42.1 percent females). Figure 3.1 shows that

0 10 20 30 40

No Response

Two Room Apartments

One Room Apartment

Flat

Duplex

0.5

28.6

35.7

13.5

19.5

2.2

Figure 3.2: Types of Residence

05

1015202530

27.2 22.3

25.5

12.1 11.4

1.5

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Parents / Guardians

14

parents or guardians had varying type of occupations. The distribution reveals 1.5 percent „no employment‟, 27.2 percent business/trading and 22.3 percent “farming/fishing” 25.5 percent were salary earners (public or private).

Apart from the parents‟ occupation, where the

parents live is likely to

have effect on the learners‟ space and freedom for

studying. Parents lived in

varying types of residences

for example, 35.7 percent

lived in three or more

bedroom apartments, 28.6

percent lived in two room

apartments and 19.5

percent lived in flats while

13.5 percent of the parents

lived with the learners in

one bed room apartment.

On the other hand, 2.2

percent of the parents lived in duplexes. Closely related to the type of residence parents lived in is their monthly income. About 49.4

percent of them did not respond to the item. Among those who responded, 25.3 percent

earned less than N100, 000 and only 0.9 percent earned more than N2, 000, 000. This

distribution has implication on how

far they can take care of their

children in terms of provision of

academic support.

Data on the structure of the

family of learners in Figure 3.3

shows that not many homes had

children in the Early Childhood

Care and Development Education

(ECCDE) and Tertiary levels

(23.4percent) and (34.0 percent)

respectively probably because they

were not the focus of the system of

education considered in this study. However, 84.3 percent of the parents indicated that they

had children in secondary school, the remaining 15.7 percent may not have indicated having

children in secondary schools. Size of the family affects the quality of life, care and support. It is assumed that the quality of

care and support received by the children in large families will be lower than the ones given

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Number of

children in

ECCDE

Number of

children in

Primary

School

Number of

children in

Secondary

School

Number of

children in

Tertiary

Institutions

23.4

69

84.3

34

Figure: 3.3: Number of Children in Schools

0

10

20

30

40

1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 Above 10

30.2

36.9

21.4

11.5

Figure 3.4: Children in the Immediate / Nuclear Family

15

in a small family size. The responses in Figure 3.4 indicate that in some immediate / nuclear

families, 30.2 percent have between 1 and 3 children, 36.9 percent of some families with 4 to

6 children while as high as 21.4 percent of the respondents were from homes whose families

had 7 to 10 children. There were up to 11.5 percent families with more than 10 learner

children.

3.3 Types of Support from Home

Although, the provision of textbooks in the core subjects (English studies, Mathematics,

Basic Science and

Technology and

Social Studies) has

been taken over by

the Universal Basic

Commission (UBEC)

in order to reduce the

burden on the

parents, it is the

responsibility of the

parents and learners

to make sure the books are in good condition and not stolen or misplaced. This study shows

that 38.7 percent, 45.6 percent, 54.3 percent and 58.6 percent did not have textbooks in

English, Mathematics, Social studies

and Basic Science and Technology

respectively. It seems that learners who

used the books previously and were to

return them to their respective schools

failed to do so, thereby denying others

access to the books.

Apart from the textbook availability, the

parents also assisted the learners in their

homework. Homework enhances

teaching and learning and provides avenue through which the school works with the home in

opening new horizon for learning and reinforcing what has been learnt using the textbooks.

As can be seen in Table

3.2, 55.2 percent of the

learners received ‘very much’ assistance with

homework from their

parents, 14.4 percent

received ‘much’ assistance, 11.6 percent

received moderate

assistance while 9.5

Table 3.1 Number of Students with Textbooks in Core Subjects

English Mathematics Social

Studies

Basic science

and

technology

Freq.

perc

ent Freq.

perce

nt Freq.

perc

ent Freq. percent

No 2904 38.7 3423 45.6 4078 54.3 4400 58.6

Yes 4233 56.3 3494 46.5 2726 36.3 2222 29.6

No

Response 375 5 595 7.9 708 9.4 890 11.8

Table 3.2 Assistance on Homework by Parents

Frequency percent

Not at all 711 9.5

Moderate 871 11.6

Much 1084 14.4

Very Much 4143 55.2

No Response 703 9.4

Total 7512 100

Table 3.3 Educational Facilities Provided

Facilities

Provided Not Provided

f percent f percent

Computer 842 16 4435 84

TV 3127 59.3 2150 40.7

Radio 3227 61.2 2050 38.8

Video 1794 34 3483 66

Reading Room 3526 66.8 1751 33.2

Internet 392 7.4 4885 92.6

16

percent received no assistance at all. Siblings also provided assistance to the learners in the

aspect of homework. The result on this shows the intensity of their participation as 38.2

percent indicated that their brothers and sisters did „very much’ assisted with homework. The quality of assistance with homework requires the availability of facilities (apart from

textbooks) which provide educational information, first-hand experiences as well as enriching

the home learning environment. As can be seen in Table 3.3, 66.8 percent; 61.2 percent; 59.3

percent; and 34.0 percent had Reading room; Radio; TV; and Video respectively. Two vital

resources, the Computer and its companion, Internet are available only in 16.0percent and 7.4

percent of learners‟ homes, respectively.

Time on-task is an important

variable in learning, Table 3.4

shows that 55.7 percent of

learners spent one hour on

homework daily and only 9

percent spent three or more hours

on homework.

Another support from home was

the number of meals provided for

the learners. Table 3.5 shows that

71.2 percent of learners ate

breakfast at home before going to

school, 7.7 percent took their

breakfast to school which can be

eaten before the start of school or

during break time; 3.1 percent

went home during break time to eat their breakfast; 0.8 percent ate meals provided by the

school while 9.6 percent received money for breakfast. In addition, a larger proportion, 70.4

percent of the learners ate three times per day, whereas 6.8 percent, 15.1 percent and 5.9

percent ate twice, once and four times a day, respectively.

Table 3.4: Average Time Spent Daily on Home Work

Frequency percent

None 632 8.4

One hour 4181 55.7

Two Hours 1576 21

Three hours and above 673 9

No response 450 6

Total 7512 100

Table 3.5: Number of Meals Per Day

Frequency percent

Once 514 6.8

Twice 1136 15.1

Three times 5288 70.4

Four times 443 5.9

No Response 131 1.7

Total 7512 100

17

Closely related to meals is the provision for sundry needs of learners at school through pocket

money. In the past, in some

parts of the Nation, learners in

government schools used to

receive pocket money which

they spent on their minor needs.

As can be seen in Table 3.6,

21.1 percent of the learners

received pocket money

frequently (every school day),

58.1 percent sometimes (two to three times a week) while 18.3 percent rarely or never

received pocket money.

Another way parents‟ supported their

words was in the provision of school

uniform. See Table 3.7

In as much as it will be difficult to use the mode of transporting the learners to the school and

back home as a measure of the parent socio-economic status, it can be argued that

those parents in high

echelon of riches would

prefer to have their

children taken to school

in the family car, those

on the lower echelon

would allow their

children trek to school.

Table 3.8 shows that

77.3 percent of the

learners trekked to school. Next to trekking, 7.5 percent use family car, 7.3 percent by

bicycle/motor-cycle/tricycle while 5.4 percent used taxi/bus. The distance between home and school

is an important determinant of

punctuality and attendance at school,

this is more manifested when learners

have to walk as reported in Table 3.8.

Figure 3.5 shows that 38.7 percent of

the learners walked less than 1

kilometer, 15.4 learners walked more

Table 3.6: Regular Collection of Pocket Money

Frequency percent

Never 814 10.8

rarely 566 7.5

Sometimes 4361 58.1

Frequently 1587 21.1

No Response 184 2.4

Total 7512 100

Table 3.7: Number of Uniform Learners have

Set of uniforms Frequency percent None 431 5.74 One Set 3345 44.5 Two Sets 3002 40.0 Three Sets 603 8 No response 131 1.7 Total 7512 100

Table 3.8 Means of Going to School

Frequency percent Walking 5808 77.3 Donkey 9 0.1 Canoe 24 0.3 Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle 545 7.3 Taxi/Bus 404 5.4 Family Car 560 7.5 Others 6 0.1 No Response 156 2.1 Total 7512 100

0 10 20 30 40

Less than 1 Km

2 to 3 Km

No Response

38.7

26.5

16.2

15.4

3.2

Figure 3.5: Distance to School from Home

18

than three kilometers, 26.5 percent walked 1 to 2 kilometers and 16.2 percent walked 2 to 3

kilometers. Another support of parents to learners was their relationship with school in terms of

attendance at PTA meetings, visit to school,

payment of fees and relationship between school

and community. Whereas 7.6 percent of parents

never attended PTA meeting at all, 43.6 percent

attended PTA meeting very often and 35.1

percent attended often (Table 3.9). With respect

to visit to schools by parents, 7.6 percent never

visited school, 56.2 percent visited sometimes

and 31.8 percent visited very often. Given the tremendous support which parents provided to the learners, it was necessary to

probe whether learners think their parents

like them. The responses presented in Table

3.10 revealed that 1.3 percent of the learners

indicated that their parents did not like them

while a majority, 92.3 percent affirmatively

indicated that their parents liked them and

this is for various reasons which were: "I am

obedient" (32.1 percent); “they gave birth to me" (12.9 percent); "I am always passing my

examinations" (6.1 percent); “I keep and maintain my textbooks (1.3 percent); “I take care

of my younger ones” (0.8 percent); “I help them to sell things” (0.8 percent) and “I go to

farm with them” (0.8 percent).

3.4 Learners’ Extracurricular Activities Table 3.11: Learners’ Activities after School

Table 3.9 Attendance of PTA Meetings

Frequency percent

No response 49 0.9

Not at all 399 7.6

Often 1850 35.1

Rarely 680 12.9

Very often 2299 43.6

Table 3.10 Parents Like for Learners

Frequency percentage

No 101 1.3

Yes 6932 92.3

No Response 479 6.4

Total 7512 100

Activity Never Rarely Sometimes Always

No Response

Freq. perce

nt Freq.

percent

Freq. perce

nt Freq.

percent

Freq. percent

Participation in farming/rearing animals after school hours

2018 26.9 497 6.6 2643 35.2 1450 19.3 904 12

Participation in petty trading/hawking after school hours

2710 36.1 517 6. 9 1719 22.9 1191 15.9 1375 18.3

Participation in cooking after school hours

1158 15.4 529 7 2595 34.5 2281 30.4 949 12.6

Participation in games/sports after school hours

1023 13.6 581 7.7 2886 38.4 2043 27.2 979 13

19

The benefits of extracurricular activities are numerous but varied, ranging from physical

health and well-being, life and social skills development, a boost for academic performance,

promoting economic and labour skills to work habits and behaviours. Research has shown

that appropriate extracurricular activities help learners to develop time management skills,

build self-esteem, explore diverse interests and hobbies and set life goals as well as breaking

the boredom of regular classroom and homework assignments. The after school activities

engaged by the learners were farming/rearing animals; petty trading/hawking; cooking; and

games/sports. The extent to which learners participated in extracurricular activities was

assessed by means of the four activities. Table 3.11 shows that, generally, the learners were

engaged in Games and Sports, Cooking, Economic activity such as Trading/Hawking and a

variety of Farming activities. Learners who engaged in farming/rearing of animals and

trading/hawking were 19.3 percent and 15.9 percent respectively whereas only 13.6 percent

participated in games/sports.

Observations and Challenges

A combination of type of accommodation and number of learners in a family has implication on the following: the quality of human environment, the learner‟s social interactions and the utilisation of material resources. Where families are not well endowed with financial and material resources, learners from homes with smaller family size are likely to be less deprived than those from homes with larger number of children.

About one-eighth of the learners do not engage in games and sports and to a large extent miss out in the recreational benefits of participation.

Although only 34 percent were engaged in trading or hawking, this is very high. It is a common observation that learners engage in these activities as economic support to their parents after school and during weekends in markets, motor parks, along streets and within neighbourhoods. Such learners do not engage in games and sports neither do they engage in after school homework and independent study. Furthermore, there is the possibility that early involvement of some learners in economic activities like hawking/trades may expose them to several vices in the society. Policy against child labour and child abuse should be re-enforced. In the same vein, the aspect of UBEC law which addresses this challenge should be revived in order to serve as deterrent to both parents/guardians and children.

Although, UBEC provides textbooks in the four core subjects, it is surprising that less than half of the learners had textbooks in Mathematics, Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies while only 56.3 percent possessed English Studies textbook. The life span of a book should be determined such that UBEC could schedule replacement of the books.

20

Chapter Four

Teachers in Schools Learners are the primary reason for establishing schools. Even when all facilities and learners are available, without teachers the educational processes that lead to acquisition of knowledge, skills and acceptable behaviour within the school would be stunted. Among the teachers, is the manager of the school who is the principal with requisite training and teaching experience. The principal is the pivot on which all activities in the school radiate through creating an environment that fosters teaching and learning. The leadership role of the principal is important in actualising the goals and objectives of the school. This chapter examined the characteristics, professional and management skills of teachers and principals.

4.1: Profile of Principals and Teachers

This section presents the personal data such as gender, age, educational qualifications, and

teaching experience of Principals and teachers. A total of 533 principals participated in the

study. Among the principals, 378 (70.90 percent) aged between 50-59 years, while 111 (20.8

percent) were between 40-49 years and 8 (1.5 percent) did not respond as contained in Figure

4.1.

Figure 4.1: Age of Principals

Ninety percent of the Principals were married and 80.5 percent were graduates with teaching qualification. Only 9.9 percent were holders of the Nigerian Certificate in Education (NCE).

01020304050607080

1.5 5.3

20.8

70.9

1.5 percent

21

Figure 4.2: Qualification of Principals

Six hundred and eighty four teachers participated in the study out of which 57.9 percent were

males while 42 percent were females. The modal age of 30-39 years representing 41.1

percent was observed for the teachers and majority of the teachers (93.7 percent) were less

than 50 years old as in Figure 4.1.2

Figure 4.2.1: Age Distribution of Teachers

Data on teachers shows that 79.2 percent were married, 17.3 percent were never married, 1.3

percent widowed, 0.3 percent separated and 13 percent did not specify their marital status.

Also the teachers as presented in Figure 4.2, 44.9 percent were graduates with teaching

qualifications, 37.3 percent had NCE, 10.7percent graduated without teaching qualification,

3.1 percent had Masters or PhD qualifications, 0.9 percent had HSC/GCE „A‟/OND/ND/FTC qualifications, while 0.4 percent had Associate Certificate/Diploma in Education. However,

0.7 percent of teachers did not specify their qualifications. From the data, about 82.2 percent

of the teachers were professionally qualified to teach in junior secondary schools.

0 50 100

GRADUATE WITH…

GRADUATE…

NIGERIA…

ASSOCIATE…

GRADE ONE…

HSC/GCE…

TCII PASS/GRADE…

TCII REFERRED

80.5

6.4

9.9

1.1

0.8

0.2

0.8

0.4

Percent

9.2 19.7 41.1

23.7 5.4 0.9

Percent

22

Figure 4.3: Highest Educational Qualification of Teachers

Teaching experience data in Figure 4.1.4 shows that 34.8 percent of the teachers have taught for 0-5years, 45.1 percent for 6-15years, 10.2 percent have taught for 16-20years, 5.8 percent for 21-25years, 2.2 percent for 26-30years, and 0.6 percent for 31-35years. However, 1.3 percent did not respond. From the data, 8.6 percent of the teachers had over 20years of professional experience, and should therefore mentor the less experienced teachers.

Figure 4.4: Teachers’ Teaching Experience

With respect to salary, 63.2 percent of the teachers earned a monthly salary between

N10,000-50,000, 22.2 percent earned N51,000-100,000, 2.5 percent earned N101,000-

150,000, 0.6 percent earned N151,000-200,000, and 1 percent earned N201,000-250,000.

However, 10.5 percent of the teachers did not indicate their monthly salary.

34.8 30.3

11.7 3.1

10.2 5.8

2.2 0.6 1.3

Percent

Masters or Phd

Graduation with Teach Qua

Graduation without Teach Qua

NCE

Associate Certificate/Diploma in Edu.

HSC/GCE 'A'/OND/ND/FTC

OTHERS SPECIFY

No response

3.1

44.9

10.7

37.3

0.4

0.9

2

0.7

Percent

23

4.2 Staff Situation in Schools

Human resources are a sine qua non in any organization as they drive whatever happens

within it. In schools, both teaching and non-teaching staffers are available and they work

together to ensure that the goals of the school are realised. There were 6583 non-teaching

staff made up of 52.39 percent males and 46.61 percent females in the sample schools. There

were 44,644 teaching staff. Table 4.2.1 shows the qualification of teachers by gender across

the 36 states and the FCT. As can be seen, 14,969 (33.53 percent) of the teachers had the

Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE)/Associate Certificate in Education (ACE) of which

6,178 (13.84 percent) are males and 8,791 (19.69 percent) are females. Teachers with degree

certificates were 11,464 (25.68 percent), consisting of 6,195 (13.88 percent) males and 5,269

(11.80 percent) females, while 7,552 (16.92 percent) of the teachers had post graduate

degrees consisting of 3,414 (7.65 percent) males and 4,138 (9.27 percent) females. However,

considering that the minimum qualification for teaching at the basic education level is the

NCE, those with qualification below the minimum were about 18.82 percent.

Table 4.2.1: Qualification of Teachers (Excluding Religious Instructors)

STATE Below Grade II Male

Below Grade II Female

Grade II Male

NCE/ ACE Male

NCE/ACE Female

Degree Male

Degree Female

PG Male

PG Female

Total

ABIA 3 13 0 31 239 63 237 8 22 616

*ADAMAWA 253 107 52 281 200 101 44 3 5 1046

AKWA-IBOM 45 47 43 70 172 96 91 12 5 581

ANAMBRA 2 7 1 12 71 36 124 6 10 269

*BAUCHI 629 602 669 527 588 1435 805 1375 1802 8432

BAYELSA 5 4 0 30 70 24 34 2 0 169

BENUE 22 29 14 56 113 126 89 59 29 537

BORNO 11 11 37 269 397 56 55 9 5 850

CROSS-RIVER

0 3 8 77 295 130 266 3 2 784

*DELTA 643 654 34 94 343 55 160 17 23 2023

EBONYI 2 13 4 99 267 54 91 4 7 541

EDO 0 6 5 63 352 60 97 6 12 601

EKITI 25 20 32 67 68 93 86 61 49 501

ENUGU 22 29 14 56 113 126 89 59 29 537

FCT-ABUJA 0 2 0 232 225 88 105 18 7 677

*GOMBE 300 328 47 310 257 46 16 3 1 1308

IMO 1 2 7 16 165 54 257 3 4 509

JIGAWA 23 36 10 62 115 122 101 60 34 563

KADUNA 13 9 4 257 342 155 84 1 3 868

KANO 45 15 36 520 116 128 25 9 1 895

*KATSINA 337 299 7 272 255 73 30 13 6 1292

KEBBI 20 25 10 61 147 122 87 56 31 559

KOGI 21 28 5 163 269 46 44 5 11 592

KWARA 84 76 101 96 110 117 97 82 87 850

LAGOS 7 23 4 56 117 109 122 4 6 448

NASSARAWA 2 5 2 89 127 25 51 4 2 307

NIGER 1 15 2 104 178 130 53 5 1 489

24

OGUN 2 3 0 89 226 128 169 5 5 627

ONDO 24 27 12 51 121 113 86 57 27 518

OSUN 74 77 0 54 278 99 161 0 2 745

OYO 0 2 6 109 252 132 152 3 0 656

PLATEAU 0 10 6 237 256 72 90 4 3 678

*RIVERS 275 273 150 80 127 97 137 93 90 1322

SOKOTO 83 42 197 182 130 108 76 38 27 883

*TARABA 680 680 28 596 725 262 186 14 2 3173

YOBE 25 25 62 329 391 124 83 3 0 1042

*ZAMFARA 603 568 653 481 574 1390 789 1310 1788 8156

Total

Note: The data collected from the schools sampled in Bauchi, Delta, Adamawa, Rivers,

Taraba, Katsina, Gombe and Zamfara seemed outrageous. The data administrators possibly

obtained the total number of teachers in the state instead of collecting the number of teachers

in the schools sampled.

With respect to teaching experience, the aggregate revealed that of 17.65 percent of male

teachers and 16.86 percent of female teachers was 5-10 years, for 17.75 percent male and

11.71 percent female teachers, it was above 15 years. Furthermore, there were more female

teachers (13.66 percent) with less than 5 years teaching experience than males (11.14

percent).

4.3: Professional Development

Human resources development is one way to ensure that practitioners are abreast with

emerging issues in their areas of practice. Teachers as agents of change should be part of this

wind of change; consequently, they have to be exposed to professional development

programmes. Among the principals sampled, 81.80 percent participated in in-service training

in the past five years. The programmes that these principals attended as presented in Figure

4.3.1 included conferences/seminars/workshops/cluster training, (57.8 percent) and in-service

training. (23.8 percent).

Figure 4.3.1: Type of Training Attended in the Past Five Years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

IN-SERVICE TRAINING (NCE,DEGREE,PG)

CONFERENCE/SEMINARS/WORKSHOP/C…

SHORT TERM COURSES

SCHOOL-BASED TEACHER…

OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

23.8

57.8

0.6

1.3

2.1

14.4

Percent

25

What do the data reveal about teachers professional development? About one-third or 29.6 percent of the principals reported that none of their teachers attended any workshops/trainings in the past five years. However, 53.1 percent attended between 1 to 10 workshops/trainings, 15.5 percent attended between 11 to 20 and 2.0 percent attend between 25 to 60 workshops/trainings in the past five years. The various professional training was each attended by less than 50.0 percent of the teachers. The training most patronised was teaching subject method (47.7 percent), classroom management (45.4 percent), Guidance and Counselling (35.1 percent) and computer training (31. 9 percent). Library training (4.70 percent) and World Bank/UBE sponsored Teachers Professional Support (11.10 percent) were the least attended.

Figure 4.3.2: Workshop/Training Attended by Teachers in the Past Five Years

Teacher‟s response to the same item contradicts the principals‟ data. As much as 52.2 percent of the teachers did not attend in-service training in the past 5 years, while 47.8 percent did. The training courses attended are presented in Figure 4.3.3 where 45.5 percent of the teachers attended conference/seminar/workshop as part of professional development, while 31 percent attended in-service training.

Figure 4.3.3: Training Courses Attended in the Past 3 Years by Teachers

05

101520253035404550

45.4

28.9 35.1

47.7

11.1 4.7

31.9

Percent

CONFERENCE/SEMINAR/WORKSHOP(CLUSTER…

IN-SERVICE TRAINING…

SCHOOL BASED TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL…

SHORT TERM COURSES

No Response

45.5

31

9.8

4.8

8.9

Percent

26

4.4: School Discipline and Climate

Effective discipline provides a conducive climate for teaching and learning. Principals, as the

managers in school are expected to implement disciplinary policies to minimise chaos in the

school. Among the schools sample 47.190 percent had disciplinary cases involving learners

during the session under consideration. The range of disciplinary cases was from one to

seven; 32.80 percent had seven cases. The predominant disciplinary cases as reported by the

teachers as in Figure 4.4.1 are quarrelling and stealing (6.0 percent).

Figure 4.4.1: Type of Disciplinary Cases

Good disciplinary practice demands proper documentation of disciplinary measures. About 50 percent of the principals did not document any disciplinary cases as part of the school records. However, 13.7 percent, 17.1 percent and 11.1 percent of the principals documented one, two and ten cases respectively. The resolutions of serious disciplinary should be discussed with the parents. The data showed that 50.1 percent discussed with the parents and 49.9 percent did not discuss with the parents. A breakdown of those who discussed with parents revealed that 11.60 percent discussed with one (1) parent, 13.50 percent discussed with three (3) parents and 11.30 percent discussed with ten (10) parents.

4.5 Decision Making

Principals and teachers take decisions as part of their responsibility. These decisions could be

instructional, learners‟ grouping, testing, and progression among others. In this section, the

freedom which principal/teachers have in decision making on some of these issues was

examined. Table 4.5.1 shows the extent to which principals were free to make decisions on

aspects of school activities. As can be seen from Table 4.5.1 „Selection of topics for

teaching‟ and „teachers transfer/retention‟ were two aspects in which 42.8 percent and 46

percent of the principals lack freedom in Decision making. Whereas at least 70 percent of the

principals take decisions either fully or to some extent in the nine activities captured in Table

4.5.1. About 80 percent of the principals freely take decisions on “Amount of home work to

be assigned to learner’s while 90 percent of the principals do so with respect to the “Extent

and type of reporting to parents and guardian.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

QUARELLING

PILFERING

STEALING

BULLYING

LATENESS

ABSENTEEISM

OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

6

3

6

3.4

1.9

1.1

28

50.6

Percent

27

Table 4.5.1: Principals’ Freedom in Decision Making about School Activities

Issue Fully Some extent Not at all No response

f perce

nt f

percent

f percent

f percent

Selection of topics for teaching

125 23.5 139 26.1 228 42.8

41 7.7

Selection of instructional materials

166 31.1 227 42.6 110 20.6

30 5.6

Sequence of instructional materials

113 21.2 259 48.6 122 22.9

39 7.3

Type of class organisation, (e.g. small group, large group and all class)

154 28.9 244 45.8 94 17.6

41 7.7

Use of learners‟ achievement tests

263 49.3 158 29.6 82 15.4

30 5.6

Specification of Minimum requirements before Learners can progress to the next level

288 54 119 22.3 99 18.6

27 5.1

Amount of home work to be assigned to learners

209 39.2 217 40.7 82 15.4

25 4.7

Extent and type of reporting to parents/guardians

172 32.3 309 58 23 4.3 29 5.4

Taking disciplinary measure towards correcting learners

230 43.2 201 37.7 75 14.1

27 5.1

Developing or modifying infrastructural facilities

94 17.6 336 63 71 13.3

32 6

Teachers‟ transfers/retention

87 16.3 163 30.6 245 46 38 7.1

How free is the Teacher in Decision making? Teacher‟s response to the 10 activities were analysed in other to assess the extent of freedom. Data in Table 4.5.2 shows that at least 65 percent of the teachers demonstrate their freedom (fairly freely or very free) in Decision making on the 10 activities assessed. Indeed, 90 percent had freedom on the “Amount of home work to be assigned”. However, 31.9 percent expressed a complete lack of freedom in “selection of topics for teaching”.

28

Table 4.5.2: Freedom of Teachers in Decision Making

S/N Items

No

response

Not free

at all Fairly free Very free

F perc

ent f

perc

ent f

perce

nt f

per

cent

1 Selection of topics for teaching 12 1.8 218 31.9 175 25.6 279 40.8

2 Selection of instructional materials.

19 2.7 62 9.1 177 25.9 426 62.3

3 Sequence of learners‟ learning. 46 6.7 81 11.8 240 35.1 317 46.3

4 Type of class organisation (e.g.) small group, large group, all class.

36 5.3 97 14.2 214 31.3 337 49.3

5 Use of learners‟ achievement tests.

29 4.2 53 7.7 190 27.8 412 60.2

6 Specification of minimum requirements before learners can progress to the next level.

37 5.4 147 21.5 229 33.5 271 39.6

7 Amount of homework to be assigned. 19 2.8 46 6.7 161 23.5 458 67

8 Extent and type of reporting to parents.

27 3.9 97 14.2 305 44.6 255 37.3

9 Extent and type of interaction with parents (e.g. Parent nights, Visitation).

21 3.1 151 22.1 275 40.2 237 34.6

10 Taking disciplinary measures towards correcting pupils. 27 3.9 86 12.6 280 40.9 291 42.5

4.6: Job Satisfaction and Morale

Job Satisfaction incentivises staff to greater performance and consequently, achievement of

organisational goals. In this study, 88.00 percent of the principals were satisfied with their

jobs, Satisfaction generally was related to some happenings within the school. The things that

principals like about their job are presented in Table 4.6.1. Two most important aspects are

modelling lives of future generation/building the nation (12.2 percent) and knowledge/Skill

Acquisition (11.6 percent).

Table 4.6.1: Things Principals Like about their Job

Things liked Frequency percent

Modelling lives of future generation/ building the nation 65 12.2

Appreciation from parents, govt & society 18 3.4

Daily knowledge/ skill acquisition 62 11.6

Cooperation by members of staff 14 2.6

Time to take care of my family 30 5.6

Means for earning a living 7 1.3

Instilling morals to pupils 37 6.9

Others 263 49.3

No response 37 6.9

Total 533 100

29

However, Figure 4.6.1 shows that poor/delay in salary (13.10 percent) and poor working

environment (10.10 percent) are issues in job dissatisfaction.

Figure 4.6.1: Things which Principals do not like about their Job

The interest, morale and satisfaction of the teachers is also important as 98.8 percent

expressed their interest in teaching as a career and 0.9 percent indicated that they do not like

teaching. More than half of the teachers (60 percent) expressed satisfaction with their

teaching job but 37 percent had no satisfaction. About 41 percent of the teachers expressed

high level of morale, 47.4 percent had average morale, while 11.1percent had low morale.

Important factors that were responsible for the high morale of teachers as reported by the

sampled teachers include self-motivation (12.7 percent), Salary package/Welfare (1.8

percent), adequate instructional materials (0.8 percent) and infrastructural facilities provided

(0.3 percent). However, majority of the teachers (83.9 percent) did not respond to the item.

Some factors that were responsible for teachers‟ low morale include Irregular salary/welfare (1.5 percent), and Lack of interest in class work (0.8 percent) while a majority of the teachers

(96.9 percent) did not respond to the item.

4.7: Teaching and Evaluation Practices

Teaching and evaluation practices are important in driving the learning process. Teaching

practices include all activities prior to teaching, during the teaching and post teaching. In this

section, the use of instructional materials, evaluation instruments and their use in diagnosing

learners‟ problems were examines. Figure 4.7.1 showed that at least 58 percent of the

teachers used (often and rarely) all of the instructional materials, with the exception of audio

visual materials (for example, films or tapes), which were indicated by 64 percent as never

used.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

POOR/DELAY IN SALARY

POOR WORKING ENVIRONMENT

NO SOCIETAL RECOGNITION

LATENESS

INDULGENCE

ATTITUDE OF SOME PARENTS TO PUPILS…OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

13.1

10.1

6.2

2.6

1.1

2.3

54.8

9.8

Percent

30

Figure 4.7.1: Use of Instructional Materials by Subject Teachers

Furthermore, Figure 4.7.2 shows that 63.9 percent, 45.8 percent, 64.3 percent and 64.8

percent, used Objective test, Open-ended or Essay type questions, Oral tests, and Project

work during teaching respectively. Also, 71.6 percent used, Homework handed in and 62

percent used Regular written work during lessons. However, the teachers rarely used, Tests

with both Objective and Open-ended questions (44.3 percent), and Short quizzes (44.2

percent).

Figure 4.7.2: Use of Evaluation Instruments by Subject Teachers

Published textbooks

Published workbooks

Individualized Instruction (e.g. programmed…

Commercially produced kits or objects

Worksheets or set of materials you have written…

Audio visual materials (e.g. Films or tapes)

Others (Specify)

1

3.5

3.5

3.4

2.3

3.5

6.3

2

19.3

25.6

37.7

30.4

64.9

4.2

18

34.5

38.3

36.8

31.1

19.9

23.8

78.9

42.7

32.6

22.1

36.1

11.7

65.6

Percent

OFTEN RARELY NEVER No response

0 20 40 60 80

Objective tests

Open ended or essay type…

Oral tests

Tests with both objective…

Short quizzes

Project work or pupils…

Homework handed in

Regular written work during…

4.4

13.6

4.8

9.9

25.3

6

4.2

6.9

30

38.2

29.1

44.3

44.2

27.3

23

29.5

63.9

45.8

64.3

43.1

26.5

64.8

71.6

62

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

NO RESPONSE

31

One important issue assessed was learners‟ weakness in the classroom. As can be seen in

Table 4.7.1 at least 58 percent of the teachers used objective and oral tests, project work or

pupils written reports and homework handed in, to diagnose learners‟ weaknesses.

Table 4.7.1: Teachers’ Use of Evaluation Techniques for Diagnosing Learners’ Weakness

TYPE OF TEST

NO

RESPONSE

NEVER RARELY OFTEN

f percent f percent f percent f percent Objective Tests 15 2.2 37 5.4 203 29.7 429 62.7 Open ended or essay type questions

22 3.2 1 0 2 14.9 243 35.5 313 45.8

Oral tests 22 3.2 54 7.9 214 31.3 394 57.6 Tests with both objective and open ended question(s)

28 4.1 116 17 282 41.2 258 37.7

Short quizzes 28 4.1 174 25.4 279 40.8 203 29.7 Project work or pupils written reports

23 3.4 57 8.3 179 26.2 425 62.1

Homework handed in 76 11.1 61 8.9 135 19.7 412 60.2 Regular written work during lessons

21 3.1 401 58.6 171 2 5 9 1 13.3

4.8 Teachers’ Needs

Initial profession training equips teachers with knowledge and skills for effective interaction

with learners. However, after several years of teaching and with new developments in the

profession, previous competencies become inadequate for current practice. Thus, this section

assessed teachers‟ needs for improved instructional activities and management practices, co-

curricular activities and instructional materials and evaluation practices.

Responses to instructional activities in Figure 4.8.1 showed that teachers needed in

overcoming “difficulties encountered in providing excursions outside the classroom” (69

percent), developing techniques for teaching large classes (71.9 percent) and identifying

appropriate evaluation techniques (61 percent).

32

Figure 4.8.1 Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Instructional Activities

Figure 4.8.2, provides a picture of teachers who need some help or much help in four areas:

(i) Managing parents of children with disciplinary cases (55.6 percent) (ii) Managing learners

with health problems (53.7 percent) (iii) Controlling personal behaviours which could distract

learners‟ attention (69.5 percent) and (iv) Making constructive use of time (63.3 percent).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Writing performance objective.

Determining what to teach i.e. content.

Identify appropriate teaching activities.

Securing or improvising appropriate teaching/learning

materials.

Carrying out Continuous Assessment .

Identify appropriate evaluation techniques.

Organising resources and materials for more effective teaching.

Presenting lessons at the level of learner’s understanding.

Demonstrating principles by performing simple

experiments/demonstrations.

Developing daily lesson notes.

Teaching learners how to observe, record, organise,

generalise, predict, etc.

Obtaining learners feedback for the purpose of improving

instructions.

Presenting lessons so that learners could discover facts

themselves.

Developing in learners a mastery of content and skills.

Developing in learners effective study habits.

Developing in learners the ability to relate content of learning

to everyday life.

Developing techniques for teaching in large classes.

Overcoming Difficulties encountered in provideing excursions

outside the classroom

Obtaining information on where to get help for teaching and

learning.

Making learning meaningful and interesting to learners.

67.1

60.4

36.8

65.5

58.5

36.3

62

55.8

70

56.4

58.9

61.3

53.8

48.2

49.1

42.5

25.4

29.2

51.5

73

21.3

25.4

36.8

22.2

27.5

34.8

22.5

30.8

17.5

28.8

28.5

25.7

31.4

35.4

33.3

35.1

38.9

42.4

25.9

16.8

9.8

12.6

24.1

11

11.8

26.9

13.3

11.7

11.1

13

11

11

12.9

14.5

15.4

20.6

33

26.6

16.7

8.8

MUCH HELP SOME HELP NO HELP NO RESPONSE

33

Figure 4.8.2: Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Management Practices

Teachers‟ responses (81.2 percent) to aspect of Co-curricula activities in Figure 4.8.3 show

that teachers need help in organising out-of-school activities.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Controlling the class effectively.

Managing learners distractive behaviours.

Maintaining discipline in the class.

Planning a schedule of activities on

Planning a schedule of activities on

Setting and ordering priorities.

Making constructive use of time.

Controlling your personal behaviours , which could

distract learners attention.

Managing learners with health problems.

Managing parents of children with disciplinary cases.

64.3

71.8

64.6

59.8

69.2

72.7

35.5

28.9

44.9

43.4

26.2

18.3

25.9

29.5

20.5

17

39.2

46.1

39.5

41.8

8.3

8.9

8.3

8.9

8.3

9.5

24.1

23.4

14.2

13.3

MUCH HELP SOME HELP NO HELP NO RESPONSE

34

Figure 4.8.3: Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Co-curricular Activities

The pattern of need for Instructional Materials and Evaluation Practices in Figure 4.8.4 shows

that teachers need help (some or much) in: (i) Preparing Materials for testing learners abilities

(60 percent), (ii) Increasing learners‟ abilities to utilise the library (77.4 percent), Utilising the

library (59.5 percent), Utilising textual materials (59 percent) and Procuring supplementary

books for learners in appropriate classes (58.1 percent).

Figure 4.8.4: Help Needed by Subject Teachers in Instructional Materials and Evaluation

Practices

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Developing in learners an appreciation

of co-curricula activities.

Encouraging learners to participate in

activities.

Organising out-of-school activities on

the basis of learners interests

Organising out-of-school activities on

the basis of learners abilities

55.1

29.5

24.9

17.3

31.9

42.7

45

36.3

11.8

26.5

28.8

44.9

MUCH HELP SOME HELP NO HELP NO RESPONSE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Utilising the library.

Preparing materials for testing learners’ abilities.

Interpreting the result of standardized test.

Evaluating learners’ progress as a group.

Reporting learners’ progress to administrators

40.4

39.5

38.6

21.3

42.1

47.5

38.2

49.1

55.1

57.9

63

55.1

59.4

51.5

55.8

57.5

83.3

32.7

28.2

32.9

35.7

31.7

30.8

36.8

32

30.4

27.6

24

26.2

26.9

29.5

27.3

26.6

11.5

25.4

31

27

41.7

24.6

20.3

23.2

16.8

12.7

12.6

11.7

12.7

11.5

17

14.9

14.2

4.7

MUCH HELP SOME HELP NO HELP NO RESPONSE

35

4.9: Learners' Problems

The problems identified by the teachers as common in schools are presented in Table

4.9.1.The five most important problems frequently encountered were lack of instructional

materials (21.4 percent), learners‟ lack of interest in class/school (14.7 percent), lack of basic

infrastructure (14.6 percent), stealing learners (9.1 percent), and truancy/absenteeism (6.3

percent).

Table 4.9.1: Problems Encountered as Classroom Teacher

Problems percentage Lack of basic infrastructure, classroom, laboratory, toilet)

14.6

Lack of furniture 4.4 Lack of instructional materials 21.4 Bullying 1.7 Dirtiness/untidiness 3 Lateness 5.2 Truancy/absenteeism 6.3 Fighting 4.9 Lack of interest in class work 14.7 Lack of co-operation from parents 2.5 Poor salary structure/welfare 9 Stealing 9.1 No response 3.2

From Table 4.9.2, the three most important pressing problems which teachers encountered

with learners were; Lateness to school (39.5 percent), Truancy/Absenteeism (33.5 percent),

and Learners‟ lack of interest in class/school (12.4 percent).

Table 4.9.2: Problems Teachers Encounter with Students

Problems percentage Lateness 39.5 Truancy/absenteeism 33.5 Bullying 4.8 Lack of interest in class work

12.4

Dirtiness/untidiness 2.9 Fighting 1.6 Stealing 0.3 Others 1.6 No response 3.4

36

Observations and Challenges

A large proportion of the principals are ageing and getting close to retirement, prompting the need for eventual replacement.

A majority of the teachers are professionally qualified; others need training.

The few experienced teachers in schools should be motivated.

The participation of principals in development programmes was high, possibly because of the mandatory training rendered by the All Nigeria Confederation of Secondary School Principals which ensures that principals are kept abreast of developments that enhance good management practices.

Quarrelling and stealing were two major social disciplinary problems among pupils in this study. Principals and parents need to tackle these through discussion.

Principals and teachers had limited freedom in selecting what to teach. But should be the ones implementing the curriculum in schools.

Most principals were satisfied with their job of moulding children but are not happy with the delay in salaries and the poor working environment, both of which are motivational factors.

The fact that most teachers indicated a positive disposition towards teaching can improve learning.

Teachers‟ need the techniques of handling large classes and of organising excursions outside the classroom. They also need in-service training in time management and classroom control.

The major problem encountered by classroom teachers is related to the provision of working materials. This calls for judicious utilisation of funds budgeted for education.

Lateness and truancy require proper supervision of learners and greater cooperation with parents.

37

Chapter Five

The School and the Community

The school is located within the community. For the school to discharge its responsibilities, the community needs to provide some assistance. The school as part of its service delivery has to schedule activities, the community works cooperatively with the school through provision of facilities to support the schools‟ service provision. This chapter looks at the interaction between the schools‟ provisions and how the community helps to eventuate it.

5.1: The School in Perspective In this study, 533 schools were involved with 53.10 percent of them serving the urban community while 44.8 percent served the rural community; 89.3 percent provided secondary education only, 6 percent provided both secondary and primary education and 4.5 percent provided pre-primary, primary and secondary education. An issue of concern in schools is the paucity of accommodation for the growing population of learners which has resulted in the inability of the available classrooms to accommodate the learners. The shift system has been a welcome development in this regard. Among the schools, 76.50 percent ran morning shift only, 15.80 percent ran morning and afternoon, while 7.30 percent ran afternoon shift only as depicted in Figure 5.1. 1.

Figure 5.1.1: Shift System Run in School

Learners who feed these schools live within the community and have to travel to the school

as appropriate. The distance between home and school is an important determinant of

punctuality and attendance of school; this is more manifest when children have to walk.

Walking long distances saps energy and takes time. It may result to lateness and truancy. This

distribution of distances travelled to school is presented in Figure 5.1.2. As can be seen, 38.7

percent of the learners lived less than 1 kilometer, 15.4 percent have their homes more than

3km from the schools. This clearly shows that the national policy requiring that learners

should not travel more than 3 kilometers to schools is not strictly adhered to.

0 20 40 60 80

MORNING ONLY

AFTERNOON ONLY

MORNING AND…

NO RESPONSE

76.5

7.3

15.8

0.4

Percent

38

Figure 5.1.2: Distance of School from Home

Most learners 77.3 percent walked to school. Family car is used by 7.5 percent of the learners; other means used are presented in Table 5.1.1. Table 5.1.1: Means of Going to School

Means of going to

school Frequency percent

Walking 5808 77.3 Donkey 9 0.1 Canoe 24 0.3 Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle 545 7.3 Taxi/Bus 404 5.4 Family Car 560 7.5 Others 6 0.1 No Response 156 2.1 Total 7512 100

5.2 Parents Relationship with the School

A good relationship between the home and the school provided great cooperation for

realising the goals of the school and the home. One way in which this cooperation has

fostered is through the PTA; exemplified in attendance at the meetings as issues bothering on

discipline and support of the school are usually discussed. The participation of parents in

these meetings encourage further visit to schools for conferences with the class teachers of

their children, discipline problems and support for the school. As it is expected that all

schools should have one; 93.1 percent of the schools actually have PTAs, 2.6 percent do not

have and 4.3 percent of principals did not respond to this item. The regularity of meetings of

the PTA as shown in Figure 5.2.1 indicates that PTA meets as the need arises in 46.90

percent of the schools, while it meets in 32.30 percent of the schools termly. The PTA also

meets monthly, quarterly and yearly in less than 5 percent of the schools.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 38.7

26.5

16.2 15.4

3.2

39

Figure 5.2.1: How often PTA Meets

Figure 5.2.2, shows that 7.6 percent of parents have never attended PTA meeting, 43.6

percent have attended very often and 35.1 percent attended often.

Figure 5.2.2: Chart of Attendance at PTA Meetings by Parents

In Figure 5.2.3, about 46 percent of the subject teachers sometimes invited parents to discuss

learners‟ progress, while about 34 percent of the teachers often invited the parents for the

same purpose. Thus the needed home-school interaction is not ignored by these teachers.

Figure 5.2.3: Subject Teachers Visit to Parents

0 10 20 30 40 50

AS THE NEED ARISES

MONTHLY

QUARTERLY

TERMLY

TWICE A YEAR

ONCE A YEAR

NO RESPONSE

46.9

3.2

5.8

32.3

5.4

2.4

3.9

Percent

020

4060 43.6

35.1

12.9 7.6 0.9

Pe

rce

nt

Attendance at PTA meetings

1.6 15.9 18.6

48.1

15.8

percent

40

It is not only parents that have to visit the school; teachers also are expected to visit parents.

A large proportion of the subject teachers sometimes (48.1 percent), and often (15.8 percent)

visited parents to discuss learners‟ matter. Whereas, 18.6 percent rarely, and 15.9 percent of

the subjects teachers never visited parents for the same purpose. With respect to visit to

schools by parents as contained in Figure 5.2.4, 3.8 percent have never visited the school,

56.2 percent visited sometimes and 31.8 percent visited very often.

Figure 5.2.4: Chart of Parents’ Visit to Schools

5.3 Parental Support of the School

It is not enough for parents to attend PTA meetings and to visit schools; the school may have

some needs to be met. These needs could be in the areas of finances, provision of

instructional materials, provision of security and even in meeting teachers‟ welfare. Figure 5.3.1 shows that assistance was provided by more than 50 percent of the parents to schools in

the areas of finance, instructional materials, security, co-curricular activities and teachers‟ welfare. Assistance with respect to buildings was very minimal.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3.8 1.3 6.9

56.2

31.8

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Finances Instructional

Materials

Buildings Security Co-curricular

Activities e.g.

Games/Sports

Teachers ’ Welfare

14.3

19.1

28 23.1

18.5 21.6

6 9.5

11.2 11.4 9.6 10.1 8.4

12.3 12.4 11.5 11.6

11.6

37.5

30.8

26.2 25.8

31.6 30

33.9

28.3

22.3

28.2 28.7 26.7

NEVER NO RESPONSE RARELY SOMETIMES VERY OFTEN

41

Figure 5.3.1: Level of Assistance Rendered by Parents to School

One way the school sustains itself is through collection of Fees/Levies. Figure 5.3.2 shows

that about 78 percent parents regularly paid fees or levies while 4 percent never paid fees or

levies at all.

Figure 5.3.2: Chart of Levies and Other Charges Payment by Parents

How did the parents perceive the school-community relationship be seen in Figure 5.3.3, 33.1 percent indicated excellent, 31.9 percent and 12.5 percent were very good and good respectively while only 1.3 percent perceived the relationship as poor. One way to facilitate this is through mutual living within the community. In this study, 45 percent of principals lived within the community as against 52.9 percent who do not. Among the teachers only 16.9 percent lived within the community.

Figure 5.3.3: Relationship between the School and the Community

5.4: School Fence and Security Provision

The responses show that, 26.6 percent were fenced and 70.40 percent were not. The type of fence used across the schools presented in Figure 5.4.1 shows that Cement block fence was mostly used in 22.70 percent of the school.

0102030405060

53.1

12.5 1.2 1.3

31.9

Percent

77.6

14.3 2.9 4 1.1

Pe

rce

nt

Payment of fees and levies

42

Figure 5.4.1: Type of Fence

The principals‟ responses showed that 75.4 percent of the schools engaged security personnel. Local persons employed by the school/PTA were the security personnel engaged by 34.90 percent of the schools, 32.50 percent engaged private security outfit employed by the school/PTA/Government as presented in Figure 5.4.2.

Figure 5.4.2: Type of Security Engaged by School

5.6: School Compound and Buildings A good school compound should be inviting and friendly, and motivates the learner.

Table 5.61 provides a description of the school compounds, with 71.3 percent of principals indicating „well defined, compounds secured from encroachment and large enough for buildings, playgrounds, and gardens‟. Only 23.6 percent of the schools were small, without room for expansion and lacked play fields and gardens. With respect to the buildings, 19 percent of the schools had no issues with cracks, roofs were secured in position and doors/window shutters were available and securely fitted. Few cracks were noticed in 46 percent but heavy cracks in 28.1 percent of the schools. The compounds of 40.90 percent of schools were free from erosion problems and 46.20 percent had evidence of erosion problems, 8.10 percent had serious erosion problems.

