research proposal writer
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introductions
This chapter reviews the literature according to different scholars.
2.1 To examine whether the teaching and learning environment is conducive for effective teaching and learning to take place.
The learning environment includes all the facilities, infrastructure available at the place where the school is located and all that can be found within the school surroundings. For the case of this study, the learning environment refers to the physical location, teaching delivery as well as approaches to learning whereas the term infrastructure is used to refer to things such as classrooms, furniture, laboratory and the library, (Chonjo et al, 1996).
Performance is the accomplishment of a given task measured against preset standards of accuracy, completeness, cost and speed. Education performance is deemed to be the fulfillment of an objective in a manner that ensures that the performer has attained the set goals in the given level of education. Performance in education is always accompanied by an academic certificate to show that the performer has successfully completed the grade or course and has attained the stated grades, (Butts, 1977).
A similar study has been carried out in Nigeria (Jerry, 2009) where the performance in science subjects was very poor in the primary schools. Among the factors that contributed to this poor performance were inadequate learning facilities in the primary schools which include science equipment and laboratories, shortage of qualified and devoted instructors, lack of ability of the scholars to do well in practical and the teaching methodology used by the teachers (Akinola, 2006).Most of the text books used in primary schools are written by foreign authors who use complex language which is difficult for the learners to comprehend.
In Malawi, poor performance in science subjects has been in the decline due to the following factors: lack of science equipment, lack of enough and quality text books, students’ perception that science subjects are hard, student’s laziness and too little time allocated to practical lessons (Dzana, 2012).
A study on factors associated with high school learner’s poor performance (Andile & Moses 2011) in South Africa where education and training during apartheid was characterized by the underdevelopment of human potential and that of blacks in particular. The teaching and learning of mathematics, science and technology were the hardest hit (Department of Education, DOE, 2001). The researchers classified the factors that led to poor performance into two; direct influences which include teaching strategies, content knowledge and understanding, motivation and interest, laboratory usage and syllabus non completion. The indirect influences include parental roles and language, (Thomas & Pedersen, 2003), argues that a common maxim in the educational profession is that one teaches the way he was taught .This suggests that, for example and educator who was educated in an incompetent manner will have learnt bad practice and is likely to use such in teaching others.
These factors relate to this study since the factors are similar despite the environment. Students’ teachers’ perception on the causes of poor academic performance in Ogun state primary schools in Nigeria, (Asikhia, 2009). This study examined the perception of students and teachers on the causes of poor performance among primary school students in Ogun state, Nigeria. Responses of teachers showed that teachers qualification and students environment do not influence students poor performance but teachers’ methods of teaching influences poor academic performance. Student’s response on the other hand showed that teacher’s methods of teaching and learning materials contributes to poor performance.
The variables that were identified in the study for research questions and data collection instruments were; student’s poor or academic performance and teachers’ qualifications, students poor academic performance and teachers method of teaching and students environment and poor academic performance.
The role of student-related factors in the factors in the performance of biology subject in primary schools in Eldoret municipality, Kenya (Wabuke, 2009). The study was conducted through an ex-post facto design. He sampled a total of ten schools and the target respondents were form three students and teachers of biology. The researcher established that student-related factors affecting performance of biology in the municipality are; primary school science which provides a requisite background for biology at primary school level, interest in biology (theory and practical) provides a force for learners to participate in the learning process, their ability to carry out the practical effectively and students’ ambition and attitude towards biology. Other student related factors based on knowledge acquisition noted were availability of reading materials, student using study timetables and organizing their work, study discussion groups and attending science symposiums, field trips and exhibitions.
2.3 To identity the difficulties faced by teachers and pupils in the teaching and learning of mathematics subjects in primary schools.
The negative effect on students’ performance is further increased with the few teachers being unqualified to teach the subject. Lack of professional training, according to Bessong and Obo (2005), makes it difficult for teachers to comprehend their students’ psychology and potentials which should guide them in choosing effective methods and teaching aids. In contrast, in a national study, this factor was ranked 4th (Bojuwoye 2000) highlighting the importance of conducting small scale studies in different parts of the country to bring out to male students and teachers, accorded poor teaching method a stronger link to students’ poor performance in mathematics. These findings suggest female students in Atyap Chiefdom may have more negative attitudes towards mathematics than their male counterparts resulting from, possibly, their teachers’ attitudes and methods of teaching mathematics.
Mathematics anxiety, the “feeling of tension, apprehension or even dread that interferes with the ordinary manipulation of numbers and solving mathematical problems” (Ashcraft and Faust 1994 quoted by Sheffield and Hunt 2007:1) is given a stronger link to poor performance in mathematics by teachers than by the students. Students have been found to experience mathematics anxiety and a close relationship between mathematics anxiety and their performance in mathematics has been established (Sheffield and Hunt 2007). However, it is worth noting that it is the teachers rather than the students according a greater link of mathematics anxiety to students’ poor performance in the subject.
The inadequacy of resource materials for teaching dampens the interest and enthusiasm of both teachers and students to teach and learn mathematics. Studies have shown that the motivation of the teachers through retraining and provision of necessary resource materials for teaching is critical to motivating students for better performance in mathematics (Martin 2002; Grootenboer and Hemmings 2007). Colleges of education have centres for resource material development and retraining of teachers in effective modern methods of teaching. This is a good step in the right direction, but effective use of these centres to equip teachers for more effective teaching is necessary for the impact of this effort to be felt.
