SCHOOL MAPPING VARIABLES AND TEACHER PRODUCTIVITY IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTH-EAST, NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00006999

No of Pages: 152

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

$20

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the extent to which school mapping variables relate to teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria. The need to determine the relationship of school mapping with\ teacher productivity in public Secondary Schools, in order to address the concern of parents, government, stakeholders and the general public on the recurrent poor performance of students (as manifested in the senior school certificate results) over the last ten years necessitated this study. To guide the study, seven research questions and seven null hypotheses were raised. The correlation research design was adopted for the study. The population in the study is 29835, consisting of: 1,398 principals, 27,039 teachers and 1,398 senior secondary class two (SS2) senior prefects, drawn from 1,398 public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria. The study samples were 280 principals, 2,703 teachers and 280 SS2 senior prefects,  selected  via  multi stage and simple random sampling techniques.  Five instruments were used to collect data for the study: school mapping and teacher productivity questionnaire (SMTPQ), secondary education system coverage checklist (SESCC), School Accessibility checklist (SAC), school mapping and teacher productivity checklist (SMTPC) and secondary school teachers’ characteristics checklist (SSTCC). The instruments were validated by three experts in the College of Education, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike, to ascertain their relevance in the   study. One of the Validates was from Educational management, while the other two were from Measurement/Evaluation and Psychology departments. The test-retest method was used to establish the stability and internal consistency of the instrument via Cronbach alpha and the values of 0.84 and 0.82 were obtained respectively. This method was further used to determine the reliability indices of the four checklists with the following results-0.73, 0.74, 0.83 and 0.85 respectively. The research instruments were administered by the researcher and research Assistants, who were properly-briefed. They also retrieved the duly filled instruments at a return rate of 88%, while a total of 12% were either not filled or discarded by some uncooperative respondents. The data collected were analyzed, using Pearson product moment correlation, to answer the research questions, while Pearson R2 (coefficient of determination), ANOVA and multiple regressions were used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 levels of significance. The responses were rated based on real limits of numbers. The null hypotheses of no significant relationship, with the calculated values less than the table values, at 0.05 level of significance, were not rejected, while those that were higher than the table values (only one in this study), were rejected. The findings showed that there was a high extent of correlation between teacher productivity and the following variables of school mapping: equitable location of schools in the communities, accessibility of schools to students, school community population, class size, infrastructures and teaching facilities. On the other hand, the study revealed that there is a low extent of correlation between siting of schools in the catchment areas and teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria. From the findings of the study, it was concluded that School Mapping Variables relate with Teacher Productivity in Public Secondary Schools, giving the high academic performance of South East public secondary schools students in the senior secondary school certificate examinations, across the ten years under reference (2007/2008 to 2016/2017).




TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover page

Title page                                                                                                        i

Declaration                                                                                                      ii

Certification                                                                                                    iii

Dedication                                                                                                      vi

Acknowledgements                                                                                        v

Table of contents                                                                                            vii

List of tables                                                                                                   x

List of figures                                                                                                 xii

Abstract                                                                                                          xiii

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION                                                              1

1.1 Background to the Study                                                                         1

1.2 Statement of the Problem                                                                         13

1.3 Purpose of the Study                                                                            13

1.4 Research Questions                                                                                   14

1.5 Hypotheses                                                                                               15

1.6 Significance of the Study                                                                         16

1.7 Scope of the Study                                                                                   17


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE                                  19

2.1       Conceptual Framework                                                                       19

2.1.1    Concept of school mapping                                                                19

2.1.1.1 Components of school mapping                                                         23

2.1.1.2 Scope of application of school mapping                                             25

2.1.1.3 Objectives of school mapping                                                             26

2.1.1.4 Uses of school mapping                                                                      27

2.1.1.5 School mapping process                                                                      28

2.1.2   Concept of school mapping factors                                                     29

2.1.2.1 Global positioning system and geographical

information system                                                                             31