0 10 20 30 40

FLOWER FENCE

WOOD FENCE

MUD FENCE

THATCHED FENCE

IRON WIRE FENCE

IRON SHEET FENCE

CEMENT BLOCK FENCE

OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

0.8

3.2

1.7

0.6

0.6

0.9

22.7

40

29.6

Percent

0 10 20 30 40

LOCAL PERSONS…

COMMUNITY…

POLICE

PRIVATE SECURITY…

PEACE CORPS

OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

34.9

5.4

1.5

32.5

0.2

8.8

16.7

Percent

43

Table 5.6.1: Description of School Compound

Frequency percent

Well defined, secured from encroachment and large enough for buildings, playgrounds and gardens 380 71.3

Small school compound, little or no extra land for expansion 105 19.7

Extremely small compound with no defined play field or gardens 21 3.9

No Response 27 5.1

Total 533 100

5.7 Students’ Enrolment, Dropouts and Repeaters

The data indicated that at the national level, female learners‟ enrolment (52.71 percent) was

higher than that of males (47.29), with near parity between them in five states: Akwa-Ibom,

Borno, Kaduna, Osun, and Plateau and the FCT. Female learners had higher enrolment in ten

states: Abia, Anambra, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, and Oyo,

while, male learners had higher enrolment in the remaining 21 states. More male learners 5.4

percent dropped out of school than the female learners with 2.7 percent dropout rate. The

variation in dropout and repeating rates are presented in Figure 5.7.1 with Zamfara and

Rivers states showing exceptionally high dropout rates of 52.37 and 35.02 percent

respectively.

44

Figure 5.7.1: Chart of Repeaters and Dropouts across States

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

ABIA

ADAMAWA

AKWA-IBOM

ANAMBRA

BAUCHI

BAYELSA

BENUE

BORNO

CROSS-RIVER

DELTA

EBONYI

EDO

EKITI

ENUGU

FCT-ABUJA

GOMBE

IMO

JIGAWA

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

KEBBI

KOGI

KWARA

LAGOS

NASSARAWA

NIGER

OGUN

ONDO

OSUN

OYO

PLATEAU

RIVERS

SOKOTO

TARABA

YOBE

ZAMFARA

5.89

5.30

8.19

2.76

13.17

2.59

1.85

11.12

4.54

11.24

5.22

2.87

5.42

1.85

2.28

1.84

2.86

1.86

2.22

1.72

3.22

2.28

2.93

5.58

3.62

4.57

0.53

0.85

1.74

8.08

4.56

5.48

35.02

3.96

5.12

1.46

52.37

2.34

6.13

7.36

3.73

0.54

6.00

5.56

1.73

5.23

2.49

3.86

4.08

5.07

5.56

2.63

2.83

1.89

4.69

3.12

2.22

3.03

5.42

3.89

4.46

10.14

3.46

5.35

2.70

5.96

2.79

7.09

5.12

4.47

2.89

6.68

2.01

1.77

% repeaters % dropout

45

The reasons for dropping out of school in Figure 5.7.2 were poverty (15.20 percent), lack of parental care (12.40 percent), change of accommodation (4.60 percent), lack of interest in School (3.70 percent) and transfer of parents (3.70 percent).

Figure 5.7.1: Reasons for Learners Dropping Out of School

12.4

3.5

15.2

2

3.7

1.2

0.9

1.4

0.2

4.6

0.4

3.7

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.4

1.3

12.7

36.2

0 10 20 30 40

LACK OF PARENTAL CARE

LACK OF INSTRUCTIONAL…

POVERTY

PUPIL POOR ACADEMIC…

LACK OF INTEREST

EARLY MARRIAGE

LACK OF MOTIVATION/…

POOR ORIENTATION ABOUT…

INAPPROPRIATE SCHOOL…

CHANGE OF…

FARMING

TRANSFER OF PARENTS

ISLAMIYYA SCHOOL

HEALTH PROBLEM

PARENTAL DEATH

BROKEN HOME

TEACHER SHORTAGE

OTHERS

NO RESPONSE

Percent

46

5.8: Classroom Spaces and Open Classrooms Data revealed that the proportion of classrooms built up was 82.5 percent, while open classrooms were 17.5 percent. The variation across states is shown in Figure 5.8.1 In Edo, Kogi, Osun and Bayelsa they were no open spaces. All states, with the exception of Bauchi and Ekiti, had more than 70 percent of classrooms.

Figure 5.8.1: Distribution of Classroom Spaces and Open Classrooms by States

0 20 40 60 80 100

ABIA

AKWA-IBOM

BAUCHI

BENUE

CROSS-RIVER

EBONYI

EKITI

FCT-ABUJA

IMO

KADUNA

KATSINA

KOGI

LAGOS

NIGER

ONDO

OYO

RIVERS

TARABA

ZAMFARA

90.6

70.4

92.5

88.9

61.8

100

75

86.7

91.9

86.8

86.2

100

68.3

75

92.6

88.2

88.9

73.3

92.9

83.7

90.5

75

100

70.9

94.2

77.8

96.3

84.1

76.5

100

97.6

81.7

76.8

82

86.2

80

70.9

9.4

29.6

7.5

11.1

38.2

0

25

13.3

8.1

13.2

13.8

0

31.7

25

7.4

11.8

11.1

26.7

7.1

16.3

9.5

25

0

29.1

5.8

22.2

3.7

15.9

23.5

0

2.4

18.3

23.2

18

13.8

20

29.1

% of Open Spaces

% classroom space

47

5.9: Facilities in Schools Apart from human resources, facilities are used by schools to eventuate effective teaching and learning. These facilities are varied and their number and appropriateness are germane to teaching effectiveness. For example, science teaching does require laboratories, Sports facilities are useful for recreational purposes and the library provides books and reference materials which the learner may not possess. This section takes a look at the facilities which are available in schools with respect to numbers and their condition. Facilities such as laboratories sports equipment among others were in short supply. The Science laboratory in 16.90 percent of the schools were appropriate, but not in 34.00 percent dilapidated infrastructure in (12.90 percent), inadequate funding (2.40 percent) were indicated as responsible for the state of the facilities. However, only 3.8 percent, probably among those who indicated that the science laboratory was adequate, expressed the view that the facilities are utilised in their schools. The condition of the Mathematics laboratory was seen as appropriate in 16.10 percent of the schools, not appropriate in 18.40 percent, while 65.50 percent did not respond. The main reasons for the state of the mathematics laboratory were inadequate/equipment (6.60 percent), lack of infrastructure (0.8 percent), inadequate funding (0.8 percent), while 91.40 percent did not respond. The condition of the libraries in 28.10 percent of the schools was appropriate, 29.60 percent not appropriate and 42.2 percent did not respond to this item. Reasons given for the conditions of the library include inadequate facilities (17.8 percent), dilapidated infrastructure (2.1 percent), inadequate funding (0.8 percent), and non-completion of the project (0.6 percent). The ICT facilities were described as appropriate in 25.70 percent of the schools and not appropriate by 24.00 percent, while 50 percent of the principals did not respond. With respect to the reasons why this facility was assessed this way, 54.00 percent of the schools did not respond. However, 15.00 percent, 12.90 percent, 11.80percent, 2.30percent and 1.70 percent of the schools indicated inadequate facilities/equipment, inadequate use, dilapidated infrastructure, poor maintenance and lack of infrastructure as reason for inappropriate ICT facility. The football field in 35.10percent of the schools was described as appropriate and not appropriate in 24.60 percent of the schools while 40 percent of the schools did not respond to this item.

Other facilities considered were lockable storage space, school garden/farm, weather station and staff room. The responses with respect to their appropriateness are presented in Figure 5.9.1, it was observed that the no response was highest for weather station (68.5 percent) and lowest for staff room (7.9 percent). Staff room, weather station, school garden/farm and lockable storage space were indicated as appropriate by 26.8 percent, 13.7 percent, 28.1 percent and 20.1 percent respectively. Principals who indicated their inappropriateness were 35.3 percent, 17.8 percent, 22.5 percent and 22.5 percent for staff room, weather station, school garden/farm and lockable storage space respectively.

48

Figure 5.9.1: Condition of Some Facilities in Schools

The reasons for the condition of the lockable storage space were, non-availability of materials (9.80 percent), inadequate facilities/equipment (9.80 percent) and not in good use (3.20 percent), while 66.80 percent did not respond. Reasons adduced by the schools for the conditions of their gardens/farms were inadequate facilities/equipment (13.9 percent), inadequate funding (9.6 percent), not in good use (4.90 percent) and security (1.1 percent), while 70.0 percent of the schools did not respond. Among the principals, 90.8 percent did not respond to the item on reasons for condition of the weather station. However, 8.60 percent of the Schools indicated inadequate facilities/equipment as reason for the condition of the weather station. With respect to the condition of the staff room, inadequate facilities/equipment (22.5 percent), not in good use (2.6 percent), dilapidated infrastructure (0.2 percent) were the reasons given by the Principal while 74.7 percent did not respond. The distribution of teachers‟ furniture as presented in Figure 5.9.2, shows that 42.6 percent of the schools had no furniture; 36.4 percent had 1 to 10 furniture, 3.9 percent had 20-30 and 4.7 percent had 31 furniture and above. It is instructive to note that a principal indicated that the school had 228 and two Principals indicated schools had 139 furniture items for teachers.

0 20 40 60 80

Lockable storage space

School garden/farm

Weather station

Staff room

20.1

28.1

13.7

26.8

22.5

22.5

17.8

35.3

57.4

49.3

68.5

37.9

No response (%) Not appropriate (%)

Appropriate (%)

49

Figure 5.9.2: Distribution of Furniture

The condition of the teachers‟ furniture was described by 34.10 percent of the principals as appropriate, but 40.30 percent as not appropriate, while 25.50 percent did not respond. Inadequate facilities/equipment was the reason given by 26.6percent of the principals for the condition of the teachers‟ furniture, 11.1 percent and 11.6percent gave dilapidated infrastructure and not in good use respectively as reason. The condition of the learners‟ furniture was reported by 22.90 percent of the principals as appropriate while 49.90 percent describe them as not appropriate; 27.2 percent however did not respond. Reasons for the poor condition of learners‟ furniture were: 28.1 percent inadequate facilities/equipment, 10.9 percent as not in good use, while 60.6 percent did not respond. With respect to available Auditorium or hall, 55.2 percent of the schools had no auditorium/halls, 31.3 percent had one auditorium/hall, while 13.6 percent had more than one auditorium/hall. The condition of the auditorium/hall was described by 19.7 percent of the principals as appropriate, 28.7 percent not appropriate, while 51.6 percent did not respond. The number of classrooms (at 40 learners per class) in the schools was such that 53.5 percent of the principals reported that they had none, 34.8 percent had between 1-10 such classrooms, 7.8 percent between 11-20, while 4.6 percent had more than 20 classrooms. On the condition of the classrooms 12.6 percent were appropriate, 47.10 percent not appropriate, while 40.30 percent did not respond.

Administrative blocks were not available in the 61.2 percent of the schools, 34.0 percent had one (1) while 4.9 percent had more than one block. The condition of the administrative blocks was described by 23.50 percent of the principals as appropriate, by 40.00 percent not appropriate, while 36.50 percent did not respond.

5.10 : The Child Friendly School Environment

Learning and the acquisition of acceptable social and life skills are facilitated in a child-

friendly-school-environment, it is expected that such environment should be safe and

secured, free from violence, has provision for safe water and sanitation, and Toilet facilities

from learners and teachers. Availability of these facilities is examined in this section. With

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

1 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 and above

42.6

36.4

12.9

3.9

4.7

percent

50

respect to availability of toilet facilities, 63.30 percent of the schools had toilets. The

breakdown of types of toilets is presented in Table 5.10.1 and 5.10.2 for learners and teachers

respectively.

The results indicate a great shortage of toilets of all types for the teachers and learners. Among the schools, 94.2 percent did not have bucket system toilet for male learners, 3.6 percent had one, while 2.30 percent had between 2- 6. Similarly, 94.6 percent of the schools did not have the bucket system toilet for female learners, 3.6 percent had one, while 1.90 percent had between 2- 6. For normal pit toilets, 79.9 percent of the schools did not have any for the male learners, 10.5 percent had one, while 15.6 percent had 2 or more of such toilets. Similarly, 80.9 percent of the schools did not have normal pit toilets for female learners, 11.3 percent had one, while 8.0 percent had 2 or more of such toilets for female learners.

Table 5.10.1: Number of Toilets for Learners

Number of toilets

Bucket system Normal pit Male Female Male Female f percent F percent f percent f percent

0 502 94.2 504 94.6 436 79.9 431 80.9 1 19 3.6 19 3.6 56 10.5 60 11.3 2 8 1.5 8 1.5 29 5.4 27 5.1 3 3 0.6 1 0.2 7 7.3 6 1.1 4 = = = = 5 0.9 4 0.8 5 = = = = 2 0.4 = = ≥6 1 0.2 1 0.2 8 1.6 5 1.0 Total 533 100 533 100 533 100 533 100

From Table 5.10.2, the responses revealed that 85.2 percent of the schools did not have

normal pit toilets for male teachers, 9.2 percent and 3.2 percent had 1 and 2 of those toilets

respectively, while 2.5percent had 3 or more of such toilets. On the number of normal pit

toilets available for female teachers, 87.4 percent of the schools did not have any. The

situation for other types of toilets was not better.

Table 5.10.2: Toilets for Teachers

Number of toilets

Normal pit VIP Others Male Female Male Female Male Female f perce

nt f perce

nt f perce

nt f perce

nt f perce

nt f perce

nt 0 45

4 85.2 46

6 87.4 42

1 79 42

5 80.3 45

3 84.8 51

4 96.4

1 49 9.2 48 9 30 5.6 86 16.1 14 2.6 13 2.4 2 17 3.2 14 2.6 61 11.4 13 2.4 4 0.8 = = 3 5 0.9 1 0.2 7 1.3 2 0.4 3 0.6 = = 4 3 0.6 1 0.2 5 0.9 1 0.2 1 0.2 = = 5 2 0.4 1 0.2 4 0.8 = = = = = =

≥6 3 0.6 2 0.4 5 1.0 3 0.6 58 10.9 6 1.1 Total 53

3 100 53

3 100 53

3 100 53

3 100 53

4 100 53

0 100

51

5.11: Water Supply Sources

The main sources of water supply as shown in Figure 5.11.1 are Rain water (4.7 percent)

stream/river (5.1 percent), well water (28.9 percent), borehole water (37.0 percent), pipe-

borne water (3.0 percent) and tanker water (1.5 percent). However, 19.80 percent of the

schools had no sources of water.

Figure 5.11.1: Sources of Water Supply

5.12: Availability of Useable Games/Sports Facilities in School The responses in Figure 5.12.1 showed that 62.1 percent of the schools had facilities for

football, 43.2 percent handball, 37.1 percent athletics, 39.3 percent volleyball and less than

20.0 percent of the schools had facilities for each of basketball, Table tennis and lawn tennis.

Figure 5.12.1: Available Useable Games/Sports Facilities

0 10 20 30 40

RAIN

STREAM/RIVER

WELL

BOREHOLE

PIPE BORNE WATER

TANKER

NONE

4.7

5.1

28.9

37

3

1.5

19.8

Percent

0 20 40 60 80 100

Athletics

Football

Handball

Lawn Tennis

Table Tennis

Basketball/netball

Volley ball

37.1

62.1

43.2

4.7

10.1

17.8

29.3

49.7

36

52.9

90.2

83.9

77.3

65.5

13.1

1.9

3.9

5.1

6

4.9

5.3

No response No Yes

52

Availability and Usage of Refuse Disposal Facilities in Schools

The responses indicated that refuse disposal facilities were available in few schools as less

than 26.0 percent had the facilities as shown in Figure 5.12.2. Similarly, usage was also low

as less than 31.00 percent of the schools indicated that the facilities were used as shown in

Figure 5.12.3.

Figure 5.12.2: Availability of Refuse Disposal Facilities in School

Figure 5.12.3: Usability of Refuse Disposal Facilities in School

Availability of Usable Recreational Facilities in Schools

Swing was the most usable recreational facility as indicated by 16.50 percent of the schools.

This meant that usable recreational facilities were available in few schools as less than 15

percent of the schools, as can be seen from Figure 5.12.4 had the other listed facilities.

0 20 40 60

Compose pit

Dust pit

Large bins for refuse

collection van

Incinerator

None

22.3

25.9

22

7.1

15.4

54.6

49.5

51.2

51.4

28.1

23.1

24.6

26.8

41.5

56.5

No response No Yes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Compose pit

Dust pit

Large bins for refuse collection

van

Incinerator

None

29.9

18.4

7.9

6.4

49.5

44.5

51.4

41.7

24.6

37.1

40.7

52

Percent Percent Percent

53

Figure 5.12.4: Availability of Usable Recreational Facilities in Schools

5.13: Curriculum Materials

Curriculum materials are used by the teachers for effective teaching. Among these are the

National Curriculum, Curriculum modules, Diary, Scheme of work, Teachers‟ guide and the syllabus. The availability of these materials as presented in Figure 5.13.1. shows that teachers

guide, syllabus and curriculum modules were not available in 62.1 percent, 49 percent and

40.7 percent of the schools respectively. One to ten copies of the National curriculum,

Scheme of work, Diary and Teachers‟ guide were available in 44.3 percent, 34.8 percent and

23.6 percent of the schools respectively. The quality of the curriculum materials in Figure

5.13.2 with the exception of the syllabus were assessed as good by more than 65 percent of

the principals. The quality of the Scheme of work had the highest and Syllabus was least.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ladder

Swing

See-Saw

Slide

Merry-go-round

Swimming pool

15

16.5

4.9

14.4

5.1

11.8

80.7

79.4

89.9

80.5

90.4

83.1

4.3

4.1

5.3

5.1

4.5

5.1

No response No Yes

54

Figure 5.13.1: Availability of Curriculum Materials

Figure 5.13.2: Quality of Curriculum Materials

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

National curriculum (%)

Curriculum modules (%)

Diary (%)

Scheme of work (%)

Teachers’ guide (%)

Syllabus (%)

28.5

40.7

37.3

25.9

62.1

49

44.3

27.9

34.8

44.3

23.6

39.2

9.7

9.2

22.3

24.6

10

8.4

3.8

1.2

3

3.3

3.2

1.8

10.7

21.2

3.1

2.1

1.4

2.1

Number

≥41 21 to 40 11 to 20 1 to 10 0

0 20 40 60 80 100

National curriculum (%)

Curriculum modules (%)

Diary (%)

Scheme of work (%)

Teachers’ guide (%)

Syllabus (%)

76.4

65.7

78

80.7

72.8

59.3

3.9

5.8

4.9

4.7

4.7

14.6

19.7

28.5

17.1

14.6

22.5

26.1

Quality

No response Bad Good

55

Adequacy of the curriculum materials as presented in Figure 5.13.3 was least for national

curriculum (28.9 percent) and highest for scheme of work (43.9 percent). It is observed that

all of the curriculum materials were assessed as adequate by less than 50 percent of the

principals.

Percent

Figure 5.13.3: Adequacy of the Curriculum Materials

5.14: Types of Instructional Materials

The instructional materials used by the teachers as contained in Table 5.14.1, shows a preponderance of textbooks as indicated by 78 percent of the principals; 7.5 percent indicated charts/flipcharts and cardboard by 1.4 percent. On the other hand, only 0.2 percent of the principals indicated that the teachers used graphs, novels, curriculum and textbooks.

Table 5.14.1: Types of Instructional Materials Available in Schools

Frequency percent

Textbooks 1307 78

Blackboard/chalkboard/markboard 60 3.6

Charts/flipcharts 126 7.5

Cardboard 24 1.4

Chalk 15 0.9

Graph 4 0.2

Map 16 1

Novels 3 0.2

Pictures (teaching aid) 38 2.3

Computer 29 1.7

Curriculum 4 0.2

Notebook 4 0.2 Projector 9 0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

National curriculum (%)

Curriculum modules (%)

Diary (%)

Scheme of work (%)

Teachers’ guide (%)

Syllabus (%)

28.9

32.8

40.5

43.9

34.3

35.6

46

33

33.6

31.7

36.4

31.5

25.1

34.1

25.9

24.4

29.3

32.8

No response Not adequate Adequate

56

Mearsuring tape (measurements) 6 0.4 Science kit 19 1.1 Globe 11 0.7

TOTAL 1,675 100

An assessment of the quality of the instructional materials showed that 34.50 percent of the

principals reported that the instructional materials were of good quality, 3.20 percent said

they were of bad quality, while 62.30 percent of the principals did not respond. On the

appropriateness of the instructional materials, 29.30 percent of the principals reported that

they were appropriate, 8.60 percent considered the instructional materials not appropriate,

while 62.10 percent of the principals did not respond.

Observations and Challenges

School accommodation is a major problem in 75 percent of schools

More than 80 percent of learners lived less than 2km from the schools and more than 70 percent walked to school.

Almost all schools have PTA and they meet as the need arises. This is good as incessant meeting can lead to waste of time if there are no serious issues to discuss. Meeting on a termly basis is equally good as it affords the home and school an opportunity to review developments within the term and therefore enhance the cooperation between the home and school for the benefit of the learners.

Assistance provided to schools was satisfactory in most areas with the exception of buildings. This may not be unconnected with the capital intensive nature of putting up buildings.

Parents paid fees/levies regularly to meet schools operating expenses.

Few schools were fenced but with materials which may not be durable or ensure safety of life and property. But there were security personnel.

Some schools did not have enough space for buildings, playgrounds, and gardens due to location in urban areas.

This situation is further compounded by the few refuse disposal facilities not being put to proper use.

The poor condition of toilet for use by both learners and teachers is unfortunate. It brings to question the Health and Safety standard, necessary for the approval and location of such within communities.

The non-availability or paucity of curriculum materials is of great concern as these are expected to serve as guide to effective teaching and learning. The qualities of these materials were however well rated.

The observation that the adequacy of the national curriculum was the lowest is worrisome as this supposed to be the document from which other curriculum-related materials are to be derived.

Textbooks are the only instructional materials that were really available. Considering the sample under consideration, the number available is far from expectation. Other instructional materials were more or less not available. Thus for teaching to realise its objectives, procurement of more teaching materials is expected.

57

Chapter Six

Attitude of Learners

Attitude is a predisposition to something. Within the school the attitude of the learners is

important as it generally would influence substantially how learning takes place. The learner

has to like the school, the subjects taught in school, the teacher and even school itself.

Attitude is more than liking as it has three main dimensions. These dimensions have been

variously described. It could be seen as strength, accessibility and ambience. Strength, as the

power to influence is very important when attitudes of learners are being considered. To this

extent, this study examined attitude with respect to school, teachers, and subjects taught in

school and schooling itself. It is thought that the results could be helpful in explaining what

happens in the school. In exploring the attitude towards the different attitude objects

cognisance was also taken of the reasons for the positive and negative dispositions.

6.1: Parents Liking for Learners

Parents are the first humans the child comes in contact with; they are involved in the

socialisation of the child and that builds a type of bond which could be positive or negative.

When children like their parents, there is every likelihood they would behave responsibly.

Thus, if sent to school, the child would as a mark of respect endeavour to make the parents

happy by performing well. In this section, two items examined the attitude of parents

towards the learners. Figure 6.1.1 shows that 92.3 percent are liked by their parents while

only 1.3 percent did not feel so liked by the parents.

Figure 6.1.1: Percentage of Parents Liking the Learners

A parent cannot like a child all the time; the child can fall out of favour with the parents.

Thus, it was necessary to find out from parents reasons for liking or not liking their children.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No Yes No Response

1.3

92.3

6.4

Series1

58

As can be seen in Figure 6.1.2 the most prominent reasons are “obedience” „parents gave

birth to the learners‟ (12.9 percent) and “Passing examinations” (6.1 percent).

Figure 6.1.2: Reasons Parents Like Children

Why do Parents not like children? Responses were expected from the 101 (1.3 percent) who indicate dislike in figure 6.1.1. Reasons provided by 64 learners in Figure 6.1.3. were „I fight always‟ (16.8 percent) „I disobey my parents‟ (13.9 percent) and „I do not go to farm with them‟ 12.9 percent .

Figure 6.1.3: Reasons Parents do not like Children

6.2: Attitude towards School Subjects

Liking subject is seen as a proxy of attitude towards the subject in this study. Learners who

like the subject could be motivated to learn and if all things work well, excel in the subject.

Dislike for the subject can create hatred towards the teacher. In this section, subjects liked,

those not liked and reasons for these were explored. Figure 6.2.1 shows that English (33.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

I am always passing my exams

I am obedient

I go to farm with them

I help them to sell things

I keep and maintain my textbooks

I take care of my younger ones

They gave birth to me

Others

Invalid Response

No Response

6.1

32.1

0.8

0.8

1.3

0.8

12.9

22.8

4.9

17.6

0 10 20 30 40

I fight always

I disobey my parent

I do not go to farm with them

I do not help them to sell things

I play too much

Others

No response

16.8

13.9

12.9

4

1

14.9

36.6

Percent

59

percent) and Mathematics, (26.0 percent) were the two most liked subjects by the learners.

However mathematics (11.50 percent) and Basic Science and Technology (8. 50percent)

were the most disliked subjects.

Figure 6.2.1: Subjects Liked and not Liked by Learners

The reasons for not liking the subjects are presented in Figure 6.2.2. The two most important

reasons were that „They are difficult‟ (29.50 percent) and „My teacher does not teach well‟ (7.70 percent).

1.7

0.5

8.8

1.1

1.9

3.1

1.4

0.6

33.6

0.2

1.2

26

3.3

1.2

4.4

7

3.9

5

0.5

8.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

3.4

2.9

3.4

5.8

2

11.5

8.1

4.4

2

6.4

22.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Agriculture

Arabic

Basic Science

Basic Technology

Business Studies

Civics Education

Computer Studies

Cultural and creative Arts

English Studies

French

Home Economics

Mathematics

Nigeria Language

PHE

Religious Studies

Social Studies

No Response

Percent not like

Percent like

60

Figure 6.2.2: Reasons for not Liking the Subject

6.3: Attitude towards Teachers

Teachers play a very important role within the school system. Therefore learners liking

teachers could influence ultimate performance. Figure 6.3.1 provides a graphic illustration of

the responses. As can be seen 93.3 percent liked their teachers while only 1.1percent did not

like the teachers.

Figure 6.3.1: Percentage of Learners’ Liking for the Teacher

The two most important reasons for liking their teachers in Figure 6.3.2. were that “Teacher teaches well” (29.0 percent) and “Teacher is friendly” (16.60 percent)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

I do not have people that can…

My teacher do not teach them…

They are boring

They are too difficult

Other pupils/students run out…

Other reason

Invalid Response

No Response

3.7

7.7

4.8

29.5

1.6

20.2

6.6

25.8

Series1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No Yes No Response

1.1

93.3

5.5

61

Figure 6.3.2: Reasons for Liking Teacher

6.4 Attitude to Schooling

Liking school is one step towards achieving personal educational goals. Among the learners

90.8 percent indicated liking schooling, whereas only 0.7 percent did not like schooling. The

reasons for liking schooling are presented as Figure 6.4.1. The three most important reasons

were „organisation of extra-curricular activities‟ (6.30 percent), „schools close to my house‟ (5.00 percent) and „teachers are friendly‟ (5.10 percent).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Teacher Dresses Smartly and Moderately

Teacher encourages pupils/learners to…Teacher is friendly

Teacher is interested in Pupils/learners

Teacher is regular and punctual

Teacher maintains discipline in the class

Teacher teaches well

OTHERS

Invalid Response

No Response

5

2.6

16.6

5.9

2.6

3

29

15.2

4.5

15.6

Percent

62

Figure 6.4.1: Reasons for Liking Schooling

The reasons for not liking schooling in Table 6.1 included „inadequate classroom‟ (0.10 percent), „no motivation from the teachers‟ (0.10 percent) and „teachers do not teach well‟ (0.10 percent). However, it is alarming that 99.40 percent did not respond to the item.

Table 6.1: Reasons for not Liking Schools

N percent

Bullying by other pupils/learners 7 0.00

Interference from other teachers and pupils/learners 1 0.00

Inadequate classroom 9 0.10

Poor management of parents of pupils/learners‟ disciplinary cases 2 0.00

Poor management of pupils/learners with health problem 3 0.00

No support or motivation from the teachers 9 0.10

Poor organisation of co-curricular activities 1 0.00

Teachers do not attend school regularly 4 0.00

Teachers do not teach well 20 0.10

Invalid Response 34 0.20

No Response 14934 99.40

15024 100.00percent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Adequate classroom and Furniture

Beautiful compound with flowers

Organization of Extra curricular

School is close to my house

School maintains discipline

Teachers are friendly

Teachers encourage pupils/learners to

participate

Availability of textbooks and instructional

materials

Others

Invalid Response

No Response

3.3

4.4

6.3

5

4.6

5.1

4.5

1

40

7.7

18.1

Percent

63

Observations and Conclusions

I. The liking of the learners by parents indicated by a very substantial number of the learners is good as parents are role models and seen in this way can be beneficial to the learners. They would work hard to impress the parents which can serve as a pull to

enhance achievement

II. The subjects most liked were mathematics and English studies; this is not unexpected because of their role in the learners‟ future progress.

III. The fact that mathematics is the most hated is of concern as it is the bed rock of science and technology. On the other hand, not liking Nigerian language may lead to their future extinction.

IV. Liking schools and teachers as observed are commendable as these may likely lead to greater performance in schools.

V. Assistance by the community was high and this goes to substantiate the fact made earlier that security personnel are engaged by the school. The use of auxiliary teachers provided by the community is indicative of shortage of teachers that are formally engaged to teach in schools.

VI. The community‟s attitude towards teaching/learning and learners‟ problems and concerns is indicative of good community-school relationship. The attitude towards teachers can further motivate teachers to excel and the community in turn benefits through improved learners achievement.

VII. Schools require enough space for buildings, playgrounds and gardens. The fact that only a few of the schools did not have these available could be due to locational issues particularly in urban areas where land is in short supply and expensive to acquire.

VIII. The existence of cracks can expose learners to hazards and therefore there would be need to fix them. Allowing such situations to persist can make the learning environment uninviting as learners can be scared and consequently begin to dislike schools.

Observations and Challenges

One worrisome issue in this chapter is the preponderance of no response. This probably may have arisen as many items here required free response from the learners. Nonetheless it is hoped that the little information gleaned have partially illumed the situation.

The liking of the learners by parents indicated by a very substantial number of the learners is good as parents are role models and seen in this way can be beneficial to the learners. They would work hard to impress the parents which can serve as a pull to enhance achievement

The subjects most liked were mathematics and English studies; this is not unexpected because of their role in the learners‟ future progress.

The fact that mathematics is the most hated is of concern as it is the bed rock of science and technology. On the other hand, not liking Nigerian language may lead to their future extinction.

Liking school and teachers as observed is commendable as these likely to lead to greater performance in schools.

64

Assistance by the community was high and this goes to substantiate the fact made earlier that security personnel are engaged by the school. The use of auxiliary teachers provided by the community is indicative of shortage of teachers that are formally engaged to teach in schools.

The community‟s attitude towards teaching/learning and learners‟ problems and concerns is indicative of good community-school relationship. The attitude towards teachers can further motivate teachers to excel and the community in turn benefits through improved learners achievement.

Schools require enough space for buildings, playgrounds and gardens. The fact that only a few of the schools did not have these available could be due to location issues particularly in urban areas where land is in short supply and expensive to acquire.

The existence of cracks can expose learners to hazards. Hence, the need to fix them. Allowing such situations to persist can make the learning environment uninviting as learners can be scared and consequently begin to dislike schools.

The fact that there were more females enrolled in this class nationally is indicative that education of females is now being taken seriously. When we, however, consider the distribution across states, this beautiful picture is eroded. Thus, female education should be given greater impetus.

The dropouts rate in Bayelsa and Zamfara States are of great concern.

65

Chapter Seven

English Studies

Achievement in English Studies and relational analyses are presented in this chapter. In particular, the chapter focuses on achievement at national, geo-political zones and at state levels and concludes with relational analysis of contextual variables and achievement.

7.1: National Achievement This sub-section provided results of Multiple choice and Essay Tests, Range and percentile; achievement for gender (male and female) and school location (urban and rural); and achievement in content and cognitive domains.

7.1.1: National Averages

At the national level, the average achievement of learners in Multiple Choice test was 50.28 and in Essay test was 49.94.

7.1.2: Range and Percentile

The distribution in the Multiple and Essay tests shows that more learners concentrated around the lowest score ranging from 0 to 39 percent with Essay test having the higher percentage of

learners. The performance in multiple choice test was better in the score range of 50 and 74 percent. However, more learners performed at the level of 75 percent and above then in Multiple Choice test. Figure 7.1. shows the distribution range in achievement in accordance with the National Grade cluster. As can be seen, the largest proportion of learners, that is, 30.6 percent scored 50-59 percent correct options on the Multiple Choice test while 44.8 percent provided 40-49 percent correct responses in the Essay test. In both test forms, only 1.3 percent and 5.1 percent scored in the range of 70-100 percent. Indeed, achievement was generally Good on the Multiple Choice Test but only Fair in the Essay test.

50.28

49.94

Multiple Choice

Test

Essay Test

66

In Figure 7.2, achievement of the learners was homogeneous at the 10th, 25th and 90th percentile. More learners performed at the 50th and 75th percentile in the Multiple Choice test and the Essay test.

7.1.3: Group Achievement

Table 1 shows the score ranges in the Multiple Choice Test and Essay test based on gender and location. There were little variations between the grouping variables and achievements in both test types. Indeed, the variations were not significant.

7.1.4: Achievement in

Content Domains

There were five themes (content domain) in the curriculum of Junior Secondary Schools English Studies (Speech, Reading, Grammatical accuracy and Literature). Items were generated from each of the five themes. The content domain in this chapter was limited to only Multiple Choice test.

Learners had the highest mean score of 56.7 per cent in items relating to Speech than in the other content domains. Achievement in Reading related issue ( ̅ 47.2 percent) ranked second whereas learners found the items on writing skills relatively difficult ( ̅ 38.56 percent).

Table7.1: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of

Performance in Multiple Choice and Essay

Tests by Location, School Type and Gender

Variables Sources of variation

Multiple Choice Essay Mean SE Mean SE

Sex Male 49.99 0.16 49.98 0.16 Female 50.60 0.17 49.90 0.17

Location Urban 50.14 0.16 49.87 0.16 Rural 50.44 0.17 50.03 0.17

0 20 40 60

SPEECH

READING

GRAM ACCURACY

WRITING

LITERATURE

56.7

47.2

43.41

38.56

45.02

Figure 7.3 Learners’ Achievement in Content Domains

0

50

100

10th 25th 75th 10th 50th 90th

Multiple Choice Essay

29

.22

36

.1

53

.88

0.8

1 21

.82

61

.97

Figure 7.2 Percentile of JS 2 Learners in Multiple Choice and Essay tests

67

Achievement in Cognitive Domains Learners answered correctly the least items in English Studies that measured knowledge ( ̅ 39.87 percent), more items in comprehension ( ̅ 45.65 percent) and most in items related to higher order.

7.2: Achievement across

Geopolitical Zones Fig 7.5 shows the distribution of mean scores of learners across the geo-political Zones, with large difference between the North East zone (44.85) and South East zone (54.64). Scores of learners in the North East, North West, and North Central Zones were below the National average. South South ( ̅ 52.67), South West ( ̅ 53.11), and South East ( ̅ 54.64) scored above the national average. Learners from the South East obtained the highest mean score of 54.64 while learners in North East had the least mean score of 44.85.

Figure 7.6 shows the distribution of means scores of learners in Essay test across the Geo-political zones. North Central had the least mean score of ̅ 49.23, and North West with a mean of 50.36 as the highest. Learners in South East, South South and North West scored above the National average of 49.94.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

44

.85

47

.44

49

.19

50

.28

52

.67

53

.11

54

.64

Figure 7.5: Distribution of Mean Scores in Multiple

48.6048.8049.0049.2049.4049.6049.8050.0050.2050.40

49.23

49.58

49.81 49.94

50.16 50.35 50.36

Figure 7.6: Achievement Tests of Learners in Essay

in Geopolitical Zones

39.87 45.65

54.81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

KNOWLEDGE COMPREHENSION HIGHER ORDER

Figure 7.4 Achievement in Cognitive Domains

68

10.2.2 Group Achievement across the Geo-Political Zones Figure 7.7 shows that there are no large differences in the male and female learners‟ achievement across the geo-political zones in the Multiple Choice test. Both groups of learners in South East, South South and South West scored above the National average. Female learners in the South East zone had the highest mean score of 54.77 for male and female samples. The least scores of 44.53 and 45.27 were obtained by male and female learners respectively in the North East zone. As can be seen in Table 7.2, there was little variation in the mean scores by gender in the six geo-political

zones in the Essay Test. Male learners in North West with a mean of 50.67 and South East 50.19 scored above the National average for males while female learners in South East, with a mean of 50.13 and South-South 50.75 scored above the National average. Table 7.2: Distribution of Mean Scores in Essay Test across Geo-political Zones based

on Gender

T_SCORE _ESSAY Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE

North Central 49.12 0.40 49.35 0.45 North East 49.77 0.38 49.34 0.43 North West 50.67 0.35 49.86 0.42 South East 50.19 0.42 50.13 0.42 South South 49.94 0.41 50.75 0.45 South West 49.82 0.39 49.80 0.39 National 49.98 0.16 49.90 0.17

Table 7.3 shows the achievement of learners across the Geopolitical zones based on school location in the Multiple choice test, achievement was more homogeneous, that is, concentration in a narrow range between urban and rural learners in the north Central (Urban 48.03, Rural 44.63) South East (Urban 54.61, Rural 55.61) and South-South (Urban 52.72, Rural 51.51). Whereas, scores of learners were more heterogeneous in North East (Urban 44.75, Rural 49.17) North West (urban 47.24, Rural 55.56) and South West (Urban 52.99, Rural 56.78) and the differences were statistically significant.

Also, learners in urban and rural schools in South East, South-South and South West, and those in rural schools in North West obtained mean scores higher than the National averages.

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

NORTH CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

NATIONAL

48.95

44.53

47.79

54.48

52.86

53.14

49.99

49.45

45.27

46.91

54.77

52.48

53.07

50.60

Female

Male

Figure 7.7: Distribution of Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Test across Zones

69

In respect of Essay Test, achievement scores were more homogeneous within and between zones. However, learners in both locations in North West and South East zone, urban learners in South-South and rural learners in South West had mean scores above their respective National averages. Overall, learners in rural school learners seem to have out-performed their counterparts in urban schools.

Table 7.3: Learners’ Performance in Multiple and Essay Tests across Geo-political and

School Location

GEOPOLITICAL ZONES

School Location

Multiple Choice

Essay

Mean SE Mean SE NORTH CENTRAL

Urban 48.03 0.35 49.34 0.34 Rural 48.63 1.61 50.49 1.39

NORTH EAST Urban 44.75 0.25 49.59 0.29 Rural 49.17 1.84 48.53 2.08

NORTH WEST Urban 47.20 0.27 50.35 0.27 Rural 55.48 4.63 50.79 5.23

SOUTH EAST Urban 54.61 0.27 50.16 0.30 Rural 55.56 0.71 51.65 0.80

SOUTH SOUTH Urban 52.72 0.27 50.34 0.31 Rural 51.51 1.78 48.88 2.13

SOUTH WEST Urban 52.99 0.26 49.84 0.29

Rural 56.78 1.31 50.07 1.36

NATIONAL Urban 50.14 1.11 99.87 1.28 Rural 50.44 1.03 50.3 1.11

70

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

NORTH

CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH

SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

NATIONAL

54.91

46.46

49.86

65.43

62.12

62.17

56.70

46.06

38.93

42.12

53.95

51.08

51.59

47.20

41.79

38.31

41.16

47.68

44.62

46.82

43.41

37.67

32.92

36.45

42.55

40.85

41.06

38.56

43.18

36.20

40.68

51.99

49.40

49.05

45.02

LITERATURE

WRITING

GRAMMATICAL_ACCU

READING

SPEECH

Figure 7.8 Achievement in Content Domains across the Geopolitical

Content Domain At the National level, the highest mean score of 56.70 was on items that examined speech

Reading with a mean of 47.20.

Generally, achievement was with the cluster 40-49 percent, representing Fair. Further observation of the results revealed similar trends across the zones. Learners from North East had the least scores in all the content domain while those from South |East obtained the highest mean scores in the five content domains. Also, learners from the South East, South South and South West zones scored above the National averages on the five content domains. In spite of this observation, learners, both at the National and Zonal levels obtained the least scores on

items which measured Writing skills (National 38.56 percent, North East 32.92, North West 36.45, North Central 37.92, South South 40.85, South East 41.06 and South East 42.55). The top three scores of 62.12, 62.17 and 65.43 were on speech domain. These observations seem to suggest that learners had more difficulties in Writing skills and least on speech domain.

71

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

NORTH CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

NATIONAL

38.46

33.62

37.35

44.93

41.98

42.96

39.87

44.56

38.04

42.38

51.06

48.94

49.19

45.65

52.70

45.90

47.95

62.78

59.90

60.25

54.81

HIGHER order

COMPREHENSION

KNOWLEDGE

Figure 7.9: Distribution of Mean Score by Geo-political Zone on the Level

of Cognition of English Studies

Cognitive Domain

As can be seen in figure 7.9

Achievement at the National level and

Geopolitical Zones revealed a consistent Pattern of increase in mean scores on

Knowledge, through

comprehension to Higher order on the cognitive level. Three zones, South East, South South and South West scored above the

National average of each Cognitive

domain. Learners in South East zone had the

highest mean scores of 62.78, 51.06 and 44.93 on Higher order from comprehension and knowledge domain respectively. While their counterparts obtained the least mean scores of 45.90, 38.04 and 33.62 on Higher Order, Comprehension and Knowledge domains respectively.

72

10.3: Achievement at State Level

This sub-section presents achievement in Essay and Multiple choice Tests at state level,

group

achievement in

terms of gender

and school

location, and

achievements in

Content and

Cognitive

domains.

Generally, Figure

7.10 shows no

significant

difference

between the

achievement of

male and female

learners in

English Studies at

the National and

Zonal levels.

However, female

learners in Yobe

(51.0/49.25),

Ogun

(54.88/53.23),

Kwara

(55.33/54.25) and

Enugu

(54.08/52.26) out-

performed their

male counterparts.

While male

learners in FCT

(53.9/55.70),

Sokoto (42.34/44.37), Niger (46.8/48.62), Lagos (58.92/60.08), Edo (51.75/53.30) and

Bauchi (44.2/45.5) obtained higher mean score than the female learners. Learners from

Lagos state both males and females with mean score of 58.92 and 60.08 respectively had

higher achievement scores compared with their counterparts in the other states. Male and

female learners in each of the 21 states performed above their respective National average.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ABIA

ADAMAWA

AKWA-IBOM

ANAMBRA

BAUCHI

BAYELSA

BORNO

BENUE

CROSS RIVER

DELTA

EBONYI

EDO

EKITI

ENUGU

GOMBE

IMO

JIGAWA

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

KEBBI

KOGI

KWARA

LAGOS

NASARAWA

NIGER

OGUN

ONDO

OSUN

OYO

PLATEAU

RIVERS

SOKOTO

TARABA

YOBE

ZAMFARA

FCT

NATIONAL

53.17

47.65

50.35

56.82

45.51

51.6

45.57

46.33

51.18

57.27

55.51

53.3

51.53

52.25

40.24

54.59

42.87

44.31

52.62

49.07

55.67

49.36

54.25

60.08

45.74

48.62

53.23

50.76

53.19

50.34

43.18

52.39

44.37

42.43

49.25

48.61

55.7

49.99

53.79

47.64

50.38

56.97

44.2

51.98

45.89

40.81

51.52

57.51

54.41

51.75

50.68

54.08

39.81

54.54

43.64

44.7

52.42

48.36

55.39

48.99

55.33

58.92

46.37

46.8

54.88

50.21

53.92

49.08

44.96

51.67

42.34

42.58

51

47.78

53.95

50.6

Female

Male

Figure 7.10 : Distributions of Score in Multiple Choice across States Based on Gender

73

Performance across the States Achievement in Essay Test as can be seen in Table 7.4 was homogeneous at the National level with mean values of 49.98 for male learners and 49.90 for female learners. State level analysis shows a similar pattern except in Bayelsa, (54.0), Kebbi (52.9), Ogun (51.37) and Plateau (51.43) where male learners had two point difference above the female learners. In Akwa Ibom (53.33), Edo (50.09) and Abia (50.79), the female learners obtained higher scores than the male learners. However these differences were not significant. Further observation of Table 7.4 revealled that female learners from 17 states had mean scores above the National average while in only 19 states, the male learners scored above their National average.

Table7.4: Achievement across the States based on Gender in

Essay Test

STATE Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 49.55 1.11 50.79 1 ADAMAWA 49.92 1.01 51.25 1.14 AKWA-IBOM 51.4 1.04 53.33 0.98 ANAMBRA 49.46 0.88 49.29 0.89 BAUCHI 50.82 1.01 47.47 0.92 BAYELSA 54 1.49 51.81 1.77 BORNO 49.53 0.89 48.75 0.97 BENUE 45.4 1.31 48.01 2.43 CROSS RIVER 48.2 0.88 49.21 1.1 DELTA 49.7 0.88 50.04 1.06 EBONYI 51.07 0.83 50.08 0.93 EDO 48.46 0.97 50.69 1.11 EKITI 50.52 0.99 48.94 1.1 ENUGU 49 0.84 49.58 0.88 GOMBE 49.46 0.84 51.15 1.21 IMO 51.79 1.03 50.93 0.95 JIGAWA 50.56 0.98 50.14 1.01 KADUNA 50.73 0.93 50.84 0.95 KANO 49.75 1.06 50 1.34 KATSINA 53 1.1 51.59 1.62 KEBBI 52.9 0.94 50.89 1.14 KOGI 48.1 0.93 48.03 1.36 KWARA 48.07 0.86 49.27 0.86 LAGOS 50.8 0.98 49.86 0.96 NASARAWA 50.12 1.29 49.32 1.28 NIGER 49.03 0.85 50.81 1.27 OGUN 48.63 1 49.16 0.89 ONDO 48.56 0.85 50.43 1.09 OSUN 51.37 0.96 49.04 0.83 OYO 49.18 1.02 51.31 0.91 PLATEAU 51.43 0.99 49.42 0.87 RIVERS 49.55 0.92 49.53 0.94 SOKOTO 49.76 0.81 48.15 0.87 TARABA 49.44 0.86 48.45 0.97 YOBE 49.77 1 49.64 1.09 ZAMFARA 48.88 0.76 47.63 1.09 FCT 48.7 1.38 49.72 1.3 NATIONAL 49.98 0.16 49.9 0.17

74

Achievement by School Location

Table 7.5 provides the National averages of 50.14 and 50.44 for urban and rural learners respectively on the Multiple Choice test, and the Essay Test, National average for urban

learners was 49.87 and 50.03 for rural learners. Mean scores at the State level are

generally concentrated

within a narrow range and therefore

homogeneous as in the

National averages.

However, the mean scores for rural learners in Kogi (50.04) and Lagos (60.77) showed some variation from their

urban counterparts on the Multiple Choice test while mean score of urban learners in Ondo (50.75) showed at least a two points

difference between the urban learners. In the Essay

Test, achievement of urban learners in Adamawa (51.01), Akwa

Ibom (53.99) was higher than the rural learners. While rural learners in Bayelsa out-performed their counterparts in urban schools.

