CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Mathematics is perceived by society as the foundation for scientific and technological knowledge that is cherished by societies worldwide. It is an instrument for political, socio-economic, scientific and technological developments (Githua & Mwangi, 2003). This does explain why mathematics is a compulsory subject for all learners in primary and secondary schools in Kenya (KICD, 2002). It is also used by universities to select secondary school learners for entry into science-based degree programmes (Kenya Universities Joint Admissions Board, 2006).
Most decisions taken are based on such questions as ‘what and how’? These questions are answered by converting every statement to mathematical statement before solution is sought. The depth of mathematical knowledge an individual has dictates, the level of accuracy of his or her decision. This implies the fact that before an individual can function well in the society, one must possess relatively good knowledge of mathematics especially in this era of technological age. Okebukola (1992) referred to mathematics as the central intellectual discipline of the technological societies. Kerlinge (1985) describes mathematics as a language of science. Aminu (1990) argues that mathematics is not only the language of sciences, but essential nutrient for thought, logical reasoning and progress. Mathematics liberates the mind and also gives individuals an assessment of the intellectual abilities towards direction of improvement. The author concludes by saying that mathematics is the basis of all sciences and technology and of all human endeavours. Application of mathematics
cuts across all areas of human knowledge (Aminu, 1990). The Republic of Kenya (1999) acknowledges perceived role of mathematics in scientific and technological development and recommends it as a compulsory subject in the secondary school curriculum. The syllabus is designed in such a way that the knowledge and skills acquired in one level become a prerequisite for the next level, for example, the laws of statistics are arithmetic. For example, systematic learning of statistics should require the fundamental processes of arithmetic, namely; addition; subtraction; multiplication and division. Several studies (Cockcroft, 1982; Stanic, 1995) suggest that mathematics need not be learned by students in secondary for the sake of career choice or advancement but students should be able to learn mathematics with understanding and to apply mathematical ideas later in life.
The intention of curriculum developers at the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) is to develop secondary school mathematics syllabus that will help students become numerate, accurate and precise in thought (KICD, 2002). This is in line with National Goals of Education of Kenya, KICD (2002). As much as this could be a noble desire of curriculum developers, a student may complete his/her secondary school education without necessarily being numerate, accurate and precise in thought, in the strict sense of the words. But that does not mean such a student has not learnt mathematics at all in his/her secondary education. Macnab and Cummine (1986) state that learning of mathematics is a continuous process and is not limited to the classroom experience only.
With all the emphases given to mathematics including making it a core subject in secondary school curriculum, students performance in examination has registered various inequalities. The 2010 KCSE examination results show that of those sitting the examination, 55% were boys and 45% were girls. Thirty percent of boys sitting the KCSE obtained a mean grade of C+ or above whereas only 23% of girls sitting the exam obtained a mean grade of C+ or above (KNEC, 2011).
Table1.1 shows the overall candidates mathematics performance by gender from 2011 to 2013 nationally.
Table 1.1: Overall Candidates performance by gender from 2011 to 2013 National
| 121 Mathematics Alternative A | 122 Mathematics Alternative B | |||
| 2011 | ALL | No. | 409889 | 1,247 |
| Mean % | 24.79 | 13.32 | ||
| Female | No. | 181770 | 570 | |
| Mean % | 21 | 12.51 | ||
| Male | No. | 228117 | 677 | |
| Mean % | 27.8 | 14 | ||
| 2012 | ALL | No. | 433014 | 1,281 |
| Mean % | 28.66 | 9.49 | ||
| Female | No. | 195093 | 635 | |
| Mean % | 25.3 | 8.96 | ||
| Male | No. | 241233 | 727 | |
| Mean % | 31.38 | 9.95 | ||
| 2013 | ALL | No. | 444792 | 1,104 |
| Mean % | 27.31 | 8.65 | ||
| Female | No. | 202,129 | 561 | |
| Mean % | 24.51 | 7.56 | ||
| Male | No. | 242663 | 543 | |
| Mean % | 30.13 | 9.84 |
Source: KCSE Examination Essential Statistics (KNEC)
Table 1.1 indicates that boys performed better than girls in the three consecutive years. But worth noting though is that both girls and boys improved by an average of 15% in KCSE 2012, however, it dropped by 4% in KCSE 2013. Hence the assertion of Stanic (1995) may not necessary mean that teacher reinforcement on students learning is the sole reason for better achievement in examination. Girls can perform as well as the boys, so long as they are given an enabling environment of learning mathematics. Stereotyped perception of the gender should be discouraged by all education stakeholders. Difference between sexes in achievement varies depending on topic. Girls do significantly better than boys on questions demanding computational skills. But on the other hand, boys do better in areas dealing with measurement and problem-solving (Costello, 1991). Results indicate that mathematics alternative a subject registered better performance than latter. According to (KNEC statistic, 2011) mathematics alternative A subject performance improved to (23.06 %) from the previous year’s (21.13%). However, few gains were noticeable in the newly introduced mathematics alternative B subject which was examined for the first time in 2010. This is a clear indication that other factors other than the curriculum influenced the outcomes.
In Bureti Sub-County, secondary schools do pure sciences and therefore, mathematics alternative A only is offered. Table 1.2 shows the KCSE overall performance in mathematics alternative A, for the years 2010 to 2013, in Bureti-Subcounty.
Table 1.2: Overall candidates’ performance by gender from 2011 to 2013 in Bureti Sub-County
| 121 Mathematics Alternative A | |||
| 2011 | ALL | No. | 2681 |
| Mean % | 3.71 | ||
| Female | No. | 1230 | |
| Mean % | 2.62 | ||
| Male | No. | 1451 | |
| Mean % | 4.63 | ||
| 2012 | ALL | No. | 3251 |
| Mean % | 4.02 | ||
| Female | No. | 1594 | |
| Mean % | 3.44 | ||
| Male | No. | 1654 | |
| Mean % | 4.59 | ||
| 2013 | ALL | No. | 3264 |
| Mean % | 4.01 | ||
| Female | No. | 1496 | |
| Mean % | 3.24 | ||
| Male | No. | 1768 | |
| Mean % | 4.66 |
Source: Bureti Sub-County Education Office.
In Bureti Sub-County, student performance in KCSE mathematics has not been good. Boys performed better than girls. Table 1.2 indicates the sub-county mean scores from 2011 – 2013. Mondoh (2001) argues that people differ in learning according to how they perceive and process reality. In the line of gender, Eshiwani (1984) in his research with regard to overall performance in KCSE, research findings show that, generally girls are lower achievers than boys. A research by Meadows (2003) on gender effects in seven subjects: biology, psychology, English, computer, mathematics, history and general studies, found that females performed significantly better than males in all specifications except mathematics, which showed no significant gender difference.
