SUPPORTIVE RESOURCES ON TEACHING-LEARNING EFFICIENCY
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Just the way a bird cannot fly without feathers, an academic establishment cannot thrive satisfactorily if it is not imbued with the necessary facilities that are required to fortify the human efforts of the teaches and the academic staff as a whole.
The constant desire of education stakeholders to achieve optimum efficiency in their profession has been the backbone of several works of psychological, philosophical, sociological, economic and even architectural research and propositions.
Several needs are required for the attainment of genuine proficiency in the teaching-learning activities of a school, none of which can be neglected. Some of these needs are qualified personnel, financial resources, adequate school buildings, academic equipment, IT facilities and health facilities just to mention a few. This research, however, focuses on the physical rather than the human aspects of teaching-learning advancement regarded as school supportive resources.
The availability and placement of supportive resources in a school determines how much productivity teachers could derive from their expertise and , consequently, how much learners can gain by interacting with their teachers and from their own personal learning activities.
Kolb (1995) stated that learning styles can be ranked along a continuum ranging from :
1. Concrete experience(being involved in a new experience), through
2. Reflective observation (watching others or developing observations through our own experience)
3. Abstract conceptualization (creating theories to explain observations)
4. Active experimentation (using theories to solve problems and make decisions).
Litzinger and Osif (2004) called these different types of learners accommodators, divergers, convergers, and assimilators according to Kolb’s classification above.
Concerning individual differences in the area of intelligence, Gardner (2005) theorized that people do not have one general intelligence, but are characterized by a range of intelligences instead. So rather than being globally intelligent, one may be particularly strong in certain areas, for example mathematics, while someone else may be particularly strong in another area, for example, physical sports. He distinguishes seven main types of intelligence, namely:
i. Visual/spatial intelligence
ii. Verbal/linguistic intelligence
iii. Logical/Mathematical intelligence
iv. Bodily/Kinaesthetic intelligence
v. Musical/rhythmic intelligence
vi. Interpersonal intelligence and
vii. Intrapersonal intelligence
We need to take into account the different learning styles and the different intelligence patterns of learners and the way teachers should approach and care for these differences. Furthermore, we need to underline how the school management should provide for these differences. These are important if teachers are to provide education that is unbiased, diversified and personalized.
1.2 Statement of the problem
According to Adeboyeje (2000) and Emeratom (2004), school facilities are the physical and spatial enablers of teaching and learning which will increase the production of results. School facilities serve as pillars of support for effective teaching and learning. Oyesola (2000) sees school facilities to include permanent and semi-permanent structures such as machinery, laboratory equipment, the blackboard, teacher’s tools and other equipment as well as consumables.
Good quality and standard of school depends largely on the provision,adequacy,utilization and management of educational facilities. Akinsolu (2004) asserted that educational curriculum cannot be sound and well operated with poor and badly managed school facilities. From all indications, school facilities are physical resources that facilitate effective teaching and learning. They include blocks of classrooms, laboratories, workshops, libraries, equipment, consumables, electricity, water, visual and audio-visual aids, tables, chairs, playground, storage space and toilets.
According to Dharmadasa (2007), the characteristics of teaching-learning efficiency include the following:
i. Teacher creates learning environments where students are active participants as individuals and as members of collaborative groups.
ii. Teacher encourages students to accept responsibility for their own learning and accommodates and diverse learning needs of all students.
iii. Teacher motivates students and nurtures their desire to learn in a safe, healthy and supportive environment which develops compassion and mutual respect.
iv. Teacher cultivates cross-cultural understanding and the value of diversity.
v. Teacher displays effective and efficient classroom management which includes classroom routines that promote comfort,order and appropriate student behaviours.
vi. Teacher provides student equitable access to technology, space, tools and time.
vii. Teacher effectively allocates time for students to engage in hands-on experiences, discuss and process content and make meaningful connections.
viii. Teacher designs lessons that allow students to participate in empowering activities in which they understand that learning is a process and mistakes are a natural part of learning.
Based on the foregoing, the problem of this study is as follows:
It appears that public secondary schools in Nigeria are not adequately equipped with the necessary facilities that are required to maximize teaching and learning. Over the years, this has led to the churning out of half-baked graduates from these secondary schools; graduates who are not adequately prepared for the academic demands of tertiary institutions.
School supportive resources are needed to these students in such a way that they are able to compete favourably with their counterparts in standard private schools and by extension, the developed countries of the world.
1.3 Objective of the study:
This research is aimed at achieving the following objectives:
i. To explore the importance of school supportive resources to the efficiency of teaching and learning in public secondary schools.
ii. To determine the extent to which school supportive resources aid in achieving educational goals.
iii. To determine the availability of school supportive resources in public secondary schools.
iv. To determine how much productivity is derived from the available supportive resources in relation to teaching and learning in public secondary schools.
1.4 Research questions
i.Will school supportive resources significantly influenceacademic achievement in public secondary schools?
ii.Are supportive resources effectively used to aid teaching and learning in public secondary schools?
iii.Will school supportive resources significantly influence students’ school attendance?
iv.Will school supportive resources significantly affect teacher retention in schools?
1.5 Formulation of hypothesis
To achieve the objective of the study, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis one
H0 – School facilities will not significantly influence the level of academic achievement in public secondary schools.
H1 – School facilities will significantly influence the level of academic achievement in public secondary schools.
Hypothesis two
H0 – Supportive resources are not effectively used to aid learning in public secondary schools.
H1 – Supportive resources are effectively used to aid teaching and learning in public secondary schools.
Hypothesis three
H0 - School supportive resources will not significantly influence students’ school attendance.
H1– School supportive resources will significantly influence students’ school attendance.
Hypothesis four
H0 - School supportive resources will not significantly influence teacher retention in schools
H1 – School supportive resources will significantly influence teacher retention in schools
1.6 Scope andg delimitation of the study
Since no single research can validly cover all areas of the topic, the researcher aims that the thrust of this project will be limited to the scope of the relationship between school supportive resources and teaching-learning efficiency. The study will focus primarily on Public Secondary Schools in District (IV) Area of Lagos State from where the Public secondary schools of this study will be drawn to enable the researcher carry out an extensive investigation on this subject.
1.7 Limitation of the study
The researcher is limited by time constraints. Since the researcher’s time needs to be divided between this study and a bulk of academic exercise.
The researcher is also constrained by unavailability of funds required for an extensive research.
1.8 Significance of the study
i.This research will serve to further open the eyes of the administrators of Public Schools in Lagos State to the importance of school supportive resources and why they should strive for their provision. It will reveal to them what they are missing in form of full achievement of educational goals, complete teaching fulfilment for their learners in cases of insufficiency or under-utilization of these supportive resources.
ii.This research will also motivate teachers to try to identify the individual and peculiar educational needs of each of their students and to try to make efforts to fulfil them using the necessary facilities.
iii.Lastly, this research will help the Lagos State Government and Ministry of Education to know the viability and real level of development of their Secondary schools from the perspective of School Supportive resources.
1.9 Operational Definition of Terms
1.School Supportive resources: Permanent and semi-permanent structures such as machinery, laboratory equipment, the blackboard or marker board, teacher’s tools and other equipment as well as consumables.
2.Teaching: A constant stream of professional decisions made before, during and after interaction with the student; decisions which, when implemented, increase the probability of learning.
3.Learning: Changes in a pupil’s behaviour which takes place as a result of being engaged in an educational experience.
4.Learning Styles: Different approaches to, or ways of learning
Get Full Material