Table 7.5 Achievement in Type of Test by Location Multiple Choice Essay URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 53.94 0.79 52.96 0.97 49.7 0.99 51.01 1.12

ADAMAWA 48.09 0.93 47.23 0.93 51.76 1.19 49.45 0.94

AKWA-IBOM 50.19 0.79 50.49 0.66 53.99 1.14 51.32 0.91

ANAMBRA 56.5 0.83 57.29 0.8 49.04 0.88 49.7 0.9

BAUCHI 44.98 0.79 44.75 0.75 48.21 0.87 50.1 1.06

BAYELSA 51.39 0.8 53.11 1.8 52.28 1.25 55.29 2.73

BORNO 45.39 0.76 46.19 1.08 49.48 0.83 48.8 1.1

BENUE 43.57 1.32 46.7 1.38

CROSS RIVER 52.19 0.91 50.38 0.96 48.13 0.99 49.28 0.97

DELTA 57.58 0.84 57.2 0.78 50.72 1 49.05 0.93

EBONYI 54.24 0.92 55.61 0.87 50.61 0.89 50.58 0.87

EDO 51.75 0.99 53.32 1.11 50.39 0.99 48.78 1.13

EKITI 51.49 0.78 50.77 0.82 49.79 1.06 49.73 1.03

ENUGU 53.56 0.87 52.84 0.84 49.44 0.9 49.16 0.83

GOMBE 40.31 0.6 39.9 0.45 51.05 0.98 49.02 0.98

IMO 54.43 0.73 54.69 0.81 51.09 0.91 51.58 1.06

JIGAWA 43.23 0.66 43.19 0.73 51.21 0.93 49.08 1.06

KADUNA 45.11 0.97 44.2 0.66 50.18 1.1 51.08 0.83

KANO 52.85 1.34 52.15 1.53 50.22 1.14 49.32 1.2

KATSINA 47.9 1.3 49.35 0.91 53.24 1.56 52.21 1.13

KEBBI 55.78 1.2 55.39 1.07 51.79 1.17 52.27 0.93

KOGI 48.24 1.06 50.04 1.06 47.54 1.1 48.55 1.13

KWARA 55.66 0.83 53.98 0.8 47.93 0.79 49.44 0.92

LAGOS 58.54 0.83 60.77 0.89 48.84 0.84 52.38 1.13

NASARAWA 45.71 1.25 46.42 1.4 50.14 1.27 49.29 1.31

NIGER 47.71 1.12 47.93 1.12 49.2 1.07 50.43 1.01

OGUN 53.65 0.9 54.58 0.91 49.37 1 48.46 0.88

ONDO 50.75 0.61 48.4 1.66 49.36 0.71 49.08 2.15

OSUN 53.46 0.74 53.73 0.66 50.51 1 49.65 0.82

OYO 49.21 0.81 50 0.84 49.78 0.95 51.02 0.98

PLATEAU 43.55 0.68 44.56 0.82 50.99 0.91 49.9 1.01

RIVERS 52.47 0.79 51.53 0.88 48.94 0.9 50.15 0.97

SOKOTO 43.85 0.87 43.23 0.8 49 0.89 49.2 0.82

TARABA 42.3 0.59 42.89 0.96 48.9 0.77 49.24 1.17

YOBE 49.21 0.82 51.93 1.17 50.17 0.93 48.8 1.21

ZAMFARA 48.87 0.77 47.51 1.02 48.43 0.8 48.66 1.01

FCT 54.06 1.18 55.45 1.52 48.98 1.14 49.79 1.66

NATIONAL 50.14 0.16 50.44 0.17 49.87 0.16 50.03 0.17

75

It is also notable that urban learners in 20 states and rural learners in 19 states obtained scores above their national averages for the Multiple Choice test. Whereas in the Essay test, urban learners in 17 states and rural learners in 13 states had mean scores higher than their National averages.

Figure 7 provides the distribution of achievement scores on both test forms on state basis. Score on the Essay test are in parentheses with a National average of 50.0. Also the National average on the Multiple Choice Test is 50.0. Further observation shows the following:

Score range on the Multiple Choice Test was 40.0 (Gombe) to 59.0 (Lagos) and on the Essay Test 47.0 (Benue) to 53.0 (Katsina). Achievement on the Multiple Choice Test was more homogeneous than in the Essay Test.

Learners in four states, namely Kebbi (56.52), Imo (55.51), Ebonyi (55.51) and Bayelsa (52/53) scored above the National averages for the Multiple Choice and Essay Test forms.

On the Multiple Choice Test, the highest and lowest scores were obtained by learners from Lagos (59.0) and Gombe (40.2) respectively while on the Essay Test, the highest score was from Katsina (53.0) and the least from Benue (47.0).

76

Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in English

Note:

i. Learners‟ score in multiple choice are out of the parentheses

ii. Learners‟ score in essay are in the parentheses

56(52)

44(49)

49(53)

48(50)

55(49)

50(50)

54(49)

59(50)

48(49)

55(49)

53(50

44(51)

43(50

50(50)

45(49)

40(50)

42(49) 49(48

52(50)

51(49)

55(51)

52(50)

52(53) 50(52)

46(50)

46(49)

48(51

44(51

52(50)

57(49) 55(51)

54(50)

53(49)

51(50)

54(50)

51(49) 44(47)

Average National Score=

50(50)

77

0 20 40 60 80

GOMBE

JIGAWA

TARABA

SOKOTO

BENUE

PLATEAU

KADUNA

BAUCHI

NASARAWA

BORNO

ZAMFARA

KATSINA

ADAMAWA

NIGER

KOGI

YOBE

OYO

NATIONAL

AKWA-IBOM

KANO

EKITI

ONDO

CROSS RIVER

BAYELSA

RIVERS

EDO

ENUGU

OSUN

FCT

ABIA

KEBBI

OGUN

EBONYI

KWARA

IMO

ANAMBRA

DELTA

LAGOS

36.97

41.48

41.71

42.9

44.91

45.19

45.53

45.78

47.76

48.91

52.04

52.71

52.77

53.33

55.65

56.27

56.49

56.7

57.06

57.06

57.53

57.89

59.59

60.88

61.09

61.6

62.52

62.95

62.98

64.03

64.61

64.61

64.99

65.66

66.71

68.82

71.47

73.27

SPEECH

Figure 7.11: Learners' Achievement in Speech across States

Achievement on Content Domains

Figure 7.11 shows that the National average achievement on Speech was 56.70. Learners in

20 states performed above

the national average on

speech. While 17 states

performed below. States that

are above the national

average include: Lagos

(73.27), Delta (71.42), Imo

(66.71), Ebonyi (64.99) and

Kebbi (64.61). States that

had below the national

average includes: Gombe

(36.97), Taraba (41.71) and

Benue (44.91). Achievement

is wide spread from 36.97 in

Gombe to 73.27 in Lagos. In

relation to the National

average, 56.7 percent of the

learners at the National level

and 73.27 percent in Lagos

and 36.97 percent in Gombe

respectively provided the

correct options to the items

which measured Speech

skills.

78

0 10 20 30 40 50

GOMBE

SOKOTO

JIGAWA

BAUCHI

KADUNA

NIGER

KOGI

AKWA-IBOM

OYO

NATIONAL

EKITI

CROSS RIVER

ENUGU

EDO

OGUN

KANO

FCT

ANAMBRA

DELTA

27.84

30.53

31.68

31.89

31.93

31.94

32.68

32.85

33.37

34.14

36.51

36.74

36.88

37.19

37.67

37.73

37.99

38.15

38.56

38.81

39.43

39.44

39.51

39.61

40.93

41.47

41.6

41.62

41.8

42.34

43.02

43.41

43.47

44.21

44.63

44.77

46.6

47.6

Writing Skills

Figure 7.12 Learners' Achievement in Writing across States

Cognitive Domains

Figure 7.12 indicates the achievement of learners across the state in writing. As can be seen the achievement of learners was generally poor, such that the highest mean is less than 50, Lagos (47.6), Delta (46.6), and Kebbi (44.77) while Sokoto (31.68), Taraba (30.53) and Gombe (27.84) had the least mean scores. Nineteen states had mean scores greater than the National average of 38.56.

79

Reading Figure 7.13 shows the achievement of learners in Reading across the states. Learners in 21 states performed above the national average. The score range of 31.18 in Gombe to 60.83 in Lagos shows that achievement was Fair in 13 states and Good in 14 other states. Learners in Lagos state (60.83), Delta (58.87) and Anambra (57.05) had the top three mean scores. While Gombe (31.18), Taraba (34.95) and Jigawa (35.72) were the least.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

GOMBE

TARABA

JIGAWA

SOKOTO

BENUE

PLATEAU

KADUNA

BAUCHI

BORNO

NASARAWA

ADAMAWA

NIGER

ZAMFARA

KATSINA

AKWA-IBOM

KOGI

NATIONAL

OYO

ONDO

YOBE

EKITI

KANO

CROSS RIVER

RIVERS

BAYELSA

EDO

ENUGU

FCT

OSUN

ABIA

OGUN

KEBBI

EBONYI

IMO

KWARA

ANAMBRA

DELTA

LAGOS

31.18

34.95

35.72

35.91

36.79

37.6

37.75

38.74

39.85

40.34

43.81

44.74

44.8

44.96

46.78

46.83

47.2

47.24

47.39

48.08

48.13

48.48

48.88

50.16

50.2

50.88

51.26

52.17

52.47

53.14

53.17

53.53

53.6

54.67

55.51

57.05

58.87

60.83

READING

Figure 7.13: Learners' Achievement in Reading across States

80

Grammatical Accuracy

The national average is 43.41. However, 20 states scored above the national average, and the

states include: Lagos with the highest score (53.62), Anambra (51.62) and Kebbi (49.88)

among others. Also 17 states scored below the national average Gombe with the least score

(34.13), Benue (34.18)

and Kaduna (36.13)

among others. In general

the achievement of

learners in grammatical

accuracy is only Fair with

25 states in the Grade

cluster of 40-49 percent.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

GOMBE

KADUNA

PLATEAU

JIGAWA

NIGER

BAUCHI

ZAMFARA

KOGI

CROSS RIVER

YOBE

ONDO

AKWA-IBOM

EKITI

KANO

KWARA

DELTA

OSUN

FCT

ANAMBRA

34.13

34.18

36.13

36.21

37.33

37.5

38

38.42

38.59

38.69

39.75

40.55

41.28

42.24

42.64

42.88

43.09

43.41

44.16

44.21

44.37

44.44

44.57

44.86

45.14

45.96

46.01

46.08

46.14

46.64

47.15

47.56

47.77

48.01

48.92

49.88

51.62

53.62

GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY

Figure 7.14: Learners' Achievement in Grammatical Accuracy across

States

81

Figure 7.15 shows a National average score of 45.02 on Literature content domain. Learners

in 20 states performed

above the national

average. Achievement

scores ranged from as

low as 28.98 in Gombe

to 59.40 in Lagos.

Overall achievement

was poor in 10 states,

Fair (0-39) in 17 states

(40-49) and Good in

10 states (50-59).

Lagos (59.46), Delta

(57.63) and Anambra

(54.78) had the highest

mean scores. Also, 17

states scored below the

national average with

Gombe (28.98), and

Taraba (32.62) and

Jigawa (33.34) at the

bottom.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

GOMBE

TARABA

JIGAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

BAUCHI

BENUE

KADUNA

NASARAWA

BORNO

KATSINA

ZAMFARA

ADAMAWA

NIGER

KOGI

YOBE

OYO

NATIONAL

AKWA-…ONDO

EKITI

BAYELSA

CROSS…RIVERS

OSUN

ABIA

ENUGU

EDO

KANO

OGUN

KWARA

IMO

FCT

EBONYI

KEBBI

ANAMBRA

DELTA

LAGOS

28.98

32.62

33.34

34.79

34.85

35.51

36.49

37.39

37.94

38.49

40.96

41.24

41.44

41.58

42.05

42.88

43.01

45.02

45.09

45.25

46.13

47.36

47.63

47.68

49.42

49.81

49.85

49.93

50.33

50.78

52.03

52.12

52.57

53.37

53.74

54.78

57.63

59.46

LITERATURE

Figure 7.15: Learners' Achievement in Literature across

82

Cognitive Domain Knowledge Achievement of learners on items which assessed knowledge in figure 7.16 shows a National average of 39.87. Across the states, the national average of learners performance across the states in knowledge is less than 50 percent, however 21 states scored above the national average, these states includes: lagos with the highest Lagos has the highest score of 51.05, next is Anambra (48.37) and then Kebbi (47.95) among 21 states that scored above the National average. Also, 16 states scored below the national average with Gombe (28.36), Benue (30.88) and Taraba (30.94) at the bottom. The score of 28.36 in Gombe to 51.05 in Lagos shows a more homogeneous or normal spread of scores. Achievement of learners on items which assessed knowledge was poor nationally and in 16 states, Fair in 20 states and Good only in one state.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

GOMBE

BENUE

TARABA

JIGAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

KADUNA

BORNO

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

NASARAWA

NIGER

ZAMFARA

OYO

KOGI

AKWA-…NATIONAL

ONDO

YOBE

KATSINA

CROSS…BAYELSA

EKITI

EDO

RIVERS

ABIA

OSUN

ENUGU

KANO

OGUN

IMO

KWARA

FCT

EBONYI

DELTA

KEBBI

ANAMBRA

LAGOS

28.36

30.88

30.94

32.26

32.57

32.69

32.92

34.3

34.37

35.54

36.12

36.21

37.57

38.26

38.43

39.8

39.87

40.07

40.15

40.35

40.62

40.67

40.96

41.25

41.67

43.14

43.41

43.49

43.78

43.79

43.87

44.5

45.7

45.73

46.76

47.95

48.37

51.05

Knowledge (Percent)

Figure 7.16: Learner Achievement in Knowledge across States

83

Comprehension As can be seen in Figure 7.17, National average on items which assessed Comprehension objective level were 45.65. Nineteen states scored above the National average while 18 states scored below. Lagos (57.53), Delta (56.83) and Kwara (53.66) had the top three scores while Gombe (31.01), Taraba (34.46) and Sokoto (36.00) had the least scores. On the whole, achievement on Comprehension sub-test was only Fair as 16 states were with the cluster 40-49 percent. Poor in 10 states (31.01-39.32 percent) but Good in 11 states (51-59 percent).

0 20 40 60 80

GOMBE

TARABA

BENUE

BAUCHI

NASARAWA

ZAMFARA

ADAMAWA

YOBE

KOGI

NATIONAL

AKWA-IBOM

CROSS RIVER

BAYELSA

KEBBI

ABIA

KWARA

EBONYI

IMO

DELTA

38.21

41.95

42.31

42.99

44.62

44.73

44.87

45.05

46.5

48.84

48.86

48.98

51

51.15

52.92

52.97

53.45

54.36

54.81

55.97

56.62

56.71

57.45

58.85

59.36

59.39

60.1

60.44

60.95

60.97

61.07

61.23

62.35

62.93

63.99

66.09

67.04

70.1

Comprehension

Figure 7.17: Learners' Achievement in Comprehension across

84

Higher Order As can be seen in Figure 7.18, National average on Higher Order objective level was 54.81.

State analysis

shows that 19

states scored

above the National

average. A score

range of 38.21 to

70.1 an indication

of a more

heterogeneous

achievement.

Lagos (70.01),

Delta (67.04) and

Anambra (66.09)

had the highest

scores. Whereas

Gombe (38.21),

Jigawa (41.95) and

Taraba (42.31) had

the least scores.

Overall,

achievement was

poor in only one

state, Fair in 11

states, Good in 13

states, Very Good

in 11 states and

Excellent in one

state.

0 20 40 60 80

GOMBE

TARABA

BENUE

BAUCHI

NASARAWA

ZAMFARA

ADAMAWA

YOBE

KOGI

NATIONAL

AKWA-IBOM

CROSS RIVER

BAYELSA

KEBBI

ABIA

KWARA

EBONYI

IMO

DELTA

38.21

41.95

42.31

42.99

44.62

44.73

44.87

45.05

46.5

48.84

48.86

48.98

51

51.15

52.92

52.97

53.45

54.36

54.81

55.97

56.62

56.71

57.45

58.85

59.36

59.39

60.1

60.44

60.95

60.97

61.07

61.23

62.35

62.93

63.99

66.09

67.04

70.1

Higher Order

(Percent)

Figure 7.18: Learner Achievement in Higher Order across States

85

7.4: Relational Analysis

This section explores the relationship between some salient variables and achievement. There

is ample research evidence that some variables could be manipulated or altered to enhance

achievement of learners. The belief is that if these variables which can be manipulated for the

good of the learners are identified, something could be done to enhance achievement.

Therefore, some home and teacher learner-related variables were examined.

7.4.1: Homework Support

The national averages for learners‟ achievement across the different categories of home support were 50.3, 50.1 and 49.7 for low, moderate and high level of Homework support

respectively.

Table 7.6 provides the State level analysis. For low level of assistance with homework, the

state wide results show that learners from 16 states, for example, Lagos (54.2), Kwara (53.9),

FCT (53.6), etc. scored above the national average and learners from 21 states scored below

the national average with Gombe having the lowest score. In respect of moderate assistance

with homework, 17 states scored above the national average and 20 states scored below. The

achievement of learners who received high assistance with homework was such that 18 states

scored above the national average and 19 states scored below the national average.

86

Table 7.6: Homework Support as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies

Low Moderate High

State Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.4 0.8 50.0 0.8 49.1 0.8

ADAMAWA 47.8 0.9 48.7 0.9 50.3 1.1

AKWA-IBOM 50.2 0.6 50.9 0.8 50.0 1.0

ANAMBRA 50.3 0.7 51.9 0.7 51.3 0.9

BAUCHI 50.1 0.9 50.5 0.7 50.7 1.0

BAYELSA 48.6 1.0 48.0 1.1 48.3 1.2

BORNO 45.8 0.8 46.9 0.7 46.1 0.9 BENUE 47.8 8.5 44.7 1.0 44.0 1.5 CROSS RIVER 47.2 0.8 48.4 0.7 48.2 0.8

DELTA 51.7 0.7 53.6 0.7 52.7 1.1

EBONYI 50.5 0.8 51.2 0.6 51.2 1.1

EDO 50.9 1.1 49.3 0.8 48.5 1.1

EKITI 51.6 1.2 51.9 0.5 50.7 0.9

ENUGU 49.8 0.9 50.4 0.7 49.1 0.7

GOMBE 44.7 0.7 45.0 0.5 48.2 1.3

IMO 52.9 0.6 52.4 0.6 51.4 1.2

JIGAWA 48.6 1.6 47.0 0.5 48.9 1.7

KADUNA 47.1 1.0 47.1 0.6 47.7 0.6

KANO 49.9 1.3 48.4 0.9 48.5 1.1

KATSINA 49.9 1.3 49.4 1.0 48.4 1.3

KEBBI 54.7 0.9 56.6 0.7 56.0 1.0

KOGI 48.8 1.1 49.2 0.8 45.8 1.2

KWARA 53.9 0.8 54.7 0.6 53.8 0.8

LAGOS 54.2 0.9 54.2 0.6 53.1 0.8

NASARAWA 46.4 1.0 44.0 0.7 44.5 0.8 NIGER 49.2 1.2 48.6 0.7 50.5 2.6 OGUN 52.1 0.9 51.9 0.8 52.2 0.7 ONDO 52.5 0.9 50.9 0.6 53.9 1.3 OSUN 53.3 0.7 53.6 0.5 52.2 1.0 OYO 52.4 1.0 52.4 0.6 49.9 2.3 PLATEAU 46.5 0.8 47.1 0.6 46.3 1.1 RIVERS 49.0 0.6 49.7 0.6 49.6 1.0 SOKOTO 48.9 1.0 47.5 0.6 48.7 0.8 TARABA 46.0 1.0 44.8 0.6 45.6 0.7 YOBE 52.5 0.9 52.9 0.7 49.6 0.9 ZAMFARA 50.4 1.1 50.0 0.8 51.3 1.0 FCT 53.6 1.8 51.8 1.0 53.0 1.2 National 50.3 0.2 50.1 0.1 49.7 0.2

87

7.4.2 Level of Available Materials

The national averages for learners‟ achievement across the different categories of available

materials were 49.6, 50.2 and 50.13 for low, moderate and high levels.

Variation in achievement with available learning facilities across States is presented in Table

7.7. The same trend in achievement in the national averages, was also observed in Borno,

Niger, Plateau, Yobe and Kwara states. In Benue, Delta, Kogi, Nasarawa and Ondo states, as

level of available resources increase, achievement decreased. With respect to some of the

states no particular trend was observed. When achievement above the National averages were

considered, there were 20, 17 and 16 states for low, moderate and high level of availability

respectively. There were no significant differences within states.

88

Table 7.7 Level of Availability of Learning Materials and Achievement in English

Studies

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.8 1.0 49.8 0.6 48.9 1.0

ADAMAWA 50.1 1.0 47.9 0.7 51.2 2.3

AKWA-IBOM 49.9 0.8 50.6 0.6 50.6 1.2

ANAMBRA 50.8 1.3 51.3 0.5 50.9 0.9

BAUCHI 50.6 0.6 50.3 0.8 50.6 1.2

BAYELSA 48.1 1.0 48.7 0.9 47.8 1.7

BORNO 46.0 0.9 46.5 0.5 47.4 4.0

BENUE 45.1 1.1 44.6 2.1 42.1 1.2

CROSS RIVER 48.2 0.8 47.8 0.6 48.3 1.1

DELTA 53.3 1.1 52.7 0.5 51.9 1.5

EBONYI 51.5 0.9 50.9 0.6 50.5 0.9

EDO 49.9 1.4 49.4 0.7 50.1 1.2

EKITI 52.9 0.9 50.9 0.6 51.4 1.1

ENUGU 49.3 0.9 49.9 0.6 48.8 1.0

GOMBE 45.8 0.6 45.2 0.5 44.0 1.5

IMO 52.8 1.2 52.4 0.5 52.2 1.6

JIGAWA 47.6 0.8 46.9 0.6 48.6 2.0

KADUNA 47.7 0.7 47.4 0.6 45.6 1.1

KANO 49.4 0.9 48.8 1.0 46.5 1.5

KATSINA 49.2 1.2 49.7 0.9 47.0 2.6

KEBBI 55.4 0.9 56.3 0.6 56.0 1.1

KOGI 50.5 1.2 47.9 0.7 47.8 1.5

KWARA 53.1 1.0 54.4 0.5 55.1 1.5

LAGOS 52.5 1.2 54.4 0.6 53.3 0.9

NASARAWA 45.6 0.8 44.3 0.6 43.2 2.7

NIGER 48.5 0.7 49.3 1.0 * *

OGUN 52.0 1.8 52.2 0.5 51.4 1.5

ONDO 52.6 0.8 51.7 0.6 49.8 1.4

OSUN 53.5 0.8 53.1 0.4 55.3 2.6

OYO 51.8 0.8 52.8 0.7 51.2 1.8

PLATEAU 45.8 0.6 47.2 0.6 50.3 1.5

RIVERS 47.7 0.8 50.0 0.5 48.9 1.0

SOKOTO 48.6 0.8 48.1 0.6 47.6 1.1

TARABA 45.4 0.7 45.0 0.5 49.0 2.7

YOBE 51.4 0.7 52.3 0.8 54.1 1.2

ZAMFARA 49.6 0.8 52.0 0.8 49.0 1.4

FCT 51.7 4.3 52.6 1.1 52.7 1.0

National 49.6 0.2 50.2 0.1 50.3 0.2

89

Out of School Non Learning Engagements

At the national level, the mean score of 50.6 (low) 50.0 (moderate) and 49.6 (high) shows that achievement decreased with increase in learners‟ engagement in non-learning activities, although the values were not significant. The number of states performing above the national average for each level of involvement in Table 7.8 shows that learners with moderate and high levels of involvement in non-learning activities were from 18 states each with 18 states and 16 states for low level.

Table 7.8: Out of School Non Learning Engagements as Related to

Achievement

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.9 0.8 50.2 0.7 48.9 0.9

ADAMAWA 48.1 1.1 49.4 1.0 49.1 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 49.9 0.9 50.1 0.6 51.8 1.2

ANAMBRA 50.4 0.7 51.5 0.7 51.4 0.8

BAUCHI 50.8 0.8 49.4 0.8 51.6 0.8

BAYELSA 49.1 1.7 47.9 0.8 48.7 1.1

BORNO 47.0 1.6 46.5 0.6 45.9 1.0

BENUE 44.6 2.7 42.7 2.6 44.8 1.0

CROSS RIVER 49.1 0.9 46.2 0.6 49.0 0.8

DELTA 52.5 0.9 53.1 0.6 51.0 1.1

EBONYI 51.1 0.9 50.7 0.6 51.4 1.0

EDO 47.6 1.4 50.2 0.7 49.1 1.1

EKITI 51.9 0.9 51.6 0.5 51.1 1.5

ENUGU 49.6 1.0 50.1 0.7 49.1 0.7

GOMBE** 44.9 1.0 45.2 0.5 46.1 0.9

IMO 51.9 1.3 52.5 0.5 52.4 0.9

JIGAWA 49.7 1.2 47.4 0.6 44.2 0.8

KADUNA 47.3 0.8 47.3 0.7 47.5 0.7

KANO 50.8 1.4 48.4 1.1 48.0 0.9

KATSINA 49.1 1.2 49.6 1.1 48.9 1.3

KEBBI** 56.8 0.8 55.2 0.7 56.6 1.3

KOGI 46.4 1.4 48.1 0.6 50.3 1.4

KWARA 54.4 0.8 53.7 0.6 55.6 1.0

LAGOS 54.0 0.6 53.9 0.8 53.8 0.9

NASARAWA 44.5 1.1 44.9 0.6 44.8 1.0

NIGER 50.8 2.7 48.6 0.6 47.7 3.3

OGUN 52.2 0.8 52.1 0.7 51.8 1.1

ONDO 50.8 0.8 52.1 0.7 52.2 0.9

OSUN 53.5 0.8 53.2 0.5 52.7 1.0

OYO 54.5 1.1 51.9 0.6 51.4 1.2 PLATEAU 48.3 1.1 46.8 0.6 45.9 0.8 RIVERS 49.0 0.7 49.6 0.6 49.6 1.0 SOKOTO 46.5 0.7 49.1 0.8 48.6 0.8 TARABA 44.5 1.0 44.9 0.6 46.6 0.8

90

YOBE 53.0 0.7 51.8 0.8 50.9 1.0 ZAMFARA 50.4 0.9 50.0 0.8 51.1 1.1 FCT 54.4 1.2 51.4 1.2 51.5 1.2 Total 50.6 0.2 50.0 0.1 49.6 0.2

Occupation of Father

The national averages for learners‟ achievement across the different categories of father‟s occupation were 49.6, 50.2, 50.3 and 50.4 for learners whose fathers‟ occupations were

Farming, Business, Workers and others. However, the mean differences were not significant.

Using the national averages as bench marks for each category of occupation, the number of

states that performed at a level greater than the national averages in the test were 17, 20, 19

and 19 for fathers into farming/fishing, business/trading and workers (public/private) and

others respectively. With this criterion, learners whose fathers are into Business/Trading had

the best achievement among the different occupations as shown in Table 7.9.

91

Table 7.9: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies

Farming /Fishing

Business/ Trading

Worker (Public/Private) Others

State Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 49.2 1.2 50.5 0.9 50.3 1.0 50.3 0.9 ADAMAWA 48.7 1.2 50.1 1.3 48.2 1.1 51.0 3.5 AKWA-IBOM 49.9 1.1 50.5 0.9 50.3 0.9 50.7 1.5 ANAMBRA 50.7 1.2 50.8 0.6 52.1 1.2 52.6 1.1 BAUCHI 49.4 0.7 50.0 1.1 51.5 0.9 53.0 2.5 BAYELSA 48.7 1.7 49.3 1.6 48.5 1.1 48.4 2.7 BORNO 46.0 0.6 45.9 1.3 47.1 1.0 43.1 4.0 BENUE 60.9 * 43.9 0.9 44.6 2.3 * * CROSS RIVER 48.2 1.1 48.6 1.0 47.2 1.1 47.8 0.8 DELTA 53.4 0.9 50.2 1.0 53.5 0.7 52.0 1.2 EBONYI 50.7 1.0 51.9 1.1 50.8 0.8 50.9 1.1 EDO 50.3 0.9 50.7 1.6 49.8 1.0 49.0 2.0 EKITI 50.9 0.8 51.4 1.0 52.4 0.8 49.6 1.1 ENUGU 49.4 1.1 50.6 1.1 49.3 1.0 48.8 1.0 GOMBE 45.0 0.7 44.9 0.8 45.1 0.6 45.1 1.3 IMO 51.9 1.2 53.1 0.7 51.8 0.7 49.1 1.4 JIGAWA 47.5 1.0 48.1 1.1 47.2 0.7 45.6 1.0 KADUNA 48.1 0.7 47.3 0.9 47.0 0.9 45.8 1.5 KANO 49.2 1.1 48.8 1.1 48.4 1.3 47.4 2.1 KATSINA 49.5 1.6 49.1 1.2 48.5 1.2 52.3 4.0 KEBBI 55.5 0.9 54.8 1.0 56.7 0.8 57.7 1.6 KOGI 48.2 0.8 48.6 1.8 47.5 0.9 46.9 2.6 KWARA 54.0 0.8 56.0 1.0 54.4 0.8 53.0 1.0 LAGOS 54.5 1.4 53.1 0.8 54.3 0.8 53.6 1.0 NASARAWA 45.4 1.0 44.4 1.2 44.7 0.9 42.0 0.9 NIGER 48.4 0.7 48.0 1.3 50.2 1.4 57.6 0.9 OGUN 51.2 1.0 53.1 0.9 52.5 1.0 51.1 1.3 ONDO 51.5 0.8 49.2 1.5 52.5 0.7 52.3 1.3 OSUN 53.3 0.6 53.5 0.9 53.4 1.0 52.4 0.9 OYO 51.5 1.0 52.3 0.9 52.6 1.2 52.9 0.9 PLATEAU 47.6 0.8 47.7 1.1 46.1 0.7 46.3 1.2 RIVERS 49.8 1.8 49.0 0.8 50.0 0.8 49.7 0.9 SOKOTO 49.2 0.9 48.2 0.7 47.6 0.9 51.1 3.6 TARABA 44.7 0.6 45.3 0.9 45.9 1.0 45.1 3.1 YOBE 53.1 1.1 51.1 1.0 51.8 0.7 49.8 1.2 ZAMFARA 50.5 0.9 51.4 1.2 49.9 1.1 50.0 2.2 FCT 52.2 2.0 54.1 1.9 52.1 0.9 51.5 5.7 National 49.6 0.2 50.2 0.2 50.3 0.2 50.4 0.3

92

Occupation of Mother

Table 7.10 shows the relationship

between the categories of occupation of

mother and achievement. The mean

scores of 49.0, 50.6, 50.3 and 50.1 were

close and differences were not significant,

although learners whose mothers are into

Business/Trading had the highest National

average of 50.60. State level analysis in

Table 7.10 shows that 21, 14, 19 and 20

states had mean scores greater than their

respective National averages for mothers into Farming, Business, working class and others.

While at the National level Business/Trading shows a better relationship to achievement, at

the state level, farming has more influence. Although, it had the least influence at the

National level.

Table 7.10: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in JS2 Mathematics

Farming/Fishing Business/Trading Worker(Public/ Private) Others

State Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.5 1.2 49.8 0.7 51.1 1.4 50.2 1.0

ADAMAWA 50.2 1.6 49.9 1.2 53.2 3.3 48.0 1.1

AKWA-IBOM 48.8 1.0 50.6 0.6 49.3 1.4 50.5 4.8

ANAMBRA 50.8 1.4 51.5 0.6 49.9 1.0 53.1 1.8

BAUCHI 48.9 1.1 50.8 1.1 52.0 1.5 50.7 0.8

BAYELSA 49.5 1.2 46.9 1.1 51.0 2.0 50.9 3.9

BORNO 46.3 0.7 46.5 1.0 44.5 1.3 48.1 2.4

BENUE 44.4 2.7 47.0 3.5 44.1 1.7 43.1 *

CROSS RIVER 46.8 1.4 47.6 0.8 47.6 1.2 48.3 1.0

DELTA 52.2 0.9 53.4 0.8 52.2 0.8 54.1 2.3

EBONYI 50.4 1.6 50.4 0.6 51.2 1.0 52.9 1.5

EDO 50.8 1.1 49.8 0.8 50.3 1.9 49.3 2.7

EKITI 52.1 2.2 51.6 0.6 51.1 0.9 51.8 1.1

ENUGU 49.3 1.0 49.7 0.7 49.6 1.4 50.9 1.4

GOMBE 44.5 0.8 43.8 0.8 46.6 0.8 45.8 0.7

IMO 53.9 1.5 52.6 0.6 52.4 1.0 51.4 1.4

JIGAWA 45.8 2.3 46.9 0.8 47.9 1.8 47.6 0.8

KADUNA 48.9 1.5 48.1 0.9 46.0 1.1 46.2 1.1

KANO 42.8 2.5 48.3 1.4 49.2 3.9 49.4 0.8

KATSINA * * 48.1 1.1 51.6 3.7 50.0 1.7

KEBBI 60.5 1.8 56.0 0.7 54.7 1.3 55.8 0.8

KOGI 49.3 1.3 47.8 0.8 47.5 2.9 49.3 1.6

KWARA 52.5 1.3 54.1 0.5 55.1 1.3 58.6 1.2

LAGOS 54.7 2.7 53.9 0.6 54.1 1.3 52.1 1.6

45

50

5549

50.6 50.3 50.1

Figure 7.19: Mother's Occupation

93

NASARAWA 44.4 1.0 45.9 1.0 43.3 1.0 42.9 1.1

NIGER 51.9 1.7 47.4 0.7 48.3 1.1 49.0 2.3

OGUN 51.8 1.5 52.0 0.6 52.9 1.3 51.9 2.7

ONDO 51.2 1.0 52.1 0.8 51.0 0.8 54.3 1.7

OSUN 51.3 1.7 53.4 0.4 55.3 1.8 53.7 1.4

OYO 51.6 1.2 52.8 0.8 51.6 1.2 52.3 0.9

PLATEAU 46.4 0.9 47.1 0.8 46.3 1.0 46.6 1.8

RIVERS 49.5 1.4 50.2 0.6 48.7 1.0 47.6 1.2

SOKOTO 45.1 3.8 47.7 0.8 50.7 2.2 48.0 0.7

TARABA 45.6 0.8 46.1 0.9 45.9 1.4 41.8 1.9

YOBE 48.5 2.1 52.1 1.0 55.1 1.6 53.5 1.1

ZAMFARA 51.4 1.9 49.5 1.3 49.1 2.1 50.7 0.8

FCT 47.5 2.7 53.7 1.1 51.9 1.2 53.1 4.8 National 49.0 0.2 50.6 0.1 50.3 0.2 50.1 0.2

Mode of transportation

In Table 7.11, the number of learners who go to school by donkey and canoe were quite small

and are therefore ignored in the discussion presented here. From the results, the best

achievement at the national level was by learners who go to school with Taxi/bus next are

those who take Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle. Using national averages for different modes of

transportation as the bench mark, the number of states in Table 7.11 that performed at a level

greater than the national averages in the test were 17, 15, 14 and 18 states for those who

walked, took Okada/bicycle/tricycle, taxi/bus and family car respectively. Learners who went

to school in family car exhibited the best achievement.

94

Table 7.11: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Achievement in English

Studies

State Walking Donkey Canoe

Okada/Bicycle

/Tricycle Taxi/Bus Family Car

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.7 0.5 * * * * 49.4 1.5 51.9 2.2 53.0 3.2

ADAMAWA 48.9 0.6 40.4 1.4 * * 47.5 1.5 * * 49.4 3.7

AKWA-IBOM 50.5 0.5 47.5 * * * 49.0 1.7 52.5 3.5 50.7 3.5

ANAMBRA 51.1 0.5 * * * * 51.3 1.4 52.3 1.5 49.1 2.7

BAUCHI 50.3 0.5 * * * * 50.2 1.6 50.8 3.4 53.5 2.0

BAYELSA 48.2 0.7 * * * * 47.0 2.5 47.2 1.4 56.4 3.0

BORNO 46.4 0.5 * * 55.4 * 43.8 * 43.4 2.2 47.8 1.3

BENUE 45.4 1.8 * * * * 41.8 * 44.7 1.4 44.3 1.5 CROSS RIVER 47.6 0.5 * * 56.1 7.3 51.1 3.5 50.5 2.3 46.4 2.0

DELTA 52.5 0.5 * * * * 53.5 2.1 54.5 3.0 52.9 1.3

EBONYI 50.9 0.5 * * * * 49.2 1.6 51.9 3.0 52.3 1.7

EDO 49.5 0.6 * * * * 51.2 3.5 46.0 . 49.6 2.4

EKITI 51.4 0.5 * * * * 50.4 1.7 50.6 1.8 53.7 1.3

ENUGU 49.9 0.5 * * * * 47.3 1.9 48.9 1.9 49.7 2.1

GOMBE 45.0 0.4 53.7 1.6 39.8 1.7 47.7 2.5 46.9 1.8 46.0 1.3

IMO 52.4 0.5 * * * * 52.0 1.7 50.3 2.0 54.9 1.9

JIGAWA 47.3 0.5 * * 47.6 . 49.0 3.3 44.6 1.1 45.3 2.2

KADUNA 47.2 0.5 * * * * 47.1 1.2 47.7 2.9 50.2 1.4

KANO 48.7 0.7 * * 46.5 * 50.0 2.1 49.5 2.4 * *

KATSINA 49.3 0.7 * * * * 50.3 2.3 42.6 1.0 49.4 4.1

KEBBI 55.7 0.6 * * * * 57.3 1.1 57.6 2.8 56.1 1.7

KOGI 48.6 0.6 42.2 * * * 40.7 1.7 46.0 3.1 50.2 1.4

KWARA 54.5 0.5 * * 57.7 * 52.3 1.4 55.7 1.7 53.6 2.5

LAGOS 53.8 0.6 * * 54.5 4.5 54.2 1.4 54.3 1.0 53.3 1.4

NASARAWA 44.6 0.6 * * 41.0 1.1 47.0 1.7 42.9 1.7 47.9 1.5

NIGER 49.2 0.7 50.5 * 46.4 * 46.8 2.2 45.7 1.6 49.8 1.3

OGUN 51.4 0.6 * * 60.1 * 54.0 1.2 53.4 1.9 50.6 1.1

ONDO 51.0 0.5 * * * * 54.4 1.8 54.2 1.8 52.5 1.6

OSUN 53.0 0.4 * * * * 53.5 0.8 53.7 1.6 55.3 2.9

OYO 53.0 0.7 52.2 3.2 43.3 2.0 51.5 1.6 53.9 1.5 50.9 0.9

PLATEAU 46.9 0.5 * * 46.7 * 45.9 0.5 46.1 2.0 46.7 1.4

RIVERS 49.7 0.5 * * * * 46.4 1.3 49.5 1.0 51.2 1.4

SOKOTO 48.3 0.5 * * * * 53.6 1.7 46.6 5.1 45.4 1.1

TARABA 45.3 0.4 * * * * 43.9 1.8 43.8 2.8 45.3 1.7

YOBE 52.1 0.5 * * * * 51.2 1.7 51.3 2.3 51.3 2.2

ZAMFARA 50.5 0.6 * * 54.5 2.6 50.5 1.4 50.5 1.9 48.5 2.5

FCT 52.9 1.0 * * * * 51.2 1.8 55.0 3.1 51.9 1.6

National 49.9 0.1 48.1 2.0 49.8 1.7 50.8 0.3 51.0 0.4 50.37 0.3

95

Distance from Home to School In Table 7.12, the relationship between distance from home to school and achievement is such that Learners who covered between 2 and 3 Km has the highest mean score at the national level. Among the States, Kebbi state consistently had the highest achievement for all distances travelled to school with the exception of the distance 1 to 2km while Benue consistently had the lowest scores for all distances travelled to school with the exception of the distance less than 1km. The number of states with mean higher than the national averages was 18, 18, 19 and 16 for the categories less than 1km, 1 to 2km, 2 to 3 Km and more than 3km respectively as can be seen in Table 7.12.

Table 7.12: Distance between learners’ Home and Schools Related to Achievement

Less than 1 Km 1 to 2 Km 2 to 3 Km More than 3 Km

State Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 51.9 0.9 48.9 0.8 48.2 1.0 49.7 0.9

ADAMAWA 48.8 0.9 48.6 0.9 52.1 2.3 47.8 1.8

AKWA-IBOM 49.4 1.0 48.8 0.9 51.5 1.0 51.4 0.7

ANAMBRA 52.4 0.9 50.4 0.8 52.0 1.0 50.3 0.8

BAUCHI 50.5 0.7 50.1 0.8 51.3 1.1 49.4 2.1

BAYELSA 47.9 1.3 48.4 1.2 50.0 1.4 47.3 1.2

BORNO 46.9 0.6 44.6 1.0 46.0 1.4 46.8 1.5

BENUE 45.0 1.5 43.5 1.1 45.0 2.1 42.7 2.6

CROSS RIVER 47.6 0.7 47.6 0.8 50.2 1.4 47.0 1.1

DELTA 52.6 0.8 53.0 0.8 53.5 1.0 51.1 1.3

EBONYI 50.9 0.9 50.4 1.0 52.0 1.1 51.5 0.8

EDO 49.6 0.9 50.0 1.1 48.3 1.3 49.6 1.1

EKITI 51.5 0.7 51.1 0.9 52.0 0.9 52.3 1.2

ENUGU 48.9 1.0 51.1 0.9 50.1 1.1 49.1 0.8

GOMBE 44.7 0.5 46.0 0.9 46.5 1.2 46.0 1.9

IMO 53.0 0.7 52.4 0.7 52.5 1.0 52.3 1.0

JIGAWA 47.7 0.6 46.8 1.0 45.8 1.9 46.0 1.1

KADUNA 47.5 0.6 47.4 0.8 46.1 0.9 47.7 1.2

KANO 48.1 0.7 50.7 1.7 47.9 2.1 53.3 2.1

KATSINA 48.4 0.9 51.3 1.4 49.7 1.8 50.3 3.4

KEBBI 56.5 0.7 54.9 0.9 57.1 1.3 55.4 1.4

KOGI 47.7 0.8 49.2 1.0 47.0 2.1 48.5 1.5

KWARA 53.7 0.6 55.3 0.8 54.3 1.1 53.5 1.1

LAGOS 53.8 1.1 53.8 0.8 53.7 1.0 54.4 0.8

NASARAWA 43.8 0.9 45.8 0.8 45.6 1.3 42.7 1.0 NIGER 48.1 0.6 48.4 1.5 53.0 2.2 51.4 2.8 OGUN 52.4 0.9 52.7 0.9 50.8 0.9 52.8 1.1 ONDO 52.5 0.7 50.1 0.8 52.4 1.2 51.2 1.4 OSUN 53.0 0.8 53.3 0.7 52.9 0.7 53.7 0.8 OYO 52.5 0.9 51.9 0.8 53.9 1.1 51.1 1.1 PLATEAU 46.1 0.6 47.0 1.0 48.0 1.3 47.5 1.3 RIVERS 51.0 1.1 49.2 0.9 48.4 0.9 49.5 0.6 SOKOTO 47.8 0.6 50.8 1.2 46.7 1.1 46.9 2.4

96

Number of Meals Per Day

At the national level in Table 7.13, it is observed that achievement increased with number of

meals taken in a day. The higher the number of meals per day, the higher the level of

achievement in English studies. However, the mean differences were not significant. The

number of states performing above the national averages in Table 7.13 were 15, 20, 15, and

15 for One, Two, Three and Four meal plan respectively. The two meal plan seems to have a

stronger influence on achievement.

TARABA 45.5 0.6 44.2 0.7 46.9 1.3 45.3 1.8 YOBE 52.2 0.6 51.9 1.1 51.6 1.4 49.2 2.7 ZAMFARA 50.0 0.8 51.3 1.0 51.1 1.6 50.6 1.7 FCT 55.0 2.2 51.6 1.7 51.6 1.1 53.5 1.4 National 49.6 0.1 50.1 0.2 50.7 0.2 50.5 0.2

97

Table 7.13: Number of Meals Per Day as Related to Achievement

State Once Twice Thrice Four times

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 43.9 2.2 50.4 1.3 49.7 0.5 53.1 1.8

ADAMAWA 47.9 2.9 49.0 1.3 49.3 0.7 43.7 1.8

AKWA-IBOM 49.6 1.7 51.2 1.3 49.9 0.5 53.7 1.6 ANAMBRA 42.9 2.6 51.3 1.3 51.2 0.5 50.2 1.5

BAUCHI * * 50.0 1.7 50.5 0.5 51.4 2.3

BAYELSA 49.3 2.6 46.9 1.5 48.6 0.8 48.1 2.9

BORNO 45.7 2.9 47.4 1.5 46.3 0.5 46.3 1.4

BENUE 44.7 3.5 45.4 2.4 43.7 0.8 * * CROSS RIVER 47.7 3.0 48.6 1.4 47.9 0.5 46.8 2.2

DELTA 52.8 1.8 53.8 1.0 52.3 0.5 52.0 1.9

EBONYI 52.0 5.3 51.7 1.5 50.6 0.4 55.1 2.6

EDO 48.5 1.8 48.5 1.3 50.1 0.7 47.9 1.3

EKITI 52.0 1.2 51.0 1.3 51.8 0.6 50.1 1.2

ENUGU 46.8 2.2 50.4 1.4 49.5 0.5 52.4 2.4

GOMBE 46.1 0.9 44.7 0.8 45.3 0.6 45.0 1.3

IMO 51.5 2.9 52.2 1.4 52.4 0.5 56.6 *

JIGAWA 46.7 1.8 47.4 1.3 47.4 0.5 48.7 2.4

KADUNA 48.6 2.6 48.7 1.1 47.0 0.4 46.2 2.6

KANO 47.2 1.6 49.2 2.0 49.1 0.7 47.7 3.7

KATSINA 45.7 3.3 49.8 2.6 49.6 0.8 49.1 2.0

KEBBI 59.5 6.2 53.7 1.8 55.9 0.5 56.3 1.1

KOGI 45.9 2.3 49.4 1.3 48.1 0.7 50.7 *

KWARA 53.4 3.0 55.9 1.6 54.2 0.4 50.6 2.7

LAGOS 57.3 4.4 52.5 1.2 54.0 0.5 55.4 1.5

NASARAWA 41.0 1.3 44.0 1.2 45.2 0.6 45.0 1.5

NIGER 48.3 0.7 49.5 1.7 49.3 1.1 48.1 3.6

OGUN 46.6 3.3 52.9 1.4 52.4 0.5 50.4 1.5

ONDO 51.5 1.0 50.4 2.6 52.0 0.6 51.8 1.6

OSUN 52.1 1.1 52.2 0.9 53.3 0.4 54.2 1.3

OYO 52.8 1.0 52.1 0.9 51.5 0.7 58.0 3.6

PLATEAU 47.6 1.9 47.2 0.8 46.6 0.6 47.3 2.5

RIVERS 49.0 1.7 48.1 1.0 49.7 0.5 49.2 1.1

SOKOTO 49.5 2.5 48.5 1.2 48.2 0.5 47.2 1.2

TARABA 46.8 1.4 44.6 0.6 45.3 0.6 47.5 3.3

YOBE 52.7 1.1 51.3 1.1 52.0 0.6 51.8 2.7

ZAMFARA 49.4 1.7 53.0 1.3 50.2 0.7 51.8 1.8

FCT 50.3 * 55.2 2.5 52.2 0.9 52.2 1.5

National 49.3 0.3 49.6 0.2 50.2 0.1 50.7 0.3

98

Possession of Textbook in English Studies Nationally, achievement of learners without textbooks (49.7) was lower than that of learners

with textbooks (50.3). At the state level, 18 states had mean scores higher than the National

average for learners who do not possess Textbooks. While only 16 states had mean score

above the National average for Possession of Textbooks. Table 7.14: Learners’ Possession of Textbook in English Language as Related to

Performance

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 50.0 0.8 49.7 0.6 ADAMAWA 48.8 0.8 49.3 0.9 AKWA-IBOM 50.1 0.6 51.0 0.7 ANAMBRA 50.9 0.8 51.2 0.6 BAUCHI 49.7 0.7 51.1 0.7 BAYELSA 48.4 1.1 48.3 0.8 BORNO 45.9 0.6 46.6 0.7 BENUE 43.2 1.7 45.6 1.0 CROSS RIVER 47.8 0.8 47.9 0.6 DELTA 52.6 0.8 52.9 0.6 EBONYI 50.8 0.8 51.0 0.5 EDO 48.8 0.9 50.0 0.7 EKITI 51.0 0.8 51.5 0.5 ENUGU 49.9 0.7 49.5 0.6 GOMBE 45.5 0.6 45.4 0.6 IMO 52.3 0.9 52.6 0.5 JIGAWA 47.1 0.7 47.5 0.7 KADUNA 47.3 0.5 47.4 0.7 KANO 49.7 1.2 48.5 0.8 KATSINA 49.4 1.0 49.2 0.9 KEBBI 57.1 1.0 55.5 0.6 KOGI 49.7 1.3 47.9 0.6 KWARA 53.6 0.6 54.4 0.6 LAGOS 54.2 0.9 53.9 0.5 NASARAWA 44.2 0.7 45.1 0.8 NIGER 48.8 0.7 48.8 0.9 OGUN 52.3 0.8 51.8 0.6 ONDO 52.4 1.2 51.6 0.5 OSUN 53.1 0.6 53.6 0.5 OYO 51.8 0.6 52.9 0.8 PLATEAU 47.8 0.7 46.3 0.5 RIVERS 49.6 0.8 49.5 0.5 SOKOTO 48.5 0.6 47.8 0.6 TARABA 45.0 0.7 45.5 0.6 YOBE 51.6 0.7 52.2 0.7 ZAMFARA 50.6 0.8 50.2 0.8 FCT 52.0 1.1 52.9 0.9 National 49.7 0.1 50.3 0.1

99

Liking Teacher

Table 7.15: Liking the Teacher as Related to Performance in English Studies

Table 7.15 illustrates the relationship between Liking Teachers and achievement at the National level. Learners who like their Teachers had a higher mean score of 50.1.

