ABSTRACT
This study examined institutional factors and students’ dropout tendencies in Cross River State. The study employed descriptive survey design. Six research questions and five null hypotheses guided the study. The population of the study comprised 99,908 students. Simple random sampling technique was used to select two senatorial districts out of three and two education zones, one from each senatorial district. The proportional random sampling technique was used to select 547 students out of 5470. Questionnaire titled “Institutional Factors and Students’ Dropout Tendencies Questionnaire (IFSDTQ) was used as instrument for data collection. Mean and Standard Deviation were used to answer the research questions, while t-test statistics was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The result of the study among others showed that the non-availability of infrastructural facilities influence students’ dropout tendencies to a low extent. Also, teacher-student relationship influence students’ dropout tendencies to a high extent. The study among others recommended that the government through the ministry of education should make provision for more infrastructural facilities for students. The ministry of education should organize workshops, seminars, and conferences for teachers where they can be taught the rudiments of interpersonal relationship with students.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page————————————————————————– i
Certification page————————————————————— ii
Approval page——————————————————————- iii
Dedication————————————————————————- iv
Acknowledgements————————————————————- v
Abstract ————————————————————————— vii
Table of Contents————————————————————— viii
List of Tables——————————————————————— xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION———————————— 1
Background of the Study—————————————————— 1
Statement of the Problem—————————————————— 8
Purpose of the Study———————————————————– 9
Significance of the Study——————————————————- 10
Scope of the Study ————————————————————- 12
Research Questions————————————————————- 12
Hypotheses ———————————————————————– 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ——————– 14
Conceptual Framework——————————————————- 15
Concept of Institution and Institutional Factors————————- 15
Concept of Dropout and Dropout Tendency—————————– 18
Influence of Infrastructural Facilities on Students’ Dropout ——— 20
Influence of Teacher-Student Relationship on Students’ Dropout– 24
Influence of Principal’s Leadership Style on Students’ Dropout—- 27
Influence of Rules and Regulations on Students’ Dropout———— 32
Influence of Peer Group on Students’ Dropout————————– 34
Influence of School Performance Level on Students’ Dropout——- 37
Theoretical Framework——————————————————- 40
Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy (1965)—————————– 40
System Theory by Getzel and Guba (1957)——————————- 42
Review of Empirical Studies ———————————————— 45
Infrastructural Facilities and Students Dropout Tendencies———- 45
Teacher-Student Relationship and Students Dropout Tendencies— 47
Principal’s Leadership Style and Students’ Dropout Tendencies— 48
Rules and Regulations and Students’ Dropout Tendencies———– 50
Peer Group Influence and Students’ Dropout Tendencies————- 52
School Performance Level and Students’ Dropout Tendencies—— 53
Students’ Dropout Tendencies———————————————– 54
Summary of Literature Review ——————————————– 56
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD———————— 59
Design of the Study————————————————————- 59
Area of the Study ————————————————————— 59
Population of the Study——————————————————– 60
Sample and Sampling Technique——————————————– 60
Instrument for Data Collection———————————————– 61
Validation of the Instrument ————————————————- 61
Reliability of the Instrument————————————————– 62
Method of Data Collection—————————————————- 62
Method of Data Analysis—————————————————— 63
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND
ANALYSIS OF DATA ——————————————————- 64
Summary of the Findings—————————————————— 80
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATION,
RECOMMENDATION, LIMITATION, SUGGESTIONS,
CONCLUSION ANDSUMMARY—————————————- 82
REFERENCES —————————————————————– 98
APPENDIX I: Population of Cross River State ———————– 108
APPENDIX II: Sample of Schools and Students ——————— 109
APPENDIX III: Reliability ————————————————- 110
APPENDIX IV: Validated Instrument ———————————- 112
APPENDIX V: Group Statistics of Students—————————- 117
APPENDIX VI: Analysis of Research Questions and Hypotheses 119
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Mean ratings of SSS and JSS students on the non-availability
———- of infrastructural facilities—————————————— 64
Table 2: Mean ratings of students on teacher-student relationship 66
Table 3: Mean ratings of students on principal’s leadership style – 68
Table 4: Mean ratings of students on school rules and regulations 69
Table 5: Mean ratings of students on peer group ———————- 71
Table 6: Mean ratings of students on school’s performance level– 73
Table 7: t-test analysis of the difference between the mean ratings
of urban and rural respondents with regard to the extent to
which the non-availability of infrastructural facilities
influence students dropout tendencies————————— 75
Table 8: t-test analysis of the difference in mean ratings of JSS and
———- SSS respondents with regard to the extent to which teacher
———- student relationship influence students’ dropout tendencies 76
Table 9: t-test analysis of the difference between the mean ratings of
———- male and female respondents with regard to the extend to
———- which principal’s leadership style influence students’
———- dropout tendencies————————————————— 77
Table 10: t-test analysis of the difference between the mean
———- ratings of SSS and JSS respondents with regard to the
———- extent to which rules and regulations influence
———- students’ dropout tendencies ————————————- 78
Table 11: t-test analysis of the difference between the mean ratings
———- of male and female respondents on the extent to which
———- peer group influence students’ dropout tendencies ———- 79
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Since the advent of western education in Nigeria in the mid 19th century to the present era, the problem of students’ dropout has continued to beset the primary and secondary school systems, consequently leading to poor attainment of educational objectives in schools. Echeng (2003) defines dropout as a pupil who leaves school before graduation as in the case of many high school pupils who drop out of school upon reaching the age of voluntary attendance. Muoghalu (2008) in his own view defines dropout as children who left the confines of the school environment before completing their studies for reasons other than death and without transferring to any other school.
| 1 |
From the above definitions, it can be deduced that dropout is a situation where a student, be it in primary or secondary, who has been regularly in school withdraws from school for any reason other than death and without enrolling in any other school, before completing an equivalent programme of study. Such an individual is considered a dropout whether he has passed the compulsory school attendance age and where applicable whether or not he has completed a minimum requirement of school work. The definitions above seem to agree with some basic issues regarding dropout. The concepts imply non-completion of a course of study before pulling out of school, of which transfer and death are not among the rationales. In this study, dropout refers to students leaving secondary school for any reason except death, before graduation or completion of secondary school education, and without transferring to another school.