 

2.1.2.2 School location and academic performance of students                    33

2.1.2.3 Rationalization of the educational system                                          36

2.1.2.4 Educational access to school                                                              42

2.1.2.5 Enrollment trends in public secondary schools                                   45

2.1.2.6 Educational system efficiency                                                            46

2.1.3 Concept of teacher                                                                                 48

2.1.3.1 The Job of a teacher                                                                            52

2.1.4 Concept of  productivity                                                                       54

2.1.4.1 Measurement of productivity                                                             56

2.1.4.2 Productivity in educational system                                                     57

2.1.4.3 Uses of productivity measures                                                            58

2.1.5 Concept of teacher productivity                                                            58

2.1.5.1 Teacher productivity and academic performance of students            61

2.1.5.2 Class size and teacher productivity                                                    63

2.1.5.3 School size and teacher productivity                                                  65   

2.1.6 Concept of public secondary schools                                                    66

2.2. Theoretical Framework                                                                            68

2.2.1 The systems theory                                                                                68

2.2.2 The Production theory                                                                           71

2.3. Empirical Studies                                                                                     73

2.4 Summary of Related Literature                                                                85

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY                                                              87

3.1 Design of the Study                                                                                  87

3.2 Area of the Study                                                                                                 88

3.3 Population of the Study                                                                            90

3.4 Sampling and Sampling Techniques                                                         90

3.5 Instruments for Data Collection                                                               90

3.6 Validation of the Instruments                                                                   94

3.7 Reliability of the Instruments                                                                   95

3.8 Method of Data Collection                                                                       96

3.9 Method of Data Analysis                                                                         97


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                        98

4.1 Results                                                                                                      98

4.2 Summary of Findings                                                                               112
4.3 Discussion of Findings                                                                             115


CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                             121

5.1 Summary                                                                                                   121

5.2 Conclusion                                                                                                124

5.3 Educational Implications of the Study                                                     128

5.4 Recommendations                                                                                    130

5.5 Suggestions for Further Study                                                                  131

      References                                                                                                           

       Appendices                                                                                             

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

.1:                    Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent equitable location of

schools in the communities relate with

teacher productivity in public secondary

schools.                                                                                    98

 

 

2:                     Simple linear regression analysis for

the extent of relationship between equitable

locations of schools and teacher

productivity in public secondary schools.                               100

 

 

3:                     Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent of correlation of

accessibility of schools to students and

teacher productivity in public secondary

schools.                                                                                   101

 

 

4:                     Simple linear regression analysis for the

significant relationship between accessibility

of schools to students and teacher

productivity in public secondary schools.                               102

 

5:                     Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent of correlation between

siting of schools in the catchment

areas and teacher productivity in

public secondary schools.                                                       103

 

 

6:                     Simple linear regression analysis for the

extent of relationship between siting of

schools in the catchment areas and teacher

productivity in  public secondary schools.                              104

 

 

 

7:                     Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent to which population

correlates with teacher productivity in 

public secondary schools.                                                       105

 

 

8:                     Simple linear regression analysis for the

population and  teacher  productivity in

public secondary schools.                                                       106

 

 

9:                     Pearson product moment correlation analysis of

extent of correlation between Class Size and

teacher productivity in public

secondary schools.                                                                  107

 

10:                   Simple linear regression analysis for the

extent of relationship between class

size and teacher productivity in

public secondary schools.                                                       108

 

 

11:                   Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent of correlation between

infrastructure and teacher productivity.                                 109

 

 

12:                   Simple linear regression analysis for the

extent of relationship between infrastructure

and teacher productivity in

public secondary schools.                                                       110

 

 

13:                   Pearson product moment correlation

analysis of extent of relationship between

teaching facilities and teacher

productivity in public secondary schools.                               111

 

 

14:                   Simple linear regression analysis for the

extent of relationship between teaching

facilities and teacher productivity.                                         112

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

1: Diagrammatic model of a simple system                                        69