While those who did not like teachers had 47.9. Also, in Table 7.15, 9 states had mean scores greater than the national average for learners who did not like their teachers and 17 states for learners who liked their teachers. However, learners in 13 states withheld their responses on dislike for teachers. From the observations in Table 7.15, the variable Liking Teacher has strong relationship to achievement at this level of investigation. The achievement of learners who like their teachers was therefore better than that of learners who do not like their teachers.

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA * * 49.8 0.5

ADAMAWA 46.1 2.6 49.3 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 50.4 0.5

ANAMBRA 40.7 * 51.2 0.4

BAUCHI 45.0 3.5 50.5 0.5

BAYELSA * * 48.3 0.6

BORNO * * 46.2 0.5

BENUE 40.7 * 44.6 0.9

CROSS RIVER 42.4 * 48.0 0.5

DELTA * * 52.8 0.5

EBONYI 45.1 2.1 51.0 0.4

EDO 48.7 4.2 49.6 0.6

EKITI * * 51.5 0.4

ENUGU 47.6 4.2 49.7 0.4

GOMBE 38.2 * 45.4 0.5

IMO * * 52.4 0.4

JIGAWA 46.6 1.8 47.6 0.5

KADUNA * * 47.2 0.4

KANO 45.1 * 48.8 0.6

KATSINA * * 49.6 0.7

KEBBI * * 56.3 0.5

KOGI * * 48.4 0.6

KWARA 53.3 * 54.2 0.4

LAGOS * * 53.9 0.5

NASARAWA 38.5 * 44.7 0.5

NIGER 48.9 1.3 48.8 0.6

OGUN 45.7 3.0 52.2 0.5

ONDO * * 51.8 0.5

OSUN 48.6 0.5 53.4 0.4

OYO 55.1 2.9 52.4 0.5

PLATEAU 47.2 1.6 46.9 0.5

RIVERS 48.8 1.9 49.4 0.4

SOKOTO 50.6 3.2 48.2 0.5

TARABA 45.5 * 45.4 0.4

YOBE 50.0 * 52.0 0.5

ZAMFARA 49.9 6.0 50.5 0.6

FCT 46.7 * 52.6 0.7

National 47.9 0.7 50.1 0.1

100

Liking for Schooling

At the National level, average achievement of learners who like schooling is 50.01. Unlike

their counterparts, theirs was smaller than those that did not like schooling (49.9) in Table

7.16. Among the states, eight had mean scores greater than the national average for learners

who do not like schooling and 17 states had mean greater than for learners who like

schooling. The achievement of learners who like schooling was therefore better than that of

learners who do not like schooling as shown in Table 7.16. The results indicate a strong

relationship between Liking for schooling and achievement in English studies at the Junior

Secondary two level.

Table 7.16: Liking for Schooling as Related to Achievement in JS2 English Studies

State No Yes

Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error

ABIA 47.3 4.5 49.9 0.5

ADAMAWA * * 49.1 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 50.4 0.5

ANAMBRA 55.8 8.8 51.1 0.4

BAUCHI 49.8 2.3 50.7 0.5

BAYELSA 46.4 * 48.4 0.6

BORNO * * 46.0 0.5

BENUE 45.1 0.8 44.5 0.9

CROSS RIVER 43.0 6.3 48.0 0.4

DELTA 54.8 7.7 52.7 0.5

EBONYI * * 51.0 0.4

EDO * * 49.9 0.6

EKITI * * 51.5 0.5

ENUGU * * 49.7 0.5

GOMBE 54.5 * 44.9 0.5

IMO * * 52.4 0.4

JIGAWA 49.3 3.5 47.4 0.5

KADUNA * * 47.1 0.4

KANO * * 48.9 0.6

KATSINA 56.7 * 49.4 0.7

KEBBI 46.8 * 56.1 0.5

KOGI 51.2 * 48.4 0.6

KWARA 55.0 * 54.3 0.4

LAGOS 49.2 * 54.0 0.6

NASARAWA * * 44.6 0.5

NIGER 52.2 2.9 48.6 0.6

OGUN 66.0 * 52.0 0.5

ONDO 48.3 2.7 51.7 0.5

OSUN * * 53.3 0.4

OYO 46.4 * 52.4 0.6

PLATEAU 39.3 * 47.0 0.5

101

RIVERS * * 49.4 0.4

SOKOTO 47.1 4.0 48.2 0.5

TARABA * * 45.4 0.4

YOBE * * 52.0 0.5

ZAMFARA 47.7 4.7 50.5 0.6

FCT * * 52.6 0.7

National 49.9 1.0 50.1 0.1

Observation and Challenges

Lagos state consistently performed best among all the states while Gombe State performed

least. This could require finding out what Lagos state is doing well and what Gombe State is

not doing well to chart a good course for educational development

102

Chapter Eight

Achievement in Mathematics

Introduction The achievement related results and relational analysis are presented in this chapter. In particular, the chapter focuses on achievement at national, geo-political zone and state levels then concludes with relational analysis of non-cognitive variables with achievement.

8.1 National Achievement This sub-section presents results of essay and multiple choice tests; range and percentile; group achievement along gender (male and female), school location (urban and rural); school type (public and private); and finally achievement in content and cognitive domains. 8.1.1 National Average

Figure 8.1 shows the National mean score of 50.01 and standard error of 0.12 for Multiple

choice test and mean 49.92 and standard error of 0.12 for Essay test. These values show little variation that is statistically not significant.

8.1.2 Range and percentile

The range shows the spread or cluster of scores while the percentile indicates the relative

standing of learner‟s score vis-a-vis scores of other learners. The scores were categorised into

five clusters: 0-39, 40-49, 50-59 and 60-69 and above in arroding with the National Grading

cluster for Basic Schools. From Figure 8.2 it was observed that for the Multiple choice test

the score cluster within which the largest number of scores fell was 50-59 (33.5 percent of

learners) and for the Essay Test it was 40-49 (62.2 percent of learners). Furthermore, 164

percent failed the Multiple Choice test unlike the Essay test no learner fell within the Cluster

0-39 percent. At the upper cluster, 2 percent has excellent scores on the Multiple Choice test

while 6 percent obtained excellent scores on the Essay Test. On the whole, achievement on

the Multiple Choice test was Good for a larger population of the learners but only Fair on the

Essay Test.

49.8

50

50.2

MULTIPLE

CHOICE

ESSAY

50.01 49.92

Figure 8.1: Achievement of Learners in

the Multiple Choice and Essay Tests

103

Figure 8.3 presents the percentile for

the Multiple Choice and Essay tests

for Mathematics achievement.

Learners who scored 36.81, 41.77,

49.88, 58.02 and 63.77 achieved

higher than 10 percent, 25 percent,

50 percent, 75 percent and 90

percent of learners who took the

Multiple Choice test. Learners who

scored 40.52, 40.52, 45.89, 56.63

and 64.69 performed better than 10

percent, 25 percent,

Figure 8.2: percentile Scores in Multiple Choice and Essay Tests 50 percent, 7 5 percent and 90 percent of learners who took the Essay test. It was observed that at the 10th and 90th percentiles achievement in the Essay test was higher than that of the multiple choice test; while other percentiles of the multiple choice was better than that of the Essay test achievement. 8.1.3 Group Performances

Three groups were used, these are gender (male and female); school location (urban and rural) and school type (urban and rural).

Figure 8.3: Mean Scores of Learners’ Achievement

in Essay and Multiple Choice by Gender

8.1.4: Performance by School Gender

Figure 8.4 shows that on the average, female learners had higher mean scores than the male learners in both test forms, however, the differences were not significant. The achievement of female in Multiple Choice test was 50.52 while that of male learners was 49.84. Male learners had a mean of 49.95 and the female learners a mean score of 49.88 in Essay test.

10 25 50 75 90

Multiple Choice 36.81 41.77 49.88 58.02 63.77

Essay 40.52 40.52 45.89 56.63 64.69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70A

xis

Tit

le

49.84 49.95

50.52

49.88

49.4

49.6

49.8

50

50.2

50.4

50.6

Mltiple Choice Essay

Male Female

Multiple Choice

Multiple Choice

104

8.1.5: Performance by School Location

Figure 8.5 shows that learners in urban and rural schools obtained mean scores with little variations in the two tests forms. The achievement of learners from urban schools in Essay test was 49.95 while that of rural schools was 49.8. Similarly, the achievement of learners in urban schools was 50.11 and learners in rural schools 50.0 in multiple choice test.

Figure 8.4: Mean Scores of Learners’ Achievement in Essay and Multiple Choice by School Location

8.2.1: Achievement of Geo-political Zone

Figure 8.6 and 8.7 provide details of achievement level of learners on the Test Forms

Figure 8.5: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Test across Geopolitical Zones

45.85

49.00 49.24 49.28 50.16

52.55

54.47

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

Multiple Choice test

National average scores 50.16

The South East and South

West achieved higher than

national averages

Highest mean score of 54.47

was by learners in South East.

While the lowest mean score

of 45.85 was for learners in

North East

Mltiple Choice Essay

50.11 49.95 50

49.8

URBAN RURAL

Multiple Choice

105

Figure 8.6: Distribution of Learners Average Scores in Essay Test across Geopolitical

Zones

8.2.2 Group Achievement across the Geo-Political Zones

Gender

In the Essay test the score range for male learner was 49.27 (North Central) to 50.69 (South South) and for female learners 48.61 (South East) to 50.68 (South West). These values indicate little variations within and between gender types. Score ranges in Multiple Choice test were 44.88 (North East) to 54.46 (South West). There was greater score variation in the Multiple choice test scores.

Table 8.1 also shows greater gender variation in Essay test than in the Multiple Choice test for learners in North East. Whereas score variation was greater among learners in South East and South West on the Multiple Choice test. However, these differences were not

statistically significant.

North East had the lowest mean score for both male and female learners

(44.88 and 47.11) in the Multiple Choice test while South West had the highest (54.46 and 54.48). The mean differences between male learners in the North East and South West zones and female learners in both zones were statistically significant.

49.06

49.33

49.70 49.92

50.08

50.52 50.64

48.00

48.50

49.00

49.50

50.00

50.50

51.00

Table 8.1: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of

Mathematics Achievement in Multiple Choice

and Essay Tests for Zones by Gender

Zones Essay Multiple Choice

Male Female Male Female Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

North Central

49.27 0.44 49.40 0.44 48.76 0.45 49.26 0.47

North East 50.44 0.39 49.63 0.43 44.88 0.35 47.11 0.43 North West 49.40 0.33 50.16 0.43 49.73 0.38 48.49 0.47 South East 49.56 0.43 48.61 0.39 52.58 0.35 52.52 0.36 South South

50.69 0.43 50.59 0.43 48.94 0.37 49.61 0.36

South West 50.36 0.40 50.68 0.31 54.46 0.34 54.48 0.33

Essay Test

National average was 50.08 The South East and South West

learners achieved above the national average

Achievement scores were more homogeneous with a range of 49.06 to 50.64, than on the Multiple Choice Test

Variations within and across test forms are not statistically significant.

106

School Location

Achievements in Mathematics by location for the six zones are given in Table 8.2.

As can be seen in Table 8.2, achievement scores in the Essay test for urban and rural learners hang together, with a range of 48.93 (North Central) to 50.76 (South West) for urban and 48.92 (South East) to 50.64 (South South). Achievement in the multiple choice test shows greater variations than in the Essay test scores. The scores ranged from 45.58 (North East) to 54.45 (South West) for urban learners and 45.50 (North East) to 54.56 (South West) for rural learners.

Similar to the observations for gender, North East learners had the lowest mean scores for both locations (urban = 45.88, Rural = 45.80) in the Multiple choice test. Whereas, South West had the highest (Urban = 54.55, rural = 54.56). The mean differences between scores for urban learners in North East and South West or rural learners in both zones are statistically significant.

8.3: Learners’ Achievement at State Level This section presents learners‟ achievement in Essay and Multiple Choice test at state level as well as group-based achievement in terms of gender (male and female), school location (urban and rural) and in Content and Cognitive domains.

Figure 8.8 displays achievement mean scores on Multiple Choice and Essay test forms. Test scores on Essay test are given in parentheses with a National average of 50.0 while in Multiple Choice test is also 50.0. Learners in 15 States scored above the National average for Multiple Choice test and only 12 states were above National average for Essay test.

A detailed examination of state level achievement shows the following:

Score range on Multiple choice test was 40.0 (Gombe) to 61.0 (Kebbi), and on the Essay test 49.0 (Abia and 15 other states) to 52 (in Akwa Ibom and Oyo), indicating a greater variation in learners‟ achievement in the Multiple Multiple Choice.

Learners in six states scored above the National averages for the Multiple Choice and Essay test forms: Kebbi (61 and 51), Lagos (57, 51) Oyo (53, 52) Ondo (53, 51), Ogun (53, 51) and Yobe (53, 51).

Table 8.2: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of Performance in Multiple

Choice and Essay Tests for Zones by Location

Zone ESSAY MULTIPLE CHOICE

URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

North Central 48.93 0.42 49.83 0.48 48.46 0.45 48.77 0.49

North East 50.56 0.40 49.39 0.42 45.88 0.36 45.80 0.41

North West 49.34 0.37 49.80 0.38 49.42 0.43 49.34 0.37

South East 49.12 0.41 48.92 0.41 52.78 0.35 52.26 0.36

South South 50.52 0.42 50.64 0.45 49.02 0.35 49.72 0.39

South West 50.76 0.37 50.22 0.41 54.45 0.32 54.56 0.35

107

The highest achieving state on the multiple choice test was Kebbi with a mean score of 61.0 while the least was Gombe with a mean score of 40.0. On the Essay, the highest mean score of 52.0 was obtained by Akwa Ibom and Oyo states. However, Abia and 15 other states had the lowest mean score of 49.0.

8.3.1 Achievement in Essay and Multiple Choice Tests

Figure 8.7: Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in Mathematics

Note:

i. Learners‟ score in Multiple Choice are out of the parentheses

ii. Learners‟ score in Essay are in parentheses

8.3.2: Group Performances across the States

Gender

Table 8.3 provides the following achievement data:

i. National Average = 49.84 and 50.52 for male and female learners in the Multiple choice, and 49.95 and 49.82 in the Essay test.

48(49) 41(49)

61(51))

47 (49)

49 (50)

47(50)

59(49) 53(52)

53(51)

57(51)

52(49)

55 (50)

49(49)

44(51))

45(49)

53(51)

51(49

40(51)

41(50)

48(51))

46(50)

56(49) 49(50) 46(51)

49 (52)

41(49)

43(50)

47(51) 45(49)

55(50) 54(49)

53(49)

51(49

50(49))

53(50)

58(49)

53(51)

National Average

Score = 50(50)

108

ii. Score range males 40.00 (Gombe) to 61.01 (Kebbi) and females 37.48 (Benue) to 61.52 (Kebbi) on the Multiple choice test. Whereas, on the Essay test, males 45.76 (Benue) to 51.7 (Akwa Ibom) and females 47.70 (Plateau) to 52.84 (Bayelsa).

iii. Differences in score range in Multiple Choice test: 20.6 for males and 24.04 for females, and on the Essay test 5.95 and 5.14 for male and female learners respectively. These values show wider variation in achievement on the test forms in favour of Multiple Choice test. Within test forms achievement is more homogeneous between the sexes in the Essay test than in the Multiple Test.

iv. State level analysis shows that in comparison with the National Average males in 19 States and females in 17 states scored above the National averages for Multiple Choice test. On the Essay test, male learners in 21 states and female learners in 18 states obtained scores above their respective National Averages.

v. Learners in the following states; Kebbi Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Yobe and FCT scored above the National Averages in both tests.

vi. The highest achievement was from female learners in Kebbi state (61.52) and the lowest also was the female learners in Benue State (37.48).

Table 8.3: Multiple Choice Test and Essay Tests Score in Mathematics by Gender

State

Multiple Choice Essay

Male Female Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 50.19 0.88 51.74 0.78 48.92 0.92 48.33 0.84

ADAMAWA 45.70 0.96 49.34 1.14 50.77 1.05 50.28 1.21

AKWA-IBOM 48.94 0.96 49.32 0.71 51.71 1.05 51.68 0.95

ANAMBRA 53.47 0.74 53.75 0.77 49.22 1.01 48.32 0.86

BAUCHI 51.02 1.01 51.98 0.80 50.23 0.99 48.58 0.95

BAYELSA 44.29 0.84 46.97 0.81 49.58 1.29 52.84 1.78

BORNO 43.45 0.73 42.29 0.76 49.11 0.94 50.97 1.15

BENUE 43.69 1.12 37.48 0.53 45.76 1.61 51.26 2.66

CROSS RIVER 46.36 0.76 45.05 0.86 50.62 0.98 49.75 1.01

DELTA 54.73 0.76 55.80 0.82 49.97 0.96 50.57 1.00

EBONYI 53.02 0.72 51.99 0.79 50.17 0.97 48.60 0.92

EDO 47.74 0.79 48.82 0.82 51.48 1.21 50.25 1.13

EKITI 53.14 0.71 53.34 0.89 49.79 0.90 50.03 0.92

ENUGU 50.44 0.70 49.64 0.79 48.83 0.89 49.81 0.89

GOMBE 40.14 0.43 40.49 0.77 51.37 0.88 48.69 1.05

IMO 55.75 0.71 55.53 0.74 50.64 1.04 47.99 0.82

JIGAWA 46.26 0.83 44.13 0.83 49.79 0.89 48.68 0.95

KADUNA 43.72 0.70 43.48 0.71 50.92 0.93 51.43 0.96

KANO 50.05 1.26 47.06 1.47 48.13 0.87 49.66 1.39

KATSINA 49.38 1.23 46.84 1.72 48.97 0.95 52.14 1.40

KEBBI 61.01 0.77 61.52 0.91 50.74 0.96 50.94 1.21

KOGI 48.61 0.97 46.37 1.03 49.24 1.07 49.07 1.02

KWARA 58.82 0.88 60.10 0.71 48.44 0.92 49.46 0.94

LAGOS 56.59 0.90 56.78 0.74 50.52 1.04 51.60 0.91

109

State

Multiple Choice Essay

Male Female Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE NASARAWA 40.84 0.68 41.19 0.72 47.85 1.22 49.32 1.22

NIGER 46.75 1.07 47.90 0.99 50.10 1.14 50.51 1.24

OGUN 52.87 0.85 53.84 0.79 50.74 1.15 50.75 1.07

ONDO 52.91 0.85 52.58 0.96 50.95 0.87 50.35 1.04

OSUN 57.97 0.75 57.48 0.59 48.44 0.93 49.08 0.77

OYO 53.70 0.84 51.88 0.83 51.70 1.07 52.18 0.92

PLATEAU 44.49 0.68 44.85 0.76 50.26 0.98 47.70 0.89

RIVERS 47.95 0.76 49.45 0.74 50.61 0.97 49.58 0.85

SOKOTO 47.20 0.61 47.52 0.80 48.88 0.81 49.13 0.97

TARABA 41.18 0.56 40.74 0.60 50.39 0.90 48.79 1.02

YOBE 51.79 0.94 55.01 0.91 50.51 1.07 50.58 0.96

ZAMFARA 51.82 0.98 52.74 1.60 48.42 0.71 49.79 1.37

FCT 55.66 1.35 54.00 1.27 50.70 1.71 50.35 1.28

NATIONAL 49.84 0.16 50.52 0.17 49.95 0.16 49.88 0.17

Location

As can be seen in Table 8.4:

i. National average scores in the Multiple choice test were 50.11 (urban) and 50.0 (rural). While in the Essay test, the values are 49.95 (urban) and 49.90 (Rural).

ii. Score ranges: Multiple choice test were 40.39 (Nasarawa) to 60.87 (Kebbi) for urban learners and 39.94 (Gombe) to 61.43 (Kebbi) among rural learners. In the Essay test, score range for urban learners was 47.73 (Nasarawa) to 52.69 (Akwa Ibom) and for rural learners the values were 47.63 (Kano) to 52.82 (Oyo).

Further examination of the results reveal differences in the score range of 20.48 (urban) and 21.09 (rural) in the Multiple choice test and 4.96 (urban) and 5.19 (rural) in the Essay test. These were internal homogeneity in achievement by location and test forms, but male variations between test forms. The learners irrespective of location demonstrated significantly higher achievement in the Multiple choice test than Essay test.

iii. Learners in 17 states each scored above their respective National average on the Multiple choice test. While learners in 17 and 15 states scored above their respective National averages on the Essay test learners in Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Yobe and FCT scored above the respective National averages for type of location and test forms.

iv. Learners in rural schools in Kebbi state had the highest mean score of 61.43 while their counterparts in Gombe state had the lowest mean score of 39.94.

110

Table 8.4: Multiple Choice and Essay Test Scores by School Location

State

Multiple Choice Essay

Urban Rural Urban Rural

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 51.45 0.78 50.56 0.88 48.58 0.82 48.60 0.94

ADAMAWA 47.20 1.07 47.69 1.06 50.95 1.17 50.15 1.10

AKWA-IBOM

49.55 0.91 48.85 0.76 52.69 1.14 50.97 0.88

ANAMBRA 53.93 0.77 53.31 0.76 49.45 0.99 48.04 0.87

BAUCHI 51.44 0.96 51.51 0.88 50.62 1.10 47.92 0.76

BAYELSA 45.48 0.69 * * 51.08 1.29 * *

BORNO 42.82 0.66 43.26 0.91 50.84 0.96 48.27 1.08

BENUE 40.59 0.79 * * 48.51 1.60 * *

CROSS RIVER

44.62 0.77 47.03 0.84 49.81 0.95 50.67 1.05

DELTA 55.15 0.78 55.31 0.79 49.37 0.88 51.08 1.05

EBONYI 52.73 0.76 52.09 0.83 49.14 1.04 49.32 0.92

EDO 49.38 0.72 47.08 0.90 51.67 1.17 49.85 1.15

EKITI 53.01 0.83 53.75 0.77 50.25 0.95 49.57 0.90

ENUGU 50.11 0.75 49.93 0.75 49.95 0.90 48.73 0.88

GOMBE 40.59 0.55 39.94 0.52 50.52 0.99 50.52 0.97

IMO 56.00 0.75 55.27 0.70 48.53 0.87 49.98 0.99

JIGAWA 45.30 0.72 45.31 1.02 49.37 0.83 49.17 1.06

KADUNA 44.56 0.95 43.13 0.58 50.99 1.14 51.25 0.82

KANO 48.55 1.29 49.56 1.48 49.47 1.08 47.63 0.99

KATSINA 48.28 1.66 48.76 1.27 49.94 1.38 49.95 0.98

KEBBI 60.87 0.96 61.43 0.89 49.23 1.12 50.66 1.23

KOGI 47.20 1.06 47.99 0.96 47.90 0.97 50.28 1.10

KWARA 59.24 0.85 59.37 0.90 48.55 0.94 49.38 1.12

LAGOS 57.13 0.74 56.08 0.90 51.90 0.94 49.97 0.98

NASARAWA 40.39 0.62 41.68 0.78 47.73 1.04 49.47 1.39

NIGER 47.85 1.02 46.67 1.07 50.66 1.31 49.90 1.05

OGUN 53.43 0.84 53.34 0.79 51.48 1.10 50.00 1.11

ONDO 52.95 0.67 51.06 1.90 50.70 0.69 50.75 2.45

OSUN 58.42 0.70 57.15 0.62 48.82 0.89 48.81 0.79

OYO 52.62 0.81 52.68 0.88 51.10 1.02 52.82 0.95

PLATEAU 44.74 0.67 44.54 0.76 48.75 0.91 49.56 1.01

RIVERS 48.77 0.75 48.75 0.79 49.83 0.87 50.26 0.97

SOKOTO 47.20 0.71 47.46 0.67 48.46 0.85 49.49 0.91

TARABA 40.54 0.48 41.92 0.78 50.06 0.86 48.93 1.08

111

State

Multiple Choice Essay

Urban Rural Urban Rural

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

YOBE 54.30 0.79 51.77 1.18 50.65 0.89 50.34 1.21

ZAMFARA 52.62 1.07 51.18 1.32 48.89 0.79 48.71 1.10

FCT 53.66 1.27 56.06 1.35 50.46 1.32 50.52 1.63

NATIONAL 50.11 0.16 50.00 0.17 49.95 0.16 49.80 0.17

112

8.4: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics Based on Content Domain

Number and Numeration

Figure 8.8 shows a National achievement of 58.59 in the Content Number and Numeration with a range of 37.82 (Gombe) and 80.32 (Kebbi). Seventeen states and the FCT scored above the National Average. The three top achieving states were Kebbi (80.32), Kwara (78.05) and Osun (75.68). While the lowest achievers were Taraba (37.82), Nasarawa (38.82) and Gombe (37.82). The results indicate excellent achievement in the Content Number and Numeration.

Fig 8.8: Achievement of Learners across States Based on Content (Number and

Numeration)

0 20 40 60 80 100

GOMBE

NASARAWA

TARABA

BENUE

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

BAYELSA

CROSS RIVER

JIGAWA

SOKOTO

NIGER

KATSINA

ADAMAWA

KOGI

KANO

EDO

RIVERS

AKWA-IBOM

NATIONAL

ENUGU

ZAMFARA

ABIA

BAUCHI

YOBE

EBONYI

OGUN

OYO

EKITI

ONDO

ANAMBRA

FCT

DELTA

IMO

LAGOS

OSUN

KWARA

KEBBI

37.82

38.82

39.75

39.86

43.84

44.81

47.33

48.78

49.26

49.43

50.2

51.74

53.11

53.35

53.79

55.11

55.26

55.88

56.23

58.59

60.05

60.11

60.37

61.89

63.26

64.7

64.93

64.97

65.03

65.03

66.27

68.59

69.25

70.47

72.79

75.68

78.05

80.32

113

Basic Operation As can be seen in Figure 8.9, the National Average was 61.28 with a score range of 37.62 (Gombe) to 84.86 (Kebbi) and difference in score range of 47.24.

Learners in 16 states and the FCT scored above the National Average.

The three top achievers were Kebbi, Kwara and Osun with mean scores of 84.86, 81.95 and 78.53 respectively, whereas, the three lowest achievers were from Gombe, Taraba and Benue with mean scores of 37.62, 39.80 and 40.76 respectively.

The results revealed a wider variation in achievement among learners in the state as well as indicate the least, a very Good achievement.

Fig 8.9: Achievement of Learners across States based on Content (Basic Operation)

0 20 40 60 80 100

GOMBE

BENUE

BORNO

PLATEAU

CROSS RIVER

ADAMAWA

KOGI

KANO

SOKOTO

AKWA-IBOM

NATIONAL

BAUCHI

ONDO

OYO

EKITI

OGUN

DELTA

LAGOS

KWARA

37.62

39.8

40.76

40.99

44.5

46.5

49.05

49.63

50.13

50.41

54.09

55.7

55.79

55.87

57.42

57.59

57.69

57.84

58.11

61.03

61.28

63.7

63.81

65.27

67.28

67.6

68.13

68.61

69.12

69.16

69.23

71.6

73.48

73.95

76.19

78.53

81.95

84.86

114

Algebraic Process

In Figure 8.10, achievement at the National level in Algebraic Process was a mean of 56.35 percent. Score distribution for the state shows a range of 39.2 (Gombe) to 74.66 (Kebbi) a difference of 36.46. Apart from Gombe, all other states scored about 40.0 percent while 18 states had mean scores above the National Average. Learners in the three top achieving states were Kebbi with a mean score of 74.66, Kwara 73.49 and Osun 69.90. The least achievers were from Gombe with a mean score of 39.2. Nasarawa 40.4 and Taraba 40.72 since the National pass mark is 40 percent, achievement at the National level was Good. While achievement ranged from Fair in a few nine states, Good in 13 states, Very Good in 12 states and Excellent in Kebbi and Kwara states.

Fig 8.10: Achievement of Learners across States on Algebraic Process

0 20 40 60 80

GOMBE

NASARAWA

TARABA

BENUE

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

JIGAWA

CROSS RIVER

BAYELSA

NIGER

SOKOTO

KOGI

ADAMAWA

KATSINA

EDO

KANO

RIVERS

AKWA-IBOM

NATIONAL

ENUGU

ABIA

BAUCHI

ZAMFARA

YOBE

EBONYI

ONDO

OYO

EKITI

OGUN

ANAMBRA

FCT

DELTA

IMO

LAGOS

OSUN

KWARA

KEBBI

39.2

40.4

40.72

41.72

44.48

44.88

47.1

48.39

48.7

48.73

50.39

50.51

51.5

51.81

52.97

54.02

54.23

54.24

54.8

56.35

56.79

58.18

58.49

58.59

60.66

60.75

61.08

61.34

61.53

61.56

62.41

64.1

64.5

65.41

67.92

69.9

73.49

74.66

115

Geometric Mensuration

Achievement details on Geometric Mensuration are provided in Figure 8.11. As can be seen the National average was 51.17. State analysis shows that 18 states had mean scores above the National average, with score range of 34.26 (Benue) to 71.41 (Kebbi) and a difference of 37.15. There was wide variation in achievement across the states with five states: Borno, Nasarawa, Taraba, Gombe and Benue scored below that National pass mark. The top three achievers were from Kebbi with a mean score of 71.41, Kwara 65.6 and Osun 62.40. While the three lowest achievers were learner from Taraba, 36.35, Gombe 35.75 and Benue 34.26.

General achievement on this content was Fair in 13 states and Good in 15 States.

Fig 8.11: Achievement of Learners across States on Geometric Mensuration

0 20 40 60 80

BENUE

GOMBE

TARABA

NASARAWA

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

JIGAWA

BAYELSA

CROSS RIVER

EDO

NIGER

ADAMAWA

KOGI

SOKOTO

RIVERS

ENUGU

AKWA-IBOM

KANO

NATIONAL

KATSINA

ABIA

BAUCHI

EBONYI

OYO

ONDO

ANAMBRA

EKITI

OGUN

ZAMFARA

FCT

YOBE

DELTA

IMO

LAGOS

OSUN

KWARA

KEBBI

34.26

35.75

36.35

36.65

39.35

40.71

42.19

43.02

43.36

44.21

46.66

47.1

47.15

47.25

47.59

48.2

49.48

49.6

50.34

51.17

51.21

51.91

53.52

53.77

54.37

54.48

55.84

55.96

56.14

56.87

58.05

58.73

59.45

59.61

61.01

62.4

65.6

71.41

116

Everyday Mathematics

Figure 8.12 shows achievement data on Everyday Mathematics content. National average was 55.7 and only 18 states scored above the value. State analysis presents a range of 33.74 (Benue) to 75.14 (Kwara) and a difference of 41.4, an indication of wider variation among the states. Learners in the top three achieving states were from Kwara with a mean score of 75.14, Kebbi 75.14 and Osun 70.39 while the least achievers were learners in Taraba 36.96, Gombe 35.13 and Benue 32.74. On the strength of the National pass mark, achievement on this content was generally satisfactory for failures and a few tending towards very good to the realm of excellent ranged from Fair in 51 through Good to Very Good in 10 States each.

Fig 8.12: Achievement of Learners across States based on Content (Everyday

Mathematics)

0 20 40 60 80

BENUE

GOMBE

TARABA

NASARAWA

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

JIGAWA

CROSS RIVER

BAYELSA

ADAMAWA

SOKOTO

KOGI

NIGER

KATSINA

KANO

EDO

AKWA-IBOM

RIVERS

NATIONAL

ENUGU

ZAMFARA

BAUCHI

OYO

ABIA

YOBE

EBONYI

EKITI

ONDO

OGUN

FCT

ANAMBRA

DELTA

IMO

LAGOS

OSUN

KEBBI

KWARA

33.74

35.13

36.96

37.16

41.09

42.22

43.54

45.02

47.81

47.91

49.11

49.18

49.56

49.69

50.62

52.82

54.22

54.4

54.75

55.7

56.21

57.12

57.65

58.63

59.31

60.89

61.08

61.65

62.04

63.87

64.9

65.03

66.01

68

69.84

70.39

75.14

75.14

117

Summary

What does data tell us about learners‟ achievement on the Content Domains?

1. At the National level, achievement in the Content Domain was in the decreasing order.

Basic Operation (61.28), Number and Numeration (58.59), Algebraic Process (56.35),

Everyday Mathematics (55.70) and Geometric Mensuration (51.17).

2. Variations in score distribution decreases from Basic Operation (47.24) Number and

Numeration (42.50), Everyday Mathematics (41.40), Geometric Mensuration (37.15) and

Algebraic Process (35.46).

3. Observations on 1 and 2 above suggest that the learners had more difficulties responding

to test items on Algebraic Process and Geometric Mensuration.

118

Cognitive Domain

Knowledge

Figure 8.13 shows an average National achievement of 50.16 percent with a score range of

33.81 percent (Benue) to

68.22 percent (Kebbi).

The three top achievers were

Kebbi (68.22 percent) Kwara

(64.10 percent) and Osun

(61.68 percent). While the

lowest achievers were from

Benue (33.81 percent),

Gombe (35.17 percent) and

Nasarawa (36.04 percent).

Further examination of the

results shows that 18 states

scored above the National

average. However,

application of the National

pass mark revealed that six

states were below the pass

mark, 13 states Fair, 14 states

Good and 4 states Very

Good.

Fig 8.13: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States based on Knowledge

Objective

0 20 40 60 80

BENUE

NASARAWA

BORNO

PLATEAU

BAYELSA

CROSS RIVER

KOGI

EDO

KANO

AKWA-IBOM

ENUGU

BAUCHI

ZAMFARA

ONDO

OGUN

ANAMBRA

DELTA

LAGOS

KWARA

33.81

35.17

36.04

36.3

39.14

39.69

41.28

42.39

44.05

44.1

44.14

44.31

45.36

45.87

47.59

48.5

48.64

48.65

49.33

50.12

50.16

51.71

51.94

52.42

53.28

53.35

54.58

54.7

55.15

55.38

55.86

56.91

58.2

58.43

60.52

61.68

64

68.22

119

Achievement data on Comprehension Domain are given in Figure 8.14.

Comprehension As can be seen, the

National average was

53.82 percent, with

score range at 35.56

percent (Gombe) to

74.27 percent (Kebbi).

Seventeen states

achieved above the

National average. The

top three achievers

were from Kebbi

(74.27 percent), Kwara

(71.59 percent) and

Osun (67.82 percent)

while the bottom three

were Gombe (35.56

percent), Benue (36.28

percent) and Taraba

(36.84 percent).

Generally, achievement

pattern was such that

four states scored

below the National

pass mark, 10 were

Fair, 14 states Good, 8

states Very Good and 2

in the realm of

excellent.

.

Fig 8.14: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States based on

Comprehension Objectives

0 20 40 60 80

GOMBE

BENUE

TARABA

NASARAWA

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

BAYELSA

JIGAWA

CROSS RIVER

SOKOTO

NIGER

ADAMAWA

KOGI

EDO

KATSINA

RIVERS

AKWA-IBOM

KANO

ENUGU

NATIONAL

ABIA

BAUCHI

ZAMFARA

EBONYI

ONDO

OYO

EKITI

OGUN

YOBE

ANAMBRA

FCT

DELTA

IMO

LAGOS

OSUN

KWARA

KEBBI

35.56

36.28

36.84

36.89

40.52

41.78

43.68

44.83

44.97

45.44

48.76

48.81

48.9

49.27

50.08

50.84

50.88

51.64

51.7

53.36

53.82

55.35

56.5

57.44

58.16

58.52

58.78

59.46

59.68

60.03

60.1

62.27

63.05

64.05

65.83

67.82

71.59

74.27

120

Higher Order

Figure 8.15 shows average National achievement of 71.21 percent with a score range of 48.09 percent (Gombe) to 94.62 percent (Kebbi). Learners in 18 states scored above the

National average. The top three achievers were from Kebbi (94.62 percent), Kwara (89.90 percent) and Osun (87.66 percent). Whereas the bottom three were learners from Gombe (48.09 percent), Taraba (50.27 percent) and Nasarawa (50.72 percent).

A more detailed observation of the result with respect to National standard revealed that all learners that participated in the study achieved above the minimum, with only one state at the level of Fair, seven states Good, 11 states Very good and 18 states in the band of excellent achievers.

Fig 8.15: Distribution of Mean Score Learners across the States based on Higher Order

Objective

0 20 40 60 80 100

GOMBE

NASARAWA

BORNO

PLATEAU

CROSS RIVER

NIGER

KOGI

KATSINA

EDO

AKWA-IBOM

ENUGU

ABIA

OYO

EBONYI

EKITI

ANAMBRA

DELTA

LAGOS

KWARA

48.09

50.27

50.72

50.94

55.13

56.4

59.13

59.82

61.36

62.07

64.52

64.69

65.78

66.25

67.07

67.83

68.46

69.06

69.52

71.21

71.7

73.33

73.75

74.93

76.96

77.2

77.31

77.58

78.54

79.02

79.07

80.72

83.13

83.13

85.92

87.66

89.9

94.62

121

Summary

What can we learn from the achievement data on Cognitive Domain?

1. the order of achievement increased from Knowledge (50.12 percent), Comprehensive (52.82 percent) to Higher Order (71.21 percent)

2. Variations in achievement scores were in the order: Knowledge (different 34.11 percent), Comprehension (38.71 percent) and Higher Order (46.45 percent).

3. Observations in respect of Knowledge and Higher order were contrary to the theory on cognitive achievement and the trend in research findings. It would seem the learners had mastery of items in Higher order domain than knowledge.

8.7 Relational Analysis

8.7.1: Introduction

This subsection deals with the relationship between the learners contextual variables that influenced their achievement in Mathematics. Specifically, the sub-section highlights how assistance in homework, availability of learning facilities; after-school non-learning engagement; occupation of father and mother; means of going to school; distance between learners‟ home and school; number of meal per day; learners‟ possession of Mathematics textbooks and liking teacher and school, affected learners‟ achievement in Mathematics.

122

8.7.2: Assistance in Homework and Assignment

1. National averages were 50.30 percent, 50.10 percent and 49.70 percent for low, moderate and high level assistance respectively. State level analysis shows score range of 44.7 percent (Gombe) to 54.7 percent (Kebbi) for low assistance, 44.0 percent (Nasarawa) to 56.6 percent (Kebbi) for moderate assistance and 44.0 percent (Benue) to 56.0 percent (Kebbi) for High Assistance.

2. Fig. 8.17 also reveals that learners in 16, 17 and 18 states scored above the National averages of the three categories and learners in 12 states scored above the respective National averages for the three categories of assistance.

3. The top three scores was Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara for low Assistance, Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos for Moderate Assistance and Kebbi, Ondo and Kwara for High Assitance. While the bottom three were Gombe, Borno and Taraba for low assistance, Nasarawa, Benue and Taraba for moderate Aassistance and Benue, Nasarawa and Taraba for High Assistance.

*No significant differences

within states

**Examples of significant

differences between states

Fig 8.16: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across States on Homework

Assistance

0 100 200

NASARAWA

TARABA

BORNO

KADUNA

SOKOTO

CROSS RIVER

NIGER

KOGI

KATSINA

ABIA

National

BAUCHI

ONDO

FCT

EKITI

IMO

YOBE

OSUN

KWARA

46.4

47.8

46

44.7

45.8

48.6

47.1

46.5

48.9

48.6

47.2

49.9

49.2

47.8

48.8

50.9

49.9

49

50.4

50.4

50.3

49.8

50.1

50.2

52.5

50.5

53.6

50.3

51.6

52.1

52.9

52.4

52.5

51.7

53.3

54.2

53.9

54.7

44

44.7

44.8

45

46.9

47

47.1

47.1

47.5

48

48.4

48.4

48.6

48.7

49.2

49.3

49.4

49.7

50

50

50.1

50.4

50.5

50.9

50.9

51.2

51.8

51.9

51.9

51.9

52.4

52.4

52.9

53.6

53.6

54.2

54.7

56.6

44.5

44

45.6

48.2

46.1

48.9

47.7

46.3

48.7

48.3

48.2

48.5

50.5

50.3

45.8

48.5

48.4

49.6

49.1

51.3

49.7

49.1

50.7

50

53.9

51.2

53

51.3

50.7

52.2

51.4

49.9

49.6

52.7

52.2

53.1

53.8

56

Low level of

Homework

Assistance

Moderate level of

Homework

Assistance

High level

ofHomework

Assistance

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

123

Availability of Learning Materials

Fig 8.18 shows variations in achievement of learners as a result of learning facilities either at home or in schools with National averages of 49.6 percent, 50.2 percent and 50.3 percent for low, moderate and higher levels of available learning materials respectively.

1. Further observations of figure 8.18 shows the score range of 45.1 percent (Benue) to 55.4 percent (Kebbi) for low, 44.3 percent (Nasarawa) to 56.3 percent (Kebbi) for moderate and 42.1 percent (Benue) to 56.0 percent (Kebbi). Learners in 20, 17 and 16 states had mean scores higher than the National averages for low, moderate and high levels of available materials respectively. Also 15 states had mean scores above the National averages for the three categories.

2. The three top achievers were Kebbi, Osun and Delta for low, Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara for moderate and Kebbi, Osun and Lagos for High level of learning materials. Whereas the bottom three for each category were Benue, Taraba and Nasarawa for low, Nasarawa, Benue and Taraba for moderate and Benue, Nasarawa and Gombe for high level of available learning materials.

Fig 8.17: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across States based on Availability

of Learning Materials

* No significant difference within states ** Examples of significant differences between states.

0 100 200

NASARAWA

BENUE

TARABA

GOMBE

BORNO

JIGAWA

PLATEAU

KADUNA

CROSS RIVER

ADAMAWA

KOGI

SOKOTO

BAYELSA

KANO

NIGER

EDO

KATSINA

ABIA

ENUGU

RIVERS

National

BAUCHI

AKWA-IBOM

EBONYI

EKITI

ANAMBRA

ONDO

ZAMFARA

OGUN

YOBE

IMO

FCT

DELTA

OYO

OSUN

KWARA

LAGOS

KEBBI

45.6 45.1 45.4 45.8 46

47.6 45.8 47.7 48.2 50.1 50.5 48.6 48.1 49.4 48.5 49.9 49.2 50.8 49.3 47.7 49.6 50.6 49.9 51.5 52.9 50.8 52.6 49.6

52 51.4 52.8 51.7 53.3 51.8 53.5 53.1 52.5 55.4

44.3 44.6 45

45.2 46.5 46.9 47.2 47.4 47.8 47.9 47.9 48.1 48.7 48.8 49.3 49.4 49.7 49.8 49.9 50

50.2 50.3 50.6 50.9 50.9 51.3 51.7 52 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.6 52.7 52.8 53.1 54.4 54.4 56.3

43.2 42.1

49 44 47.4 48.6 50.3 45.6 48.3 51.2 47.8 47.6 47.8 46.5

50.1 47 48.9 48.8 48.9 50.3 50.6 50.6 50.5 51.4 50.9 49.8 49 51.4 54.1 52.2 52.7 51.9 51.2 55.3 55.1 53.3

56

Low Level of

Availability of

Learning Materials

Moderate Level of

Availability of

Learning Materials

High Level of

Availability of

Learning Materials

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

124

Non-Learning Engagement

Achievement data on the three levels of non-learning engagements are provided in figure 8.20, with National averages of 50.6 percent (Low), 50.0, moderate and 49.6 (High). Analysis at state level shows a score range of 44.5 percent (Taraba) to 56.8 percent (Kebbi) for low, 42.7 percent (Benue) to 55.2 percent (Kebbi) moderate, and 44.8 (Benue) to 55.6 (Kebbi) for High level of non-learning engagement.

Learners in 16 and 18 states scored above the National averages for low, moderate and high levels of non-learning achievement respectively. While learners in 15 states scored higher than National averages for the three categories investigated.

The top three achievers were from Kebbi, Oyo and FCT (Kwara) for low, Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara for moderate and Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos for high while the bottom three were Nasarawa, Taraba and Benue for low Benue, Nasarawa and Taraba for moderate and Jigawa, Nasarawa and Benue for High level of non-learning activities.

Fig 8.18: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across states based on Non-Learning

Engagement

*No significant difference within states ** Examples of significant differences between States.

0 50 100 150 200

BENUE

TARABA

CROSS RIVER

PLATEAU

JIGAWA

KOGI

NIGER

ADAMAWA

KATSINA

ZAMFARA

AKWA-IBOM

ABIA

EBONYI

ANAMBRA

YOBE

OGUN

IMO

OSUN

LAGOS

44.6

44.5

44.5

44.9

49.1

47

48.3

47.3

49.7

49.1

46.4

50.8

50.8

46.5

48.1

50.8

49.1

49

50.4

50.6

49.9

49.6

49.9

47.6

51.1

54.4

50.4

51.9

53

54.5

52.2

50.8

51.9

52.5

53.5

54.4

54

56.8

42.7

44.9

44.9

45.2

46.2

46.5

46.8

47.3

47.4

47.9

48.1

48.4

48.6

49.1

49.4

49.4

49.6

49.6

50

50

50.1

50.1

50.2

50.2

50.7

51.4

51.5

51.6

51.8

51.9

52.1

52.1

52.5

53.1

53.2

53.7

53.9

55.2

44.8

44.8

46.6

46.1

49

45.9

45.9

47.5

44.2

48.7

50.3

48

47.7

48.6

49.1

51.6

48.9

49.6

51.1

49.6

51.8

49.1

48.9

49.1

51.4

51.5

51.4

51.1

50.9

51.4

51.8

52.2

52.4

51

52.7

55.6

53.8

56.6

Low Level of Non

Learning Engagement

Moderate Level of

Non Learning

Engagement

High Level of Non-

Learning

Enagagement

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

125

Occupation of Fathers

Figure 8.20 provides achievement data on the four categories of occupation of Father; (i) Farming/Fishing; (ii) Business/Trading; (iii) Workers (Public/Private sectors) and others (Artisans etc.). The National average 49.6 percent, 50.2 percent, 50.3 percent and 50.4 percent do not indicate significant variation.