It is apparent that management plays a very critical role in galvanizing all the other factors in the school together. However, in spite of the importance of management, its contribution to improved school performance will not be maximized, unless management is distributed and shared with the significant others. The researcher agrees with the school of thought that the concept of management must change, as Grant, (2009) argues that a different understanding of management is needed; a shift from management as headship to distributed form of tasks in teams .There is increasing evidence that management makes a difference in schools. A few scholars have made sustained contributions to the question of how formal management affect a variety of school outcomes, but many others have contributed to the accumulation of evidence that mangers do, in fact, make a difference (Heck et al, 2009).
Cordón-Pozo,. (2007) conducted a study on classroom management and the teachers’ leadership on student performance. From their research they summarized that disciplinary problems in the class intervene with learning and disables the teacher from delivering lessons in an appropriate manner. The manager, who is unable to control the disciplinary problem, neglect the lessons and failed to prompt students with proper learning and feedback. Monitoring in the school and specifically class also becomes a difficult task for teachers on a regular basis. In contrast they found that a strong and consistent school management with skill in controlling disciplinary problems has a significant impact on student achievement. Nsubuga et al, (2008) felt that an orderly task oriented approach to teaching and learning has the best effect on both the conduct and content management of the student.
Chung, E. (2010), from his study found that a flexible manager (teacher or head teacher) providing them with fun during lesson dissemination and enabling them with unlimited choice are able to develop student growth and control the classrooms. Bentley, (2008) found that effective classroom or school management is directly influential in bringing about high academic achievement among students in schools.
2.2 solutions to enhance better performance in mathematics.
According to Smythe, (2007), there is lack of clear definition and understanding of management goals. Active debate ensures all stakeholders are aware of the management goals and they work towards them but when there is little debate, goals are not clearly defined and each manager may work towards achieving personal goals which are not in line with organizational goals. In such a case, organizational performance is likely to be adversely affected. This is common with autocratic management style where debate is common and the managers act independently.
There is opposition to implementation of management strategies Kroeger, (2010). In many cases, employees oppose organizational change since they are unsure of the effects it will have on their careers. Unless they are involved in change through dialog and communication, they are likely to oppose change. Strategic management involves organizational change. With little debate between senior employees, strategic management goals are likely not to be met due to opposition from staff.
According to Amy, (2011) while it is important that management allows employees to participate in decision making and encourages involvement in the organization’s direction, managers must be cognizant of the potential for employees to spend more time formulating suggestions and less time completing their work. Upper-level management will not support a participative management program if they believe employees are not meeting their daily or weekly goals. Some suggestions for overcoming this potential problem are to set aside a particular time each week for workers to meet with management in order to share their ideas or to allow them to work on their ideas during less busy times of the day or week. Another idea that works for some managers is to allow employees to set up individual appointments to discuss ideas or suggestions.
Managers should remember that participative management is not always the appropriate way to handle a given situation. Employees often respect a manager that uses his or her authority and makes decisions when it is necessary. There are times when, as a manager, it is important to be in charge, make a decision, and then accept the responsibility for the choices made. For example, participative management is probably not appropriate when disciplinary action is needed (Amy, 2012). When managers look upon their own jobs as a privilege instead of as a responsibility, they will fail at making participative management work. They will be less willing to turn over some of the decision-making responsibility to subordinates. Another reason that participative management fails is that managers do not realize it is not the same as delegating or simply shifting responsibility. Participation alone has no value; it is only an effective tool if it is used to solve problems and meet goals. Some managers believe that inviting employees to join in meetings and form committees will create a successful participative management program. However, these measures are only successful when employees’ ideas are accepted by management and implemented.
According to Cosmato, (2011) the more people who are involved in a decision process, the more difficult it is to reach a consensus. There may be sessions that turn into nothing more than lengthy debates and conjecture with no forward progress towards resolution. Opinions may or may not be founded in facts but be based on emotions. In addition, the goals of the organization and the way that a proposed move affects those goals must be considered. It can be difficult to get employees to focus on the welfare of the company as opposed to their own (e.g. proposed layoffs) or the welfare of the company over the welfare of their respective departments (e.g. proposed outsourcing of the marketing department).
There is a danger of a democratic style of management being adopted only in name and not in practice. If a company claims that it has a democratic leadership style but makes decisions autocratically either before or after employee consultation that company will likely experience greater employee dissatisfaction and discontent that it would if it had stated the case accurately (Cosmato, 2011).
McDonough, (2013) found out that one of the greatest challenges of the democratic style of leadership is emerging from the bottom: the “people’s choice”. If the consensus of the group goes against that of management, those individuals must be willing to adopt the consensus. If they override the group’s decision, it is likely that the group will assume that management is only pretending to participate in a democratic leadership style and the company will experience the same consequences as those of pseudo-participation.
According to Brick, (2008) autocratic style of management leads to work getting done on time because there are less people involved in the decision making process. The problem with this type of management style is that the staff are going to eventually lost motivation working in an environment where they have no say and employee turnover is likely to run high as they move on to other opportunities where they can have an impact.
In Laissez Faire Management Style the team is given the freedom to complete the job or tasks in any way they deem it should be done. It is a hand off approach at the management level in terms of direction, but the manager is there to answer questions and provide guidance as needed. This is a good way to help develop individual contributors into leaders which is only going to serve to make your team stronger in the long run. On the flip side, it can lead to conflict on the team if some employees try to assume the role as a leader in the interim or to dictate to others how their work should be done (Brick, 2008).