2: Diagrammatic model of the production theory                              72

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY          

One of the greatest resources for the achievement of a nation’s developmental goals is the availability of schools with quality teachers. This is why the Federal Republic of Nigeria, FRN (2014), emphasized that no educational system can rise above the quality of its   teachers. A teacher is one engaged in the education industry, who guides the teaching-learning process and encourages students to pursue knowledge on their own. Modebelu (2013) defined teachers as a group of individuals trained specifically to impact knowledge and skills to children, youths and adults to enable them develop healthy attitudes and live in harmony with all other Nigerians.  In the same vein, Nwalado (2015) posited that a teacher is one who helps the students to learn how to acquire knowledge, skills and values for personal and societal development. They play a major role in the education system, because they are in the position to influence the teaching-learning outcomes, either positively or negatively. Teachers harness the other resources in the system for efficient instructional delivery and are usually available where schools exist. If however a community is denied the location of schools, such a community is invariably denied the right of having teachers in its locality. The teachers considered here are those that teach in the secondary schools.

 

Secondary education in Nigeria occupies a middle level in the education pyramid. This is the education that children receive after primary education and before the tertiary level. The secondary level receives pupils from the primary schools and grooms them in two stages of three years duration each (junior and senior secondary) and releases them, for the tertiary level. Some students stop at the first stage of basic education, having acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to make a useful living in the society. Thereafter, the rest move further to the Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education. Within the six years of secondary education, the students should have received such trainings that would enable them to develop and promote Nigerian Languages, arts and culture, in the context of the world's cultural heritage. This is designed to foster National unity with an emphasis on the common ties that unite us in our diversity. It’s also designed to provide technical knowledge and vocational skills necessary for agricultural, industrial, commercial and economic development. Secondary education in Nigeria has also been equipped to raise a generation of people who can think for themselves, respect the views and feelings of others, respect the dignity of labour, appreciate those values which are   specified under our broad national goals  and  to live as good citizens (FRN, 2014). These objectives and more can only be achieved in communities where schools are equitably located, and teachers are provided in quantity and quality in the schools.

 

School mapping is all about location planning in education. It is a planning tool, which incorporates spatial and demographic dimensions into educational planning, and this involves a dynamic process of logical and systematic identification of the most appropriate communities and sites where educational facilities provided for, in the education plan, are to be located (Mendelsohn, 2006). In Nigeria, school mapping as a planning technique in education is still relatively recent and adequate awareness is yet to be created. The first attempt of school mapping exercise by the Federal Government of Nigeria was in April 2008. It was scheduled to commence with the primary school level in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. However, no account was given as to whether the exercise actually took off, and the extent to which it was carried out (Eze, 2008).   During the introduction of western education by the missionaries, (before Nigerian independence) the authorities in charge of our education industry were in the habit of sitting learning institutions arbitrarily and without recourse to the guidelines and principles of school mapping. The result of these anomalies today is that Educational Planners and Managers are more often than not, faced with the challenges of equalizing educational opportunities for all children. Sometimes community schools are sited where there may not be need for them, whereas they might not be found at all in places where the communities will benefit from them. This lopsided situation  sometimes have a political undertone (Ewendu, 2016).

 

School mapping is the most appropriate planning tool to correct these anomalies introduced into our educational system, deliberately or otherwise. Hite (2011) posited that in school mapping, the location of any learning establishment already provided for in the education plan, can easily and accurately be located in the appropriate community or site, with the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographical Information System (GIS). These are vital tools which determine the exact co-ordinate values of each school and are also used for mapping out the distribution, size and spacing of learning establishments, as provided for in the education plan (Hite, 2011). The major question answered by school mapping is where to locate educational facilities.