State level analysis shows score range of (Taraba) to 60.9 percent (Benue) for Farmers, 43.9 percent (Benue) to 56.0 percent (Kwara) for Business, 44.6 percent (Benue) to 56.7 percent (Kebbi) for other occupations.

Learners in 19, 17, 15 and 17 states scored above the National averages for Farmers, Business, Workers and other occupations respectively. While learners in nine states (*) scored above the respective National averages for the four categories of occupation of fathers.

The top three achievers were from Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara and Lagos for workers and Kebbi, Niger and Lagos for other occupations. The bottom three were Taraba, Gombe and Nasarawa for farming, Benue, Nasarawa and Gombe for Business, Benue, Nasarawa and Gombe for Workers and Nasarawa, Borno and Gombe for other occupations.

Fig 8.19: Achievement of Learners in Mathematics across the States based On

Occupation of Father

*No significant difference within states. ** Examples of significant differences between states.

0 100 200 300

BENUE

NASARAWA

GOMBE

TARABA

BORNO

KADUNA

PLATEAU

NIGER

JIGAWA

SOKOTO

CROSS RIVER

KOGI

KANO

RIVERS

KATSINA

ONDO

BAYELSA

BAUCHI

ADAMAWA

DELTA

National

ABIA

AKWA-IBOM

ENUGU

EDO

ANAMBRA

YOBE

EKITI

ZAMFARA

EBONYI

OYO

IMO

LAGOS

OGUN

OSUN

FCT

KEBBI

KWARA

60.9

45.4

45

44.7

46

48.1

47.6

48.4

47.5

49.2

48.2

48.2

49.2

49.8

49.5

51.5

48.7

49.4

48.7

53.4

49.6

49.2

49.9

49.4

50.3

50.7

53.1

50.9

50.5

50.7

51.5

51.9

54.5

51.2

53.3

52.2

55.5

54

43.9

44.4

44.9

45.3

45.9

47.3

47.7

48

48.1

48.2

48.6

48.6

48.8

49

49.1

49.2

49.3

50

50.1

50.2

50.2

50.5

50.5

50.6

50.7

50.8

51.1

51.4

51.4

51.9

52.3

53.1

53.1

53.1

53.5

54.1

54.8

56

44.6

44.7

45.1

45.9

47.1

47

46.1

50.2

47.2

47.6

47.2

47.5

48.4

50

48.5

52.5

48.5

51.5

48.2

53.5

50.3

50.3

50.3

49.3

49.8

52.1

51.8

52.4

49.9

50.8

52.6

51.8

54.3

52.5

53.4

52.1

56.7

54.4

42

45.1

45.1

43.1

45.8

46.3

57.6

45.6

51.1

47.8

46.9

47.4

49.7

52.3

52.3

48.4

53

51

52

50.4

50.3

50.7

48.8

49

52.6

49.8

49.6

50

50.9

52.9

49.1

53.6

51.1

52.4

51.5

57.7

53

Farming/fishing

Business/trading

Worker(Public/private

)

Others

**

**

**

**

126

Occupation of Mothers As can be seen in Table 8.21, National achievement of learners whose mothers are in Business, working class and other occupations were 49.0 percent, 50.6 percent, 50.3 percent and 50.1 percent respectively. In respect of achievement at state level, the scores ranged from 42.8 percent (Kano) to 60.5 percent (Kebbi) for farming, 43.8 percent (Gombe) to 56.0 percent (Kebbi) for Business, 43.3 percent (Nasarawa) to 55.3 percent (Osun) for worker and 41.8 percent (Taraba) to 58.6 percent (Kwara) for other occupations.

Learners in 21, 15, 18 and 20 states had scores higher than the respective National averages for the categories of occupation investigated.

The three top achievers were Kebbi, Lagos and Imo for farming mothers, Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos for Business mothers, Osun, Kwara and Yobe for working class mothers and Kwara, kebbi and Ondo for mothers in other occupations. Whereas the bottom three were from Kano, Nasarawa and Gombe for farming mothers, Gombe, Nasarawa and Taraba for Business mothers, Nasarawa, Benue and Borno for working class mothers and Taraba, Nasarawa and Benue for mothers in other occupations.

Table 8.10: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in JS 2 Mathematics

State Farming/Fishing Business/Trading Worker(Public/Private) Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.5 1.2 49.8 0.7 51.1 1.4 50.2 1.0

ADAMAWA 50.2 1.6 49.9 1.2 53.2 3.3 48.0 1.1

AKWA-IBOM 48.8 1.0 50.6 0.6 49.3 1.4 50.5 4.8

ANAMBRA 50.8 1.4 51.5 0.6 49.9 1.0 53.1 1.8

BAUCHI 48.9 1.1 50.8 1.1 52.0 1.5 50.7 0.8

BAYELSA 49.5 1.2 46.9 1.1 51.0 2.0 50.9 3.9

BORNO 46.3 0.7 46.5 1.0 44.5 1.3 48.1 2.4

BENUE 44.4 2.7 47.0 3.5 44.1 1.7 43.1 *

CROSS RIVER 46.8 1.4 47.6 0.8 47.6 1.2 48.3 1.0

DELTA 52.2 0.9 53.4 0.8 52.2 0.8 54.1 2.3

EBONYI 50.4 1.6 50.4 0.6 51.2 1.0 52.9 1.5

EDO 50.8 1.1 49.8 0.8 50.3 1.9 49.3 2.7

EKITI 52.1 2.2 51.6 0.6 51.1 0.9 51.8 1.1

ENUGU 49.3 1.0 49.7 0.7 49.6 1.4 50.9 1.4

GOMBE 44.5 0.8 43.8 0.8 46.6 0.8 45.8 0.7

IMO 53.9 1.5 52.6 0.6 52.4 1.0 51.4 1.4

JIGAWA 45.8 2.3 46.9 0.8 47.9 1.8 47.6 0.8

KADUNA 48.9 1.5 48.1 0.9 46.0 1.1 46.2 1.1

KANO 42.8 2.5 48.3 1.4 49.2 3.9 49.4 0.8

KATSINA * * 48.1 1.1 51.6 3.7 50.0 1.7

KEBBI 60.5 1.8 56.0 0.7 54.7 1.3 55.8 0.8

KOGI 49.3 1.3 47.8 0.8 47.5 2.9 49.3 1.6

KWARA 52.5 1.3 54.1 0.5 55.1 1.3 58.6 1.2

LAGOS 54.7 2.7 53.9 0.6 54.1 1.3 52.1 1.6

NASARAWA 44.4 1.0 45.9 1.0 43.3 1.0 42.9 1.1

NIGER 51.9 1.7 47.4 0.7 48.3 1.1 49.0 2.3

127

State Farming/Fishing Business/Trading Worker(Public/Private) Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

OGUN 51.8 1.5 52.0 0.6 52.9 1.3 51.9 2.7

ONDO 51.2 1.0 52.1 0.8 51.0 0.8 54.3 1.7

OSUN 51.3 1.7 53.4 0.4 55.3 1.8 53.7 1.4

OYO 51.6 1.2 52.8 0.8 51.6 1.2 52.3 0.9

PLATEAU 46.4 0.9 47.1 0.8 46.3 1.0 46.6 1.8

RIVERS 49.5 1.4 50.2 0.6 48.7 1.0 47.6 1.2

SOKOTO 45.1 3.8 47.7 0.8 50.7 2.2 48.0 0.7

TARABA 45.6 0.8 46.1 0.9 45.9 1.4 41.8 1.9

YOBE 48.5 2.1 52.1 1.0 55.1 1.6 53.5 1.1

ZAMFARA 51.4 1.9 49.5 1.3 49.1 2.1 50.7 0.8

FCT 47.5 2.7 53.7 1.1 51.9 1.2 53.1 4.8 National 49.0 0.2 50.6 0.1 50.3 0.2 50.1 0.2

Mode of Transportation to School Table 8.11 shows that national achievement data for the six modes of transportation as follows: Walking 49.9 percent, Donkey 48.1 percent, Canoe 49.8 percent, Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle 50.8 percent, Taxi/Bus 51.0 percent and Family car 50.4 percent.

At the state level, achievement scores ranged from 44.6 percent: (Nasarawa) to 55.7 percent (Kebbi) for Walking; 40.4 percent (Adamawa) to 52.2 percent (Oyo) for Donkey; 39.8 percent (Gombe) to 60.1 percent (Ogun) for Canoe; 40.7 percent (Kogi) to 57.3 percent (Kebbi) for Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle, 42.6 percent (Katsina) to 57.6 percent (Kebbi) for Taxi/Bus and 44.3 percent (Benue) to 56.1 percent (Bayelsa) for Family car.

Learners in 17, 3, 6, 15, 14 and 18 states each scored above the respective National averages while only 9 states (*) had scores higher than the National averages for the six mode of transportation.

Further examination of Table 8.11 shows that the top three achievers are for (i) Walking: Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos, (ii) Donkey: Gombe, Oyo and Niger, (iii) Canoe: Ogun, Kwara and Cross River, (iv) Okada: Kebbi, Ondo and Lagos, (v) Taxi/Bus: Kebbi, Kwara and FCT, and (vi) Family car: Bayelsa, Kebbi and Osun. Whereas, the least achievers are from (i) Walking: Taraba, Gombe and Nasarawa, (ii) Donkey: Akwa Ibom, Kogi and Adamawa, (iii) Canoe: Oyo, Nasarawa and Gombe, (iv) Okada: Taraba, Benue and Kogi, (v) Taxi/Bus: Borno, Nasarawa and Katsina and (vi) Family car: Taraba, Jigawa and Benue.

128

Table 8.11: Mode of Transportation to School as Related to Achievement in

Mathematics

State Walking Donkey Canoe

Okada/ Bicycle/ Tricycle

Taxi/Bus Family Car

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.7 0.5 * * * * 49.4 1.5 51.9 2.2 53.0 3.2

ADAMAWA 48.9 0.6 40.4 1.4 * * 47.5 1.5 * * 49.4 3.7 AKWA-IBOM

50.5 0.5 47.5 * * * 49.0 1.7 52.5 3.5 50.7 3.5

ANAMBRA 51.1 0.5 * * * * 51.3 1.4 52.3 1.5 49.1 2.7

BAUCHI 50.3 0.5 * * * * 50.2 1.6 50.8 3.4 53.5 2.0

BAYELSA 48.2 0.7 * * * * 47.0 2.5 47.2 1.4 56.4 3.0

BORNO 46.4 0.5 * * 55.4 * 43.8 * 43.4 2.2 47.8 1.3

BENUE 45.4 1.8 * * * * 41.8 * 44.7 1.4 44.3 1.5 CROSS RIVER

47.6 0.5 * * 56.1 7.3 51.1 3.5 50.5 2.3 46.4 2.0

DELTA 52.5 0.5 * * * * 53.5 2.1 54.5 3.0 52.9 1.3

EBONYI 50.9 0.5 * * * * 49.2 1.6 51.9 3.0 52.3 1.7

EDO 49.5 0.6 * * * * 51.2 3.5 46.0 . 49.6 2.4

EKITI 51.4 0.5 * * * * 50.4 1.7 50.6 1.8 53.7 1.3

ENUGU 49.9 0.5 * * * * 47.3 1.9 48.9 1.9 49.7 2.1

GOMBE 45.0 0.4 53.7 1.6 39.8 1.7 47.7 2.5 46.9 1.8 46.0 1.3

IMO 52.4 0.5 * * * * 52.0 1.7 50.3 2.0 54.9 1.9

JIGAWA 47.3 0.5 * * 47.6 * 49.0 3.3 44.6 1.1 45.3 2.2

KADUNA 47.2 0.5 * * * * 47.1 1.2 47.7 2.9 50.2 1.4

KANO 48.7 0.7 * * 46.5 * 50.0 2.1 49.5 2.4 * *

KATSINA 49.3 0.7 * * * * 50.3 2.3 42.6 1.0 49.4 4.1

KEBBI 55.7 0.6 * * * * 57.3 1.1 57.6 2.8 56.1 1.7

KOGI 48.6 0.6 42.2 * * * 40.7 1.7 46.0 3.1 50.2 1.4

KWARA 54.5 0.5 * * 57.7 * 52.3 1.4 55.7 1.7 53.6 2.5

LAGOS 53.8 0.6 * * 54.5 4.5 54.2 1.4 54.3 1.0 53.3 1.4

NASARAWA 44.6 0.6 * * 41.0 1.1 47.0 1.7 42.9 1.7 47.9 1.5

NIGER 49.2 0.7 50.5 . 46.4 * 46.8 2.2 45.7 1.6 49.8 1.3

OGUN 51.4 0.6 * * 60.1 * 54.0 1.2 53.4 1.9 50.6 1.1

ONDO 51.0 0.5 * * * * 54.4 1.8 54.2 1.8 52.5 1.6

OSUN 53.0 0.4 * * * * 53.5 0.8 53.7 1.6 55.3 2.9

OYO 53.0 0.7 52.2 3.2 43.3 2.0 51.5 1.6 53.9 1.5 50.9 0.9 PLATEAU 46.9 0.5 * * 46.7 . 45.9 0.5 46.1 2.0 46.7 1.4 RIVERS 49.7 0.5 * * * * 46.4 1.3 49.5 1.0 51.2 1.4 SOKOTO 48.3 0.5 * * * * 53.6 1.7 46.6 5.1 45.4 1.1 TARABA 45.3 0.4 * * * * 43.9 1.8 43.8 2.8 45.3 1.7 YOBE 52.1 0.5 * * * * 51.2 1.7 51.3 2.3 51.3 2.2 ZAMFARA 50.5 0.6 * * 54.5 2.6 50.5 1.4 50.5 1.9 48.5 2.5 FCT 52.9 1.0 * * * * 51.2 1.8 55.0 3.1 51.9 1.6 National 49.9 0.1 48.1 2.0 49.8 1.7 50.8 0.3 51.0 0.4 50.37 0.3

129

Distance from Home to School Table 8.12 provides data on the relationship between learners‟ achievement and distance from home to school. As can be seen, the National averages were (i) less than 1km 49.6 percent, (ii) 1 to 2km 50.1 percent, (iii) >2 to 3km 50.7 percent and (iv) more than 3 km 50.5 percent. State level analysis shows score range of 43.8 percent (Nasarawa) to 56.5 percent (Kebbi) for less than 1 km, 43.5 percent (Benue) to 55.3 percent (Kwara) for 1 to 2 km 45.0 percent (Benue) to 57.1 percent (Kebbi) for >2 to 3 km and 42.7 percent (Benue) to 55. 4 percent (Kebbi) for more than 3km.

Learners in 18, 19 and 16 states each had scores above the National averages of the respective distances while only in 12 states (*) did the learners obtain score higher than the National averages for the four distances examined.

The top three achievers for (i) less than 1km: Kebbi, FCT and Lagos, (ii) 1 to 2km: Kwara, Kebbi and Lagos, (iii) >2 to 3km: Kebbi, Kwara and Oyo and (iv) more than 3 km Kebbi, Lagos and Osun. While the three least achievers (i) less than 1km: Benue, Gombe and Nasarawa (ii) 1 to 2km: Borno, Taraba and Benue (iii) >2 to 3km: Jigawa, Nasarawa and Benue and (iv) more than 3km Taraba, Nasarawa and Benue.

Table 8.12: Distance between Learners’ Home and Schools Related to Performance in

Mathematics

State Less than 1 Km 1 to 2 Km 2 to 3 Km More than 3 Km

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 51.9 0.9 48.9 0.8 48.2 1.0 49.7 0.9

ADAMAWA 48.8 0.9 48.6 0.9 52.1 2.3 47.8 1.8

AKWA-IBOM 49.4 1.0 48.8 0.9 51.5 1.0 51.4 0.7

ANAMBRA 52.4 0.9 50.4 0.8 52.0 1.0 50.3 0.8

BAUCHI 50.5 0.7 50.1 0.8 51.3 1.1 49.4 2.1

BAYELSA 47.9 1.3 48.4 1.2 50.0 1.4 47.3 1.2

BORNO 46.9 0.6 44.6 1.0 46.0 1.4 46.8 1.5

BENUE 45.0 1.5 43.5 1.1 45.0 2.1 42.7 2.6

CROSS RIVER 47.6 0.7 47.6 0.8 50.2 1.4 47.0 1.1

DELTA 52.6 0.8 53.0 0.8 53.5 1.0 51.1 1.3

EBONYI 50.9 0.9 50.4 1.0 52.0 1.1 51.5 0.8

EDO 49.6 0.9 50.0 1.1 48.3 1.3 49.6 1.1

EKITI 51.5 0.7 51.1 0.9 52.0 0.9 52.3 1.2

ENUGU 48.9 1.0 51.1 0.9 50.1 1.1 49.1 0.8

GOMBE 44.7 0.5 46.0 0.9 46.5 1.2 46.0 1.9

IMO 53.0 0.7 52.4 0.7 52.5 1.0 52.3 1.0

JIGAWA 47.7 0.6 46.8 1.0 45.8 1.9 46.0 1.1

KADUNA 47.5 0.6 47.4 0.8 46.1 0.9 47.7 1.2

KANO 48.1 0.7 50.7 1.7 47.9 2.1 53.3 2.1

KATSINA 48.4 0.9 51.3 1.4 49.7 1.8 50.3 3.4

KEBBI 56.5 0.7 54.9 0.9 57.1 1.3 55.4 1.4

KOGI 47.7 0.8 49.2 1.0 47.0 2.1 48.5 1.5

KWARA 53.7 0.6 55.3 0.8 54.3 1.1 53.5 1.1

LAGOS 53.8 1.1 53.8 0.8 53.7 1.0 54.4 0.8

NASARAWA 43.8 0.9 45.8 0.8 45.6 1.3 42.7 1.0

130

State Less than 1 Km 1 to 2 Km 2 to 3 Km More than 3 Km

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

NIGER 48.1 0.6 48.4 1.5 53.0 2.2 51.4 2.8

OGUN 52.4 0.9 52.7 0.9 50.8 0.9 52.8 1.1

ONDO 52.5 0.7 50.1 0.8 52.4 1.2 51.2 1.4

OSUN 53.0 0.8 53.3 0.7 52.9 0.7 53.7 0.8

OYO 52.5 0.9 51.9 0.8 53.9 1.1 51.1 1.1

PLATEAU 46.1 0.6 47.0 1.0 48.0 1.3 47.5 1.3

RIVERS 51.0 1.1 49.2 0.9 48.4 0.9 49.5 0.6

SOKOTO 47.8 0.6 50.8 1.2 46.7 1.1 46.9 2.4

TARABA 45.5 0.6 44.2 0.7 46.9 1.3 45.3 1.8

YOBE 52.2 0.6 51.9 1.1 51.6 1.4 49.2 2.7

ZAMFARA 50.0 0.8 51.3 1.0 51.1 1.6 50.6 1.7

FCT 55.0 2.2 51.6 1.7 51.6 1.1 53.5 1.4

National 49.6 0.1 50.1 0.2 50.7 0.2 50.5 0.2

Daily Meal Plan

Table 8.13 shows the relational data between achievement and the four meal plans of learners. National average of 49.3 percent, 49.6 percent, 50.2 percent, 50.7 percent were obtained by learners whose meal plan were once, twice, three times and four times respectively.

State level analysis indicated a score range of 41.0 percent (Nasarawa) to 59.5 percent (Kebbi) for one meal a day, 44.0 percent (Nasarawa) to 55.0 percent (Kwara) for two meals a day, 43.7 percent (Benue) to 55.9 percent (Kebbi) for three meals a day and 43.7 percent (Adamawa) to 58.0 percent (Oyo) for four meals a day.

Learners in each of 15, 20, 15 and 15 states had scores higher than the National averages for one, two, three and four meal plans respectively. However, it was only in 11 states (*) learners scored higher than the National average of the four meal plans.

The top three achieving states are (i) One meal plan: Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara, (ii) Two meals plan: Kwara, FCT and Delta (iii) Three meals plan: Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos and (iv) Four meals plan: Oyo, Imo and Kebbi. While bottom three are (i) one meal plan; Abia, Anambra and Nasarawa (ii) Two meals plan: Gombe, Taraba and Nasaawa, (iii) Three meals plan: Gombe, Nasarawa and Benue and (iv) Four meals plan: Gombe, Nasarawa and Adamawa.

131

Table 8.13: Number of Meal per Day as Related to Achievement in Mathematics

State Once Twice Thrice Four times Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 43.9 2.2 50.4 1.3 49.7 0.5 53.1 1.8 ADAMAWA 47.9 2.9 49.0 1.3 49.3 0.7 43.7 1.8 AKWA-IBOM 49.6 1.7 51.2 1.3 49.9 0.5 53.7 1.6 ANAMBRA 42.9 2.6 51.3 1.3 51.2 0.5 50.2 1.5 BAUCHI * * 50.0 1.7 50.5 0.5 51.4 2.3 BAYELSA 49.3 2.6 46.9 1.5 48.6 0.8 48.1 2.9 BORNO 45.7 2.9 47.4 1.5 46.3 0.5 46.3 1.4 BENUE 44.7 3.5 45.4 2.4 43.7 0.8 * * CROSS RIVER 47.7 3.0 48.6 1.4 47.9 0.5 46.8 2.2 DELTA 52.8 1.8 53.8 1.0 52.3 0.5 52.0 1.9 EBONYI 52.0 5.3 51.7 1.5 50.6 0.4 55.1 2.6 EDO 48.5 1.8 48.5 1.3 50.1 0.7 47.9 1.3 EKITI 52.0 1.2 51.0 1.3 51.8 0.6 50.1 1.2 ENUGU 46.8 2.2 50.4 1.4 49.5 0.5 52.4 2.4 GOMBE 46.1 0.9 44.7 0.8 45.3 0.6 45.0 1.3 IMO 51.5 2.9 52.2 1.4 52.4 0.5 56.6 * JIGAWA 46.7 1.8 47.4 1.3 47.4 0.5 48.7 2.4 KADUNA 48.6 2.6 48.7 1.1 47.0 0.4 46.2 2.6 KANO 47.2 1.6 49.2 2.0 49.1 0.7 47.7 3.7 KATSINA 45.7 3.3 49.8 2.6 49.6 0.8 49.1 2.0 KEBBI 59.5 6.2 53.7 1.8 55.9 0.5 56.3 1.1 KOGI 45.9 2.3 49.4 1.3 48.1 0.7 50.7 * KWARA 53.4 3.0 55.9 1.6 54.2 0.4 50.6 2.7 LAGOS 57.3 4.4 52.5 1.2 54.0 0.5 55.4 1.5 NASARAWA 41.0 1.3 44.0 1.2 45.2 0.6 45.0 1.5 NIGER 48.3 0.7 49.5 1.7 49.3 1.1 48.1 3.6 OGUN 46.6 3.3 52.9 1.4 52.4 0.5 50.4 1.5 ONDO 51.5 1.0 50.4 2.6 52.0 0.6 51.8 1.6 OSUN 52.1 1.1 52.2 0.9 53.3 0.4 54.2 1.3 OYO 52.8 1.0 52.1 0.9 51.5 0.7 58.0 3.6 PLATEAU 47.6 1.9 47.2 0.8 46.6 0.6 47.3 2.5 RIVERS 49.0 1.7 48.1 1.0 49.7 0.5 49.2 1.1 SOKOTO 49.5 2.5 48.5 1.2 48.2 0.5 47.2 1.2 TARABA 46.8 1.4 44.6 0.6 45.3 0.6 47.5 3.3 YOBE 52.7 1.1 51.3 1.1 52.0 0.6 51.8 2.7 ZAMFARA 49.4 1.7 53.0 1.3 50.2 0.7 51.8 1.8 FCT 50.3 . 55.2 2.5 52.2 0.9 52.2 1.5 National 49.3 0.3 49.6 0.2 50.2 0.1 50.7 0.3

132

Availability of Textbooks

Learners‟ achievements in relation to availability of textbooks at the National and State level are provided in Table 8.14.

As can be seen in Table 8.14, the National averages were 49.8 percent and 50.4 percent for non-availability and availability of Textbooks respectively. Achievement at State level shows a range of 42.9 percent (Benue) to 56.4 percent (Kebbi) for non-availability and 45.1 percent (Nasarawa) to 55.7 percent (Kebbi) for availability of Textbooks. Also learners in 17 states had scores higher than the National average for non-availability of Textbooks while their counterparts in 16 states scored above the National average for availability of Textbooks. Only in 14 states did learners score above the National averages for non-availability and availability of Textbooks.

The three top achieving states for non-availability of Textbooks are: Kebbi, Lagos and Kwara and for availability Kebbi, Kwara and Osun. While bottom three states are Gombe, Nasarawa and Benue for non-availability and Gombe, Taraba and Nasarawa for availability of Textbooks.

Table 8.14: Relationship of Learners with Textbook and Achievement on Mathematics

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.7 0.7 49.6 0.6

ADAMAWA 48.5 0.8 49.5 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 50.6 0.6 49.8 0.8

ANAMBRA 49.8 0.7 51.9 0.6

BAUCHI 49.6 0.7 51.2 0.7

BAYELSA 48.7 0.9 48.2 0.9

BORNO 45.4 0.6 48.3 0.8

BENUE 42.9 1.3 46.2 1.1

CROSS RIVER 47.7 0.7 47.8 0.6

DELTA 52.5 0.7 52.9 0.6

EBONYI 51.3 0.7 50.6 0.6

EDO 48.9 0.8 50.2 0.8

EKITI 52.0 0.7 50.9 0.6

ENUGU 49.3 0.7 49.9 0.6

GOMBE 45.0 0.6 45.6 0.6

IMO 52.6 0.6 52.5 0.6

JIGAWA 47.0 0.6 47.9 0.8

KADUNA 47.2 0.5 47.5 0.8

KANO 49.2 0.9 48.6 1.0

KATSINA 49.9 0.9 48.6 1.1

KEBBI 56.4 0.9 55.7 0.6

KOGI 49.6 1.0 47.7 0.7

KWARA 53.6 0.5 54.6 0.7

LAGOS 54.0 0.7 53.7 0.6

NASARAWA 44.4 0.6 45.1 0.9

NIGER 49.0 0.7 48.9 1.0

OGUN 52.2 0.7 52.1 0.7

133

ONDO 50.8 0.9 52.0 0.5

OSUN 52.7 0.4 54.1 0.7

OYO 51.9 0.6 53.2 1.0

PLATEAU 47.3 0.7 46.4 0.6

RIVERS 49.8 0.6 49.6 0.5

SOKOTO 48.5 0.6 47.8 0.7

TARABA 45.0 0.6 45.5 0.7

YOBE 51.6 0.6 52.7 0.8

ZAMFARA 50.3 0.7 50.8 1.0

FCT 52.3 1.1 52.9 1.0

National 49.8 0.1 50.4 0.1

Liking Teacher

Nationally, achievement of learners who do not like teachers was 47.9 percent while for those who like teacher was 50.1 percent as can be seen in Table 8.15. Achievement at State level ranged from 38.2 percent (Gombe) to 55.1 percent (Oyo) for not liking Teacher and 44.6 percent (Benue) to 56.3 percent (Kebbi) for liking Teachers. Learners in only nine states scored above the National average for not liking Teachers and their counterparts in 17 States scored above the National average for liking Teachers. However, learners in only five states achieved higher than both National averages.

Top three achieving states for (i) Not liking Teacher are: Oyo, Kwara and Sokoto and (ii) liking Teacher: Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos while the bottom three for (i) not liking Teachers: Anambra, Nasarawa and Gombe and (ii) Liking Teachers: Gombe, Nasarawa and Benue.

Table 8.15: Relationship between Liking of Teachers and Achievement in Mathematics

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA * * 49.8 0.5

ADAMAWA 46.1 2.6 49.3 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 50.4 0.5

ANAMBRA 40.7 * 51.2 0.4

BAUCHI 45.0 3.5 50.5 0.5

BAYELSA * * 48.3 0.6

BORNO * * 46.2 0.5

BENUE 40.7 * 44.6 0.9 CROSS RIVER

42.4 * 48.0 0.5

DELTA * * 52.8 0.5

EBONYI 45.1 2.1 51.0 0.4

EDO 48.7 4.2 49.6 0.6

EKITI * * 51.5 0.4

ENUGU 47.6 4.2 49.7 0.4

GOMBE 38.2 * 45.4 0.5

IMO * * 52.4 0.4

JIGAWA 46.6 1.8 47.6 0.5

134

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE

KADUNA * * 47.2 0.4

KANO 45.1 * 48.8 0.6

KATSINA * * 49.6 0.7

KEBBI * * 56.3 0.5

KOGI * * 48.4 0.6

KWARA 53.3 * 54.2 0.4

LAGOS * * 53.9 0.5

NASARAWA 38.5 * 44.7 0.5

NIGER 48.9 1.3 48.8 0.6

OGUN 45.7 3.0 52.2 0.5

ONDO * * 51.8 0.5

OSUN 48.6 0.5 53.4 0.4

OYO 55.1 2.9 52.4 0.5

PLATEAU 47.2 1.6 46.9 0.5

RIVERS 48.8 1.9 49.4 0.4

SOKOTO 50.6 3.2 48.2 0.5

TARABA 45.5 * 45.4 0.4

YOBE 50.0 * 52.0 0.5

ZAMFARA 49.9 6.0 50.5 0.6

FCT 46.7 * 52.6 0.7

National 47.9 0.7 50.1 0.1

Liking Schooling

As can be seen in Table 8.16 National average for learners who like schooling was 49.9 percent and 50.1 percent for those who do not like schooling. Achievement at state level ranged from 39.3 percent (Plateau) to 66.0 percent (Ogun) for not liking schooling and 44.5 percent (Benue) to 56.1 percent (Kebbi) for liking schooling. Learners in eight states scored above the National average for not liking schooling while those in 17 states scored above the National average for liking schooling. However, learners in four states had scores higher than both National averages.

The top three achieving states for (i) Not liking schooling: Ogun, Katsina and Anambra and (ii) Liking Schooling: Kebbi, Kwara and Lagos. The bottom three states are (i) not liking schooling: Benue, Cross River and Plateau and (ii) Liking schooling: Gombe, Nasarawa and Benue.

135

Table 8.16: Liking Schooling and Achievement in Mathematics Relationship

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 47.3 4.5 49.9 0.5

ADAMAWA * * 49.1 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 50.4 0.5

ANAMBRA 55.8 8.8 51.1 0.4

BAUCHI 49.8 2.3 50.7 0.5

BAYELSA 46.4 * 48.4 0.6

BORNO * * 46.0 0.5

BENUE 45.1 0.8 44.5 0.9

CROSS RIVER 43.0 6.3 48.0 0.4

DELTA 54.8 7.7 52.7 0.5

EBONYI * * 51.0 0.4

EDO * * 49.9 0.6

EKITI * * 51.5 0.5

ENUGU * * 49.7 0.5

GOMBE 54.5 * 44.9 0.5

IMO * * 52.4 0.4

JIGAWA 49.3 3.5 47.4 0.5

KADUNA * * 47.1 0.4

KANO * * 48.9 0.6

KATSINA 56.7 * 49.4 0.7 KEBBI 46.8 * 56.1 0.5

KOGI 51.2 * 48.4 0.6

KWARA 55.0 * 54.3 0.4

LAGOS 49.2 * 54.0 0.6

NASARAWA * * 44.6 0.5

NIGER 52.2 2.9 48.6 0.6

OGUN 66.0 * 52.0 0.5

ONDO 48.3 2.7 51.7 0.5

OSUN * * 53.3 0.4 OYO 46.4 * 52.4 0.6 PLATEAU 39.3 * 47.0 0.5 RIVERS * * 49.4 0.4 SOKOTO 47.1 4.0 48.2 0.5

TARABA * * 45.4 0.4 YOBE * * 52.0 0.5 ZAMFARA 47.7 4.7 50.5 0.6 FCT * * 52.6 0.7

National 49.9 1.0 50.1 0.1

136

Observations and Challenges

Seventeen states and FCT performed above the national average; with such states as Kebbi, Imo, Yobe and Oyo performing well.

Nineteen states performed below the national average with such states as Borno, Niger, Nasarawa and Gombe performing lower.

Kebbi, Kwara and Osun state consistently performed better than the other states in all the objectives and content areas. This could imply a situation where teaching is being done very well and is to be emulated by other states. While the achievement of Benue, Nasarawa and Taraba state was least in all the behavioural and content areas of mathematics.

137

Chapter Nine

Achievement in Basic Science and Technology

9.1: National Achievement

National average scores were 53.04 and 45.49 for the Multiple Choice and Essay tests

respectively.

Figure 9.1: National Average Scores for Multiple Choice and Essay Tests

9.1.1: Range and percentile

The range shows the spread or cluster of scores while the percentile indicates the relative

standing of an examinee‟s score vis-a-vis scores of other examinees. The scores were

categorised into four clusters: 0-39, 40-49, 50-74 and 75 and above. Figure 9.2 contains the

transformed score ranges in the Multiple Choice questions and Essay questions. It is

observed that the cluster of scores for the Multiple Choice test within which had the highest

number of learners was 50-74 (54.8 percent) and for the essay was also 50-74 (62.2 percent).

In Multiple Choice and Essay tests, 24.5 percent and 30 percent of the learners respectively

performed within the cluster of 40-49. On the whole, the range of the performance in Basic

science and technology of 40-74 had more than 75 percent of the participants in each of the

Essay test and Multiple Choice test. Performance in both tests was satisfactory for this level

of

learners.

Figure 9.3 presents the percentile for the Multiple Choice and Essay tests for Basic Science

and Technology achievement. Any learner that scored 35.71, 41.66, 51.81, 58.88 and 62.61

performed better than 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 90 percent of

learners who took the Multiple Choice test. In the same vein, learners who scored 35.28,

53.04

45.49

National

average

score

Multiple-

choice and

Essay tests

Figure 9.2: National Distribution of Score Ranges in Basic Science and Technology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-39 40-49 50-74 75+

20.7 24.5

54.8

22.1

30

47.9

0

OBJ

ESSAY

138

40.1, 41.74, 57.78 and 64.21 performed better than 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75

percent and 90 percent of learners who took the Essay test. It is observed that it is only at the

90th percentiles that achievement in the essay test was higher than that of the multiple choice

test; achievement at other percentiles of the multiple choice was better than that of the essay

test. However, scores in both test forms for each percentile showed little variations.

Figure 9.3: percentile for Essay and Multiple Choice Tests

Achievement by Gender and Location

Table 9.1 provides the

mean scores and standard

error of achievement in

Multiple Choice and Essay

type tests of Basic science

and Technology by gender

and location of schools.

There were no significant

differences between the

levels of each variable for both types of tests.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

Multiple choice 35.71 41.66 51.81 58.88 62.61

Essay 35.28 40.1 49.74 57.78 64.21

Table 9.1 Mean and SE of Achievement in Multiple

Choice Test and Essay by Location, and Gender

in Basic Science and Technology

Multiple Choice ESSAY

Mean SE Mean SE

Gender Male 50.38 0.16 49.89 0.17

Female 50.24 0.17 49.96 0.17

Location Urban 50.27 0.16 49.93 0.17 Rural 50.26 0.17 49.92 0.18

139

9.2: Achievement at Zonal level

At the Zonal level, the results presented include variation by gender and locations of schools.

Figure 9.2.1: Gender Achievement by Zone on Multiple Choice Test

Location Table 9.2.1. Provides achievement data on location for the geo-political zones as can be seen: i. There were little variations within each zone for both Multiple Choice and Essay test

forms.

ii. The range of mean scores for Multiple Choice test was 45.96 to 49.16 for rural schools and 46.71 to 48.78 for urban schools in the three Northern Zones. In respect of the Southern Zones the range for rural schools was 52.36 to 52.52 and 52.44 to 53.23 for urban schools. The mean differences were not significant.

iii. The results for Essay tests with a range of 49.17 to 50.52 and 49.29 to 50.52 for rural and urban schools respectively show greater homogeneity between the zones.

48 49 50 51 52

NORTH CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

NATIONAL

49.94

50

49.61

49.42

50.4

50.05

49.89

49.54

51.12

49.06

49.86

49.82

50.3

49.96

Female Male

1. The mean scores and standard error in

Basic Science and Technology for levels of

gender by geo-political zones are

presented in Figure 9.2.1.

2. National average scores are 49.91 for

female learners and 49.89 for male

learners.

3. Both male and females learners in south

west and North East had mean scores

higher than their respective National

averages.

4. There was little variation in scores within

and between zones.

5. Differences between means were not

significant

140

Table 9.2. 1: Distribution of Means and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple

Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Location

Content Domain

Achievement data on content domains in Table 9.2.2 shows some interesting observations:

i. The highest National average of 57.84 was obtained on the content Living and Non-Living things. Each zone had the highest mean score on this theme with a range of 50.76 (North East) to 63.42 (South East). Three Southern Zones: South East (63.42) South South (62.77) and South West (61.94) scored above the National average.

ii. The theme „You and Technology‟ seemed to have presented some difficulty to the learners in North Central, north east and North West in which the learners had the lowest mean values of 47.77, 42.08 and 44.47 respectively. Whereas, for learners in south East, South South and South West lowest achievement was in the Theme You and your environment, with mean scores of 55.05, 54.52 and 53.45 respectively.

iii. Achievement for all zones on You and energy was the second best. South east zone had the highest mean scores in the four themes (55.05, 63.42, 56.01 and 60.09) while North East (43.25, 50.76, 42.08 and 49.12) had the lowest.

Table 9.2.2: Means on Content Domains across Geopolitical Zones

GEOPOLITICAL

ZONES

You and

environment

Living and non-

living things

You and technology

You and energy

Mean Std.

Error Mean

Std.

Error Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error

NORTH CENTRAL 48.10 0.53 55.19 0.65 47.77 0.61 53.29 0.54

NORTH EAST 43.25 0.46 50.76 0.55 42.08 0.49 49.12 0.45

NORTH WEST 45.51 0.44 53.24 0.54 44.47 0.48 51.38 0.44

SOUTH EAST 55.05 0.41 63.42 0.50 56.01 0.49 60.09 0.42

SOUTH SOUTH 54.52 0.42 62.77 0.51 55.37 0.50 59.58 0.43

SOUTH WEST 53.45 0.39 61.94 0.47 54.01 0.46 58.74 0.39

NATIONAL 49.91 0.19 57.84 0.23 49.87 0.21 55.32 0.19

Zone location MULTIPLE CHOICE ESSAY

Mean SE Mean SE

NORTH CENTRAL URBAN 48.78 0.50 49.64 0.47

RURAL 49.16 0.46 49.79 0.45

NORTH EAST URBAN 46.71 0.37 50.52 0.39

RURAL 45.96 0.43 50.52 0.45

NORTH WEST URBAN 47.93 0.37 49.58 0.39

RURAL 47.46 0.40 49.17 0.40

SOUTH EAST URBAN 53.23 0.36 49.39 0.42

RURAL 53.38 0.38 50.01 0.45

SOUTH SOUTH URBAN 52.63 0.37 49.69 0.42

RURAL 53.52 0.38 50.52 0.43

SOUTH WEST URBAN 52.44 0.32 50.50 0.37

RURAL 52.36 0.38 49.67 0.42

141

Figure 9.2.3: Distribution of Mean Scores by Geo-Political Zone on the Objectives

Domains

Cognitive Domains

Figure 9.2.3 shows achievement mean scores at cognitive levels for National and Zonal

levels. National average was 57.84, 45.13 and 53.32 for knowledge, Comprehension and

Higher order domains respectively. Achievement is highest on knowledge domain items.

Further examination of results shows that:

i. Learners in North East Zone obtained the highest mean scores of 59.71 on the Higher order subtest.

ii. Learners in each Zone had their highest mean scores on knowledge domain items with a range of 50.83 (North East) and 63.35 (South East).

iii. Three Zones, namely North East (59.76), South East (56.71) and South South (53.75) obtained means score higher than the National average for Higher order subtest.

iv. North Central and North West had mean scores below the National averages for the three subtest while South West had mean scores above those of Knowledge and Comprehension.

55.44

50.83

53.02

63.35

62.73

61.78

57.80

43.54

39.01

41.40

49.70

49.24

48.25

45.13

48.95

59.76

49.81

56.71

53.75

51.30

53.32

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

NORTH CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

NATIONAL

HIGHER ORDER

COMPREHENSION

KNOWLEDEGE

142

9.3: Achievement at State Level

Figure 9.3.1, the National map displays achievement scores on multiple choice and Essay

tests for state and FCT. The national average was 54.0 for Multiple Choice test and 49.0 for

Essay test. State distribution shows score range of 41.0 (Gombe) to 59.0 (Kebbi). Three states

namely Kebbi (59.0). Osun (57.0) and Imo (55.0) scored above the National average while

four states namely Ebonyi, Anambra, Yobe and FCT had the same score as the National

average. The other 30 states obtained mean scores below the National average.

In respect of the Essay test, score range was 48.0 (Niger) to 51.0 (Lagos, Ondo, Ekiti, Yobe,

Bauchi, Borno, Benue and Gombe), 26 states scored above the National average while

achievement of learners in 10 states was same as the National average.

In seven states, namely: Kebbi, Sokoto, Osun, Imo, Borno, Yobe, Gombe, Taraba and FCT,

there was variation of at least 6 points in achievement scores between both test forms.

Generally, more variation is observed in the mean scores on the Multiple Choice than the

Essay.

143

Mean Score in Basic Science and Technology

Figure 9.3.1: Mean Score in Basic Science and Technology

Note:

i. Learners‟ score in multiple choice are out of the parentheses ii. Learners‟ score in essay are in parentheses

Group Achievement

Achievement across states based on gender and location are presented in this section. As with

other sections, the results are presented in graphs and tables.

Gender

From Table 9.4, it is observed that:

National average score for male was 50.38 and female 50.24

State analysis shows that score range for male was 40.76 (Gombe) to 55.84 (Delta) and

for females 41.46 (Gombe) to 57.26 (Kebbi).

59(49

44(50)

49(50)

49(48)

53(50)

48(50)

52(50)

53(51)

50(49)

54(49)

50(50

44(50)

45(49)

54(51)

48(51)

41(51

43(50) 49(50)

50(50)

55(49

52(50)

49(49) 52(50)

46(49)

45(51

53(50) 46(50)

52(49)

54(50

54(50)

53(50)

52(49)

51(51)

57(49)

51(51)

46(51)

National Average

Score = 54(49)

144

Twenty one states performed above the national averages for male and female learners on

the test.

For the Essay test: National average scores were 49.89 and 49.96 for male and female learners respectively,

score range for males 47.25 (Nasarawa) to 55.26 (Benue) and for female 47.83 (Abia) to 54.05 (Taraba)

Achievement was homogeneous within each state, that is, there was no large gender

difference in each state. Learners in 17 states each scored above the National average for

males and females in the Essay test.

Score variations of at least 6 points were observed between both test forms in the

following states: Delta, Gombe, Kebbi, Sokoto, Taraba and FCT.

Table 9.4: Mean of Multiple Choice and Essay Test in Basic Science and Technology by

Gender

State Multiple Choice Essay

Male Female Male Female Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.58 0.81 52.26 0.83 49.384 1.026 47.833 0.908

ADAMAWA 50.19 1.21 51.22 1.20 50.803 1.110 50.769 1.089

AKWA-IBOM

53.05 0.73 51.84 0.88 50.390 0.893 49.792 1.022

ANAMBRA 55.25 0.75 54.00 0.95 49.784 0.917 51.467 1.021 BAUCHI 46.51 0.91 46.59 0.91 48.633 0.969 49.940 0.981 BAYELSA 51.39 1.15 51.51 1.09 51.284 1.432 48.906 1.503 BORNO 47.52 1.11 48.07 0.88 52.582 1.212 50.680 1.036 BENUE 45.27 1.80 46.98 2.38 55.263 2.317 51.161 2.593

CROSS RIVER

51.15 0.93 51.13 0.96 50.579 1.060 48.876 1.002

DELTA 55.84 0.80 56.18 0.86 50.340 0.976 50.445 0.919 EBONYI 54.05 0.80 54.21 0.86 49.186 0.886 51.316 1.020 EDO 51.01 1.22 53.16 0.92 50.260 1.203 50.459 1.043 EKITI 53.66 0.70 52.74 0.85 50.304 0.895 51.042 1.102 ENUGU 51.89 0.78 52.62 0.83 49.679 0.906 48.505 0.966

GOMBE 40.76 0.65 41.46 0.68 49.455 0.986 51.205 0.937 IMO 53.79 0.73 53.50 0.77 49.072 0.969 50.895 1.001 JIGAWA 44.89 0.80 45.23 0.83 50.184 0.929 49.424 0.891 KADUNA 46.04 0.86 45.99 1.10 50.607 0.921 48.568 1.060 KANO 54.10 1.07 52.38 1.26 49.697 1.399 52.620 1.372 KATSINA 45.10 0.94 45.71 0.97 47.781 0.979 47.881 1.250

KEBBI 55.83 0.90 57.26 0.81 49.636 1.132 48.115 1.045 KOGI 52.37 1.07 49.08 1.30 50.043 1.008 50.651 1.196 KWARA 51.80 0.84 52.41 1.09 50.421 0.863 47.930 1.139 LAGOS 54.94 0.82 56.57 0.80 49.383 0.878 50.742 0.957 NASARAWA 44.65 1.21 44.90 1.15 47.259 1.433 48.732 1.257

145

State Multiple Choice Essay

Male Female Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE NIGER 49.92 1.29 47.92 1.40 49.475 0.986 49.409 1.177 OGUN 53.91 0.84 52.75 0.77 49.622 1.156 50.158 0.920 ONDO 49.84 0.86 50.21 1.04 49.379 0.897 49.097 1.004 OSUN 53.69 0.72 53.23 0.61 49.888 0.958 51.791 0.867 OYO 49.53 0.86 49.07 0.86 51.769 0.992 48.887 0.874 PLATEAU 45.63 0.89 43.68 0.80 50.785 1.091 49.743 0.976

RIVERS 53.21 0.79 53.58 0.76 50.027 0.948 49.837 0.934 SOKOTO 42.78 0.69 42.92 0.86 49.190 0.932 49.020 0.988 TARABA 42.79 0.73 41.84 0.82 49.90 0.888 54.050 0.954 YOBE 51.88 0.77 51.53 0.96 49.899 0.882 49.704 1.134 ZAMFARA 48.74 0.84 48.03 1.18 49.448 0.851 49.721 1.244 FCT 55.30 1.33 54.31 1.25 47.972 1.307 50.781 1.489

National 50.38 0.16 50.24 0.17 49.892 0.166 49.963 0.173

Location

Table 9.5, provides the summaries in achievement by location of schools. As can be seen national averages were 50.27 and 50.26 for multiple choice test and 49.93 and 49.92 for essay tests. The mean scores show very little variations which suggests that school location did not influence achievement at the National level. In respect of states, score range for learners in urban schools was 41.86 (Gombe) to 56.99 (kebbi) on the multiple choice test. Achievement in the Essay test shows a range of 46.94 (Katsina) to 54.44 (Benue) in urban schools and 45.60 (Nasarawa) to 51.99 (Benue).

Variations in the achievement scores were higher for Multiple Choice test (urban 14.94, rural 16.13) than in Essay (urban 7.5, rural 6.4). Furthermore, on the Multiple Choice test, learners in urban schools in 22 states scored above the National average and those in rural schools in 20 states scored above National average. In respect of Essay test, learners in 15 and 19 states scored above the National averages for urban and rural schools respectively.