In a report presented by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 1991) it was avowed that dropout phenomenon is a world-wide problem associated with the process of development in any society whether such society is a developing or a developed nation. For instance, in the United States, a federal study group known as the National Commission on Excellence in Education observed critically that high school dropout rate rose to almost 30% by the late 1980s. In the developing countries, the issue of school dropout is noticed to be a contemporary issue. Fobih (1987) noted that despite the innovations introduced by the Ghanaian government, many children who avail themselves of the educational opportunities hardly complete their schooling before the first terminal point. In the light of UNESCO report of 1991, it was revealed that Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia account for 23million out of the world’s 77million out-of-school children.
In Lagos state, a study was conducted by Adesina (1982) on “Production and Utilization of Primary School Leavers”. From the study he noted that dropout rates in fifteen Lagos primary schools ranged from 30% and 34% between 1966 and 1968 respectively. He also observed that 40% to 50% of those students who enrolled in secondary school in Lagos dropped out before the end of their courses between 1970 and 1983. This study by Adesina seriously revealed the dropout situation in the educational system of Nigeria.
Despite the effort of government in both developed and developing countries in providing education for citizens, the school system is still faced with problems of school indiscipline which encompasses such phenomena as truancy, absenteeism, late coming and school dropouts. Secondary education inculcates in students the ability to develop their individual potentials and abilities as full functioning self-actualized individuals (National Policy on Education, 2004). It also helps them to become independent and socially oriented. Despite the unquantifiable benefits of education to the society, there seem to be an increase in students’ dropout in schools worldwide. In Manitoba, a recent study revealed that dropout rates between 2007 and 2008, 2009 and 2010 are 11.4% high compared to previous years, if compared provincially, dropout rates ranged from 6.2% in British Columbia to 11.7% in Quebec (Nick, 2011), when compared to Nigeria, which among Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia, account for 23million out of the word’s 77million out-of-school children, dropout could be quite high. Having considered the rates of dropouts in some countries of the world, and in Nigeria particularly, it becomes necessary to examine the situation in Cross River State where most of the secondary school students could drop out of school to settle for menial jobs, agriculture, petty trading and even marriage.
The dropout rate for both male and female children is relatively high, around 10% to 15% between 1990 and 1994; for each level of education only 64% of students in primary school completed grade 5, and only 43.5% continued on to junior secondary school, United Nation’s Children Fund (UNICEF, 2006). Osakwe, Osagie, Madunagu, and Usman (1995) lend credence to this when they observed that Nigerian girls for various reasons bordering on religious, cultural, socio-economic and school related factors are not given fair chance in educational sector. In Nigeria, about 7.3 million children do not go to school of which 62% are girls (UNICEF, 2004). This report by UNICEF also revealed that girls’ completion rate is far behind that of boys at 76%, compared with 85% for boys. This gap suggest that millions of girls than boys are dropping out of school.
Data also indicates that the dropout rate for rural students tends to be lower than that for urban students. Between 1987 and 1989, 13.4% of rural youth between 16 and 24 were found to be out of school without a high school or equivalent degree compared with 15.3% in cities (Sherman, 1992). For African American students however, the dropout rate in rural communities was as low as it was in the cities. In 1993, the dropout rate for nonmetropolitan 16 to 24 year olds was 11%, as compared with 17% for those in inner cities, and 9.3% in suburbs (Paassch, & Swain, 1995). High school completion data indicates a similar pattern – rural communities and small towns had a graduation rate of about 95% in 1993, while urban students had a rate of 90% (Snyder, Hoffman, & Geddes, 1996). Further analysis using the same data (schools and staffing survey, 1993-1994) showed that high-power urban schools had a graduation rate of 90%, while high-poverty rural schools had a rate of 94%. Despite the lower dropout rates, research suggests that few rural dropouts ever return to complete their education (Scherman, 1992; Stern, 1994). This lack of school completion may have more severe consequences for rural students than for other students.
Students who drop out of school could constitute a very serious menace in the society. In support of this postulation, Tanori, Henderson & Mumford (2002) assert that individuals who drop out of school without adequate educational background are often unable to live successful adult lives. They affirmed that many who find themselves in this position are not only incapable of becoming upwardly mobile and contributing nothing or little to the society, but in addition, create costly problems that society must deal with. For example in USA, 75% of state prison inmates and 59% of federal inmates are school dropouts, dropouts contribute disproportionately to unemployment rate, they contribute to state and federal tax coffers, and also $41.8 billion in health care costs (Grieselhuber, 2006)). All these are some negative influence of dropouts in the society. In South-South region for instance, especially in Cross River state, female students can leave school for early marriage while most males can also leave school for agriculture and fishery for the purpose of sustaining the family. This is usually the case when the parents are so poor that they cannot carry out their family responsibilities without the children’s help. By getting the girls married off, they not only feed fewer mouths but also gain the assistance of a son-in-law. Situations of this nature could be disadvantageous to the growth and development of any society.
Institutional factors are a set of internal characteristics that distinguish one school from another and which influence the behaviour of people in it; it involves how school groups, students, teachers, administrators… work to balance the organizational and individual aspects of the organization (Okon, 2004). In the context of this study, institutional factor refers to a force from the school environment that can make a student to stop going to school.