 

The overall benefit of school mapping is that it brings about equity in the location of  educational facilities (Mendelson, 2006). It does this by revealing the existing disparities in the distribution of educational facilities, and also identifies the most appropriate locations of schools, so that more students can benefit from the same level of investment. Another benefit of school mapping is that it guarantees the provision of educational facilities and their equitable distribution. The equitable distribution of public educational facilities in the South East, Nigeria and adequate allocation to them, are of interest to this study.

 

The sub variables or major components of school mapping are as follows: Location, Access, Catchment Area, Population, Class Size, Infrastructure, and Teaching Facilities. 

1.      Location: The location of educational facilities in any community depends on the norms that are prevalent in that very community, which help to determine the most appropriate sites for schools or their alternatives, so that a greater number of children in the community can benefit from the same level of investment. School location is the principal element considered in   educational planning (Owoeye and Yara, 2010). 

2.      Access:  This refers to the way or means of gaining admission into  the  available  schools. Various schools have conditions that every student must satisfy before he or she can be given access to study in a particular school. Family demand is also an important factor that influences access. The existence of educational facilities in any geographical area does not necessarily mean that every household in that area will desire access to the school. Some households might prefer a school that is further away, rather than a nearby one, for reasons best known to them. Access also considers the route that students pass to and from school every day. Some students encounter obstacles like valleys, streams, swampy road, mountains, et cetera, while others might simply walk on smooth routes to school (Humphrey and Crawfurd, 2014).   

3.      Catchment Area:  This is the maximum area from which the children to be enrolled in the school will come from. Enrolment projections are important to decide on the opening of new schools, up-grading of existing ones and for estimation of the number of teachers required. The catchment area of a school is the geographical area served by the school and represents the maximum distance that the child can trek from home to school and back every day (Orlu, 2013). He maintained that knowledge of the catchment areas of an environment is necessary in order to determine where to site schools in the communities.  

4.      Population: Every proposed school must have a population from where students will be drawn to the school. The density of the population determines the size of the population. Where a population has a high density, the size of the population will be small, and the students will trek short distances to get to the school and back. However, where the density of the population is low, the size of the population will be large, and students will trek long distances to and from school every day (Olamiju  Olujimi, 2011).

  1. Distance from home to school: This is the maximum distance that a student is permitted to trek to and from school every day. The distance must be such that the student should not be worn out before getting to school. A maximum distance of about two kilometers to and from school is recommended. This distance is recommended so that the student will not be worn out on getting to school, and also that he will be early enough to take part in the morning assembly. The recommended distance will also enable the student to get home early enough in other to do his assignments and get ready for the following day’s school.  (Hoxby, 2008).
  2. Security: The school route from home to school should be safe and secured for the students. The road should be free from all sorts of danger and treat to life. Where they are supposed to cross any busy/major road (example, expressway) adequate steps should be taken to provide road signs, to inform motorists and other road users that the place is school area, hence they should be more careful in passing through the area. (Kayode, 2011).

7.      Teaching Facilities: Teaching facilities are extensively used by teachers to demonstrate their teaching. Allade (2014) posited that teaching facilities make teaching easier and help teachers to drive home their teaching. Some teaching facilities are provided in the schools by the   government, while many are locally provided by the school authorities or the resourceful teacher himself Fabunmi, 2012). Sometimes students are asked to bring certain materials from the school environment to facilitate teaching in the classroom. Students in the rural areas find it easier to procure such materials from their rural environments than those in the urban areas. Urban  environments are often devoid of some  agricultural and biological materials students  might require for  practical lessons, and even where such materials are found, they would be in short supply due to large numbers of urban students. Before the introduction of the Universal Basic Education (UBE), students’ enrolments in the schools were moderate and teaching facilities were then more readily available in their environment. This rise in enrolment however affected the ease with which students procure local teaching facilities for their practical lessons.