146

Table 9.5: Mean of Multiple Choice and Essay Test in Basic Science and Technology by

Location

State Multiple Choice Essay

Urban Rural Urban Rural Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 51.94 0.79 52.81 0.60 48.32 0.98 48.92 1.00

ADAMAWA 51.14 1.26 50.07 0.87 50.92 1.18 50.68 1.07

AKWA-IBOM 52.68 0.80 52.39 0.56 49.16 0.94 51.29 0.96 ANAMBRA 54.20 0.92 54.98 0.63 49.97 0.93 51.42 1.10

BAUCHI 45.70 0.85 47.73 0.64 49.90 0.90 48.45 1.06 BAYELSA 51.65 0.98 51.21 0.79 49.83 1.47 50.44 1.47

BORNO 48.18 0.85 48.59 0.69 51.52 1.00 51.40 1.30 BENUE 46.02 1.98 45.96 1.43 54.44 2.30 51.99 2.66

CROSS RIVER 50.92 0.95 51.36 0.67 48.45 1.07 50.98 0.98 DELTA 56.30 0.86 55.80 0.59 50.85 1.10 50.06 0.83

EBONYI 55.22 0.76 52.93 0.59 48.91 0.96 51.46 0.92 EDO 52.05 0.98 52.92 0.76 50.33 1.01 49.88 1.49

EKITI 52.61 0.69 54.64 0.54 51.62 0.87 48.51 1.10 ENUGU 51.71 0.81 52.79 0.57 49.15 0.93 49.10 0.95

GOMBE 41.47 0.73 40.86 0.49 49.56 1.02 50.82 0.94

IMO 53.44 0.75 53.66 0.54 50.73 0.95 49.35 1.06 JIGAWA 45.37 0.82 44.84 0.58 49.61 0.99 49.93 0.84

KADUNA 46.63 0.97 45.40 0.68 50.43 0.98 49.18 1.00 KANO 52.44 1.27 54.00 0.82 51.64 1.46 50.59 1.35

KATSINA 46.11 0.91 44.66 0.68 46.94 1.11 48.81 1.14

KEBBI 56.22 0.84 56.99 0.60 49.63 1.06 46.98 1.11 KOGI 51.81 1.49 50.54 0.83 49.09 1.32 50.89 0.94

KWARA 52.85 0.99 51.37 0.67 49.66 1.07 49.53 0.91 LAGOS 56.44 0.85 55.01 0.64 50.15 0.99 49.46 0.98

NASARAWA 45.01 1.25 44.37 0.87 49.63 1.40 45.62 1.30 NIGER 47.63 1.38 48.52 1.04 49.82 1.03 48.54 1.37

OGUN 53.73 0.70 52.52 0.57 50.34 0.92 49.40 1.14 ONDO 50.06 0.93 49.92 0.66 48.79 0.94 49.74 0.95

OSUN 53.56 0.59 53.26 0.47 50.72 0.82 51.20 1.06 OYO 49.08 0.80 49.60 0.61 50.74 0.88 49.57 1.00

PLATEAU 43.43 0.88 45.61 0.60 49.81 1.09 50.59 0.97

RIVERS 52.00 0.76 55.12 0.55 49.73 0.84 50.17 1.06 SOKOTO 42.67 0.75 42.55 0.53 49.15 0.95 49.47 1.00

TARABA 42.48 0.73 42.25 0.55 52.11 0.90 50.66 0.99 YOBE 52.52 0.68 49.89 0.60 49.14 0.81 51.38 1.37

ZAMFARA 48.76 0.88 48.04 0.68 49.85 0.89 49.00 1.13 FCT 54.32 1.22 55.46 0.91 47.41 1.23 51.92 1.56

National 50.27 0.16 50.26 0.12 49.93 0.17 49.92 0.18

147

Achievement in Content Domains (Themes)

Table 9.6 shows the National average scores on the four content domains: (i) You and

Environment 49.91; (ii) Living and Non-Living things 57.84; and (iii) You and technology

49.87 and You and Energy 55.32. The mean values suggest that the learners had difficulties

with test items on the Environment and Technology than Living and non-living things and

energy.

State analysis reveals a score range for: (i) You and Envornment 34.84 (Gombe) to 59.76

(Kebbi); (ii) Living and non-living things 40.41 (Gombe) to 70.38 (Kebbi); (iii) You and

technology 32.89 (Gombe) to 61.17 (Delta); and (iv) You and Energy 40.66 (Gombe) to

65.67 (Kebbi). There were higher variations in the mean scores on content domain 2 (living

and non-living things) than the three others (differences: 24.92, 29.97.24.28 and 25.4), an

indication that test items in living and non-living things were relatively easy while those on

You and Technology were somewhat difficult. However, learners in each 22 states scored

above the National average for the four content domains.

Gombe state had the least achievement score in the four themes while Kebbi state had the

highest on Themes 1, 2 and 4. Delta state had the highest mean on Theme 3, You and

Technology.

Table 9.7: Mean Scores by State on the Content across States

State You and

environment Living and non-

living things You and

technology You and Energy

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 53.43 0.94 61.66 1.12 54.11 1.11 58.60 0.95 ADAMAWA 50.24 1.38 58.92 1.67 50.11 1.54 56.16 1.39 AKWA-IBOM 53.71 0.90 61.91 1.11 54.20 1.05 58.70 0.92 ANAMBRA 57.26 0.95 65.72 1.17 58.73 1.13 62.16 0.99 BAUCHI 42.93 1.01 52.17 1.32 41.58 1.08 49.82 1.04 BAYELSA 52.18 1.28 59.45 1.54 52.41 1.50 56.71 1.28 BORNO 46.08 1.14 52.97 1.34 44.99 1.23 51.23 1.11 BENUE 43.79 2.17 48.21 3.11 42.08 2.57 48.09 2.39 CROSS RIVER

51.52 1.08 59.10 1.30 51.62 1.23 56.35 1.09

DELTA 59.17 0.94 68.39 1.13 61.17 1.16 64.72 0.97 EBONYI 56.18 0.94 64.81 1.15 57.79 1.13 61.34 0.97 EDO 53.14 1.18 61.92 1.45 53.87 1.36 58.57 1.21 EKITI 54.08 0.90 64.43 1.02 55.14 1.04 60.30 0.87 ENUGU 53.27 0.92 61.16 1.10 53.88 1.07 58.13 0.93 GOMBE 34.84 0.78 40.41 0.94 32.89 0.79 40.66 0.77 IMO 55.45 0.86 64.15 1.04 55.93 1.01 60.58 0.86 JIGAWA 41.02 0.92 48.44 1.18 39.49 0.98 47.14 0.94 KADUNA 42.93 1.09 49.54 1.33 42.16 1.23 48.48 1.12 KANO 54.47 1.36 64.07 1.59 54.33 1.53 60.47 1.32

KATSINA 41.43 1.06 49.35 1.42 39.85 1.15 47.96 1.10

KEBBI 59.76 1.00 70.38 1.14 60.56 1.15 65.67 0.98

KOGI 51.21 1.33 58.53 1.64 51.50 1.55 56.29 1.37

148

KWARA 52.68 1.07 61.04 1.30 52.83 1.23 58.09 1.09

LAGOS 58.68 0.93 67.57 1.13 60.72 1.12 63.93 0.97

NASARAWA 40.79 1.35 47.47 1.64 39.68 1.47 46.47 1.33

NIGER 48.17 1.51 54.49 1.87 47.88 1.71 52.90 1.58

OGUN 54.85 0.93 63.07 1.10 55.46 1.10 59.81 0.92

ONDO 49.48 1.06 57.02 1.29 49.68 1.24 54.74 1.08

OSUN 55.01 0.77 64.02 0.90 55.36 0.89 60.23 0.76

OYO 48.61 0.99 55.51 1.19 47.72 1.09 53.40 0.99

PLATEAU 40.87 0.99 46.54 1.19 39.23 1.05 45.99 0.96

RIVERS 55.23 0.88 63.20 1.06 56.31 1.06 60.04 0.90

SOKOTO 37.23 0.86 44.35 1.11 35.86 0.94 43.67 0.90

TARABA 36.76 0.88 42.98 1.08 35.48 0.97 42.65 0.89

YOBE 52.08 1.00 61.15 1.19 51.09 1.07 57.58 0.98

ZAMFARA 47.53 1.09 53.78 1.40 45.42 1.16 52.29 1.12

FCT 57.08 1.47 66.51 1.74 58.73 1.73 62.63 1.48

NATIONAL 49.91 0.19 57.84 0.23 49.87 0.21 55.32 0.19

Achievement on Cognitive Domains

The achievements in the three objective levels are contained in Table 9.8. Kebbi state

consistently performed better than the other states. The achievement of learners in Gombe

state was the least among the states in the three objectives level.

As can be seen in Table 9.7, National average scores for the three domains were: (i)

Knowledge 57.8; (ii) comprehension 45.13; and (iii) higher order 45.13. Achievement at state

level shows a range of 41.77 (Gombe) to 68.16 (Kebbi) on Knowledge. 30.66 (Gombe) to

55.67 (Kebbi) on comprehension and higher order Gombe state had the lowest achievement

scores on the three cognitive domains and Kebbi state had the highest. While 22 states each

scored above the National averages for the three cognitive domains. The differences in the

range scores 26.39, 25.01 show little variations and indeed the observed scores on

comprehension and higher order is worrisome.

149

Table 9.8: Distribution of Mean Score by State on the Behavioural Objectives

State KNOWLEDEGE COMPREHENSION HIGHER order Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 61.77 0.98 48.04 0.96 48.04 0.96 ADAMAWA 57.93 1.47 46.33 1.38 46.33 1.38 AKWA-IBOM

61.93 0.96 48.36 0.91 48.36 0.91

ANAMBRA 65.37 1.03 52.09 0.96 52.09 0.96 BAUCHI 51.20 1.14 39.17 1.00 39.17 1.00 BAYELSA 60.47 1.35 46.07 1.30 46.07 1.30 BORNO 53.55 1.20 41.24 1.13 41.24 1.13 BENUE 50.03 2.64 38.82 2.07 38.82 2.07 CROSS RIVER

59.38 1.16 46.29 1.07 46.29 1.07

DELTA 67.34 0.99 54.59 0.97 54.59 0.97 EBONYI 64.62 1.01 50.84 0.95 50.84 0.95 EDO 61.65 1.26 47.92 1.20 47.92 1.20 EKITI 63.41 0.91 49.00 0.92 49.00 0.92 ENUGU 61.51 0.97 47.70 0.93 47.70 0.93 GOMBE 41.77 0.87 30.66 0.71 30.66 0.71 IMO 63.83 0.88 50.15 0.90 50.15 0.90 JIGAWA 48.61 1.04 36.89 0.87 36.89 0.87 KADUNA 50.13 1.20 38.61 1.06 38.61 1.06 KANO 62.57 1.38 50.40 1.38 50.40 1.38 KATSINA 49.17 1.23 37.52 1.01 37.52 1.01 KEBBI 68.16 1.00 55.67 1.04 55.67 1.04 KOGI 58.64 1.46 46.53 1.31 46.53 1.31 KWARA 60.42 1.15 48.24 1.07 48.24 1.07 LAGOS 66.86 0.99 53.79 0.96 53.79 0.96 NASARAWA 48.38 1.50 36.10 1.26 36.10 1.26 NIGER 54.62 1.68 44.16 1.47 44.16 1.47 OGUN 63.09 0.97 49.45 0.94 49.45 0.94 ONDO 57.54 1.15 44.23 1.06 44.23 1.06 OSUN 63.76 0.76 49.44 0.82 49.44 0.82 OYO 56.04 1.06 43.59 0.98 43.59 0.98 PLATEAU 47.89 1.09 36.11 0.90 36.11 0.90 RIVERS 63.52 0.92 49.58 0.91 49.58 0.91 SOKOTO 44.94 0.98 33.06 0.83 33.06 0.83 TARABA 44.05 1.01 32.46 0.80 32.46 0.80 YOBE 60.09 1.05 47.67 0.98 47.67 0.98 ZAMFARA 53.83 1.19 43.57 1.09 43.57 1.09 FCT 65.56 1.55 52.25 1.48 52.25 1.48 NATIONAL 57.80 0.20 45.13 0.19 45.13 0.19

150

9.4: Relational Analysis of Performance

In this section, relationship between some salient variables and achievement are explored. It

is realised that some variables could be manipulated or altered to enhance achievement of

learners. Some of these are home-related while others are learner-related. For example,

provision by parents, feeding, modes of transportation to school are some home-related

variables. Liking of school and teacher are learner-related. The central issue in this section is

how these variables affect achievement.

9.4.1: Assistance with Homework

Table 9.9 shows the variation in achievement with assistance on homework given to the

learners. Nationally, there was no significant difference in the achievement in relation to

assistance with homework within mean scores of 50.0, 50.1 and 50.1 for low, medium and

high levels of assistance respectively. When states were considered no consistency was

actually observed. In the case of Benue, Cross River, Jigawa, Katsina and Ogun states,

achievement increased with increase in level of assistance though not significantly different.

In Bauchi and Niger states, as assistance increased achievement decreased. The number of

states scoring above the national average were 17, 22 and 20 for low, moderate and high

levels of assistance respectively. Using number of states having mean score above the

national average, moderate level of assistance showed highest level of achievement. Thus, the

moderate level of assistance seems to have stronger relationship to achievement.

Table 9.9: Relationship between Achievement and Level of Assistance with Homework

in Basic Science and Technology

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.9 0.8 50.4 0.8 48.7 0.8

ADAMAWA 50.6 1 51.4 1 50.3 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 52.4 0.7 53 0.8 52.7 0.9

ANAMBRA 54 0.8 51.7 0.7 51.2 0.8

BAUCHI 52.4 1.1 52 0.6 51.3 1.1

BAYELSA 49.4 1 51.4 1 50.3 1.5

BENUE 50.9 1 51 0.7 52.2 1

BORNO 58.3 7 51.9 1.1 52.3 1.5

CROSS-RIVER 49.4 0.9 50.8 0.7 52.6 0.8

DELTA 49.5 0.7 49.2 0.7 50.4 1.2

EBONYI 47.9 1 47 0.7 47.9 1.1

EDO 52 1.1 50.5 0.7 47.6 1.3

EKITI 47.8 1.4 50.1 0.6 49.5 1

ENUGU 48.1 1 48.5 0.8 47.4 0.7

FCT-ABUJA 50.5 1.4 52 0.8 51.3 1.2

GOMBE 50.5 1.2 51.5 0.7 50.2 1.4

IMO 49.2 0.7 50.2 0.7 47.1 1.2

JIGAWA 48.9 1.5 50.1 0.5 50.9 1.2

151

KADUNA 51.9 1.1 50.4 0.7 51.8 0.7

KANO 51.3 1.2 51.2 0.9 51.5 1.2

KATSINA 49.8 1.3 50 0.7 51 1

KEBBI 53.1 0.9 52.2 0.7 54.4 1

KOGI 49.9 1.1 49.6 0.9 51.1 1.5

KWARA 48.5 1.2 50.4 0.7 49.4 0.9

LAGOS 52.2 0.8 51.1 0.7 51.6 1

NASSARAWA 48.5 1.5 50.5 1 48.9 1.1

NIGER 51.4 1.4 49.8 0.6 49.4 3.7

OGUN 51 0.9 51.6 0.8 52 0.9

ONDO 51 0.9 50.9 0.6 50.3 1.4

OSUN 48.8 0.9 48.6 0.6 49.1 0.9

OYO 49.1 0.8 48.8 0.5 45.8 2.7

PLATEAU 51.1 1.2 50.9 0.6 49.6 1.1

RIVERS 46.8 0.7 48.1 0.8 46.4 0.8

SOKOTO 47.2 0.8 47.1 0.7 48.8 0.8

TARABA 49 0.9 49 0.7 49.7 0.6

YOBE 49.9 1 49.4 0.7 49.3 1

ZAMFARA 48.7 1.3 49.9 0.6 49.9 0.9

National 50 0.2 50.1 0.1 50.1 0.2

Availability of Learning Materials

At the national level in Table 9.10, as level of availability of learning materials increased, achievement also increased in Basic Science and Technology. The same trend was observed for Bauchi, Bayelsa, Benue, Enugu and Gombe states among others. In Anambra, Kaduna, Kogi and Nasarawa states among others, as level of available facilities increased, achievement decreased. When achievement above the national averages were considered, there was 24, 20 and 18 states for low, moderate and high level of availability respectively. With this criterion, it seems that achievement is highest at low level of availability of learning facilities though the mean scores were not significantly different.

152

Table 9.10: Level of Availability of Learning Materials as Related to Achievement in

Basic Science and Technology

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 47.6 1.2 50.2 0.5 49.3 1.3

ADAMAWA 50.8 0.9 51.1 0.8 48.5 1.6

AKWA-IBOM 51.2 0.8 53.5 0.6 51.9 1.2

ANAMBRA 53.1 1.4 52.3 0.6 52.2 0.9

BAUCHI 51.3 0.7 52.5 0.8 53.1 1.4

BAYELSA 50.1 0.9 50.5 1 50.6 2.2

BENUE 50.5 1.1 51.4 0.6 54 3.1

BORNO 51.9 1.3 53.7 1.7 52 2.3

CROSS-RIVER 51.6 0.8 51.3 0.6 49.1 1.3

DELTA 48.2 1 50.3 0.5 46.7 1.5

EBONYI 47.7 1 47.2 0.7 47.9 1.3

EDO 51.7 1.4 49.8 0.7 50.7 1.4

EKITI 50.1 0.8 49.4 0.6 49.9 1.2

ENUGU 47.2 1.3 47.5 0.5 49.1 1.2

FCT-ABUJA 56.7 1.8 50.8 0.9 51.4 0.9

GOMBE 50.5 0.9 51.5 0.7 51.9 2.6

IMO 47.7 1.2 49.7 0.5 48.8 1.8

JIGAWA 50.1 0.7 49.9 0.6 51.3 1.6

KADUNA 51.3 0.7 51.2 0.6 50 1.6

KANO 51.9 0.9 50.2 1 53.5 1.4

KATSINA 51 0.9 49.7 0.7 49.9 2.1

KEBBI 53.3 0.9 52.8 0.7 52.9 1.3

KOGI 52.4 1.4 49.5 0.8 48.9 1.6

KWARA 50 1.1 49.6 0.6 50.2 1.4

LAGOS 51.6 1.4 51.3 0.6 52.2 0.9

NASSARAWA 50.3 1 48.9 1 47.7 1.8

NIGER 49.5 0.7 51.3 1 * *

OGUN 52.6 1.6 51.4 0.6 51.5 1.6

ONDO 50.1 0.8 51.5 0.6 49.9 1.5

OSUN 49.5 1.2 48.5 0.5 51.4 1.6

OYO 48.8 0.8 48.5 0.5 50.9 1.8

PLATEAU 50.5 0.7 51 0.6 50.3 2

RIVERS 46 1 47.2 0.5 46.7 1.2

SOKOTO 46.9 0.8 47.9 0.6 47.7 1

TARABA 49 0.7 49.7 0.5 47.7 2.2

YOBE 49.3 0.7 49.7 0.7 50.2 2.5

ZAMFARA 49.3 0.6 49.8 0.8 51.3 1.4

National 50 0.2 50.1 0.1 50.3 0.2 * Not Applicable

153

Out of School Non-Learning Engagement

At the national level, engagement in non-learning activities as in Table 9.11 showed that achievement increased slightly with increase in involvement in non-learning engagements. Although, the difference was not statistically significant. The number of states performing above the national average for each level of involvement showed that low, moderate and high levels had 20, 17 and 17 states respectively. As expected, low levels of engagement in non learning activities relates more to highest achievement in the states.

Table 9.11: Level Out of School Non Learning Engagement and Performance in Basic

Science and Technology

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 48.7 0.8 49.8 0.7 49.8 0.9

ADAMAWA 49.3 1.1 51.7 1 50.4 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 50.9 1.1 53.1 0.6 53 0.9

ANAMBRA 53.4 0.8 51.7 0.7 52.2 0.9

BAUCHI 52 0.8 52.1 0.8 51.6 1

BAYELSA 49.6 1.9 50 0.8 51.3 1.3

BENUE 48.8 1.8 51.5 0.6 51.4 1.3

BORNO 52.8 2.8 52.8 4.2 52.3 1

CROSS-RIVER 51 0.9 50.1 0.7 52.5 0.9

DELTA 49.8 0.9 49.4 0.6 49.6 1.3

EBONYI 47.5 1.1 46.9 0.6 48.8 1.1

EDO 51.4 1.5 50 0.7 50.2 1.2

EKITI 48.6 1.1 50.2 0.6 49.4 1.2

ENUGU 47.5 0.9 47.9 0.7 47.6 0.8

FCT-ABUJA 51.7 1 52.9 1.1 50.4 1.1

GOMBE 48.1 1.9 51.5 0.7 52 1

IMO 49.8 1.5 49.4 0.6 48.9 1.1

JIGAWA 50.3 1 50 0.6 49.7 1

KADUNA 50.9 0.9 51.3 0.8 50.9 0.7

KANO 50.6 1.2 52.2 1.1 51.1 1

KATSINA 49.8 0.9 50.8 0.8 49.7 1.2

KEBBI 53.1 0.9 52.7 0.7 53 1.1

KOGI 50.9 1.7 49.3 0.8 51.4 1.2

KWARA 50.5 1 49.5 0.7 49.4 1.1

LAGOS 51.3 0.7 52.2 0.8 50.6 1.1

NASSARAWA 50.5 1.9 48.7 0.9 50 1.2

NIGER 51.7 1.9 50 0.6 49.3 2.5

OGUN 51.5 0.9 52.5 0.7 49.3 1.1

ONDO 51.9 1 50.6 0.7 50.3 0.9

OSUN 48 0.8 48.8 0.6 49.7 0.8

OYO 50.4 0.8 48.4 0.6 47.9 1.1

PLATEAU 51.9 0.9 50.9 0.6 49.4 0.9

154

RIVERS 45.4 0.7 47.7 0.7 47.8 0.9

SOKOTO 48.1 0.8 47.9 0.7 47.8 0.9

TARABA 49.8 0.9 49.4 0.6 48.9 0.8

YOBE 49.1 0.8 50.1 0.9 48.6 0.9

ZAMFARA 49.9 0.8 49.3 0.8 49.2 1

National 50 0.2 50.1 0.1 50.1 0.2

Occupation of Fathers

As can be seen in Table 9.12, nationally the achievement of learners whose fathers are into Farming (50.4) was the best, next were learners whose fathers‟ occupation is Business (50.3), the learners whose fathers are into „Other‟ occupations had the lowest achievement. The use of the criterion of mean greater than national average gives 20 for farming/fishing, and 18 for business/trading. Although, learners whose parents are workers had a national average of 49.9, 19 states had mean score above the National average. It seems none of the occupations had a stronger relationship with achievement. Table 9.12: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and

Technology

State Farming/fishing Business/trading

Worker(Public/ private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 48.3 1 50.1 1 51.2 1.2 48.7 0.9

ADAMAWA 51.4 1.1 49.9 1.3 49.1 1 52 2.6

AKWA-IBOM 53.5 1.2 52.7 0.9 53.3 0.9 52.8 1.1

ANAMBRA 53 1.4 53.9 0.7 49.1 1.2 50.6 1.2

BAUCHI 51.9 0.9 52.6 1.1 51.2 0.8 50.8 2.4

BAYELSA 49.1 1.5 52.6 2.1 49.5 1.2 49.1 2.1

BENUE 51.8 0.7 52 1.6 50.1 1 48.6 2.2

BORNO 52.8 . * 53.2 1.1 50.2 2.4 * *

CROSS-

RIVER

50.6 1 51.3 1.1 50.7 1.1 50.1 0.9

DELTA 49.6 0.9 47.4 1.1 50.6 0.7 46.3 0.7

EBONYI 49.7 1 46.9 1.2 46.7 0.9 46.8 1.2

EDO 51 0.9 48.8 1.5 50.2 1 50.5 2.4

EKITI 49.5 0.9 51.5 0.8 49.2 0.9 48.1 1.5

ENUGU 48.8 1 47.9 1.2 46.7 0.9 47.9 1.1

FCT-ABUJA 50.8 1.4 51.7 2 51.5 0.7 51.1 5.5

GOMBE 48.9 1.1 53.5 1.3 51.4 0.8 51.5 1.7

IMO 51.2 1.3 48.5 0.7 48.8 0.8 55.3 2.1

JIGAWA 51.5 0.8 50.3 0.9 49.7 0.8 48.7 1.3

KADUNA 52.1 0.7 50.6 1.2 50.8 0.9 52 2

KANO 52 1.1 49.7 1.2 50.9 1.2 55.2 1.4

KATSINA 51.3 1.5 50.5 0.9 49.8 1 47.1 2.1

KEBBI 52.2 1 52.3 1.1 52.7 0.9 55.7 1.4

155

State Farming/fishing Business/trading

Worker(Public/ private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

KOGI 50.6 1 53.4 1.6 48.1 0.9 47.5 3

KWARA 49.1 0.9 51.7 1.3 51.8 0.9 47 1.2

LAGOS 53.4 2.2 50.1 0.8 51.1 0.8 54 1.1

NASSARAWA 49.2 1.3 51 1.6 49 1.2 50.2 3.7

NIGER 50.1 0.7 49 1.5 51.3 1.3 50.4 3.5

OGUN 52.3 1.1 52.2 0.9 50.7 0.9 52.2 1.6

ONDO 51.3 0.8 53.2 1.6 50.2 0.8 50.9 1.5

OSUN 49 0.8 49 0.9 47.5 0.9 49 1.2

OYO 48.6 1 47.8 0.9 49.1 1.1 49.4 0.8

PLATEAU 51.1 0.7 49.8 1.4 50.3 0.7 52.9 2.6

RIVERS 48.5 1.3 47.1 0.8 47.6 0.9 45.7 1

SOKOTO 48 0.9 47.6 0.7 47.9 0.8 51.1 3.5

TARABA 49.5 0.8 50 1 49.7 0.8 50 5.4

YOBE 49.5 1 50.1 1 49.2 0.7 53.2 2.1

ZAMFARA 49.6 0.8 49.9 1 49.9 1 46 1.4

National 50.4 0.2 50.3 0.2 49.9 0.2 49.8 0.3

* Not Applicable

Occupation of Mother In Table 9.13, national achievement of learners whose mothers are into farming/fishing (50.3) was the best followed by learners whose mothers are in the occupation categorised as Other (50.2), the learners of mothers who are into Business/trading and worker (Public and private) had the lowest achievement. These values show variation so little and not significant. With national average as a criterion, the occupational group of worker (Public/private) had the greatest impact as 21 states performed above the national average. Learners in Akwa Ibom and Kebbi States had high mean scores across occupational type. While learners in Katsina state whose mothers are workers had the highest mean score of 56.6 for all occupations examined. Similar to the occupation of fathers, is that of the mothers which shows a weak relationship with achievement. Table 9.13: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and

Technology

State Farming/fishing Business/trading

Worker(Public/ private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 48 1.2 49.8 0.8 49.5 1 50.8 0.9

ADAMAWA 48.8 1.5 51.3 1.1 48.9 2.2 50.2 1

AKWA-IBOM 54.3 1.5 53 0.6 53.9 1.4 49.8 2.7

ANAMBRA 51.4 1.4 52.3 0.6 51.6 1.1 52.7 2.3

BAUCHI 50.1 2.1 52.4 1.2 50.3 1.5 52 0.8

BAYELSA 50.1 1 51.4 1.5 50.3 2.2 46.8 2.8

156

BENUE 51.5 0.8 50.6 1 51.1 1.8 50.1 2

BORNO 52.6 1.8 50.4 1.9 54 2.4 55.8 *

CROSS-RIVER

50.8 1.1 49.8 0.8 49.7 1.3 52 1.4

DELTA 50.1 1 49.5 0.7 49.2 1 46.5 0.6

EBONYI 49.5 1.8 47.9 0.8 46.9 1 45.5 1.3

EDO 53.3 1.3 49.2 0.8 51 1.6 50 3.2

EKITI 49.1 1.3 49.3 0.6 50.8 0.8 50.8 3.2

ENUGU 48.9 1.2 47.5 0.7 46.8 1.5 49 1.4

FCT-ABUJA 52.7 1.8 51.8 0.8 50.8 1.2 42.2 6.6

GOMBE 51.7 1.3 49.7 1.2 52.1 1 51.1 1.3

IMO 47.5 1.2 49.6 0.7 48.6 1.1 53.5 1.7

JIGAWA 52.1 1.1 50.4 0.8 51.1 1.6 50 0.8

KADUNA 51.3 1.2 51 0.9 50.9 1.3 52.2 1.3

KANO 54.4 5.5 50.1 1.5 46 2.6 51.5 0.8

KATSINA * * 50.7 1.1 56.6 3.4 50.3 1.2

KEBBI 55.4 0.9 52.2 0.8 53.4 1.6 53.5 1

KOGI 48.6 1.4 49.8 0.9 52.2 2.9 47.1 1.7

KWARA 49.3 1.3 49.6 0.7 53.3 1.5 49.6 1.9

LAGOS 52.6 2.6 51.5 0.6 50.8 1.3 53.1 1.6

NASSARAWA 46.9 1.2 50.2 1.3 50.1 1.4 50 2.8

NIGER 49.1 1.8 50.6 0.8 49.8 1.5 49.7 2

OGUN 50.6 2.3 52 0.6 51.9 1.3 48.4 3

ONDO 51.4 1 50.2 0.8 50.5 0.9 52.7 2.1

OSUN 49.3 2.6 49.1 0.5 45.4 1.4 46.8 1.4

OYO 48 1.2 49.1 0.7 48.7 1.3 48.8 0.8

PLATEAU 50.9 0.8 50.3 0.9 51.5 1.2 52 1.7

RIVERS 52.1 2.3 47.2 0.6 46.3 1 43.8 2.2

SOKOTO 49.2 2.4 48 0.9 47.1 1.2 47.7 0.8

TARABA 49.2 0.9 49.7 0.8 48.7 1.2 48.7 1.9

YOBE 48.7 2.6 49.8 0.9 50.1 1.7 49.5 1

ZAMFARA 52.5 2.2 49.2 1.2 50.8 3 49.9 0.7

National 50.3 0.2 50.1 0.1 50.1 0.2 50.2 0.2

*Not applicable

Means of Going to School

In Table 9.14, the number of learners who go to school by donkey and canoe was quite small

and was therefore set aside in this presentation. From the results, the best achievement at the

National level was exhibited by learners who go to school with taxi/bus (50.2) and

Okada/Bicycle/tricycle (50.2) and by those who walk (50.1) while those who go to school

with family car trailed behind. There was strictly no significant difference in achievement at

the National level. At state level, learners in 20 states who walked to school and those in

family cars had mean scores higher than the national average. While those who used

157

Okada/bicycle/tricycle and taxi/bus had mean scores higher than the national average in 18

and 19 states respectively. The state level analysis supports the national data, which suggest

that Means of going to school is not an alterable variable for achievement in Basic science

and Technology.

Table 9.14: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Achievement in Basic

Science and Technology

State Walking Donkey Canoe

Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle

Taxi/Bus Family Car

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.4 0.5 * * * * 50.4 1.5 50.2 3.2 52.3 2.5

ADAMAWA 51.0 0.6 53.1 1.3 * * 47.9 1.7 * * 54.8 2.4

AKWA-IBOM 52.6 0.5 57.6 * * * 52.5 1.4 54.8 2.5 51.0 2.9

ANAMBRA 51.9 0.6 * * * * 52.7 1.3 55.1 1.5 54.7 2.2

BAUCHI 52.1 0.5 * * * * 52.1 2.1 49.0 3.6 51.8 1.8

BAYELSA 50.4 0.7 * * * * 49.0 3.8 47.9 8.0 51.0 1.3

BENUE 51.3 0.5 * * 57.2 * 48.8 * 54.9 3.5 50.2 2.0

BORNO 51.3 1.7 * * * * 49.3 * 53.4 1.2 53.6 3.2

CROSS-RIVER

50.8 0.5 * * 46.2 4.2 50.3 3.1 51.6 3.0 52.9 1.9

DELTA 49.4 0.5 * * * * 51.2 2.1 49.3 2.0 49.7 1.2

EBONYI 47.4 0.5 * * * * 44.8 2.1 46.7 2.5 50.3 1.9

EDO 50.3 0.6 * * * * 41.5 3.0 52.0 * 52.9 3.8

EKITI 49.6 0.5 * * * * 47.0 1.3 51.6 1.6 50.8 1.6

ENUGU 47.7 0.5 * * * * 49.4 2.6 48.2 2.0 47.4 2.1

FCT-ABUJA 52.1 0.7 * * * * 48.8 2.0 53.5 3.1 50.9 1.4

GOMBE 51.3 0.7 48.4 2.0 62.1 3.1 49.1 3.2 48.8 2.4 51.9 1.2

IMO 49.6 0.5 * * * * 48.1 1.7 50.7 2.6 46.8 1.1

JIGAWA 50.2 0.5 * * 48.5 * 50.3 2.3 50.7 3.0 47.2 1.5

KADUNA 51.3 0.5 * * * * 51.5 1.3 51.2 2.7 47.6 2.3

KANO 50.9 0.7 * * 51.0 * 53.4 1.5 54.9 0.8 * *

KATSINA 50.1 0.6 * * * * 51.5 1.6 49.3 3.9 46.8 1.7

KEBBI 53.0 0.6 * * * * 52.0 1.6 47.8 3.1 54.9 2.1

KOGI 50.3 0.7 50.7 * * * 55.6 2.2 47.5 4.4 47.5 1.9

KWARA 50.1 0.6 * * 52.6 * 49.7 1.7 50.3 2.0 49.3 2.1

LAGOS 52.2 0.6 * * 46.5 2.9 52.8 1.2 50.9 1.2 48.2 1.6

NASSARAWA 49.6 0.8 * * 56.2 5.8 46.6 2.5 51.8 1.4 48.7 1.8

NIGER 49.9 0.7 50.4 . 58.0 * 55.5 3.8 51.0 1.7 49.3 1.9

OGUN 51.0 0.6 * * 49.8 * 52.9 1.1 52.0 1.9 51.7 2.2

ONDO 50.8 0.5 * * * * 52.9 2.0 48.8 2.0 52.7 1.4

OSUN 48.4 0.5 * * * * 49.2 1.2 50.2 1.6 53.3 1.7

OYO 49.2 0.6 52.8 4.8 49.1 4.9 46.9 1.6 48.8 1.2 48.5 0.8

PLATEAU 50.6 0.5 * * 55.5 . 48.6 9.6 54.0 2.2 51.0 1.5

RIVERS 47.4 0.5 * * * * 44.6 1.0 44.3 1.2 49.1 1.6

SOKOTO 47.6 0.5 * * * * 49.7 1.9 41.8 4.2 48.2 1.2

158

TARABA 49.3 0.5 * * * * 51.3 1.0 54.7 1.2 49.5 1.1

YOBE 49.8 0.5 * * * * 48.4 2.4 48.2 2.7 47.4 2.0

ZAMFARA 49.6 0.6 * * 52.7 3.1 50.3 1.3 46.2 2.1 52.1 1.8

National 50.1 0.1 51.9 1.3 51.9 1.4 50.2 0.3 50.2 0.4 50.0 0.3

*Not applicable

Distance between Learners’ Home and School As can be seen in Table 9.15, mean score at the national level for the four categories of

distances ranged from 49.7 to 50.5. Pair wise comparisons were not statistically significant.

However, achievement by states shows that the number of states with mean scores higher

than national averages were 18, 16, 17 and 24 for the categories less than 1 km, 1 to 2 km, 2

to 3km and more than 3 km respectively.

Further examination of the results reveals that learners in Akwa Ibom State had the highest

mean of 53.2 for less than 1 km, Borno State with a mean score of 55.9 as highest for 1 to 2

km group, Kebbi State had a mean score of 54.0 in the group of 2 to 3 km and Benue with

54.7 as the highest among those who walked more than 3 km.

Table 9.15: Distance between Learners’ Home and School as Related to Achievement in

Basic Science and Technology

Less than 1km 1 to 2km 2 to 3km More than 3km State Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.2 1.0 49.0 0.9 50.2 1.0 50.1 1.0

ADAMAWA 51.1 1.0 50.7 0.9 51.4 2.1 50.1 1.6

AKWA-IBOM 53.2 1.0 52.1 1.1 53.7 0.8 52.0 0.8

ANAMBRA 52.8 0.9 52.7 0.8 52.9 1.2 51.3 1.0

BAUCHI 52.3 0.6 51.8 1.0 51.3 1.7 50.2 1.6

BAYELSA 51.1 1.0 49.7 1.1 49.7 2.3 50.4 1.6

BENUE 50.9 0.7 51.9 1.1 50.5 1.2 54.7 1.8

BORNO 51.0 1.4 55.9 1.6 49.3 2.1 50.9 3.6

CROSS-RIVER 50.1 0.8 51.8 0.8 50.0 1.1 52.3 1.3

DELTA 49.8 0.8 49.5 0.8 50.0 1.1 47.5 1.0

EBONYI 48.1 1.2 47.1 1.2 46.7 1.1 47.2 0.8

EDO 50.4 1.1 49.7 1.0 50.3 1.3 50.6 1.2

EKITI 50.5 0.7 48.6 0.7 49.7 1.0 49.1 2.1

ENUGU 48.7 1.1 48.5 0.9 48.1 1.1 47.1 0.8

FCT-ABUJA 50.0 1.3 51.1 1.6 52.2 1.2 51.8 1.1

GOMBE 51.6 0.8 50.2 1.1 50.5 1.5 52.9 2.8

IMO 48.5 0.9 49.4 0.9 49.5 0.9 49.8 1.1

JIGAWA 50.0 0.5 48.6 1.0 53.8 1.9 52.6 1.3

KADUNA 51.6 0.7 50.7 0.9 52.5 1.0 50.2 1.4

KANO 51.1 0.8 52.3 1.6 50.7 2.3 51.6 2.2

159

KATSINA 50.2 0.7 49.0 1.1 50.8 1.4 51.3 2.2

KEBBI 52.0 0.7 53.5 1.0 54.0 1.4 53.6 1.3

KOGI 50.7 1.1 49.1 1.0 53.3 1.5 48.2 1.7

KWARA 49.0 0.8 50.1 0.9 51.2 1.3 49.9 1.2

LAGOS 51.2 1.1 52.5 0.8 51.4 1.0 50.5 0.9

NASSARAWA 49.0 1.2 49.7 0.9 48.1 2.1 50.2 2.0

NIGER 49.9 0.7 49.4 1.3 52.1 2.5 51.2 2.1

OGUN 51.4 0.9 51.5 1.0 52.3 0.9 50.5 1.4

ONDO 50.4 0.8 51.3 0.9 51.5 1.0 50.5 1.2

OSUN 47.4 1.0 49.7 0.8 48.5 0.8 49.4 0.9

OYO 48.4 0.9 48.8 0.7 49.3 1.0 48.6 1.2

PLATEAU 51.4 0.7 49.7 0.8 52.7 1.3 49.7 1.4

RIVERS 46.8 0.8 46.6 1.0 48.1 1.0 46.9 0.8

SOKOTO 47.7 0.6 47.6 1.1 47.7 1.4 46.4 2.5

TARABA 49.9 0.6 48.1 0.8 49.6 1.4 49.3 0.9

YOBE 49.8 0.6 48.4 1.2 49.9 1.7 49.4 3.5

ZAMFARA 49.8 0.7 49.1 1.0 50.2 1.3 50.0 1.4

National 50.3 0.1 50.0 0.2 50.5 0.2 49.7 0.2

Number of Meals Per Day

At the national level in Table 9.16, it was observed that the trend in achievement with

variation in number of meals eaten in a day is not predictable. With respect to achievement

above the national average, Table 9.16 shows that 22, 22, 18 and 17 states were for one, two,

three and four meals respectively. Top performing states for each meal plan were FCT (63.9)

one meal plan, Kebbi (55.1) Two meals plan, Borno (53.2) three meals plan and Kaduna

(55.8) four meals plan. Although, the Meal plan had more states above the national average,

the school feeding policy supports a minimum of two meals a day.

Table 9.16: Number of Meals Per Day as Related to Achievement in Basic Science and

Technology

State Once Twice Three times Four times

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 51.1 3.9 49.4 1.0 49.7 0.5 49.6 1.3

ADAMAWA 56.9 1.6 51.0 1.4 50.1 0.7 54.5 2.4

AKWA-IBOM 51.1 2.7 52.0 1.1 53.1 0.5 50.4 1.6

ANAMBRA 56.4 7.6 52.0 1.8 52.4 0.5 51.3 2.4

BAUCHI * * 53.9 1.8 51.8 0.5 52.0 2.0

BAYELSA 53.6 2.3 52.2 2.0 49.5 0.7 49.3 2.2

BENUE 54.7 3.0 50.3 1.5 51.4 0.6 51.4 1.6

BORNO 45.5 3.0 51.5 1.1 53.2 1.1 * *

CROSS-RIVER 49.9 1.9 52.3 1.3 50.6 0.5 54.6 2.4

DELTA 48.7 2.3 48.4 0.8 49.9 0.6 50.0 2.0

160

EBONYI 49.2 3.0 48.0 1.3 47.5 0.6 45.4 2.6

EDO 50.8 2.3 46.7 1.7 51.1 0.6 48.6 1.7

EKITI 52.0 1.0 48.3 1.1 49.5 0.6 49.6 1.4

ENUGU 49.6 3.7 46.3 1.2 48.1 0.5 48.1 2.6

FCT-ABUJA 63.9 * 52.3 1.9 51.5 0.7 49.5 1.5

GOMBE 51.7 1.0 51.9 1.1 50.0 0.9 53.0 2.9

IMO 51.4 2.6 48.8 1.3 49.4 0.5 46.0 *

JIGAWA 51.7 2.0 50.8 1.1 49.7 0.5 51.9 2.0

KADUNA 53.2 2.2 48.7 0.9 51.1 0.5 55.8 1.6

KANO 55.2 2.4 51.9 2.2 50.6 0.7 54.0 6.8

KATSINA 53.4 2.7 52.6 2.8 50.2 0.6 48.9 1.5

KEBBI 53.2 1.7 55.1 3.2 53.1 0.5 51.2 1.7

KOGI 54.0 3.3 49.1 1.3 50.1 0.7 44.6 *

KWARA 47.5 3.7 50.7 2.2 49.8 0.5 48.0 2.3

LAGOS 52.8 4.9 52.4 1.3 51.1 0.6 52.1 1.4

NASSARAWA 43.7 4.6 50.5 1.5 49.3 0.8 51.4 2.8

NIGER 49.4 0.8 51.4 1.7 50.8 1.0 45.7 3.5

OGUN 53.8 6.8 49.8 1.6 51.6 0.6 52.2 1.2

ONDO 50.8 1.1 51.0 1.9 50.6 0.6 53.2 1.8

OSUN 41.4 1.6 47.5 1.4 49.1 0.5 48.4 1.6

OYO 48.9 0.9 48.0 0.9 49.3 0.7 45.6 1.4

PLATEAU 51.0 1.8 50.6 0.8 50.5 0.6 55.2 1.9

RIVERS 44.5 1.4 46.2 1.2 47.4 0.5 46.5 1.3

SOKOTO 47.6 2.7 46.0 0.8 47.7 0.5 49.8 1.8

TARABA 48.1 1.5 50.1 0.7 49.2 0.6 48.6 2.5

YOBE 51.8 3.0 49.3 1.0 49.2 0.6 53.6 1.6

ZAMFARA 49.4 1.5 49.3 1.7 49.7 0.6 51.6 1.9

National 50.4 0.3 49.8 0.2 50.1 0.1 50.5 0.3

*Not applicable

Possession of Textbook

As can be seen in Table 9.17, National average for learners without textbooks was 50.0 and for learners with textbooks 50.2. Among the states, 17 had mean scores greater than the national average for learners without textbooks and 20 states for those with textbooks. Borno (53.2) and Kebbi (53.3) States had the highest mean score for learners without textbooks, whereas learners in Akwa Ibom had the highest mean score for possession of textbooks (53.0).

161

Table 9.17: Learners’ Possession of Textbook on Basic Science and Technology as

Related to Achievement

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 49.3 0.6 51.1 0.9

ADAMAWA 50.0 0.7 50.7 1.2

AKWA-IBOM 52.2 0.6 53.0 0.8

ANAMBRA 52.3 0.7 52.5 0.8

BAUCHI 51.7 0.6 51.8 0.9

BAYELSA 51.9 1.0 49.4 0.9

BENUE 51.0 0.6 51.3 1.1

BORNO 53.2 2.0 52.5 1.2

CROSS-RIVER 50.2 0.6 51.3 0.9

DELTA 49.6 0.5 49.2 1.0

EBONYI 47.8 0.7 46.9 0.7

EDO 49.9 0.7 52.3 1.1

EKITI 49.6 0.6 50.0 0.9

ENUGU 48.1 0.6 47.2 0.8

FCT-ABUJA 51.9 0.7 50.2 1.5

GOMBE 50.0 0.7 52.7 1.1

IMO 49.7 0.7 49.5 0.7

JIGAWA 50.4 0.5 49.1 0.8

KADUNA 51.1 0.6 50.5 1.0

KANO 51.2 0.8 50.6 1.1

KATSINA 50.0 0.7 51.5 1.2

KEBBI 53.3 0.8 52.8 0.8

KOGI 49.2 0.9 50.3 1.0

KWARA 49.7 0.6 49.4 0.9

LAGOS 51.5 0.7 51.5 0.8

NASSARAWA 50.2 0.8 48.7 1.5

NIGER 50.0 0.7 50.3 1.3

OGUN 51.9 0.6 51.2 1.0

ONDO 50.7 0.7 50.6 0.7

OSUN 48.7 0.5 50.0 1.1

OYO 48.9 0.5 48.5 1.1

PLATEAU 50.2 0.6 51.9 0.8

RIVERS 46.5 0.6 46.9 0.7

SOKOTO 46.8 0.5 48.0 0.9

TARABA 48.8 0.5 50.2 0.9

YOBE 49.1 0.6 50.2 0.8

ZAMFARA 49.9 0.7 49.3 0.9

National 50.0 0.1 50.2 0.2

162

Liking Teachers

Nationally, achievement of learners who like and those who do not like their teachers are

similar as in Table 9.18. Further examination of the table shows learners in only 23 states and

FCT responded to not liking Teacher. Among these states, 11 had mean scores higher than

the national average while learners in 18 states obtained mean scores above the national

average for liking teachers. On the basis of mean scores above the national average, it would

seem that liking Teacher had a stronger relationship to achievement, however, the top five

highest mean scores in Table 9.18 were obtained by learners who do not like their teachers in

Ebonyi (52.8), Kano (57.5), Gombe (58.2), Edo (58.9) and Taraba (65.7).

Table 9.18: Liking Teacher and Achievement in Basic Science and Technology

No Yes

State Mean SE Mean SE ABIA * * 49.7 0.5

ADAMAWA 49.7 3.4 50.9 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 52.7 0.5

ANAMBRA 41.0 * 52.5 0.5

BAUCHI 50.0 1.5 51.9 0.5

BAYELSA * * 50.4 0.7

BENUE * * 51.5 0.5

BORNO 42.0 * 52.7 0.9

CROSS-RIVER 51.8 * 51.0 0.5

DELTA * * 49.5 0.5

EBONYI 52.8 0.8 47.4 0.5

EDO 58.9 3.6 50.3 0.6

EKITI * * 49.7 0.5

ENUGU 51.8 4.1 47.7 0.5

FCT-ABUJA 42.1 * 51.5 0.6

GOMBE 58.2 * 50.5 0.7

IMO * * 49.3 0.5

JIGAWA 48.0 1.6 50.1 0.5

KADUNA * * 51.2 0.5

KANO 57.5 * 51.3 0.6

KATSINA * * 49.9 0.6

KEBBI * * 52.9 0.5

KOGI * * 49.9 0.6

KWARA 44.9 * 49.9 0.5

LAGOS * * 51.4 0.5

NASSARAWA 39.8 * 49.5 0.7

NIGER 51.0 2.0 50.0 0.6

OGUN 45.9 9.6 51.6 0.5

ONDO * * 50.7 0.5

OSUN 52.6 0.7 48.8 0.5

OYO 49.0 3.2 48.9 0.5

163

PLATEAU 50.0 2.0 50.7 0.5

RIVERS 47.7 1.4 46.9 0.5

SOKOTO 51.0 3.0 48.1 0.5

TARABA 65.7 * 49.2 0.4

YOBE 51.6 * 49.5 0.5

ZAMFARA 49.5 4.8 49.8 0.5

National 50.1 0.8 50.1 0.1

*Not applicable

Liking Schooling

As can be seen in Table 9.19, the national picture is such that learners who like schooling had

a mean score of 50.1 and those who did not obtained a mean score of 49.2. State analysis

shows that learners in only 21 states indicated they do not like Schooling. Among those

states, nine had mean scores higher than the national average while learners in 20 states had

mean score higher than the national average for liking schooling. Similar to the observation

in the last section, the top five mean scores in Table 9.19 were for not liking Schooling for

learners in Zamfara (54.1), Ogun (55.5), Niger (56.7) Anambra (60.4) and Kebbi (61.2). The

lowest mean scores can also be gleaned from the results of learners not liking Schooling.

