ABSTRACT

It has been observed that students have been performing rather poorly in further mathematics; this has actually prompted the purpose of this study into with the aim of identifying causes of poor academic performance of students in further mathematics in senior secondary schools, Ilorin Kwara State. During the course of study, a total number of one hundred thirty-three students were involved in filling the questionnaire; five schools were selected randomly from West, East or South senior secondary schools in Ilorin Kwara State. A researcher-designed questionnaire was employed to collect the necessary information from the students.The data collected were subjected to descriptive analysis using chi-square test. The finding of the study indicate that, Students have negative attitude towards Further mathematics and hence perform poorly in the subject, the male students performed better than the female students, the teacher’s method of teaching also contributed to the poor performance, non-availability of teaching materials is also a contributing factor to the student’s poor performance, the qualification and teaching experience of teacher goes a long way to enhance the students’ performance. Therefore these researches recommend that Government is to make available the facility needed by the students and teachers.

Chapter one

Introduction

• Background of the study

Sometimes it makes the general populous wonder why certain government schools fail to produce good results in public examinations while others manage to consistently impress the general public by yielding admirable results. A good number of scholars on institutional effectiveness, including Edmonds (1981), Scheerens & Bosker (1997), Lezotte, Skaife & Holstead (2002), and Daggett (2005), revealed that government schools can miraculously produce admirable results despite having majority of learners from poor backgrounds. The researchers in question postulated that the good performing schools have modalities put in place to complement their efforts that encouraged all the learners learn with minimal difficulties (Kirk 8c Jones, 2004). It is hardly difficult to understand why some schools consistently perform well in examinations while others consistently perform poorly despite schools having teachers with similar qualifications and trained in same colleges and universities. A group of school effectiveness researchers, including Edmonds (1981), Scheerens & Bosker (1997), Lezotte, Skaife & Holstead (2002), and Daggett (2005), demonstrated that public schools can make a difference – even if their pupil body comprised of pupils whose families had disadvantaged backgrounds. These researchers discovered that the successful schools have unique characteristics and processes, which helped all children, learn at high levels (Kirk & Jones, 2004). A number of studies have been carried out to establish what it takes for acceptable academic achievement or rather academic proficiency. Edmonds (1981) was the leading researcher in school reform in the 1970s, and his work is still highly respected by education leaders. He initiated what is now known as the Effective Schools Model. Edmonds’ (1981) research noted the following characteristics of successful schools: strong administrative leadership, focus on basic skills, high expectations for pupil success, frequent monitoring of pupil performance, and safe and orderly schools. Other similar characteristics identified by Sheerens and Bosker(1997) included the following: monitoring of pupil progress, focus on achievement, parental involvement, creating a safe and orderly climate, focused curriculum, strong leadership, cooperative working environment and time on task. Other characteristics observed in effective schools include: commitment to high academic expectations, small learning environments, structure learning around career/pupil interest, professional development focused on instruction, tying out-of school learning to classroom learning, career and higher education counselling, flexible, relevant segments of instruction, assessment of what pupils can do, partnerships with higher education, and support for alliances with parents and community. This was published in a report by the U.S. Department of Education (1999). Another outcome of the effective schools research was published in a report by the U.S. Department of Education (1999). For this report, a team of researchers studied the 300 most comprehensive school reform research studies done in the previous five years. The common characteristics they identified were: Recently Lezotte picked up leadership on the effective school research that Edmonds started in the 1970s. In his recent book. What Effective Schools Do, Lezotte (2010) noted the following as the most important characteristics of effective schools: strong instructional leadership, clear and focused mission, safe and orderly schools, climate of high expectations for success, frequent monitoring of pupil progress, positive home-school relations, and opportunity to learn. Lezotte (2010) argued that these seven Correlates of Effective Schools are powerful indicators of successful places where all children learn, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity.

1.2   Statement of the Problem

Further Mathematics as a subject is viewed by students as a daredevil. It is one of the subjects which a lot ofstudents cannot really boost of being competent in it. The benefits of further mathematics cut across scientific to business and even the legal environment. However, the subject of further mathematics has witnessed mass failure in it because of the incompetency of the students to solve the mathematical problem posed to them on examination days. This result or high level of failure is not just disturbing but it lays a burden on the teachers and academic administrators. The teachers and academic administratorsare on their toes to find out the causes behind the poor academic performance of secondary school students in further mathematics. It is based on this premise that the researcher has chosen to undertake a study on the causes of poor academic performance of secondary school students in further mathematics.

1.3   Objectiveof the study

The following are the specific objectives of this study:

1. To determine the causes of poor performance of students in secondary schools.
2. To understand the kind of orientation students receive about further mathematics.
3. To recommend effective ways through which the performance of secondary school students can be improved.

1.4   Research Questions

The study has the following research questions to guide it:

1. What are the causes of poor performance of students in further mathematics in secondaryschools?
2. What kind of orientation do the students receive about further mathematics?
3. What the effective ways to improve the performance of students in further mathematics?

1.5   Research Hypotheses

H0: There is no poor academic performance of students in further mathematics.

H1: There is a poor academic performance of students in further mathematics.

H0: There is no significant relationship between the orientation of students on further mathematics and their performance.

H1: There is no significant relationship between the orientation of students on further mathematics and their academic performance.

1.6   Scope of the Study

The study involves the perception and need for good academicperformance in secondary schools. The study also includes what makes up a good academic performance. However, the study is limited to five different selected schools in Ilorin, Kwara state.

1.7   Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined as used in this work:

Performance: The outcome of a student’s effort.

Stakeholders: In the education sector, Stakeholders are those who are involved in the planning andexecution of educational programmes.Government, teachers, parents, students.

Reliable: Something that is dependable. It can be trusted.

X-rayed: Focus; to give attention to something.

Academic:A teacher or scholar in a college or institute of higher education.

School: A school is an institution designed for the teaching of students (or “pupils”) under thedirection of teachers.

Poor:Worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.

Cause:A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.