 

The increased enrolment rates in the country due to the Free and Compulsory Universal Basic Education (UBE), has however created challenges in ensuring quality and satisfactory learning achievements, as resources remain inadequate, and spread across growing number of secondary schools. This situation invariably tends to have a negative effect on  teacher productivity, since the outputs of this educational system are observed to be performing below expectation. Schools in the urban cities tend to face very high enrolment rates, and this is due to high populations of urban dwellers, as against the rural areas (Opateye, 2013). This is due to the prevailing rural-urban migration of the rural population, in search of greener pastures and better life in the cities. The teacher–student ratio in most cities is quite high, and in some cases, above the Federal Government benchmark of 1:40 (FRN, 2014). Consequently, any class that has more than 40 students is said to be a large class. It has been observed that more often than not, because of populations of urban dwellers, schools in the urban towns have very large classes as against those in the rural areas. (Ayodele, 2011) In most cases teachers find it difficult to cope with large classes because they can neither establish the much-needed eye contact with students nor pay individual attention to them. On their own part, the students cannot pay attention to the teacher to learn effectively due to overcrowding and distractions. This could be one of the reasons why students perform very poorly in the senior school certificate examinations  (Ayodele, 2011).

 

The West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) results over the years have revealed unimpressive performances of the graduate students (WAEC, 2017). This anomaly invariably queries the productivity of teachers, which is largely measured in terms of the students' performance. Qualitative tools, such as standardized test scores of students' academic performance are used to determine teachers' productivity. Poor students' academic performance as well as poor graduate output  from  the  school  system imply teachers’ low productivity in the system (Akinsolu, 2010). There is therefore the need to carry out an investigation of the secondary education system across South-East, Nigeria, to determine the extent to which the sub-variables of school mapping correlate with teacher productivity in the public secondary schools.

 

From the point of view of educational management, there are quite a number of factors that  are  known to influence  teacher productivity in the public secondary schools in South- East, Nigeria. Some of   these factors include the following: teachers’ qualifications, teachers’ training, teachers’ experience, leadership styles of school heads, roles of supervisory bodies, teachers’ motivation and welfare programmes (Yusuf & Adigun, 2010). Teacher productivity in public secondary schools is measured by the students’ performance in standardized achievement tests. However, teacher productivity cannot amount to anything, where students trek long distances to and from school every day. In such situations, it should be expected that their academic performance cannot be wonderful. This is because they are worn out before arriving at school, and possibly they miss the first and second lessons every day. In the same vein, by the time they return from school, they are so tired and cannot do their home works, on daily basis. On the contrary, where teachers are supplied in quantity and quality and are evenly distributed, and where schools are located as provided in the plan and students trek reasonable distances to and from school, the effect of teacher performance will surely be evident in the students’ achievements, and teacher productivity will invariably be high.  

 

The level of productivity of teachers is a major concern to educational planners. Productivity is concerned with the overall effectiveness and efficiency of performing prescribed tasks. The effectiveness of the educational system is dependent to a large extent on the quality of its teachers. This is why Okeke (2004) cited in Osagie (2011) maintained that no nation can rise above the quality of its teachers. The national development  of any nation depends on the extent to which the teaching force in that nation is productive (Okeke, 2004). A productive teacher is one who is able to improve on the students study skills, via the use of active learning strategies (Osagie, 2011). In the same vein, Nwangwu (1998) opined that unless the child learns, the teacher has not thought. Teachers however disputed this opinion, and argued that what a student is able to learn from the instruction of the teacher is a function of  many complex variables, which are beyond the control of the teacher. Some of these, according to Ajayi and Afolabi (2012) include: the intellectual capacities of the child, the nature of the subject matter taught, the child’s learning habit, his environment, his interest in the subject matter being taught, among other factors. Teachers now refuse to accept that they are totally responsible for a child’s failure to learn. The studies of Ajayi and Afolabi (2012) however showed that teacher productivity is low in the Nigerian educational system at all levels. Researchers like Oduwaiye (2004) and Nwagwu (1998) attributed the low level of teacher productivity to certain factors which work against their productivity, and thereby hinder the performance of their students in external examinations. Some of these factors according to Oduwaiye (2004) include: poor workplace environment, inadequate motivation, poor reward system, inadequate incentives and obsolete facilities. Nwagwu (2008) however still maintained that after all said and done, there is no other way of estimating teacher productivity in the school system other than judging the academic performance of their students in external examinations.  