Table 9.19: Liking Schooling and Achievement in Basic Science and Technology

State No Yes

Mean SE Mean SE ABIA 46.8 0.9 49.7 0.5 ADAMAWA * * 50.5 0.6 AKWA-IBOM * * 52.7 0.5 ANAMBRA 60.4 * 52.3 0.5 BAUCHI 44.2 3.0 52.1 0.5 BAYELSA 40.7 * 50.4 0.7 BENUE * * 51.4 0.6 BORNO 51.8 6.6 52.4 0.9 CROSS-RIVER 52.2 4.1 51.0 0.5 DELTA 46.8 1.3 49.5 0.5 EBONYI * * 47.4 0.5 EDO * * 50.4 0.6 EKITI * * 49.7 0.5 ENUGU * * 47.7 0.5 FCT-ABUJA * * 51.4 0.6 GOMBE 51.8 * 50.5 0.7 IMO * * 49.3 0.5 JIGAWA 46.7 2.5 50.3 0.5 KADUNA * * 51.1 0.5 KANO * * 51.2 0.6 KATSINA 45.0 * 50.2 0.6 KEBBI 61.2 * 52.8 0.5 KOGI 45.3 * 49.9 0.6

164

*Not applicable

KWARA 39.0 * 49.8 0.5 LAGOS 42.6 * 51.6 0.6 NASSARAWA * * 49.6 0.7 NIGER 56.7 2.9 49.7 0.6 OGUN 55.5 * 51.5 0.5 ONDO 50.3 4.3 50.8 0.5 OSUN * * 48.8 0.5 OYO 33.7 * 49.1 0.5 PLATEAU 45.7 * 50.9 0.5 RIVERS * * 47.0 0.5 SOKOTO 45.6 2.7 47.5 0.5 TARABA * * 49.2 0.4 YOBE * * 49.5 0.5 ZAMFARA 54.1 4.9 50.0 0.5 National 49.2 1.1 50.1 0.1

165

Chapter Ten

Achievement in Social Studies

10.1.1: National Achievement The National average for Multiple Choice and Essay type tests are given in Figure 10.1.

These values hang together and indicate homogeneity in achievement among the learners.

Figure 10.1: National Average for

Multiple Choice and Essay Type Tests

10.1.2 Range and percentile

The range shows the spread or cluster of scores while the percentile indicates the relative

standing of an examinee‟s score vis-a-vis scores of other examinees. The scores were

categorised into five clusters: 0-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and 75 and above. From Figure 10.2,

it is observed that the cluster within which most learners scored on the multiple choice test

was 50-59 (33.6 percent) and for the essay it was also 40-49 (60.1 percent). The cluster 0-39

contained 18.1 percent and zero percent respectively for the Multiple Choice and Essay tests.

On the cluster for Excellent achievement, no learner‟s score on the Multiple Choice test fall

within while 8 percent did so for the Essay test. Although a greater population of learners‟ achievement in the Multiple Choice test was Good, 25.5 percent were Fair and 22.7 percent

Very Good achievement. On the Essay test, achievement was Fair for 60.1percent of the

learners.

From Figure 10.2, learners who scored 35.94, 41.9, 51.06, 58.45 and 62.28 performed better

than 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 90 percent of learners who took the

Multiple Choice test. From the same figure, learners who scored 39.99, 41.48, 45.97, 56.42

and 66.88 performed better than 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 90 percent

of learners who took the Essay Test. It is observed that at the 10th and 90th percentiles,

achievement in the Essay test was higher than that of the Multiple Choice; achievement at

other percentiles was higher in the multiple choice test.

50.06

50.01 Multiple

Essay

166

Fig. 10.2: Percentiles for Multiple Choice and Essay Tests at National Level

10.1.3 Group Achievement

Table 10.1 contains the mean score and standard error of achievement in Multiple Choice and

Essay type tests in Social studies

classified by gender of the learners

and location of schools. There were

no significant differences in

achievement between the levels of

each variable for both types of tests.

Nonetheless, it can be seen that

female learners had higher mean

score in both Multiple Choice and

Essay tests. The learners in urban

schools had higher mean score in

the Multiple Choice tests while

their counterparts in rural schools obtained higher scores in the Essay.

Achievement on Content

Cognitive Domains

Achievement on the different

Content domains (Themes) were not

scaled but expressed as percentages

and indicated mean values of 9.34,

44.34, 32.16, 25.69, 26.85 and 17.55

for the Themes: Introduction to

Social Studies; People and their

environment; Socialization: Its

agents and process; Culture; Social

issues and problems; and National unity and integration respectively. With respect to

achievement in the three levels of cognition, the mean scores were 24.83, 26.94 and 46.06 for

0

20

40

60

80

Fail (0 -

39 %)

Fair (40 -

49 %)

Good (50

- 59 %)

Very

Good (60

- 69 %)

Excellent

(70 - 100

%)

18

.1

25

.5

33

.6

22

.7

0

0

60

.1

17

.8

14

8

Multiple Choice Test

Essay Test

Table 10.1: Distribution of Mean and Standard

Error of Achievement in Multiple

Choice and Essay Tests by Location,

Type of School and Gender Social

Studies

Variable level Multiple choice ESSAY

Mean SE Mean SE

Gender Male 49.69 0.16 49.94 0.16

Female 50.46 0.16 50.08 0.17

location Urban 50.40 0.15 49.98 0.16

Rural 49.56 0.17 50.06 0.18

40.00

60.00

46

.20

48

.08

49

.37

50

.06

51

.49

51

.78

53

.64

Figure 10.3: Mean in Multiple Choice test across

Geo-Political Zones

167

Knowledge, Comprehension and Higher order respectively. Achievement in Higher order

cognitive domain is significantly higher than in Knowledge and comprehension.

10.2 Achievement in Geopolitical Zone At this level, the results include variations by gender and location of schools. In Figures 10.3

and 10.4, achievement in the Essay test was

higher than that of the Multiple choice test

for the North Central, North East and North

West zones. The range on the Essay test was

from 49.41 (North Central) to 50.87 (North

East) while that of the Multiple choice test

was from 46.20 (North East) to 53.64 (South

East). Learners in the South South, South

West and South East performed above the

national average on the Multiple choice test.

While learners in the North East and South

West performed above the national average

on the Essay test. It is notable that apart

from the mean scores for North East and

South East on the Multiple choice East, achievement within and between test forms in the

Zones show little variation In Table 10.2, the mean scores and standard error for levels of gender by geo-political zones

show very little variations. Apart from the North Central Zone where mean difference

between female and male learners is 1.01 points, in Multiple choice Test, all other values are

in the direction of equity achievement. Table 10.2: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple

Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Gender

Geopolitical Zone Gender Multiple Choice Essay

Mean SE Mean SE

NORTH CENTRAL Male 48.89 0.42 49.75 0.43

Female 49.90 0.44 49.04 0.44

NORTH EAST Male 46.15 0.37 51.01 0.41

Female 46.27 0.42 50.69 0.44

NORTH WEST Male 47.90 0.36 49.50 0.34

Female 48.36 0.44 49.42 0.41

SOUTH EAST Male 53.57 0.36 49.60 0.43

Female 53.71 0.33 50.23 0.42

SOUTH SOUTH Male 51.32 0.37 49.75 0.41

Female 51.66 0.35 50.13 0.41

SOUTH WEST Male 51.66 0.33 50.03 0.39

Female 51.89 0.32 50.70 0.38

48.00

50.00

52.00

49

.41

49

.47

49

.93

49

.94

50

.01

50

.38

50

.87

Figure 10.4: Mean Essay Test across Geo-

Political Zones

168

In Table 10.3, the variation in achievement by location for the six zones shows higher mean

scores in the Multiple choice test in both urban and rural locations for South West (52.67,

50.67), South East (53.41, 53.93) and South South (51.37, 51.78) and the values are higher

than the national averages. Learners in North East and North West had higher mean scores in

Essay tests than Multiple Choice test for both locations. In North Central Zone, while urban

learners had higher mean scores in Multiple Choice test (49.82), their rural counterparts had

higher mean scores in Essay test (49.67).

Although, achievement on both test forms showed little variation, the highest mean score of

53.93 on the Multiple Choice test was obtained by rural learners in the South East zone while

on the Essay Test urban learners in the North East zone had the highest mean value of 50.96.

Table 10.3: Distribution of Mean and Standard Error of Achievement in Multiple

Choice and Essay Tests for Geopolitical Zones by Location

GEOPOLITICAL_ZONE School

Location

MULTIPLE

CHOICE

ESSAY

Mean SE Mean SE

NORTH CENTRAL URBAN 49.82 0.39 49.34 0.42

RURAL 48.61 0.50 49.67 0.48

NORTH EAST URBAN 47.30 0.36 50.96 0.40

RURAL 44.72 0.42 50.77 0.46

NORTH WEST URBAN 48.12 0.39 49.01 0.36

RURAL 47.52 0.40 50.01 0.39

SOUTH EAST URBAN 53.41 0.35 49.66 0.42

RURAL 53.93 0.35 50.03 0.43

SOUTH SOUTH URBAN 51.37 0.35 50.09 0.39

RURAL 51.78 0.38 49.64 0.44

SOUTH WEST URBAN 52.67 0.28 50.55 0.36

RURAL 50.67 0.37 50.18 0.42

169

Content Domains

Figure 10.6 provides the following observations:

Achievement in theme 1: Introduction to Social Studies was generally low across the Zones with a range of 9.33 to 9.35

Achievement on theme 2: People and their environment was the highest The achievement of learners in North East Zone was consistently the lowest on the six

Themes. Whereas learners in South East and South West demonstrated superior knowledge of the Themes than their counterparts in other Zones.

There were little variations among the zones in five Themes except Theme 2: People and their environment with about 7 point difference between North East (40.74) and South East (47.67).

0.00 50.00

NORTH CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

9.33

9.33

9.34

9.34

9.33

9.35

43.71

40.74

42.39

47.67

45.75

46.04

25.38

23.94

24.94

27.37

26.26

26.36

26.39

24.34

25.71

29.23

27.69

27.86

17.29

15.94

16.67

19.01

18.18

18.29

T6_PERCENT

T5_PERCENT

T4_PERCENT

T3_PERCENT

T2_PERCENT

T1_PERCENT

Figure 10.6: Achievement by Zone on Content across

Geopolitical Zones

T1: Introduction to people Social

Studies

T2: People and their Environment

T3: Socialisation: its agent and process.

T4: Culture

T5: Social issues and problem

T6: National Unity and integration

170

Cognitive Domains

10.3: State Level Achievement for Test Forms

From Table 10.4, achievement in the Multiple Choice test for twenty one states is higher than

that of the Essay test. The mean for the multiple choice test ranges from 40.91 (Gombe State)

to 59.23 (Kebbi State) and nineteen states performed above the national average for the test.

In the Essay test, the range was 47.9 (Niger state) to 51.55 (Oyo State). The range of score on

the essay test (3.65) was smaller than that of the multiple choice test (8.32). While 20 States

obtained mean scores above the national average.

Further observations show that learners in 14 States, namely: Adamawa, Bayelsa, Borno,

Benue, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kogi, Nasarawa, Plateau, Sokoto and Taraba had

higher scores on the Essay Test than the Multiple Choice Test. There were significant

difference in achievement on both test forms in states such as Kebbi, Gombe, Borno and

Taraba.

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

NORTH

CENTRAL

NORTH EAST

NORTH WEST

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

national

24.55

23.22

23.99

26.32

25.44

25.56

24.83

26.55

24.82

25.86

28.91

27.72

27.91

26.94

45.07

40.29

43.13

51.46

48.21

48.56

46.06

HIGHER ORDER

COMPREHENSION

KNOWLEDGE

Figure 10.7: Mean Score by Zone on The Social

Studies Cognitive Domains

The National averages for the three

objective domains were highest for

Higher order domain and decreased

progressively through

Comprehension and to Knowledge

domain. This pattern is reflected in

the six zones. The differences

between the mean scores for Higher

order domain and each of the two

other domains are statistically

significant.

South East displayed the highest

level of achievement on all three

types of objectives. The North East

displayed the least achievement on

the three levels of Objectives.

Mean scores for each of the

Objective domains in the South East,

South West and South South are

higher than their respective national

averages

171

Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in Social Studies

Figure 10.8: Mean Score of JSS 2 Learners in Social Studies

Note:

i. Learners‟ score in multiple choice are out of the parentheses ii. Learners‟ score in essay are in parentheses

59(49)

44(50)

49(50)

49(48)

53(50)

48(50)

52(50)

53(51)

50(49)

54(49)

50(50)

44(50)

45(49)

54(51)

48(51)

41(51)

43(50) 49(50)

52(49)

50(50)

55(49)

52(50) 49(49) 52(50)

46(49)

45(51)

48(52) 46(50)

53(50) 54(50)

54(50) 53(50)

53(50) 51(51)

57(49)

51(51)

46(51

National Average

Score = 50(50)

172

Achievement by Groups

Gender

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

ABIA

ADAMAWA

AKWA-IBOM

ANAMBRA

BAUCHI

BAYELSA

BORNO

BENUE

CROSS RIVER

DELTA

EBONYI

EDO

EKITI

ENUGU

GOMBE

IMO

JIGAWA

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

KEBBI

KOGI

KWARA

LAGOS

NASARAWA

NIGER

OGUN

ONDO

OSUN

OYO

PLATEAU

RIVERS

SOKOTO

TARABA

YOBE

ZAMFARA

FCT

NATIONAL

51.70

48.16

52.14

54.54

48.06

49.83

45.95

44.89

50.25

52.34

53.18

51.44

51.10

53.53

40.47

54.60

45.15

43.16

48.17

46.95

59.17

46.33

53.00

52.16

46.02

49.93

52.38

50.69

56.11

47.75

47.15

50.99

43.60

43.39

55.57

50.55

52.37

49.69

53.22

47.41

51.20

53.88

47.39

48.99

43.52

48.09

50.76

53.66

55.47

51.78

50.56

51.82

41.87

54.56

44.22

44.06

53.42

52.09

59.33

53.82

52.52

53.60

45.96

47.67

51.36

50.62

57.17

47.41

45.05

52.00

44.72

42.35

53.15

48.78

54.57

50.46

Female

Male

Figure 10.9: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice Based on

Gender across States

National averages for male

learners was 49.69 and female

learners 50.46

At the National level, female

learners had a slightly higher

mean score than the males.

However, the difference was not

statistically significant

Seventeen states had mean

scores for female higher than

that of the male learners.

The mean scores for the male

learners ranges from 40.47

(Gombe state) to 59.17 (Kebbi

state) and 22 states performed

above the national mean for male

learners on the test.

Among the female learners, the

range was 41.87 (Gombe state) to

59.33 (Kebbi) state). Also, 22

states had mean scores higher

than the national average for

female learners.

The achievement of both male

and female learners was highest

for Kebbi state (59.17, 59.33) and

least for Gombe state (40.43,

41.87).

173

Achievement in Essay Test by Gender

Table 10.4, indicates that 19 states had mean scores for male learners higher than that of the

female learners. The mean for the male learners ranged from 46.64 (Benue state) to 52.52

(Borno state) and twenty states performed above the national average for male learners on the

test. Among the female learners, the range was 47.97 (Zamfara) to 55.3 (Benue state). The

difference in range of the mean scores for the female learners (7.02) was greater than that of

the male learners (5.98). Also female learners in 20 states obtained mean scores higher than

their national average. Generally, scores of both males and female learners in each state

showed little variations except in Benue state with a point difference.

Table 10.4: Mean Scores in Essay Based on Gender across States

State

ESSAY

Male Female

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.12 1.10 51.23 0.96

ADAMAWA 52.46 1.14 50.59 1.19

AKWA-IBOM 49.95 0.91 50.51 0.95

ANAMBRA 48.64 0.83 50.59 0.96

BAUCHI 51.49 1.08 51.38 1.07

BAYELSA 48.37 1.35 48.92 1.45

BORNO 52.52 0.97 49.31 1.13

BENUE 46.64 1.99 55.30 2.19

CROSS RIVER 50.21 0.89 50.19 0.92

DELTA 49.25 0.82 51.04 0.98

EBONYI 51.43 0.95 48.87 0.93

EDO 48.97 1.20 49.43 1.10

EKITI 50.50 0.89 50.76 0.89

ENUGU 50.76 1.00 49.55 0.91

GOMBE 50.02 0.86 52.38 1.23

IMO 47.85 0.88 50.75 0.93

JIGAWA 49.55 0.84 49.36 0.94

KADUNA 48.83 0.89 50.74 0.95

KANO 50.32 1.01 50.19 1.51

KATSINA 49.54 0.92 51.82 1.57

KEBBI 49.00 1.00 48.56 1.10

KOGI 50.48 0.96 48.81 1.24

KWARA 50.56 0.92 48.80 0.90

LAGOS 50.16 1.00 51.18 0.99

NASARAWA 49.82 1.33 48.90 1.25

NIGER 49.18 0.96 48.68 1.04

OGUN 50.54 0.96 49.99 1.06

ONDO 50.63 0.92 51.91 1.07

OSUN 48.64 0.97 49.65 0.80

174

OYO 49.43 1.00 51.00 0.90

PLATEAU 50.20 1.00 49.68 1.04

RIVERS 50.87 1.04 49.80 0.87

SOKOTO 50.65 0.87 47.98 0.93

TARABA 49.52 0.90 50.29 0.99

YOBE 51.00 1.23 50.36 0.98

ZAMFARA 48.82 0.79 47.97 0.98

FCT 51.67 1.71 49.18 1.12

National 49.94 0.16 50.08 0.17

Achievement by Location

Table 10.5 contains the mean scores for learners from urban and rural locations on the

Multiple Choice Test. As can be seen, 21 states had mean scores for learners in urban schools

higher than that of the rural learners. The mean for the learners in rural locations ranges from

40.03 (Taraba state) to 60.6 (Kebbi state) and 18 states performed above the national average

for rural learners on the test. Among the urban learners, the range was 41.70 (Gombe state) to

58.84 (Kebbi state). The difference in range of the mean scores for the rural learners (19.57)

is greater than that of the urban learners (17.14). Learners from Kebbi state had the best

achievement in both rural and urban schools. On the Essay test, 19 states had mean for

learners in rural schools higher than that of the urban learners. The mean scores for the

learners in rural locations ranged from 43.86 (Ogun State) to 53.48 (Bayelsa State) and only

two states performed above the national average for rural learners. Among the urban learners,

the range was 47.61 (Lagos State) to 53.78 (Anambra State). The difference in range of the

mean scores for the rural learners, 9.62 is greater than 6.17 for the urban learners. Urban

learners in 29 states performed above the national average. Generally, achievement in both

tests was homogeneous, except for learners in Yobe state with a 7.27 point difference

between male and female learners on the Multiple Choice test and in Ogun state, with a 7.1

points difference. In both states, male learners were outstanding.

175

TABLE 10.5: Mean Scores in Multiple Choice and Essay Based on Location across States

State

MULTIPLE CHOICE Essay

URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.66 0.79 52.48 0.88 50.57 1.09 52.48 1.21

ADAMAWA 47.73 1.20 47.86 1.05 50.09 0.91 50.36 0.93

AKWA-IBOM

53.35 0.76 50.42 0.69 48.66 0.89 50.54 0.91

ANAMBRA 54.11 0.74 54.26 0.70 53.78 1.13 49.23 0.97

BAUCHI 47.74 0.96 47.61 1.08 48.04 1.06 * * BAYELSA 49.56 0.88 * * 49.95 0.86 53.48 1.34

BORNO 45.66 0.76 43.83 0.98 50.97 1.62 * * BENUE 46.49 1.62 * * 50.39 0.87 49.99 0.95

CROSS RIVER

49.09 1.03 52.05 0.96 50.14 0.85 50.04 0.94

DELTA 52.07 0.86 53.79 0.81 51.60 1.08 47.88 0.86

EBONYI 53.98 0.90 55.03 0.86 50.29 1.10 47.97 1.18

EDO 52.61 0.81 50.45 1.18 51.44 0.92 49.99 0.88

EKITI 52.07 0.79 49.99 0.69 49.44 0.91 50.82 0.99

ENUGU 52.50 0.76 52.78 0.77 51.02 1.02 50.54 0.97

GOMBE 41.70 0.66 40.18 0.61 50.14 0.94 48.55 0.90

IMO 54.03 0.71 55.09 0.69 49.56 0.82 49.32 0.97

JIGAWA 45.32 0.72 43.83 0.84 48.23 1.02 50.49 0.83

KADUNA 44.05 0.98 43.36 0.66 51.52 1.17 48.67 1.18

KANO 48.39 1.02 52.21 1.14 48.14 1.27 51.35 1.01

KATSINA 47.18 1.46 49.25 1.03 48.35 1.15 49.78 1.26

KEBBI 58.84 0.71 60.60 0.63 49.13 1.08 50.55 1.06

KOGI 52.36 1.07 46.04 1.05 50.83 0.96 48.88 1.13

KWARA 52.24 0.69 54.20 0.94 50.55 0.90 50.96 1.14

LAGOS 54.09 0.72 51.16 0.86 47.61 1.05 51.22 1.48

NASARAWA 48.85 1.11 42.97 1.17 48.79 1.07 47.02 0.92

NIGER 49.08 0.89 48.79 1.25 49.44 0.98 51.10 1.04

OGUN 54.82 0.65 48.85 0.78 51.97 0.74 43.86 1.55

ONDO 50.90 0.55 48.53 1.61 50.01 0.93 48.64 0.82

OSUN 55.73 0.64 57.47 0.68 48.79 0.87 51.94 1.01

OYO 50.05 0.69 45.00 0.76 49.36 0.99 50.75 1.04

PLATEAU 46.84 0.93 45.38 1.03 50.95 0.98 49.09 0.90

RIVERS 51.32 0.73 51.99 0.68 49.12 0.88 49.99 0.94

SOKOTO 44.69 0.79 43.45 0.97 50.73 0.84 48.05 1.05

TARABA 44.35 0.64 40.03 0.72 50.21 0.96 51.43 1.31

YOBE 56.90 0.51 49.78 1.19 48.17 0.75 49.26 1.12

ZAMFARA 50.36 0.99 49.48 1.10 48.01 1.19 50.41 1.63

FCT 51.38 1.29 57.03 0.93 49.98 0.16 50.06 0.18

NATIONAL 50.40 0.15 49.56 0.17 48.66 0.92 52.27 1.12

*Not applicable

176

Achievement in Content Domains

In Table 10.6, Scores on the six Themes in Social studies show that:

Achievement was generally poor on the six Themes. Learners had more difficulties with test items which examined Theme 1: Introduction to

Social Studies The highest scores were obtained in Theme 2: People and their Environment Learners from Kebbi State had the highest mean score in Themes 2 – 6, while their

counterparts in Gombe state obtained the least scores in the same Themes.

The number of states that performed above the national averages for the Themes Introduction

to Social Studies; People and their Environment; Socialisation: its agent and process; Culture;

Social issues and problem; National Unity and Integration were 16, 20, 20, 20, 20 and 20

respectively.

Table 10.6: Distribution of Mean Scores by State on Content across States

State

Introduction

to Social

Studies

People and

their

environment

Socialization:

its agents and

process

Culture Social issues

and problems

National unity

and

integration

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Erro

r

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percent

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

ABIA 9.34 0.00 46.73 0.53 34.68 0.55 26.82 0.30 28.50 0.42 18.55 0.23

ADAMAWA 9.34 0.00 42.14 0.73 29.66 0.77 24.79 0.38 25.55 0.54 16.51 0.31

AKWA-

IBOM

9.34 0.00 45.96 0.47 33.99 0.50 26.25 0.26 27.70 0.36 18.27 0.21

ANAMBRA 9.33 0.00 48.18 0.46 36.32 0.49 27.61 0.26 29.54 0.36 19.30 0.20

BAUCHI 9.34 0.00 42.14 0.67 29.75 0.72 24.68 0.34 25.37 0.48 16.58 0.29

BAYELSA 9.33 0.00 44.08 0.69 32.09 0.75 24.99 0.35 26.01 0.48 17.45 0.31

BORNO 9.33 0.00 39.77 0.58 27.33 0.63 23.17 0.26 23.35 0.38 15.49 0.25

BENUE 9.33 0.00 40.92 1.50 28.40 1.61 24.20 0.76 24.67 1.08 15.98 0.66

CROSS

RIVER

9.34 0.00 44.63 0.66 32.40 0.70 26.03 0.34 29.16 0.48 17.69 0.29

DELTA 9.34 0.00 46.98 0.54 34.93 0.57 27.12 0.29 28.85 0.41 18.70 0.23

EBONYI 9.34 0.00 48.14 0.53 36.12 0.56 27.82 0.30 29.81 0.42 19.20 0.23

EDO 9.34 0.00 45.84 0.64 33.78 0.68 26.36 0.34 27.81 0.48 18.22 0.28

EKITI 9.33 0.00 45.26 0.48 33.27 0.52 25.82 0.26 27.12 0.36 17.97 0.22

ENUGU 9.33 0.00 46.78 0.49 34.81 0.52 26.83 0.27 28.49 0.38 18.64 0.22

GOMBE 9.33 0.00 35.77 0.46 22.96 0.50 21.55 0.17 20.87 0.26 13.79 0.19

IMO 9.34 0.00 48.56 0.43 36.66 0.45 27.78 0.27 29.84 0.37 19.39 0.19

JIGAWA 9.33 0.00 39.47 0.53 27.00 0.58 23.12 0.24 23.22 0.34 15.41 0.23

KADUNA 9.33 0.00 38.31 0.53 25.72 0.58 22.73 0.23 22.58 0.34 14.91 0.23

KANO 9.33 0.00 44.41 0.73 32.34 0.79 25.60 0.36 26.69 0.51 17.66 0.32

KATSINA 9.33 0.00 42.78 0.78 30.37 0.83 25.19 0.40 26.06 0.57 16.83 0.34

KEBBI 9.34 0.00 52.46 0.37 40.46 0.37 30.49 0.25 33.54 0.34 21.01 0.15

KOGI 9.33 0.00 43.59 0.74 31.33 0.79 25.43 0.37 26.43 0.53 19.13 0.32

177

State

Introduction

to Social

Studies

People and

their

environment

Socialization:

its agents and

process

Culture Social issues

and problems

National unity

and

integration

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Erro

r

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percent

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

Mean

percen

t

Std.

Error

KWARA 9.33 0.00 46.97 0.46 35.07 0.48 26.78 0.26 28.46 0.36 18.74 0.20

LAGOS 9.39 0.06 47.02 0.49 35.12 0.53 26.99 0.29 28.68 0.39 18.81 0.24

NASARAW

A

9.33 0.00 40.58 0.81 28.19 0.88 23.78 0.37 24.10 0.54 15.93 0.36

NIGER 9.34 0.00 43.27 0.73 31.05 0.78 25.20 0.35 26.09 0.50 17.16 0.31

OGUN 9.33 0.00 46.20 0.50 34.27 0.53 26.31 0.28 27.80 0.38 18.39 0.22

ONDO 9.33 0.00 45.13 0.48 33.14 0.51 25.69 0.26 26.96 0.36 17.89 0.22

OSUN 9.34 0.00 50.39 0.41 38.35 0.40 29.02 0.27 31.58 0.37 20.07 0.17

OYO 9.33 0.00 42.21 0.50 29.97 0.55 24.29 0.25 24.96 0.35 16.57 0.23

PLATEAU 9.33 0.00 40.74 0.65 28.26 0.69 23.95 0.32 24.35 0.46 15.93 0.28

RIVERS 9.33 0.00 45.94 0.45 34.02 0.48 26.08 0.25 27.52 0.34 18.28 0.20

SOKOTO 9.34 0.00 38.63 0.59 25.91 0.63 23.11 0.29 23.10 0.42 14.98 0.25

TARABA 9.33 0.00 37.74 0.50 25.12 0.55 22.38 0.21 22.10 0.31 14.66 0.22

YOBE 9.33 0.00 48.20 0.53 36.23 0.56 27.75 0.31 29.76 0.43 19.22 0.24

ZAMFARA 9.34 0.00 44.08 0.69 31.68 0.73 26.00 0.36 27.18 0.51 17.39 0.29

FCT 9.34 0.00 47.67 0.80 35.63 0.84 27.49 0.46 29.38 0.64 18.98 0.35

NATIONAL 9.34 0.00 44.34 0.10 32.16 0.11 25.69 0.05 26.85 0.08 17.54 0.05

Achievement in Cognitive Domains

As can be seen in table 10.7, National average for knowledge domain which is 57.80 was

higher than those for comprehension 45.13 and higher order objectives, 53.32. The

differences were statistically significant.

State analysis shows the following:

Scores ranged from 41.77 (Gombe) to 68.18 (Kebbi) for Knowledge, 30.66 (Gombe) to 55.67 (Kebbi) and 47.31 (Sokoto) to 61.99 (Gombe).

Learners in Kebbi state had the highest mean scores on Knowledge and Comprehension sub-tests while learners in Gombe state obtained the highest mean scores on higher order sub-test.

Within each state, there were score variations on the three cognitive domains.

Between states, large score variations were observed especially for knowledge and cognitive domains. Indeed, several pair use comparisons within and between states. This showed statistical significance.

Twenty-two states performed above the National average for knowledge and comprehension while only 16 scored above the National average for higher order sub-test.

178

Table 10.7: Distribution of Mean Score by State on the Behavioural Objectives

State KNOWLEDEGE COMPREHENSION HIGHER ORDER

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 61.77 0.98 48.04 0.96 57.11 1.49

ADAMAWA 57.93 1.47 46.33 1.38 56.78 1.61

AKWA-IBOM 61.93 0.96 48.36 0.91 53.06 1.39

ANAMBRA 65.37 1.03 52.09 0.96 55.50 1.46

BAUCHI 51.20 1.14 39.17 1.00 60.44 1.52

BAYELSA 60.47 1.35 46.07 1.30 51.98 2.15

BORNO 53.55 1.20 41.24 1.13 60.27 1.57

BENUE 50.03 2.64 38.82 2.07 48.43 3.20

CROSS RIVER 59.38 1.16 46.29 1.07 53.95 1.44

DELTA 67.34 0.99 54.59 0.97 53.56 1.34

EBONYI 64.62 1.01 50.84 0.95 57.03 1.59

EDO 61.65 1.26 47.92 1.20 55.47 1.61

EKITI 63.41 0.91 49.00 0.92 50.28 1.42

ENUGU 61.51 0.97 47.70 0.93 57.69 1.53

GOMBE 41.77 0.87 30.66 0.71 61.99 1.37

IMO 63.83 0.88 50.15 0.90 56.09 1.48

JIGAWA 48.61 1.04 36.89 0.87 49.13 1.50

KADUNA 50.13 1.20 38.61 1.06 50.06 1.54

KANO 62.57 1.38 50.40 1.38 47.91 2.00

KATSINA 49.17 1.23 37.52 1.01 47.62 1.69

KEBBI 68.16 1.00 55.67 1.04 56.62 1.80

KOGI 58.64 1.46 46.53 1.31 47.54 1.69

KWARA 60.42 1.15 48.24 1.07 49.27 1.39

LAGOS 66.86 0.99 53.79 0.96 51.42 1.47

NASARAWA 48.38 1.50 36.10 1.26 51.18 1.06

NIGER 54.62 1.68 44.16 1.47 49.94 1.70

OGUN 63.09 0.97 49.45 0.94 52.14 1.65

ONDO 57.54 1.15 44.23 1.06 48.50 1.49

OSUN 63.76 0.76 49.44 0.82 52.31 1.47

OYO 56.04 1.06 43.59 0.98 53.01 1.55

PLATEAU 47.89 1.09 36.11 0.90 47.71 1.49

RIVERS 63.52 0.92 49.58 0.91 51.05 1.41

SOKOTO 44.94 0.98 33.06 0.83 47.31 1.38

TARABA 44.05 1.01 32.46 0.80 60.88 1.33

YOBE 60.09 1.05 47.67 0.98 57.37 1.46

ZAMFARA 53.83 1.19 43.57 1.09 49.98 1.54

FCT 65.56 1.55 52.25 1.48 48.89 2.29

NATIONAL 57.80 0.20 45.13 0.19 53.32 0.26

179

10.4 Relational Analysis

In this section, relationship between some contextual variables and achievement was

explored. Research provides evidence that some variables exist which could be manipulated

to enhance achievement of learners. Some of these are home-related while others are learner-

related. For example provision by parents, feeding, mode of transportation to school is

somewhat home-related variables. Liking for schooling and Teachers are learner-related. The

central issue in this section is how contextual variables in this study influenced achievement.

Assistance with Homework

Table 10.4.1 shows the variation in achievement with assistance on homework given to the

learners. Nationally, there was no significant difference in achievement in relation to

Assistance with homework, with mean scores of 50.4, 49.9 and 50.0 for low, medium and

high levels of assistance respectively. When states were considered, no consistency was

actually observed. In the case of Akwa Ibom, Anambra and Niger states achievement

increased with increase in level of assistance though not significantly different. In Zamfara

and Kano states achievement at low level of assistance was lower than that of moderate level

of assistance; but the achievement at high level of assistance was lower than that of moderate

level of assistance. In respect of the low level of assistance, the range in achievement was

44.6 (Jigawa state) to 59.5 (Benue state) with 19 states performing above the national

average. At the moderate level of assistance, the range was 45.8 (Gombe state) to 54.4 (Kebbi

state) with 21 states performing above the National average for moderate assistance group

while at the high level of assistance the range was 45.7 (Kaduna state) to 53.9 (Kebbi state)

with 18 states performing above the National average. Using the number of states performing

above the national average as an indicator of achievement, achievement improved at the

moderate level of assistance over that of low level of assistance and decreased at the high

level of assistance.

Table 10.4.1: Homework Assistance as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.0 0.9 50.6 0.8 51.8 0.9

ADAMAWA 52.0 1.0 47.4 0.8 49.9 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 50.1 0.7 51.4 0.7 51.7 0.7

ANAMBRA 51.6 0.7 51.8 0.7 52.5 0.6

BAUCHI 50.5 1.1 49.4 0.6 49.2 1.1

BAYELSA 49.4 1.0 48.7 1.0 49.0 1.0

BORNO 48.3 0.9 47.8 0.7 48.5 1.0

BENUE 59.5 5.5 46.6 1.3 50.0 1.7

CROSS RIVER 50.2 0.9 51.3 0.7 49.4 0.8

DELTA 52.2 0.7 51.0 0.6 51.7 0.9

EBONYI 53.0 0.8 51.7 0.6 52.6 1.0

EDO 48.2 1.1 51.8 0.8 50.4 1.0

EKITI 50.8 0.8 50.4 0.5 51.6 1.0

180

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ENUGU 51.0 0.8 52.4 0.8 50.9 0.7

GOMBE 45.5 0.7 45.8 0.5 46.4 1.0

IMO 52.5 0.7 51.7 0.6 51.4 1.1

JIGAWA 44.6 1.2 47.4 0.5 47.1 1.5

KADUNA 46.8 1.3 47.5 0.7 45.7 0.7

KANO 49.5 1.1 50.7 1.0 50.0 0.9

KATSINA 48.7 1.4 49.9 0.8 49.0 1.3

KEBBI 53.4 0.8 54.4 0.6 53.9 1.0

KOGI 49.3 0.9 47.8 0.9 53.5 1.2

KWARA 52.5 1.0 50.8 0.6 51.0 0.7

LAGOS 52.0 0.7 51.2 0.7 52.8 0.9

NASARAWA 48.0 1.3 47.3 1.0 47.8 0.9

NIGER 47.8 1.3 48.5 0.6 50.2 2.4

OGUN 51.4 0.7 51.1 0.7 50.3 0.9

ONDO 51.2 0.9 51.2 0.6 48.4 1.3

OSUN 54.2 0.8 52.7 0.5 52.1 0.9

OYO 49.2 0.8 48.9 0.5 48.7 1.5

PLATEAU 48.1 1.4 48.0 0.5 48.5 1.5

RIVERS 50.5 0.6 51.7 0.6 50.4 1.0

SOKOTO 47.3 1.0 45.9 0.6 48.1 1.0

TARABA 46.1 1.0 49.1 0.7 45.8 0.6

YOBE 52.7 1.0 53.8 0.6 49.8 0.9

ZAMFARA 46.1 1.0 50.4 0.6 49.3 1.0

FCT 52.6 1.4 50.6 1.1 51.6 1.1

National 50.4 0.2 49.9 0.1 50.0 0.2

Availability of Learning Materials

The variation of achievement with available learning materials is contained in Table 10.4.2.

At the national level, as level of availability of learning materials increased, achievement also

increased. However, the mean values of 49.3, 50.3 and 50.5 for low, moderate and high level

assistance were not significantly different. The same trend was observed for Abia, Cross

River, Ekiti and Kebbi states among others. In Ogun, Sokoto, and Ondo states, as level of

available facilities increases achievement decreased. When achievement above, the national

averages were considered, there were 22, 20 and 17 states for low, moderate and high level of

availability respectively. From those observations, it would seem that low level of available

teaching materials relates more to high achievement. Further research should examine the use

of materials beyond just availability.

181

Table 10.4.2: Level of Availability of Learning Materials and Achievement in Social

Studies

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 49.9 1.3 51.4 0.6 53.4 1.4

ADAMAWA 50.2 0.9 48.9 0.7 52.2 2.5

AKWA-IBOM 51.3 0.9 51.1 0.5 49.9 1.1

ANAMBRA 52.5 1.0 51.6 0.5 52.5 0.7

BAUCHI 48.8 0.7 50.0 0.7 52.0 1.4

BAYELSA 49.7 1.0 48.8 0.8 48.4 1.5

BORNO 48.5 0.9 47.9 0.6 50.3 3.0

BENUE 48.0 1.4 52.6 2.3 45.2 2.0

CROSS RIVER 49.7 0.8 50.6 0.6 50.9 1.3

DELTA 48.5 1.0 52.4 0.5 52.1 1.4

EBONYI 52.4 1.0 52.2 0.6 52.1 1.1

EDO 48.0 1.3 51.3 0.7 48.9 1.1

EKITI 50.5 0.7 50.8 0.6 50.9 1.0

ENUGU 51.5 1.2 51.3 0.5 51.8 1.2

GOMBE 46.5 0.6 45.5 0.6 43.7 1.7

IMO 52.4 0.9 52.0 0.5 50.5 1.7

JIGAWA 47.0 0.7 47.1 0.6 49.1 1.4

KADUNA 46.7 0.8 46.6 0.6 46.9 1.7

KANO 50.3 0.8 49.3 0.8 53.4 2.0

KATSINA 49.6 1.1 49.4 0.8 48.0 2.1

KEBBI 53.5 0.7 54.0 0.6 55.1 1.0

KOGI 49.0 1.2 49.7 0.8 49.7 1.2

KWARA 49.6 0.8 51.7 0.5 50.7 1.4

LAGOS 51.9 1.5 52.0 0.5 51.2 0.9

NASARAWA 47.0 0.9 48.2 0.8 47.9 3.8

NIGER 48.1 0.6 49.0 0.9 * *

OGUN 51.4 1.4 51.3 0.5 49.6 1.2

ONDO 51.6 0.7 50.7 0.6 49.8 1.2

OSUN 54.0 1.1 52.7 0.4 54.1 2.0

OYO 48.4 0.7 48.9 0.5 52.1 1.2

PLATEAU 47.9 0.8 48.7 0.7 45.5 1.4

RIVERS 50.8 1.2 50.7 0.5 51.9 1.1

SOKOTO 47.4 1.0 46.6 0.6 46.3 1.1

TARABA 45.6 0.7 46.8 0.6 47.3 2.2

YOBE 51.1 0.7 53.5 0.7 53.9 2.8

ZAMFARA 49.5 0.7 49.5 0.9 47.7 1.4 FCT 50.2 0.6 53.6 1.0 49.5 1.0 National 49.3 0.2 50.3 0.1 50.5 0.2

*Not applicable

182

Out of School Non-Learning Engagement

At the national level, the Engagement in non-learning activities in Table 10.4.3 shows that achievement decreased progressively with higher engagement in non-learning activities, although the mean values of 50.6, 49.9 and 49.7 for the three groups were not significant. With respect to variation among states achievement increased with increase in involvement in non-learning engagement for learners in Lagos (51.7, 51.8 and 52.4), Kano (48.7, 50.6 and 50.7), Sokoto (46.7, 46.8 and 47) and Taraba (46.1, 46.4 and 46.5) states. Achievement decreased from low to moderate for states like Abia, Anambra, Borno and Benue but increased with high engagement, while it increased for states like Bayelsa, Cross River, Edo and Gombe, but decreased with high engagement. However, the variations were not statistically significant. When number of states performing above the national average was examined, there were 17, 21 and 22 for low, moderate and high levels respectively.

Table 10.4.3: Out of School Non Learning Engagements as Related to Achievement in

Social Studies

State Low Moderate High

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.9 0.9 50.8 0.7 51.1 1.0

ADAMAWA 48.7 1.1 49.6 0.9 50.4 0.9

AKWA-IBOM 50.6 0.8 50.8 0.6 51.7 0.8

ANAMBRA 52.9 0.8 51.5 0.6 51.8 0.7

BAUCHI 50.2 0.8 49.9 0.7 48.1 1.1

BAYELSA 47.9 1.1 49.7 0.9 48.5 1.0

BORNO 49.6 1.1 47.8 0.6 48.3 0.9

BENUE 53.4 2.4 46.7 3.8 47.9 1.3

CROSS RIVER 49.9 0.8 50.7 0.7 50.3 0.8

DELTA 51.5 0.8 51.5 0.6 51.4 1.0

EBONYI 52.4 0.8 52.1 0.6 52.3 0.9

EDO 49.9 1.6 50.7 0.7 49.5 1.5

EKITI 52.5 0.8 50.2 0.5 50.9 1.4

ENUGU 52.2 1.0 51.5 0.6 50.7 0.8

GOMBE 44.7 0.9 46.3 0.5 45.2 0.8

IMO 53.9 1.6 51.3 0.5 53.3 0.9

JIGAWA 46.4 0.9 49.1 0.5 47.8 1.0

KADUNA 47.4 0.9 46.4 0.7 46.4 0.8

KANO 48.7 1.0 50.6 1.1 50.7 0.8

KATSINA 48.2 1.0 50.4 1.0 49.5 1.4

KEBBI 54.6 0.7 54.3 0.6 52.0 1.1

KOGI 50.3 1.2 49.2 0.8 49.8 1.1

KWARA 52.0 0.9 51.3 0.6 49.9 0.9

LAGOS 51.7 0.7 51.8 0.8 52.4 1.0

NASARAWA 49.1 1.5 47.1 0.8 49.2 1.1

NIGER 48.3 2.7 48.3 0.5 50.7 2.4

OGUN 52.1 0.7 51.2 0.7 48.8 1.0

ONDO 50.8 1.0 50.7 0.6 51.4 0.9

183

OSUN 54.5 0.8 52.8 0.5 50.8 1.0

OYO 49.6 0.9 48.5 0.5 50.2 1.1

PLATEAU 47.6 1.0 47.3 0.7 50.1 1.0

RIVERS 51.1 0.8 51.3 0.6 49.8 0.9

SOKOTO 46.6 0.8 46.8 0.7 47.0 1.0

TARABA 46.1 1.0 46.4 0.6 46.5 0.7

YOBE 52.8 0.8 53.8 0.7 50.3 1.0

ZAMFARA 50.1 0.8 48.3 0.8 49.4 1.1

FCT 51.2 1.0 53.5 1.4 49.7 1.1

National 50.6 0.2 49.9 0.1 49.7 0.2

Occupation of Father

Nationally, as in Table 10.4.4, the achievement of learners whose fathers are into other occupations (50.6) was the best, next were learners whose fathers work at public or private sector (50.5); the learners of fathers who are into Farming/Fishing (49.2) had the least. Further examination of the results shows that learners whose fathers were farmers in 21 states had mean scores higher than the National average while their counterparts whose fathers were into business and workers in 19 states each, scored above their respective national average. In 15 states, learners whose fathers were classified as others (Artisan, Drivers tailors etc) obtained mean scored above the National average. It is instructive that learners in 10 states, namely, Abia, Delta, Ebonyi, Enugu, Kebbi, Kwara, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo and Osun obtained mean scores above the National averages for the four types of occupation, an indication that none of the four occupational categories had a stronger relationship with achievement. Table 10.4.4: Occupation of Father as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Farming/fishing Business/trading

Worker (Public/ private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.7 1.4 50.9 1.1 51.4 1.3 51.7 0.8

ADAMAWA 51.0 1.1 48.0 1.1 49.5 1.0 51.0 3.1 AKWA-IBOM 52.0 1.0 51.4 0.8 50.5 0.7 49.9 1.2

ANAMBRA 52.0 1.4 52.4 0.7 50.3 1.0 53.1 0.8

BAUCHI 48.5 0.8 49.1 1.0 51.3 0.9 49.8 2.1

BAYELSA 48.2 1.8 47.4 1.5 50.3 1.1 47.8 1.7

BORNO 48.1 0.6 47.0 1.6 48.4 0.9 49.8 4.4

BENUE 55.9 * 48.9 1.3 53.8 2.2 * *

CROSS RIVER 49.5 1.1 52.9 1.0 49.8 0.9 50.0 0.9

DELTA 51.8 0.9 50.6 0.9 52.1 0.6 51.0 2.6

EBONYI 51.3 0.9 52.5 1.0 53.2 0.8 51.4 1.1

EDO 48.8 1.0 50.5 1.3 52.3 1.1 52.2 3.2

EKITI 50.9 0.8 50.2 0.9 51.2 0.8 49.8 1.1

ENUGU 49.7 1.2 52.0 0.7 53.0 0.9 51.7 1.0

GOMBE 44.1 0.7 46.9 0.9 46.0 0.7 47.7 1.3

IMO 51.6 0.9 53.0 0.7 51.2 0.7 48.7 1.6

184

State Farming/fishing Business/trading

Worker (Public/ private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

JIGAWA 45.1 0.7 47.6 0.8 48.0 0.8 46.9 1.4

KADUNA 45.2 0.7 46.9 1.1 48.4 1.0 47.3 2.0

KANO 50.2 0.9 49.9 1.0 50.1 1.1 51.3 3.3

KATSINA 47.0 1.3 48.5 1.0 51.4 1.3 46.4 0.8

KEBBI 52.9 0.9 53.4 0.9 55.7 0.7 53.0 1.7

KOGI 49.1 0.9 49.3 1.6 50.8 1.0 58.5 1.8

KWARA 50.6 0.8 52.3 0.9 51.1 0.8 51.8 1.0

LAGOS 51.0 1.4 52.5 0.8 51.5 0.7 52.2 1.4

NASARAWA 49.1 1.1 49.5 2.1 46.8 1.0 46.4 2.1

NIGER 48.0 0.7 49.4 0.8 48.5 1.3 50.6 3.2

OGUN 51.6 1.0 50.6 0.8 50.9 0.9 51.5 2.0

ONDO 50.0 0.7 51.9 1.6 51.7 0.7 51.5 1.5

OSUN 53.0 0.7 53.1 0.8 52.6 0.9 54.0 1.1

OYO 47.5 0.7 51.6 0.8 48.7 1.0 48.3 0.7

PLATEAU 48.8 0.8 48.6 1.4 46.5 0.8 47.0 2.2

RIVERS 50.0 1.4 50.4 0.9 51.8 0.7 50.3 1.0

SOKOTO 48.6 1.0 45.6 0.8 46.6 0.8 47.7 1.8

TARABA 46.2 0.8 47.9 1.2 46.3 0.7 48.9 2.4

YOBE 52.4 1.0 51.4 1.0 53.3 0.7 47.0 4.1

ZAMFARA 48.7 0.8 48.4 1.0 49.7 1.2 49.2 1.8

FCT 53.7 1.9 54.5 1.7 50.3 0.9 47.6 0.3

National 49.2 0.2 50.3 0.2 50.5 0.2 50.6 0.2

*Not applicable

Occupation of Mother

In Table 10.4.5, nationally the achievement of learners whose mothers are workers (private/public) (50.5) was the best, next were learners whose mothers were into business/trading (50.4); the learners whose mothers were into Farming/Fishing (49.3) had the least achievement. The mean scores show a homogeneous achievement. Using the national average as bench mark, the number of states that performed at a level greater than national averages were 24, 18 and 22 for mothers into farming/fishing, business/trading workers (public/private) and others respectively.

Further examination of Table 10.4.5 shows that learners in 11 states, namely: Abia, Anambra,

Delta, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, Kebbi, Kwara, Lagos, Ogun and Yobe had means above the

National averages for the four occupational groups.

185

Table 10.4.5: Occupation of Mother as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Farming/ fishing

Business/ trading

Worker (Public/private)

Others

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 50.2 1.3 51.7 0.7 53.3 1.7 52.5 1.1

ADAMAWA 49.2 1.3 50.5 1.0 45.9 2.5 49.8 0.9 AKWA-IBOM 51.9 1.4 50.9 0.5 50.3 1.1 58.0 6.7

ANAMBRA 52.5 1.3 51.9 0.6 51.9 0.8 51.5 1.5

BAUCHI 50.8 2.3 48.0 1.1 51.8 1.2 51.1 0.8

BAYELSA 49.9 1.3 50.1 1.1 45.6 1.7 45.8 1.4

BORNO 47.0 0.7 48.2 1.1 48.4 1.8 48.2 2.5

BENUE 46.0 2.6 50.4 2.0 48.2 2.7 39.2 * CROSS RIVER 50.6 1.3 49.7 0.8 49.4 0.9 51.7 1.4

DELTA 50.0 0.9 51.7 0.7 52.2 0.7 51.6 2.1

EBONYI 50.3 1.3 52.7 0.7 53.0 1.0 52.1 1.1

EDO 48.9 1.2 50.5 0.9 51.8 1.6 52.2 3.7

EKITI 50.6 1.8 50.2 0.6 51.2 0.8 51.7 2.4

ENUGU 51.1 1.0 51.2 0.6 52.5 1.4 52.7 1.4

GOMBE 45.3 0.9 46.6 0.9 46.3 0.9 44.1 0.9

IMO 50.3 1.1 51.2 0.6 53.4 0.9 51.3 1.3

JIGAWA 51.0 1.7 47.8 0.8 48.4 1.4 46.0 0.7

KADUNA 45.5 1.0 46.5 0.9 50.1 1.4 45.7 1.2

KANO 56.2 3.4 49.2 1.3 43.5 3.9 50.4 0.7

KATSINA * * 51.7 1.3 54.0 3.2 45.9 1.6

KEBBI 49.9 1.0 54.1 0.7 52.8 1.8 56.0 0.8

KOGI 45.8 1.1 50.1 0.8 51.7 1.6 55.5 2.0

KWARA 52.5 1.4 51.4 0.6 52.0 1.2 51.3 1.5

LAGOS 49.5 2.3 51.9 0.6 52.7 1.1 50.1 1.5

NASARAWA 46.1 1.0 47.1 1.1 47.4 2.2 48.3 2.5

NIGER 52.8 1.0 46.8 0.7 48.3 1.4 46.3 1.9

OGUN 51.6 2.5 50.7 0.6 52.0 1.1 51.7 1.7

ONDO 50.8 1.1 50.3 0.7 52.0 0.8 52.2 2.0

OSUN 53.7 2.1 52.7 0.5 50.5 1.4 56.9 1.4

OYO 49.1 0.9 49.4 0.7 49.7 0.9 48.9 0.7

PLATEAU 48.9 0.9 47.7 0.9 44.8 1.1 48.1 2.9 RIVERS 51.1 1.6 51.1 0.6 49.5 1.2 50.9 2.2

SOKOTO 50.1 3.0 45.7 0.9 50.1 1.9 46.6 0.8 TARABA 48.6 1.0 46.4 0.8 44.3 1.2 47.3 2.0 YOBE 54.1 2.2 52.6 1.0 54.3 1.6 54.6 1.0 ZAMFARA 48.0 2.6 48.7 1.0 50.6 2.8 48.8 0.8 FCT 53.9 2.0 52.3 0.9 49.1 1.4 53.9 5.7

National 49.3 0.2 50.4 0.1 50.5 0.2 49.8 0.2

*Not applicable

186

Means of Going to School

As can be seen in Table 10.4.6 National average of achievement range from 49.3 (Canoe) to

52.3 (Donkey). Interestingly, both means of going to school were available in five and

thirteen states respectively. Data for the states shows that learners in 21, 18, 14 and 15 states

had mean scores higher than the National averages for walking, donkey, canoe,

Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle, Taxi/Bus and family car respectively. The top three mean scores are

64.9 (Yobe), 62.8 (Ogun) and 57.3 (Edo). It would seen that going to school by means of

canoe had a strong relationship with achievement, for learners in Ogun state, their

counterparts in Yobe and Edo states, going to school by means of Taxi/Bus exerted a stronger

relationship on achievement.

Table 10.4.6: Normal Means of Going to School as Related to Performance in Social

Studies

State

Walking

Donkey

Canoe

Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle

Taxi/Bus

Family Car

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Abia 51.6 0.6 * * * * 50.9 1.6 52.8 2.1 49.9 2.5

Adamawa 49.9 0.6 55.0 0.1 * * 46.5 1.4 * * 51.8 3.1

Akwa-Ibom 51.1 0.5 51.5 . * * 50.7 1.2 48.7 1.2 49.7 2.3

Anambra 51.9 0.5 * * * * 52.4 1.0 49.9 1.3 53.2 1.5

Bauchi 50.0 0.5 * * * * 45.4 1.9 48.0 3.7 50.0 1.7

Bayelsa 49.0 0.6 * * * * 51.9 2.7 48.0 2.2 49.2 6.3

Borno 48.3 0.5 * * 41.4 . 48.7 * 46.0 1.9 46.0 2.7

Benue 51.5 1.7 * * * * 50.0 * 46.9 2.3 41.9 2.6

Cross River 50.6 0.5 * * 47.6 4.2 45.9 2.4 47.5 1.4 51.6 1.6

Delta 51.7 0.5 * * * * 51.5 1.6 47.8 2.4 52.3 1.0

Ebonyi 52.3 0.5 * * * * 52.5 1.9 49.1 1.4 52.5 2.0

Edo 50.4 0.6 * * * * * * 57.3 * 49.0 4.1

Ekiti 50.5 0.5 * * * * 54.3 2.2 50.6 1.5 50.4 1.2

Enugu 51.3 0.5 * * * * 52.9 2.6 52.2 1.6 52.0 1.5

Gombe 45.5 0.4 54.6 2.2 54.2 2.0 49.2 2.2 47.1 1.9 45.6 1.3

Imo 51.6 0.4 * * * * 54.3 1.3 54.5 3.1 53.5 2.2

Jigawa 47.0 0.5 * * 55.2 * 46.4 1.9 50.1 1.5 49.8 1.3

Kaduna 46.9 0.5 * * * * 45.7 1.3 43.3 2.4 46.3 2.9

Kano 50.2 0.6 * * 39.8 * 47.7 2.0 51.2 2.7 * *

Katsina 49.0 0.7 * * * * 50.5 2.2 45.8 5.7 56.5 4.2

Kebbi 54.3 0.5 * * * * 52.4 1.5 52.5 3.6 54.1 1.7

Kogi 49.8 0.7 * * * * 49.9 1.8 45.8 1.2 52.1 1.1

Kwara 51.4 0.5 * * 52.1 * 49.9 1.3 52.6 2.1 49.5 1.0

Lagos 52.0 0.6 * * 51.4 2.5 51.0 1.2 52.3 0.9 51.2 1.4

Nasarawa 47.7 0.7 * * 47.8 1.3 46.8 1.5 49.6 3.8 48.6 2.5

Niger 49.1 0.6 41.6 * 44.6 * 52.4 2.1 51.8 1.4 52.1 1.0

Ogun 51.4 0.5 * * 62.8 * 47.9 1.0 52.9 1.9 49.3 1.5

Ondo 51.1 0.5 * * * * 51.0 3.0 50.1 1.4 50.0 1.4

187

State

Walking

Donkey

Canoe

Okada/Bicycle/Tricycle

Taxi/Bus

Family Car

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Osun 53.1 0.5 * * * * 51.3 1.0 55.7 1.4 51.2 2.0

Oyo 48.6 0.6 53.4 * 47.3 0.3 48.6 1.3 49.3 1.0 49.5 0.7

Plateau 48.2 0.5 * * 42.5 * 47.0 4.7 49.0 3.4 48.4 1.8

Rivers 51.4 0.5 * * * * 49.2 1.5 50.1 1.1 49.5 1.4

Sokoto 46.5 0.5 * * * * 48.9 1.7 46.2 5.3 48.4 1.4

Taraba 46.6 0.5 * * * * 47.7 6.8 39.4 3.3 45.8 1.9

Yobe 52.3 0.5 * * * * 51.8 2.1 64.9 1.2 54.1 1.8

Zamfara 49.5 0.6 * * 49.2 4.0 47.8 1.2 51.2 3.0 48.9 3.0

FCT 52.9 0.8 * * * * 51.6 1.8 48.4 3.2 48.5 1.5

National 50.1 0.1 52.3 1.9 49.3 1.2 49.9 0.3 50.4 0.3 50.1 0.3 *Not applicable

Distance from Home to School

Table 10.4.7 shows the National averages of 49.6, 50.3, 50.0 and 50.8 for the four categories

less than 1Km, 1 to 2Km, 2 to 3Km and more than 3Km respectively. These values are not

significantly different. State level analysis shows that the relationship between Distance from

home to school and achievement is such that Kebbi state with the exception of the distance 2

to 3 Km consistently had the highest mean scores for all distances travelled to school (54.6,

53.6 and 54.2) while Gombe with the exception of the distance >2 to 3 Km consistently had

the lowest mean scores (46.0, 45.9 and 45.3). The number of states with mean scores greater

than the national average as bench mark were 22, 18, 17 and 17 for the categories less than

1km, 1 to 2km, >2 to 3 Km and more than 3km respectively. Thus, walking less than 1Km to

school had a stronger relationship with achievement in more states.

Table 10.4.7: Distance between Learners’ Home and School as Related to Achievement

in Social Studies

State Less than 1km 1 to 2km >2 to 3km More than 3km

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.3 1.1 51.1 1.0 52.1 1.0 50.1 0.8

ADAMAWA 48.4 0.7 51.1 1.0 46.5 1.0 52.3 1.6

AKWA-IBOM 52.0 0.9 51.3 0.9 50.7 0.8 50.3 0.8

ANAMBRA 50.7 0.9 52.1 0.7 52.0 1.0 53.2 0.7

BAUCHI 49.7 0.6 49.5 1.0 48.0 1.3 52.2 1.9

BAYELSA 48.1 1.1 50.1 1.2 49.0 1.2 49.3 1.0

BORNO 48.0 0.6 48.4 1.4 47.8 1.6 49.0 1.2

BENUE 50.3 2.1 46.7 2.3 46.7 3.5 49.1 2.2

CROSS RIVER 50.3 0.8 51.1 0.7 47.0 1.0 51.1 1.4

DELTA 50.4 0.8 52.3 0.8 52.2 0.9 52.1 1.1

EBONYI 53.0 0.8 53.4 0.8 52.4 1.2 50.7 0.8

EDO 50.8 1.1 49.0 1.0 52.3 1.7 51.0 1.3

188

State Less than 1km 1 to 2km >2 to 3km More than 3km

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

EKITI 49.6 0.6 52.1 0.8 51.0 1.1 52.0 1.3

ENUGU 50.9 1.0 52.0 0.9 50.7 1.1 51.5 0.7

GOMBE 46.0 0.5 45.9 0.9 45.3 1.1 45.3 1.6

IMO 52.5 0.7 51.7 0.8 52.0 0.8 51.6 1.0

JIGAWA 47.1 0.5 46.8 0.9 48.5 2.0 49.6 2.9

KADUNA 46.5 0.7 46.8 0.9 45.2 1.1 47.6 1.4

KANO 51.1 0.7 49.2 1.7 48.1 1.9 46.3 1.1

KATSINA 49.0 0.8 50.2 1.5 49.8 1.6 49.3 3.4

KEBBI 54.6 0.6 53.6 0.9 52.6 1.2 54.2 1.7

KOGI 49.2 1.1 50.1 1.0 51.4 2.0 49.1 1.2

KWARA 52.2 0.7 50.8 0.7 49.8 1.2 50.9 1.0

LAGOS 51.3 1.0 52.5 0.8 50.9 0.9 51.8 0.9

NASARAWA 46.8 1.0 47.7 1.1 47.4 1.3 49.7 2.0

NIGER 49.1 0.6 51.0 1.0 53.9 1.9 47.4 2.1

OGUN 52.5 0.8 50.7 0.9 48.2 0.9 51.9 1.0

ONDO 50.7 0.7 51.5 0.9 49.7 1.0 52.1 1.6

OSUN 53.3 1.0 52.4 0.7 53.2 0.7 53.0 0.8

OYO 49.2 0.6 49.5 0.7 48.0 0.9 47.8 1.3

PLATEAU 47.1 0.7 48.8 1.0 47.8 1.4 49.9 1.3

RIVERS 51.1 1.0 48.9 0.9 51.0 0.9 51.7 0.6

SOKOTO 46.4 0.6 48.1 1.0 46.7 1.3 46.1 2.0

TARABA 46.5 0.6 47.3 0.9 44.9 0.9 46.8 1.8

YOBE 53.0 0.5 50.1 1.3 53.3 1.4

ZAMFARA 49.8 0.7 49.9 1.2 48.1 1.3 47.3 0.9

FCT 50.7 1.7 51.1 1.5 51.7 1.1 51.4 1.4

National 49.6 0.1 50.3 0.2 50.0 0.2 50.8 0.2

Daily Meal Plan

At the national level, Table 10.5.8, shows that achievement was highest with three and four

meals a day, each with a mean of 50.3 and lowest for one meal a day with a mean of 49.1.

One meal a day had 24 states above the national average of 49.1. The number of states above

the national averages for two, three and four meals a day were 22, 19 and 20 respectively.

Thus, the achievement for one meal was highest in more states. Although, the one meal plan

had the lowest national average. The reason for this result requires further investigation. Further examination shows that in 12 states: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi,

Ekiti, Imo, Kebbi, Osun, Rivers, Yobe, and FCT, mean scores were consistently higher than

the respectively National averages for the One, Two, Three and Four Meal Plans.

189

Table 10.4.8: Number of Meal Daily as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Once Twice Three times Four times

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 55.5 3.9 50.9 1.2 51.5 0.6 51.0 2.5

ADAMAWA 49.8 2.4 47.4 1.3 50.3 0.7 48.6 2.7

AKWA-IBOM 55.3 2.9 51.1 1.2 50.4 0.5 53.6 1.2

ANAMBRA 51.6 2.5 51.5 0.7 52.2 0.5 50.8 1.6

BAUCHI * * 50.5 1.9 49.3 0.5 51.5 1.8

BAYELSA 51.8 2.9 49.7 1.5 48.6 0.7 51.8 2.1

BORNO 47.4 2.6 49.3 1.3 48.0 0.6 49.1 2.5

BENUE 57.0 2.8 49.1 2.5 47.1 1.3 * *

CROSS RIVER 52.2 2.5 49.5 1.1 50.8 0.5 49.1 1.9

DELTA 49.3 2.2 52.4 0.9 51.4 0.5 51.9 1.8

EBONYI 52.9 4.1 53.2 1.2 51.9 0.5 53.4 2.7

EDO 51.2 2.1 47.5 1.5 50.6 0.7 54.3 2.5

EKITI 49.5 1.0 51.2 1.2 50.9 0.6 51.4 1.2

ENUGU 49.3 4.3 53.5 1.3 51.1 0.5 50.3 1.8

GOMBE 46.7 1.0 45.7 0.9 45.9 0.6 44.6 1.6

IMO 50.2 1.4 51.8 1.2 52.0 0.5 56.4 *

JIGAWA 50.4 1.7 46.0 0.9 47.1 0.5 49.3 2.7

KADUNA 44.7 1.9 44.7 1.2 47.5 0.5 43.2 1.2

KANO 52.1 1.9 46.5 2.3 50.0 0.6 49.9 3.7

KATSINA 45.5 4.5 52.9 2.9 49.2 0.7 50.8 1.9

KEBBI 52.4 3.2 51.2 1.3 54.1 0.5 54.4 1.3

KOGI 49.9 1.7 48.3 1.3 49.8 0.7 55.1 5.6

KWARA 46.8 2.1 49.6 1.3 51.5 0.5 48.2 0.9

LAGOS 49.2 2.5 49.5 1.1 52.2 0.5 51.3 1.6

NASARAWA 42.7 2.4 46.0 2.2 47.9 0.6 52.0 2.2

NIGER 47.7 0.7 50.6 1.6 48.7 0.9 43.4 3.8

OGUN 54.0 3.0 51.6 1.5 51.4 0.5 47.9 1.1

ONDO 52.6 1.1 49.6 1.5 50.6 0.6 50.8 1.8

OSUN 49.4 6.5 51.7 1.1 53.2 0.4 52.3 1.4

OYO 48.5 0.7 49.1 0.8 49.2 0.6 49.5 2.7

PLATEAU 48.7 1.9 48.5 0.8 47.9 0.7 46.0 2.7

RIVERS 49.2 1.7 50.1 1.1 51.2 0.5 51.3 0.9

SOKOTO 48.1 2.5 46.7 1.0 46.6 0.6 47.1 1.6

TARABA 45.8 1.1 47.9 0.7 45.6 0.6 44.4 2.0

YOBE 59.7 1.9 52.4 0.9 52.0 0.6 53.6 2.8

ZAMFARA 46.3 1.4 47.3 1.7 50.1 0.6 50.1 2.5

FCT 49.8 * 53.3 2.1 51.3 0.8 50.5 1.9

National 49.1 0.3 49.4 0.2 50.3 0.1 50.3 0.3 *Not applicable

190

Possession of Textbooks

Nationally, Table 10.4.9 shows that achievement of learners without textbooks and those with

textbooks was the same mean 50.1 with a standard error 1. Among the states, 21 had a mean

higher than the national average for learners without textbooks and 19 states for learners with

textbooks. Furthermore, in 15 states: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Imo,

Kebbi, Kwara, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Rivers and Yobe, learners scored above the

National averages for “possession of Textbooks” and Non possession of Textbooks. The observations underscore the need for more detailed and focused study on the utilization of

textbooks in our classrooms.

Table 10.4.9: Learners’ Possession of Textbook on Social Studies and Achievement of Learners

State Non Possession of Textbooks

Possession of Textbooks

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 52.0 0.7 50.7 0.9

ADAMAWA 50.3 0.8 48.3 0.9 AKWA-IBOM 50.5 0.5 52.0 0.9

ANAMBRA 52.2 0.5 52.4 0.8

BAUCHI 49.6 0.7 50.6 0.7

BAYELSA 49.4 0.9 48.9 0.8

BORNO 48.2 0.7 47.8 0.8

BENUE 50.1 2.4 49.1 1.4 CROSS RIVER 50.0 0.6 50.9 0.8

DELTA 52.3 0.5 50.2 0.8

EBONYI 52.2 0.7 52.3 0.7

EDO 50.6 0.8 50.0 1.1

EKITI 51.0 0.5 50.6 0.7

ENUGU 51.7 0.6 51.1 0.8

GOMBE 45.8 0.5 45.7 0.8

IMO 52.2 0.7 51.8 0.5

JIGAWA 46.7 0.5 47.4 0.7

KADUNA 46.5 0.6 48.1 0.9

KANO 49.5 0.8 50.0 0.8

KATSINA 50.4 0.9 48.0 0.8

KEBBI 54.0 0.8 54.0 0.6

KOGI 51.4 1.0 47.6 0.8

KWARA 51.6 0.5 51.0 0.7

LAGOS 51.9 0.6 51.7 0.8

NASARAWA 46.5 0.7 49.0 1.1

NIGER 47.1 0.6 51.1 0.8

OGUN 51.0 0.5 51.2 1.0

191

ONDO 50.3 0.8 51.3 0.6

OSUN 52.9 0.5 53.7 0.9

OYO 49.2 0.5 48.3 0.7

PLATEAU 48.3 0.7 48.4 0.8

RIVERS 50.5 0.6 51.4 0.6

SOKOTO 47.8 0.6 44.9 0.7

TARABA 47.1 0.6 45.9 0.7

YOBE 50.3 0.6 54.1 0.7

ZAMFARA 50.0 0.7 48.5 0.8

FCT 52.8 0.8 48.9 1.2

National 50.1 0.1 50.1 0.1

Liking Teachers

At the National level, achievement of learners who did not like Teachers (50.0) and learners

who liked their teachers (50.1) are about the same as can be seen in Table 10.4.10. However,

learners in 13 states did not indicate dislike for teachers. Among the states, 9 had a mean

greater than national average for learners who do not like their teachers and 19 states had

mean greater than national average for learners who like their teachers. Further examination

of the results revealed that the top three mean scores in Table 10.4.10 are associated with

learners not Liking Teachers in the following states: Anambra (64.7), Cross River (61.2) and

FCT (56.1). The data seem to suggest that liking Teachers has a stronger relationship on

achievement of learners in more states.

Table 10.4.10: Liking of Teacher as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Not liking teacher Liking teacher

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA * * 51.3 0.5

ADAMAWA 53.7 2.8 49.7 0.6

AKWA-IBOM * * 50.9 0.4

ANAMBRA 64.7 * 52.0 0.4

BAUCHI 45.0 6.2 49.6 0.5

BAYELSA * * 49.0 0.6

BORNO * * 48.1 0.5

BENUE 40.2 * 49.0 1.1

CROSS RIVER 61.2 * 50.4 0.5

DELTA * * 51.5 0.4

EBONYI 50.2 1.6 52.3 0.4

EDO 49.3 7.3 50.5 0.6

EKITI * * 50.8 0.4

ENUGU 52.7 6.6 51.5 0.4

GOMBE 44.9 * 45.8 0.5

IMO * * 51.9 0.4

JIGAWA 48.3 2.0 47.0 0.4

KADUNA * * 46.8 0.5

192

State Not liking teacher Liking teacher

Mean SE Mean SE

KANO 50.7 * 50.1 0.6

KATSINA * * 49.3 0.7

KEBBI * * 53.9 0.5

KOGI * * 49.5 0.6

KWARA 49.9 * 51.2 0.4

LAGOS * * 52.0 0.5

NASARAWA 42.1 * 47.5 0.6

NIGER 53.0 1.3 47.8 0.5

OGUN 44.4 4.4 51.2 0.5

ONDO * * 51.0 0.5

OSUN 52.6 2.9 53.0 0.4

OYO 42.3 0.9 49.1 0.4

PLATEAU 48.7 2.6 48.2 0.5

RIVERS 49.7 1.4 51.0 0.4

SOKOTO 49.1 3.8 46.6 0.5

TARABA 48.2 * 46.5 0.4

YOBE 48.1 * 52.5 0.5

ZAMFARA 49.9 5.8 49.5 0.5

FCT 56.1 * 51.3 0.7

National 50.0 0.8 50.1 0.1

*Not applicable

Liking Schooling

As can be seen in Table 10.4.11, learners in 16 states withheld their views on dislike for

schooling. The national data set shows that the average score for learners who did not have

liking for schooling was 49.3 while that of their counterpart who liked schooling was 50.2.

The range of mean scores for liking schooling is from 45.7 percent (Gombe) to 54.0 percent

(Kebbi). Whereas for not liking schooling, the range is 36.6 (Gombe) to 65.2 (Kebbi).

Furthermore, the top five mean scores in Table 10.4.11 are associated with not liking

schooling in the following states: Kebbi (65.2), Kogi (62.1), Kwara (58.9 percent), Anambra

(58.7) and Katsina (57.1). Among the states, 9 had mean scores greater than the national

average for learners who do not like schooling and 20 states had mean scores greater than the

national average for learners who like schooling. The results reveal two discernible patterns:

(1) the top five mean scores are associated with not Liking schooling and (2) 20 states with

mean scores above the National average for Liking schooling.

193

Table 10.4.11: Liking Schooling as Related to Achievement in Social Studies

State Not liking Schooling Liking Schooling

Mean SE Mean SE

ABIA 38.9 2.1 51.6 0.5

ADAMAWA * * 49.7 0.6 AKWA-IBOM * * 50.9 0.4

ANAMBRA 58.7 7.4 51.8 0.4

BAUCHI 44.3 2.5 50.4 0.5

BAYELSA 48.7 * 49.0 0.6

BORNO * * 48.2 0.5

BENUE 40.2 2.3 49.2 1.1 CROSS RIVER 45.0 2.6 50.4 0.5

DELTA 45.2 2.9 51.5 0.4

EBONYI * * 52.2 0.5

EDO 38.3 * 50.5 0.6

EKITI * * 50.9 0.4

ENUGU * * 51.3 0.4

GOMBE 36.6 * 45.7 0.5

IMO * * 51.9 0.4

JIGAWA 50.5 3.0 47.1 0.5

KADUNA * * 46.9 0.5

KANO * * 49.9 0.6

KATSINA 57.1 * 49.4 0.7

KEBBI 65.2 * 54.0 0.4

KOGI 62.1 * 49.6 0.6

KWARA 58.9 * 51.3 0.4

LAGOS * * 51.4 0.5

NASARAWA * * 47.5 0.6

NIGER 53.4 2.5 48.1 0.5

OGUN 44.8 * 51.1 0.5

ONDO 53.6 4.2 50.8 0.5

OSUN * * 53.1 0.4

OYO 41.6 * 48.9 0.4

PLATEAU 44.8 * 48.1 0.5

RIVERS * * 51.0 0.4

SOKOTO 47.0 2.1 47.5 0.5

TARABA * * 46.4 0.4

YOBE * * 52.5 0.5

ZAMFARA 52.0 0.1 49.7 0.5

FCT * * 51.3 0.7

National 49.3 1.2 50.2 0.1 *Not applicable

194

Observations and Challenges

Assistance with homework is expected to enhance performance. The fact that as this increases that achievement diminishes indicates that something must be wrong somewhere. Thus the quality of assistance may need to be examined rather than how much of it was available.

Liking of school and teacher serves motivational purposes and if the level is high the achievement should be expected to be high also. The case in this study did not show substantial differences and so if the benefits are to be achieved, the learners should be encouraged to like school through humanising of teaching and learning from their entry into school.

Textbooks possession not enhancing achievement seems to imply that there is something being done by teachers that do not make this to happen. What exactly is this thing?

Mode of transportation, type of residence, occupation of parents did not seem to show a definitive effect on achievement. One can only hazard some guesses.

The achievements in the three objectives are contained in Table 10.8. Learners in Kebbi state consistently performed better than the other states however, learners in Gombe consistently performed lower than the other states in the three objectives (knowledge, comprehension and higher order).

195

Chapter Eleven

Major Findings, Implications for Policy and Recommendations

A. Contextual Variables

Major Findings

1. Findings show that 7,512 JS2 learners, (male = 52.4 percent, female = 46 percent)

participated in the study. Again, majority (86 percent) of the learners were living with

their parents.

2. Most of the parents (26.6 percent) of learners had SSCE/GCE as the minimum

qualification, while about 10.8 percent did not possess any educational qualifications.

3. About 39 percent of learners lived less than 1 km to school, while about 27 percent

lived between 1 and 2 kms to school. So, majority (66 percent) of the learners lived

with than 2 km from school.

4. About 66 percent of the parents had no children in tertiary schools 1.2 percent of the

parents had at least four children in secondary schools while 3.6 percent had

minimum of 4 children in secondary school.

5. Many homes (30.2 percent) had between 1 and 3 children and 36.9 percent had

between 4 and 6 children in the nuclear family.

6. Learners who always engaged in farming/rearing of animals and trading/hawking

were 19.3 percent and 15.9 percent respectively.

7. The common learning materials at home are TV (74.2 percent), radio (69.6 percent)

and reading materials (57.1 percent)

8. Majority of the learners did not have core textbooks in Mathematics (45.5 percent),

Social Studies (54.3 percent) and Basic Science and Technology (58.6 percent).

However, majority of the learner had textbooks in English studies (56.3 percent)

9. Almost 71 percent of the principals were between the ages of 50 to 59 years and 80.5

percent had professional qualification to teach at that level.

10. Majority (82.2 percent) of the sampled teachers possessed professional qualification

of either NCE (37.3 percent) or degree in education (44.9 percent) and with teaching

experience of between 0-5 years (34.8 percent) and 6-10 years (30.3 percent)

11. Almost 58 percent of the teachers had participated in conference/seminars/workshop,

while 23.8 percent had enjoyed in-service training in the last 5 years.

12. The most common evaluation instruments used by teachers are: Objective tests (63.9

percent), Essay test (43.1 percent), Homework (71.6 percent), Project work (64.8

percent)

196

13. Many of the teachers need some help in management practice and co-curricular

activities especially in management of children with disciplinary case and with health

problems

14. About 77 percent of the schools run morning system only.

15. Most of the parents either attended PTA meetings very often (43.6 percent) or often

(35.1 percent).

16. Parents (77.6 percent) levies other charges regularly

17. More than 70 percent of the schools were not fenced.

18. The dropout rates in Zamfara (52.37 percent) and Rivers (35.02 percent) were very

high but moderate in all other states.

19. The recommended textbooks were the only common instructional materials in

schools.

20. Supply of water was guaranteed in most of the schools with schools relying on

borehole (37 percent), well (28.9 percent)

21. Refuse disposal facilities were available only in 26 percent of the schools.

22. Most of the learners (83.6 percent) liked English studies, while 26 percent liked

Mathematics. Learners (29.5 percent) did not like the subjects because they were

difficult.

23. Majority of the learners (93.3 percent) liked their teachers, because the teachers taught

well (29 percent)

24. About 90.8 percent of the learners liked schooling.

197

Implications for Policy

The implications of the results of the survey for policy and practice for this class are

presented with respect to the three sections in this report: Learners‟ Home and Support;

Teachers in the School; and Schools and the Community.

Learners’ Home and Support In this section, a number of variables were examined in the learners‟ home and support,

which included the socio-demographic characteristics of the learners and the parents, such as

the educational qualification of the parents, their employment status, family size and average

income.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Parents

The report of the survey indicated that some parents had government jobs, while many did

not have paid jobs. Majority of the parents were self-employed and the incomes received

were not sufficient to cater for all their children. The level of illiteracy among the parents was

also high, as up to 10.8 percent of the parents did not receive any formal education (not even

primary school). This must have resulted into the level of poverty in terms of their

accommodation/where they live in, as the report showed that up to 13.5 percent of the parents

lived in one-room apartments with their children. Moreover, up to 36.9 percent of the parents

indicated that they had four to six children. The number of children in a family has

implications on its type of human environment, social interactions and the utilisation and

diffusion of its material resources. Where families are not well endowed with material

resources, the homes that have fewer children are likely to be less deprived than those with a

larger number of children.

Implication for Policy and Practice: The indices imply clearly that governments and other

national bodies responsible must evolve policies that focus on the empowerment of parents,

in order to enable them to support the learning of their children in school. Parents engaged in

self-employed jobs should be empowered financially to promote their work. Similarly,

governments should intensify efforts to establish more adult education centres in all localities

across the country and encourage parents of the learners to enrol, in order to improve

themselves. They should also be meaningfully sensitised about the importance of education.

Concerning the environment, governments and the relevant national bodies should make a

fresh effort to uphold more the existing policies on personal hygiene and the social life of

families, in order not to compromise the overall health conditions of communities. One

effective way to achieve this is for families to be empowered through an affordable housing

198

scheme. On the whole, national policies, like scholarships and provision of learning materials

at subsidised costs, should consciously be promoted, in order to render support to learners

from low-income homes, who have many children to enrol their children in school.

Support from Home

The report of the survey confirmed that the learners had received different types of support

from their parents. These included the provision of textbooks in the core subjects, meals,

school and transportation to help the learners to manage the distance between their homes and

the school. Thus, although UBEC supplied textbooks to the schools in the four core subjects,

the report showed that less than half of the learners had the required books in Mathematics,

Basic Science and Technology and Social Studies. However, more than half of the learners

were found to have textbooks in English Studies.

Implications for Policy and Practice: (a) With regard to the provision of textbooks to

schools, the UBEC should effectively monitor the distribution of the books, as well as enact a

policy on the minimum life span of the books supplied, so that schools can surcharge learners

who misplace or mutilate their books. In the case of educational activities, the survey report

had revealed that two important educational facilities (computers and internet) were absent in

most of the learners‟ homes, largely because of the cost of purchase and maintenance; and,

possibly, owing to the lack of awareness among the parents of the support the facilities give

to the learners, or other difficulties in operating them, like regular electricity supply.

Governments and private proprietors should, thus, enact due policies to ensure that such

facilities are made accessible to all learners in the schools for the benefit of all; (b) As for

meals, governments at all levels should endeavour to expand the current programme on

school feeding to cover all their learners, as pointed out in other sections of this report. The

benefits of effective feeding for learners in stimulating their learning effort and other school

activities are obvious; any programme designed to achieve that would have many areas of

positive impact on the social and economic lives of the communities in the country; and (c)

The distance between the learners‟ homes and school is an important determinant of the

learners‟ attendance, punctuality and effective learning; hence, the Federal Government

should formulate a policy on the establishment of schools in all communities in accordance

with the policy on maximum distance that learners should normally cover to reach the nearest

school. Lateness or truancy often emanate from the distance the learners travel from home to

school, which can be managed through proper supervision of the learners and greater

cooperation between the home and the school.

199

Learners’ Contributions at Home through Co-Curricular Activities

The extent to which the learners participated in co-curricular activities was assessed under

four headings that included Games and Sports, Cooking, and Economic Activities

(Trading/Hawking, and Farming). The report of the survey indicated that the after school

activities in which the learners engaged were farming/rearing animals, petty trading/hawking;

cooking; and games/sports. Some learners were reported to have always engaged in

farming/rearing of animals and trading/hawking of commercial items. On the other hand,

some learners never engaged in farming/rearing of animals or petty trading. The percentage

of learners who participated in games was relatively smaller, as reported in the survey.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Learners who involve in economic activities after

school to a large extent miss out in the benefits of participating in recreational pursuits.

Schools should regularly organise out of class activities, such as games and sports, in order to

share the benefits to those who may not have the opportunity to do so at home. Governments

should also uphold the national policy against child labour and child abuse; and in this regard,

UBEC and the schools should also emphasise on the regular sensitisation of parents and

guardians of the learners.

Teachers in Schools

This section contains the outcome of the survey, which examined the characteristics of the

teachers and how they supported the academic development of the learners.

i. Ageing Head Teachers

A large proportion of the head teachers are ageing and getting close to the age of

retirement. A challenge of this is the need to begin to think of how they would

eventually be replaced.

Implications for Policy and Practice: The fact that many of the experienced

principals would soon leave service implies that governments and private employers

need to urgently arrange for their replacement at regular intervals. This is necessary,

so that these older and experienced school administrators could appropriately mentor

the younger teachers who will replace them.

ii. Regular Re-Training of Teachers

The report of the survey indicated that a large number of the teachers were

professionally qualified.

200

Implications for Policy and Practice: The fact that some of the teachers lacked

professional qualifications in teaching confirms the need for governments and the

private proprietors to urgently put in place organised plans to support such unqualified

teachers in their schools to go for professional training.

iii. Age Limit for Teachers

The result of the survey indicated that a small number of the teachers were fairly

young (less than 20 years old); which made them only a few years older than their

teenage learners. This poses many challenges to the learning process in the schools,

especially regarding whether or not the learners would take full instructions from the

young teachers.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government needs to enact a policy, which

would specify the minimum age requirement for aspiring teachers who may wish to

enter into the profession.

iv. Staff Situation in Schools

The qualification of the teachers is the first measure of the quality of the schools.

Teachers should be well prepared to effectively take on their teaching responsibilities

to the benefit of their learners. However, the report of the survey indicated that a

substantial number of the teachers possessed qualifications below the minimum

prescribed for teaching in Nigeria.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government and private proprietors should

adopt measures to ensure that only qualified teachers are employed to teach in the

schools. At the same time, the governments should evolve policies that would ensure

that teachers currently teaching in the schools are sponsored for training, in order for

them to be fully qualified.

Professional Development

The report of the survey indicated that the participation of the head teachers in development

programmes in the schools was quite high, which was quite healthy for their operations as

head teachers and their schools. However, it was observed that this could have been because

of the mandatory training rendered by the All Nigeria Confederation of Principals of

Secondary Schools (ANCOPSS). Such programme ensures that principals are kept abreast

with the latest developments that enhance good school management practices. The report of

201

the survey also indicated that the training attended by a large number of the teachers included

teaching methods and classroom management.

Implications for Policy and Practice: (i) Government and the private proprietors should

support the programmes of ANCOPSS and all the professional teacher associations, for the

continuous development of the school heads and teachers. Government and the private

proprietors should also ensure that all school heads have the requisite professional

qualifications and managerial experience to run their schools effectively while attending

regular training programmes to keep abreast with the latest developments in their fields; and

(ii) It is not enough for the teachers to be made to regularly attend professional training

programmes but governments and school heads must evolve an effective follow up policy to

ensure that all teachers who benefit from such programmes apply the knowledge gained from

trainings attended.

School Discipline and Climate

The report of the survey identified quarrelling and stealing among the learners as the two

major disciplinary problems that emerged from this study. These are social problems that can

be properly managed by the school counsellors.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government and private school proprietors must

employ more counsellors in their schools, to help combat this unhealthy habit among the

learners. Moreover, the school counsellors should be made to attend regular training, in order

to share the best practices and learn from experiences in other schools.

Decision Making

The report indicated that head teachers and teachers had limited freedom in selecting what to

teaching their schools and during their lessons. This situation could have a negative

consequence, as some of the teachers often felt aggrieved that their input was not sought, in

spite of their professional and practical experience.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government and the relevant national agencies should

adopt a conscious policy to involve school heads and the teachers widely and systematically

in designing the national curriculum and the subject clusters to be taught in the schools.

Similarly, the policy should be flexible across schools, as the current practice of directing all

schools to adopt particular subject clusters across the state, without regard to the

specialisation of their teachers, often has a disastrous effect on their learners.

202

Job satisfaction and Morale

As indicated in the report, almost all the school heads involved in the survey were satisfied

with their job; and they considered the task of modelling future of the child to be of great

importance. These feelings can lead to an enhanced interest in their job and serve as a strong

motivation for promoting quality output among the learners in their schools. However, the

head teachers were not happy with the poor working environment and the delay, which was

becoming common practice, in the payment of their monthly entitlements.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government should attach significance to the working

environment in the schools and promote all existing policies that will help to motivate the

head teachers and all the teachers in the school to have a more positive impact on their

learners. More specifically, governments should adopt a conscious policy of prompt payment

of salaries and other entitlements to all their teachers, in order to enhance their job

satisfaction.

Teaching and Evaluation Practices

The report of the survey indicated that the teachers used almost all the regular instructional

materials in their normal lessons, with the exception of audio-visual materials. This could

have been as a result of the non-availability of these equipment, owing to their high cost. The

report also indicated that the teachers did not employ regular written work during their

lessons, a situation that could have resulted from the materials not being available to them to

work with.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government and proprietors of private schools should

endeavour to provide the full complement of teaching materials to schools regularly, noting

that effective teaching and learning is not possible without such materials. School heads must

also safeguard the safety of any equipment supplied and ensure that teachers use it

judiciously in their lessons.

Teachers’ Needs

As indicated in the report, the teachers needed help in developing the techniques for teaching

large classes and overcoming the difficulties encountered in providing excursions outside the

classroom. This poses enormous challenges for teacher development, as the learners‟

population in the schools keeps growing steadily.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government, private proprietors and school heads need

to adopt policies that will help the teachers cope with their expanding classrooms, make

203

constructive use of the teaching time and control the personal behaviours of the learners.

More teachers should also be employed on regular basis in line with the increase in the

population of the learners.

The School and the Community

This section contains the review of the overall outcome of the research, as it affected the

relations between the school and the community and their impact on the learners‟ academic

development. These included the school in perspective, parents‟ relationship with the school

and support from parents for the school provision of school fence and security, school

community relations. The variables discussed below include the school compound and

buildings, classroom spaces and open classrooms, facilities in the school, child-friendly

environment, types of instructional materials and water supply sources.

Distance to School

The distance from their home to the school can be a problem for the learners. The report of

the survey indicated that 80 percent of learners from the schools used lived less than 2

kilometres away from their schools. Thus, they do not spend much time in getting to their

schools. More so, more than 90 percent of the learners confirmed that they normally walked

from their homes to the school.

Implications for Policy and Practice: This is quite commendable. State governments, local

authorities and school heads should put in more effort to ensure that there learners are

admitted into schools near their homes.

Community Assistance to Schools.

The report of the survey confirmed that the assistance rendered by communities to the

schools was satisfactory in most areas, except in the provision of buildings. This may not be

unconnected with the cost of constructing infrastructure.

Implications for Policy and Practice: School heads should endeavour to involve the

communities in the affairs of their schools, especially in sensitising them in respect of their

requirements in terms of building projects. Where the communities may not be able to afford

cash, they should be encouraged to assist in kind or by making available some valuable

resources.

Relationship between the School and the Community

The report affirmed the relationship between the communities and the schools as being very

cordial. This could have informed the commitment of the parents to pay the school charges or

204

levies in respect of their learners regularly, so as to ensure that the schools were able to meet

their operating expenses.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government, proprietors and school heads must work to

sustain the relationship, by upholding dignity of the schools and ensuring that they are

accountable to parents.

Space for School Buildings, Playgrounds and Gardens

Schools require enough space for buildings, playgrounds and gardens. The fact that only a

few of the schools did not have these available could be due to situational issues relating to

their locations, particularly in urban areas where land is in short supply and expensive to

acquire. This can expose the learners to hazards and make the learning environment

uninviting.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government must adopt all the necessary

policies to make the school attractive and fit for the learners, so that they look forward to

attending their lessons. School heads should also encourage support organisations and the

corporate bodies to assist them with their required building projects.

Male and Female Enrolment

The report of the survey indicated that there were more female learners enrolled across the

country than males in this class. This confirmed that the education of the female gender was

now being taken seriously. However, the distribution across the states appeared to be quite

unbalanced.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government at all levels must re-address the gender

imbalance in the school enrolment. In particular, the education of the female learners should

be accorded greater attention.

School Dropout Rate

The survey report indicated that the school dropout rate in Bayelsa and Zamfara states was

quite high.

Implications for Policy and Practice: The governments of the two states should immediately

investigate the factors responsible for the situation and address the matter appropriately.

Policy should look into having all children in school. Schools should do a follow up on their

students. Any learner noticed not to be in school should be investigated.

205

Availability of Toilets in the Schools

The report of the survey indicated that the availability of toilets for the use of the learners and

their teachers was very poor. This sorry situation can constitute a serious health hazard, as

the learners contaminate the school premises and the surrounding areas.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government and private proprietors must immediately

provide more toilets in schools; those available at the moment should be properly maintained.

Non-Availability of Curriculum Materials

The report of the survey indicated that, although the few available materials were of good

quality, on the whole there was, however, a scarcity of curriculum materials in the schools,

which was an issue of great concern. This was because the materials were expected to direct

the teacher concerning what to teach in the class, as well as provide the source for all other

documents relating to the curriculum.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Governments must ensure that up to date curriculum

materials are supplied to every school across the states in the federation. Seminars and

meetings should also be organised on the materials, so that all the school heads and teachers

are familiar with their contents.

Appropriateness of Classroom Facilities

The report of the survey indicated that the level of appropriateness of the school facilities,

especially furniture, left much to be desired. This was more so, because the facilities were

supposed to provide a measure of comfort for achieving effective teaching and learning in the

school. Without adequate facilities, teachers and learners would not be comfortable and,

therefore, learning would be disturbed. Reasons adduced for the bad condition of the facilities

included dilapidation and insufficient infrastructure in the public schools, which were

aggravated by the fact that under the government‟s „free education‟ policy they could not

collect fees from the learners.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Governments across the country must ensure that

adequate facilities are provided in all public schools and regularly maintained, in order to

achieve quality teaching and learning.

Disparity among Schools in Classrooms and Spaces

The report of the survey indicated a disparity in the number of classrooms and open spaces in

different schools across different locations in the states.

206

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government must enact policies to ensure that the learning

environment within all schools is conducive. A situation in which learning has to take place

under tree, as reported in some cases, cannot augur well for the education system in the

country.

Availability of Textbooks

Textbooks were discovered in the report to have been the only instructional materials readily

available. Considering the sample surveyed, this a far cry from what should be expected, as

other instructional materials were, more or less, not available.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government must endeavour to provide the necessary

instructional materials, including more books, to the schools.

Water Supply

The report indicated that water was available in most of the schools surveyed, although they

mostly relied on rainwater and tanker supplies.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government, school heads and communities must

make a permanent arrangement to provide more dependable sources of water to the schools. Lack of Refuse Disposal Facilities

The report indicated that the lack of refuse disposal facilities was of great concern in many

schools. Such a situation could lead to the school environments being dirty, thereby exposing

the learners to different types of diseases and infections.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government, private proprietors and school heads should

put in place good refuse disposal facilities in the schools and ensure that they are not located

within the vicinity of the classrooms.

Attitude of the Learners

The report indicated that a number of variables were surveyed under attitude of the learners,

which included attitude towards parents, school subject, teachers and schooling.

Parents like the Teachers

The report of the survey indicated that a very substantial number of the learners confirmed

that they liked their parents as they were good and beneficial to them, as parents should

normally be the first set of role models for their children. The learners would, thus, be

motivated to work hard, in order to impress the parents, an attitude that can serve to enhance

their learning achievements.

207

Implications for Policy and Practice: Parents must uphold the respect of the learners at all times.

The school heads should also motivate the learners to achieve more in school, so as to be able

to fulfil their parent‟s expectations.

Subjects the Learners Disliked Most

The report of the survey showed that Mathematics was the subject disliked most by learners

in the school. However, as one of the bedrocks of science and technology, all learners must

take Mathematics seriously; and those who do not like it may not have a positive effect on the

nation‟s development. Similarly, the learners had indicated that they also disliked studying

the Nigerian languages.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Government should commission a policy research in order

for experts to fully investigate why students do not like Mathematics; and the results arising

from the investigation should be treated appropriately. Within the classroom, teachers can

find out why the subject does not often appeal to most of the learners; and try to guide them

into responding to it more positively. In similar vein, the teachers should educate the learners

further about the importance of studying their local languages; otherwise, the languages

would weaken and, eventually, become extinct in the future. Language is the reservoir for

culture; therefore, in order to preserve the nation‟s culture more language activities should be

introduced into the curriculum. A pass in the indigenous language subjects should be made

compulsory for promotions and school heads and teachers should impress it upon the learners

that their education is not complete, if they are unable to pass the language subjects.

The Learners like Their Teachers and Schooling

The report of the survey indicated that the learners liked schooling and their teachers. This

was quite commendable, as it would likely lead them to achieve greater performance in their

subjects. However, more should still be done to sustain their interest in the teachers and

schooling.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Teachers should continuously portray themselves well;

and the school should uphold its dignity, in order to sustain the interest of the learners.

208