 

Teacher productivity measurement is very important because the effectiveness of the educational system depends to a large extent on the quality of the teachers. Okeke (2004) maintained that no nation can rise above the quality of its teachers. Therefore to achieve success in any national educational programme, the teaching workforce in that nation’s educational system should be productive (Okeke, 2004). In Nigeria, the students’ performance in external examinations is the yardstick for measuring their academic performance and invariably the teacher productivity. The  productivity of teachers  however depends to a large extent on the teachers’ level of education. No teacher can teach what he or she has not learnt. Nzabihimana (2010) asserted that the teachers’ level of education has a positive correlation with the students’ academic achievement. Nzabihimana (2010) posited that for teachers to be productive, they must be qualified by possessing the minimum standard, which in Nigeria, is the Nigerian Certificate in Education (NCE). This is the minimum qualification for teachers to teach in the basic education level (primary and junior secondary), while the Bachelor degree in education and various subject areas, is the minimum qualification to teach in the senior secondary schools (FRN,2014).

 

The wealth of experience of teachers has tremendous influence on the academic performance of their students (Ewetan & Ewetan, 2015). It has been proved over the years that experience impacts positively on the teachers’ teaching skills.  Teachers  who have taught the same subjects continuously for many years tend to perfect their skills. Commeyas (2003) posited that students learn better and faster when they are taught by teachers who have acquired experience over the years, in their various areas of specializations. Gender has been found to have no effect on teacher productivity. The performances of male and female teachers in the secondary schools are not different because they passed through the same educational attainment. In a study by Ajayi and Afolabi (2012), they discovered that gender has no influence on the productivity of secondary school teachers. They however opined that there could be a little drop in productivity of the female teachers at the child-bearing age because of divided attention during periods of baby-nursing. This is taken care of when the child-bearing age is over and generally speaking, gender has no influence on productivity of teachers (Kimani, Kara & Njagi, 2013).

 

From the point of view of educational management, there are quite a number of factors that are known to influence teacher productivity in the public secondary schools in South-East, Nigeria. Some of these factors include the following: teachers’ qualifications, teachers’ training and experience, leadership styles of school heads, roles of supervisory bodies, teachers’ motivation and welfare programmes   (Yusuf & Adigun, 2010). Lots of researches have been carried out in these areas, to determine the productivity of teachers, as manifested in the students' performances.  Ewendu (2016) investigated teacher productivity in Imo state, Nigeria, using school mapping strategies. From the empirical studies reviewed however, none studied school mapping as factor for teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South-East, Nigeria. This is the gap the study intended to fill.

 

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

School mapping involves a dynamic process of logical and systematic identification of the most appropriate communities and sites where educational facilities already provided in the plan are to be located. It takes into account the already existing institutional network of educational facilities. It tries to evaluate the extent to which such facilities are utilized. It assesses how well a  demand for school by a community matches the needs of the students. It identifies the demand gap and provides means of bridging them in order to benefit the masses. In the South-East, Nigeria there  are  lots of disparities in the mapping of secondary schools. The result is that public secondary schools are arbitrarily-located, without reference or regard to the guidelines or principles of school mapping.  This deviation from the laid-down principles of school mapping could result to low teacher productivity. The problem of this study in question form is therefore, “To what extent does school mapping variables relate with teacher productivity in the public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria?”

 

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The study investigated the extent to which school mapping variables relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria.

Specifically, the study sought to:

1    ascertain the extent to which equitable location of schools in communities relates with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

2        ascertain the extent to which accessibility of schools to students relates with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

3        find out the extent to which siting of schools in  catchment areas relates with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

4        determine the extent to which population relates with teacher productivity in   public Secondary Schools.

5        Find out the extent to which distance from home to school relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

6        determine the extent to which security relates with teacher productivity  in public  secondary schools.

7  ascertain the extent of relationship between teaching facilities and teacher productivity  in public secondary schools.

 

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The following research questions asked, guided the study:

1.    To what extent does equitable location of schools in their communities relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools?

2.    To what extent does accessibility of schools to students relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools?

3.    To what extent does siting of schools in their catchment areas relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools?

4.    What is the extent to which population relates with teacher productivity in   public Secondary Schools?

5.    What is the extent of relationship between distance from home to school and teacher productivity in public secondary schools?

6.    To what extent does security relate with teacher productivity in  public  secondary schools?

7.    What is the extent of relationship between teaching facilities and teacher productivity in public secondary schools?


1.5 HYPOTHESES

The following null hypotheses formulated guided the study and were tested at 0.05 level of    significance:

H01: There is no significant relationship between equitable locations of schools and teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H02: Accessibility of schools to students does not significantly relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H03: Siting of schools in their catchment areas does not significantly relate with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H04: There is no significant relationship between population and teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H05: There is no significant relationship between distance from home to school and teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H06: Security has no significant relationship with teacher productivity in public secondary schools.

H07: Teaching facilities do not significantly relate with teacher productivity in public   secondary schools.


1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY                                                        

The findings of the study will be useful to educational planners, teachers, students, parents and future researchers.

The findings will enable Educational Planners to be aware of the relationship of school mapping and teacher productivity. The findings will further equip them with  the knowledge and benefits  of  systematic school mapping techniques. They will understand that equity in  locations of educational establishments  correlates positively with teacher productivity, hence they will at all times endeavour to avoid lopsided  locations of schools. Above all, the knowledge of existing lapses will equip Educational Planners in future school mapping exercises.

 

The findings of this study will equip teachers with the knowledge and information they need to know about the relationship of school mapping and teacher productivity. They will then be in a better position to know and understand that school mapping inadequacies could be one of the reasons for their low productivity in their chosen profession over the years. They will then determine how to   conduct themselves to grapple with the negative effects of school mapping in order to achieve high productivity.  

 

Students are the direct beneficiaries of the findings of this study, because any improvement in the teachers’ productivity arising from this study,  is  in the interest of the students. They will then be in a position to pass their standardized tests (BECE, NECO and SSCE) in one attempt and emerge as quality products.

 

 The findings of this study will enable parents to have first-hand information about high performing schools in the neighbouring communities, where they could send their children or wards for better outcomes. Such information will also enable parents to avoid much stress in securing access for their children.       

The findings will provide researchers in Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states with accurate statistical data on the diagnosis of public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria.  The findings and benefits of this study will definitely stimulate the desire for similar studies in other zones of Nigeria. Above all, the findings will add to available knowledge on the demand and provision of public secondary schools in south East, Nigeria.

 

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study is school mapping variables and teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria. The study is delimited to all principals, teachers and students in all the 1,398 public secondary schools in the five states in South East, Nigeria, from 2007/2008 to 2016/2017 academic session. The study focused on determining the extent to which school mapping relate with   teacher productivity in public secondary schools in South East, Nigeria. School mapping is the independent variable in this study delimited to seven sub variables: location, accessibility, catchment area, population, distance from home to school, security and teaching facilities.  

The dependent variable in the study is teacher productivity and has the following sub variables: teacher qualification, teacher experience and teacher length of service. In this study therefore, the productivity of teachers in the public secondary schools in South-East, Nigeria, will be delimited to students' academic performance in the Senior School Certificate Examinations (SSCE), with reference to the past ten years (2007/2008--2016/2017).

                              

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment