CHAPTER ONE

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Several studies have been carried out on the individual differences in

academic performance. According to Vonstumm, Hell, Benedik and Chamorro-

premuzi (2012), individual differences in academic performance linked to

differences in intelligence and personality. To them, student with higher mental

ability tend to achieve highly in academic settings. A similar study by Aduwa

(2004) on determinants of student’s academic success, reported that a student’s

home environment, their cognitive abilities, self – esteem, self – concept, study

habits and motivation affect their academic success.

Also, poor academic performance of students in Nigeria has linked to poor

teachers’ performance in terms of accomplishing the teaching task, negative

attitude to work and poor teaching habits which have been attributed to poor

motivation (Ofoegbu, 2004). It has also been observed that conditions that would

make for effective teaching such as resources available to teachers, general

conditions of infrastructure as well as instructional materials in public secondary

school in Nigeria are poor (Oredein, 2000). These prevailing conditions would

definitely show a negative influence on the instructional quality in public Schools,

1
which may translate to poor academic performance, attitude and values of

secondary school students.

Academic achievement of students especially at the secondary school level

is not a pointer to the effectiveness or otherwise of schools but a major

determinant of future of youths in particular and the native in general.

The medium through which the attainment of individuals and the nation’s

educational goals can be achieved is learning. Learning outcomes have become a

phenomenon of interest to all and this account for the reason why Scholars have

been working hard to unravel factors that militate against good academic

performance (Aremu and Sokan, 2002). Although teachers’ strong effect would

significantly influence student’s academic achievement, other factors such as

socio-economic background, family support, intellectual aptitude of student,

personality of student, self confidence and previous instructional quality have

been found to also influence students’ examination score either positively or

negatively (Starr, 2002).

As discussed above, there are several determinants of student’s academic

performance in secondary schools, among which are gender, student’s

characteristics, teacher’s qualification, peer group, educational achievement of

2
parent, teacher’s performance as well as instructional materials, student’s

environment, parental socio-economic status and so on. But this study will be

limited to the influence of parental socio-economic status on student’s academic

performance.

Yara (2010) quoting Olubadewo and Ogwu (2006) revealed that parents’

socio-economic status influence the academic performance of their children in

Mathematics. As a result of this, there have been several researches carried out

regarding the influence of socio-economic status of parent on student’s academic

performance. Parental status is a complex phenomenon. It cannot be defined fully

in any simple sentence because it embraces the social status of thee parent, their

cultural and religion beliefs, economic status, political ideology, academic

achievement and the environment in which they live. Parental socio-economic

status simply refers to the parent’s income, occupation and educational

achievement.

Parents of different occupation classes often have different styles of child

rearing, different ways of disciplining their children and different ways of reacting

to their children. These differences do not express themselves consistently as

expected in the family; rather they influence the average tendencies of families

3
for different occupational classes (Rothestain, 2004). In line with the above

assertion, Hill, Castelino, Lansford, Nowlin, Dodge, Bates and Pettit (2004) had

also argue that socio-economic status of parents do not only affect the academic

performance , but also makes it possible for children from low background to

compete well with their n from high socio-economic background under the same

academic environment. In addition to this, studies carried out by Mok and Flynn

(2008) to examine the achievement of students in Catholic Schools in New South

Wales showed that parents’ level of education made a significant contribution to

achievement. High socio-economic status schools also scored better in the Higher

School Certificate than medium or low socio-economic schools (Mok and Flynn,

2008).

Influence of the parental socio-economic status on academic performance

of student is best shown when one tries to analyze the importance of education.

Thus, a family with high socio-economic status is often more successful in

preparing its young children for school because they typically have access to a

wide range of resources to promote and support their young children for school

because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to promote and

support their development. They are able to provide their young children with

high quality childcare, books and toys to encourage them in various learning

4
activities at home. This in turn will affect the students’ academic achievement in

Mathematics. According to Majoribanks (2003), the high achievers had a high

socio- economic status and they hailed from highly educated families. Lockheed,

Fuller and Nirongo (1989) showed that students belonging to upper socio-

economic status groups showed better academic achievement that students

belong to lower socio-economic status groups. With reference to achievement in

Mathematics, House (2002) contended that students learn better if they are

above average income family with well educated parents who participate in the

school’s education process and encourage their children to learn. They

established that the socio-economic status of students affected their

achievement. For families in poverty, basic necessities are lacking, parents may

place top priority on housing, clothing and health care. Educational toys, games,

and books may appear to be luxuries. This point was supported by Bookcock

(2000) and Lloyd (2002) on the relationship between school performance and

parental socio-economic condition where they concluded that students with high

achievement values tend to come from families that are more educated and with

higher status of occupation.

No nation can be developed without Science and Technology. The level of

the development of any nation has to do with the level of technological

5
advancement of the nation. Whereas, modern Science and Technology is the

focus of every nation across the globe. It is however important to note that

Mathematics is the fundamental subject and basis for Science and Technology.

The essence of Mathematics cannot be over emphasized in the technological

advancement and relevance in our contemporary society. Computer system,

medical service, hi-tech telecommunication and so on are product of Science and

technological innovation.

Meanwhile, there is the need to encourage our secondary school to

develop more interest in Mathematics and embrace it as the soul saving device

for nation building.

What then is Mathematics? Several attempts have been made by several

Mathematicians on defining Mathematics but each of them defined it according

to their perspective. Aristotle in Courant and Robbins (1996) defined Mathematics

as the science of quantity. In Aristotle’s classification of Science, discrete

quantities were studied by Arithmetic and continuous quantities by Geometry.

The America Heritage Science Dictionary (2005) defined Mathematics as the study

of measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using

numbers and symbols. Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry and Calculus are branches

6
of Mathematics. Britannical Concise Encyclopedia (2000) defined Mathematics as

a science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from counting,

measuring and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning

and quantative calcculation. Since the 17th century it has been an indispensable

adjunct to the physical science and technology to the extent that it is considered

underlying language of Science. Among the principal branches of Mathematics are

Algebra, Arithmetic, Combinatorics, Euclidean and Non-euclidean Geometries,

Game theory, Number theory, Set theory, Statistics, and Trigonometry.

Odubina (2001) posited that Mathematics is the pivot around which whole

essence of living revolves and the basis for scientific and technological

development. Yet, Ahiakwo (2006) found that the performance of various levels

of students has decelerated over the years with that of Nigerian children quite

remarkable. Meanwhile, Ibebuike (1986) noted that many students even as far

back as their primary school time, do not take interest in Mathematics to a

meaningful degree and this led to a continuous general poor performance in the

7
subject. As a result of this, Animasahun (2010) described low achievers in

Mathematics thus:

- The low ability students who has below average academic ability.

- The slower learner who cannot keep up to normal pace of the class.

- The underachiever who has potential for Mathematics achievement but has

not realized the potential.

- The reluctant learner who has been reared in a culture with meager

educational experience.

- The disaffected learner who has developed a negative attitude towards

Mathematics.

- The rejected learner who has been rejected by teacher, peers or parent.

- The disadvantaged learner who has been given little background for

adjusting to the usual Mathematics programme.

The causes of students’ low achievement in Mathematics described above

could be traced to the parental socio-economic status. Definitely, a student from

poor parental background may be achieving very low in secondary school

Mathematics. In line with this, other researchers had posited that parental socio-

economic status could affect school children as to bring about flexibility to adjust

8
to the different school schedules (Guerin, Reinberg, Testu, Boulen-guiez,

Mechkouri and Toutou, 2001). The health status of the children which could be

traceable parental socio-economic background can be another factor that can

make students to be achieving very in secondary school Mathematics. Adewale

(2002) had reported that in a rural community where nutritional status is

relatively low and health problems are prevalent, children academic performance

is greatly hindered.

Moreover, Eze (2002) had opined that when a child get proper nutrition,

health care, stimulating during pre-school years, the ability to interact with

optimal advantage of the full complement of resources offered by any formal

learning environment is enhanced. This opinion is again hinged on nature of

parental socio-economic status.

In order to investigate the influence of parental socio-economic status on

students academic performance in secondary school Mathematics, this study will

be carried out in some selected secondary school in Ila – Orangun of Osun state,

Nigeria.

9
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The foregoing discussion had established that socio-economic status and

allied related factors such as home environment of students, parental educational

background, health status of students, parental occupation and income could

have effects on students’ academic achievement.

It is against this background that the work is been undertaken to investigate

the possible effect of these factors on students’ academic performance in

selected schools in Ila – Orangun. Therefore, this study is aimed at investigating

the influence of parental socio-economic status on academic performance of

senior secondary school students in Mathematics.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study is to find the influence of socio-economic status of parents on

the academic performance of students in senior secondary school Mathematics

and is been undertaken with the following objectives.

a) To find out the influence of parental socio-economic status on students’

academic performance of students in secondary school Mathematics.

10
 b) To determine the effect of educational qualification of the parents on

students’ academic performance in secondary school Mathematics.

c) To find out the effect of students’ environment on their academic

performances in secondary school Mathematics.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The result of the study will help in the following ways:

i. It will give the teacher the awareness that socio-economic status of

parent(s) plays a major role in students’ academic performance.

ii. It will help the classroom teacher to be flexible in dealing and handling

students with different socio-economic background and will give bases

on things to do to improve the academic performance of the students.

iii. It will give the guidance counselors the information as bases in guiding

and counseling student(s) with low academic performance especially in

Mathematics.

iv. It will enable the students to utilize every provision given to them at

home by their parents to excel

v. It will provide the awareness that Mathematics is the basis for scientific

and technological development and that all stakeholders, educationists

11
 and policy makers should make sure that priority is given to

Mathematics in the school curriculum.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions are raised to guide the purpose of the

study.

 To what extent is parental socio-economic status affects the learning of

Mathematics?

 Can parent educational qualification contribute to academic performance

of the students in secondary school Mathematics?

 To what extent is students’ environment affect their academic

performances in secondary school Mathematics?

1.6 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The following research hypotheses are raised to guide the study

HO1: There is no significant relationship between parental socio-economic status

and academic performances of students in senior secondary school

Mathematics.

12
HO2: There is no significant relationship between parental educational

background and academic performances of students in secondary school

Mathematics.

HO3: There is no significant relationship between students’ environment and

students’ academic performances in secondary school Mathematics.

1.7 BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE STUDY

The assumption made in the study was that there are several factors which

can influence the students’ academic performance in Mathematics a part from

the parental socio-economic status. The factors such as students’ environment,

health status, gender etc can also influence the student’s academic performance

in secondary school Mathematics.

1.8 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The study will be carried out in Ila Local Government Area of Osun State to

investigate the influence of parental socio-economic status on students’ academic

performance in secondary school Mathematics.

13
1.9 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study will be carried out in four secondary schools in Ila Local

Government Area. Stratified random sampling technique will be used for the

selection of the Schools. The selection will be from Senior Secondary School

Classes 3 (S.S.S 3) to determine their academic performance in Mathematics

through their reaction to the given questionnaire (Mathematics Achievement Test

and Socio-economic status Aptitude Test).

1.10 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Academic performance: This is the knowledge gained by the students in school

subjects which usually measured by score(s).

Background: This consists of the totality of child’s or one home environment that

he/she was brought up.

Educational Background: This refers to the experience, achievement and

qualification which one acquired as a result of schooling.

Environment: This is defined as consisting of all external sources and factors

affecting a person’s life.

14
Socio-economic Status: This refers to the social status of categorization of an

individual based on his/her income, education and occupation.

Status: This refers to as the level at which one or something can be classified.

1.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Student’s academic performance is not meant only for student’s

development, but also for the progress and development of nation in general.

This chapter pointed out factors which are militating against student’s academic

performance such as parental socio-economic status, students’ health status,

student’s home environment, parent educational background and among other.

Furthermore, it reviewed definitions of Mathematics and further explained

the students’ academic performance in relation with the parental socio-economic

status. It also gave the purpose of the study as well as its significance which gives

the Teachers, Parents, Guidance Counsellors, Educationists, Educational

Stakeholders and Policy Makers to be aware of the effect of parental socio-

economic status on student’s academic performance.

15
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Researchers have shown that parental socio-economic status is based on

parent’s income, education and occupation. Thus, a family with high socio-

economic status is often more successful in preparing its young children for

school because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to

promote and support their development. They are able to provide their children

with high quality child care, books and toys to encourage them in various learning

activities at home. Epstein (1991) and Schmidth (1996) have stated that student

achievement in school is closely related to positive parental participation in

education.

Research on home and parental influence on achievement of lower primary

school children revealed that parent of high achieving children are more anxious

about maximizing every opportunity for their children include those not directly

related to school work. Herderson and Berla (1994) reported that the family

makes critical contribution to student achievement from the earnest childhood

16
years through high school and efforts to improve children’s outcomes are much

more effective when the family is actively involved.

Rumberger (1995) found that students’ family background is widely

recognized as the most significant importance contributor to success in schools.

Rumberger’s research supported the findings of earlier researchers who argued

that the home has a major influence on student school success ( Swick and Duff,

1978) and that it is the quality of relationships within students’ home

environment that has an important effect on school performance ( Neisser, 1986;

Selder, 1990; Caldas, 1993).

Many factors in the family background have some associations with

students’ success throughout school and in young adult’s evaluation educational

and occupational attainment. Such variable include family structure, parental

education level, parental involvement and parenting style (Jacob and Harvey,

2005). Bojuwaye and Eniola (1992) in Yara (2010) have also argued that marital

relationship of the parents, socio-economic status of the family, authority pattern

in the home, how warm or hostile the parents are. All have their effect on the

social learning and psychological experience of the child at home and at school.

Parents who are restrictive are known to have children that are submissive and

17
dependent. Parents, who are restrictive, are known to have children that are

submissive and dependent.

Furthermore, children from broken homes and unstable marriage relations

perform poorly in school. In view of this, significant studies have suggested that

socio-economic status is one of the best predictors of student achievement

(Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McParland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., &

York, R. (1966); Lee, Bryk and Smith, 1993).

The term socio-economic status of parents in relation to this study is a

concept demanding utmost attention. It deals with parents’ education, income

and occupation. Bojuwoye (2000) noted that Nigerian parents (especially the

educated ones) are known to be in the habit of dictating career choices to the

students. These parents he stressed need assistance of a counseling nature in

developing appropriate skills in parents-child interaction. Sjogen (2002) found

that parental formal education is another factor influencing occupational choice

of the student. He posited that youths from poorly educated parents are sensitive

to economic incentives since they are to a greater extent attracted to occupations

with high rates and high return to education.

18
2.2 DEFINITION OF MATHEMATICS

The word “Mathematics” comes from the Greek word “Mathema” meaning

‘Science, knowledge, or learning; and “Mathematiko’s meaning ‘fond of learning’

(Simonson and Gouvea, 2007). Explained this Agwagah (2008) noted that

Mathematics is often defined as the study of topics such as quantity, structure,

space and change. Branches of Mathematics include Arithmetic, Algeria,

Geometry, Analysis and so on. These major disciplines within Mathematics arose

out of the need to do calculation in commerce among others.

According to Thomaskutty and George (2007), Mathematics cannot be

considered as a classroom discipline only. Reflecting on this, James (2005) stated

that not only an Academician, a Scientist, an Engineer, but shopkeepers, a Grocer,

a House wife, a Sportsman, an Employee need Mathematics. A common Man can

get something very well without learning how to count and calculate (Agwuagah,

2008). She further highlighted that apart from an Engineer, a Businessman, an

Industrialist, a Banker, even a Labourer has to calculate his wages, make

purchases from the market and adjust the expenditure to his income.

Moreover, people believe that Mathematics is a divine discipline. For

instance, Galileo in Obodo (2004) stated that Mathematics is the language with

which God wrote the Universe. Some people love Mathematics while some fear

19
it; some are attracted to and study Mathematics while some worship it. For

example, of Mathematics beauty in these words:

“Mathematics rightly viewed possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty – a

beauty cold austere, like that of Sculpture, without appeal to any part of our

weaker nature, without the gorgeous trapping of paintings of music , yet

sublimely pure and capable of a stem perfection such as only the greatest art can

show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more that man,

which is the touch stone of the highest excellence, is to be found in Mathematics

as surely as poetry”.

This implies that Mathematicians do not study pure Mathematicians do not

study pure Mathematics because it is useful, but because they delights in it and

because it is beautiful. Mathematics apart from being an intellectually stimulating

discipline, is continuously being developed to meet the changing requirement of

Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Social Science, Psychology, Engineering and even law

to mention but a few.

More so, Mathematics is the foundation upon which Science and

Technology development of a nation is built. Odili (2006) maintained that

achievement in Science is often contigent upon Mathematics knowledge and the

20
ability to perform mathematical operations. Odili further stressed that the

utilitarian aspect of Mathematics in preparing students for useful living include

counting, notations, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, weighing,

measuring, selling and buying.

Every student on finishing secondary education should have clear idea of

numbers and a comprehension of both the very large and the very small numbers.

Students should understand the way numbers is applied to measure lengths,

volume, weight, area, density, temperature, speed, acceleration and pressure.

Estimation and approximation helps them to check economic waste in everyday

life.

2.3 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

Academic achievement or academic performance is the outcome of

education. The extent to which a student, teacher or institution has achieved

their educational goals. Academic achievement is commonly measured by

examinations or continuous assessment but there is no general agreement on

how it is best tested or which aspects are most important; procedural knowledge

such as skills or declarative knowledge such as facts (Annie, Howard, Miidred,

1996). A recent meta-analysis suggested that mental curiosity (as measured by

21
typical intellectual engagement) has an important influence on academic

achievement in addition to intelligence and conscientiousness (Vonstumm, Hell,

Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas, 2011).

The influence of teachers’ teaching of effectiveness on the learning outcome

of students as measured by students’ academic performance has been the subject

of several studies (Adediwura and Tayo, 2007; Adu and Olatundun, 2007;

Lockhead and Komenan, 1988; Schacter and Thum 2004; Starr, 2002).

The studies suggest that effective teaching is a significant predictor of

students’ academic performance or achievement. Therefore, effective teachers

should produce student of higher academic performance. In addition to this,

another important enhancer of academic achievement is the presence of physical

activity. Studies have shown that physical activity can increase neurotic activity in

the brain (Tomporowski, Catherin, Praticia, Miller Jack, 2008). They emphasized

further that exercise specifically increases executive brains functions such as

attention span and working memory.

Another factor that may affect academic performance of students is socio-

economic background or status. This background refers to parents’ educational

attainment, occupation, level of income and social class placement. When a

22
child’s needs are not properly addressed, his learning ability could be affected due

to lack of motivation. Bliss (2004) is of the view that many students from low

socio-economic homes respond incomprehensively to classroom teaching

because their home environment has not exposed them to the kinds of materials

used in Schools. If home environment is not intellectually stimulating, some

students find it difficult to cope in School and may eventually dropout of School.

In Magnuson (2007) parent’s academic socialization is a term. Describing the way

parents influence students’ academic achievement by shaping students’ skills,

behavior and attitudes towards School. In line with this, Academic socialization

can be influenced by parents’ socio-economic status. Highly educated parents

tend to have more stimulating learning environment (Magnuson, Katherine,

2007).

According to Bossaert, Doumen, Buyse and Verschueren (2011), children’s

semi-structured homes learning environment transitions into a more stutured

learning environment when children start first grade. Early academic achievement

enhances later academic achievement enhances later academic achievement.

This is supported by Magnuson (2007), parent influence Students through the

environment and discourse parents have with their children. In addition to this, a

child’s increased perception of cognitive competence is consistently related to

23
higher academic performance (Chapman, Skinner and Baltes, 1990; Ladd and

Price, 1986; Schunk, 1981).

A considerable number of researches repeatedly have shown that low socio-

economic status is linked to a range of indicators of child and adolescent well-

being, including students’ academic achievement (Beauvais and Jensen, 2003).

Birch and Gussow (1979) claimed that poverty contributes towards

educational failure, simply because poor children are all “culturally disadvantage”,

but because their health and nutritional status is inadequate to allow for the

maximum mental development and for the realization of their educational

potential. The likelihood that the poor children would end up being at risk in

terms of deficient development is a reality that could begin even before birth. In

that regard, Birch and Gussow (1979) emphasized that society should concern

itself more with the full range of factors contributing to the educational failure,

among which the health of the child is a variable of potential primary importance.

Other factors according to Dantesy (2004), complementing environmental

and socio-economic factors to produce high academic achievement and

performance include good teaching, counseling, good administration, good

seating arrangement and good building. Dilapidating building, lacking mental

24
stimulating facilities that are characterized with low or no seating arrangement

will also be destructive. Dantesy (2004) however lamented that the innovative

environment do stimulate head start learning and mental perception, not only

that it has also been proved that students that come from simulative environment

with laboratory equipments or those that are taught with rich Instructional Aids,

Pictures and allowed to demonstrate using their functional peripheral nerves like

eyes, hands and sense of taste performed better than those trained under

theoretical and canopy of abstraction. Thus, teaching and learning should be done

under organized, planned and fortified environment with learning Instructional

aids to stimulate students’ sense of conception, perception and concentration to

facilitate systematic understanding and acquisition of knowledge in them.

Ezeinmouma (1985), from his work indicate that there is a positive

relationship between socio-economic status and student’s success in the School

activities. He pointed out that students from higher socio-economic background

leave school earlier than those of low status. Those families of high status prepare

their children well ahead and more adequately equip them with materials needed

for studies than low income ones.

25
2.4 PARENTAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Previous studies have shown that students who come from low-income and

single parent homes have significantly less school success than students from

higher socio-economic (Martini, 1995; Walker, Grantham-McGregor, Himes,

Williams, and Duff, 1998) and intact families (Amato and Keith, 1991; Astone and

Mclanahan, 1991; Downey, 1994; Entwisle and Alexander, 1 995; Heiss, 1996). In

supportion of this, parents in such settings reported lower educational

expectations, less overall supervision of social activities compare to students from

high socio-economic and intact families (Jacob and Harvey, 2005). Across all socio-

economic groups, parents face major challenges when it comes to providing

optimal Care and Education for their children. For families in poverty, these

challenges can be formidable. Sometimes, when basic necessities are lacking,

parent must place top priority on housing, food, clothing and health care.

Educational Toys, Games and Books may appear to be luxuries; and parents may

not have the time, energy or knowledge to find innovative and less-expensive

ways to foster young children’s development (Ramey and Ramey, 1994).

Another important dimension for socio-economic achievement is a student’s

socio-economic background. Typical conceptualizations of the socio-economic

26
background of students are qualification and professional status of peers parents,

home resources, number of books, internet, communication and information

technology at home (Sirin, 2005). This contribution includes parental professional

education and home resources measured by the main means used to cover living

costs during the study period. To Keeeves and Saha (1992) in Yara (2010), in most

countries of the world, educational achievements are related to the social

background of the student. This includes the socio-economic status of the family.

Keeves and Saha demonstrated further that socio-economic status influence

student achievement while the direct effects on student achievement are

associated with other variables. Also, Ogwu (2004) in Yara (2010) reported that,

the high socio-economic status parents are able to provide their young children

with high quality childcare, books and toys to encourage them in their various

learning activities at home.

Similar results are found by Teese (2003) in his analysis of the performance of

students in Victoria. He found clear and consistent trends for children from lower

socio-economic status families to have lower VCE scores (Year 12 results) and

year 5 bench marking test result. The same relationship was found for other

measures of student engagement with schooling such as attendance rates. Teese

introduces the concept of equity density, drawing together a number of factors

27
such as family status, family occupation, and language background status and so

on. ACER study 1 examined student achievement scores on tests of reading

comprehension and Mathematics from five studies that tested the literacy and

numeracy levels of 14 Years old in Australian Schools conducted between 1975

and 1998, as well as trends for all students and for smaller groups of students.

Students’ results were discussed through examining averages, medians and the

distribution of results and changes over time. Results were reported by socio-

economic status, language background, gender and location. The overall

conclusion of the ACER study (Rothman,2002:2003) was that while overall

achievement levels of students remained relatively stable between 1975 and

1998, notable differences were found between students by socio-economic

status, both at an individual level and between Schools.

Okoye (1989) in Yara (2010) buttressed the above points by opined that the

socio-economic status of the parents affect students’ academic performance.

Also, Health (1990) asserted that irrespective of national equality of opportunity,

children of parents from low socio-economic status tend to achieve greater

academically that children of parents in higher socio-economic status.

28
 However, there are students who come from low-income and single parent

homes who are high achievers and many students from high socio-economic and

intact families who are low achievers. Student may also come from homes where

the parents are highly educated and involved in their children’s education yet

achieve poorly at school (Jacob and Harvey, 2005).

Rossi and Stringfield (1995) arrived at a similar conclusion; they found out

that the higher the occupation of the bread-winner, the greater the level of

achievement of the children. They gave the reason that parent do not allow their

children to receive less education than they themselves received. They further

stressed that parents will do every possible to equip their home and make sure

that their children attend private school. In supporting this Abitoju (2002)

asserted that student who parents have attained high socio-economic status

levels also tend to show a high level of education performance.

Enoch (1992) has reported that parental encouragement and guidance serve

as thee reinforcement to children since most of them are always willing to win

approval from parents and there is the likelihood that they will all strive to excel

in these aspects. That this applies well to educational achievement thereby

forcing children to learn at school. He went further to states that many studies

29
have discovered that the most important contributor to the child academic

performance is in fact parental attitude towards the child’s educational

experience.

In a study of the effect of the effect of socio-economic status of the parents

on the academic achievement of a child Eze (1987), found a positive correlation

between academic achievement and parent’s economic status. Odukwe (1999),

confirmed that children from high economic background are able to be enrolled

in lesson, able to buy necessary textbooks and stationary.

Bello (1997), found that children from high economic background have a

better chance of succeeding in School than low economic counterparts, having

that provides physical environment appropriate for the academic tasks at School.

Balogun and Ukwiye (1998), postulated that the value which each family attached

to formal education rather that income, determined that motivation with his

children pursue such education.

Another important difference between middle class and lower class families

is in the kinds of activities parents tend to do with their children and to reward

them for intellectual development. They are likely to provide good models for

language use, to talk and read to their children frequently and to encourage and

30
other learning activities. They have particularly apt to provide all sorts of

materials for children at home such as books encyclopedia, records, puzzles and

increasingly computer. These parents are likely to expose their children to

learning experiences outside the home; such as Museums, Concerts and Zoos.

Middle class parents are likely to expect and demand high achievement from their

children, working class and lower-class parents are more likely to demand good

behavior and obedience (Knapp and Wooverton, 1995).

2.5 PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS

Parent educational status is considered as one of the most stable aspects of

socio-economic status because it is typically established at an early age and tends

to remain the same over time (Sirin, 2005). It has been well documented that

family plays a meaningful role in a child’s academic, performance and

development (Cornell and Grossberg, 1987; Thompson, Alexander and Eintwisle,

1988; Tuker, Harris, Brady and Herman, 1996). Mothers’ levels of education and

family incomes, in view of Rhea and Otto, influence adolescent educational

outcome expectancy beliefs (Rhea and Otto, 2001).

31
 A study by Campbell, Hombo and Mazzeo (1999) using NAEP data indicated

that students who reported higher parental education levels tended to have

higher average scores. Also, Dave and Dave (1971) found that higher percentages

of rank holder belong to homes with higher parental education and higher

percentage of failed students belong those who have lower parental education.

Parental educational status as an indicator of socio-economic status reflects

the potential for social and economic resources such as household incomes that

are available to student. Income and education are highly correlated in the United

States (Hauser and Warren, 1997). Since at times, parental education determine

the income and occupation of parent. In line with this, the findings of Jaffe (1985)

Simon (2004), Teese (2004), Sharma (2004), Dubey (1999) and Crane (1993)

supported that students whose parents belong to the high ranking enough

income which can be used to provide the needed materials and support to their

children in order to arouse their interest in Mathematics than their counterparts

in low ranking occupation whose major obligation is to provide shelter and food

for the family. This is because parent’s education has high effect or predicts

students’ academic achievement in Mathematics.

32
 The findings above provide the evidence that students of educated parents

might performed better than students of uneducated parents in Mathematics.

More educated parents are assumed to create environment that facilitate

learning (Willians, 1980; Teachman, 1987) and involve themselves in their

children’s School environment (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch and Darling, 1992;

and Useem, 1992).

Adesemowo and Adenuga (1998) had earlier noted that educated parents

were more concerned about their children than uneducated ones. This might as a

result of their levels of education which have exposed them to series of

information about life generally. Ali (2003) stated that “there is evidence to show

that parents’ education has the strongest influence in students’ choice of career,

thereby influencing achievement in Mathematics. These provide the evidence

that students of educated parents might performed better than students of

uneducated parents in Mathematics.

Similary, Fraser (1994) in Yara (2010) looked at the effect of home

environment on 408 Aberden Children’s academic achievement and found out

that two variables with the highest correlation with educational attainment are

parental encouragement and parental education. In home where parents are

33
fairly or highly educated, there is tendency that they would aspire to see their

Children by providing for their basic needs in education hence their performance

in their academic work in School will improve.

However, there are students who come from low and single parents’ homes

who are high achievers and many students from high socio-economic and intact

families who are low achievers. Students may also come from homes where the

parents are highly educated and involved in their Children’s education yet achieve

poorly at School (Jacob and Harvey, 2005).

2.6 STUDENT’S ENVIRONMENT AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Studies have been concentrated on the area of socio-economic status of

parents. Other aspects of parental environment such as the structure of the

family have been grossly neglected. Adeyemo (2006) explained that the child’s

first place of contact with the World is the family. The child as a result acquires

initial education and socialization from parents and other significant persons in

the family; the parents indeed the child’s first teacher. When parents are involve

in the education of their children; having interest in Mathematics early enough,

such children are likely to perform and achieve better later.

34
 Rumberger (1995) supported the findings of earlier researchers who argued

that the home has a major influence on Student School Success (Swick and Duff,

1978) and that it is of the quantity of relationships within Student’s home

environments that has an important effect on School performance (Neisser, 1986;

Selden, 1990; Caldas, 1993).

The home environment or family has been recognized as having a lot of

influence on that academic performance of students (Nzewuawah, 1995; Ajila and

Olutola, 2000). Yet, disagreement affects children emotionally and this could lead

to poor academic performance in School. The family lays the Psychological moral

and spiritual in the overall development of the child. While the Mother’s

significant role in this cannot be over emphasized.

Studies on Father-child relationship suggested that the presence of a Father

in the home influence significantly the development of a Child (Agulanna, 1999).

Thus, parenthood is a responsibility requiring full cooperation of both Parents

who must ensure the total development of their offspring. Parents have a

profound influence on whether a home provides intellectual supportive

relationship. Children with more opportunities at home to build academic skill

35
tend to be better at integrating family, School and Community effort (Ferguson,

1995).

According to Frazer (2007), psychological homes conditions arise mainly

from illegitimacy of Children, the label of adopted child, broken home, divorce

and parental deprivation. Such abnormal conditions of the homes are likely to

have a detrimental effect on School performance of the child he asserted. Life, in

a single parent family or broken home can be stressful for both the child and the

parent. Such Families are faced with challenges of inadequate financial resources.

Schultz (2006) noted that if adolescents from unstable homes are to be

compared with those from stable homes, it would be seen that the former have

more social, academic and emotional problems. Scales and Roehlkepartan (2003)

are of the opinion that the family and its structure play a great role in Children’s

performance. Levin (2001) also stated that parents are probably the actors with

the clearest undimentional interest in a high level of their Children’s academic

performance.

There is an awareness of the importance of the home environment or family

structure on Student’s academic achievement. Ayodele (2006) stated that the

36
environment where a child find himself/herself goes a long way in determining his

learning ability and ultimately his/her academic performance in School.

The home environment or family has been recognized performance of

students (Nzewuawah, 1995; Ajila and Olutola, 2000). In view of Ajila and Olutola

(2000), the state of the home affects the individual since the parents are the first

socializing agents in an individual’s life. This is because the family background and

context of a child affect his reaction to life situations and his level of performance.

Although, the School is responsible for the experiences at home play tremendous

roles in building personality of the child and making the child what he is. Thus,

Ichado (1998) concluded that the environment in which the students come can

greatly influence his performance in School.

Adepoju and Akinwiem (2002), s by their study that there was a significant

relationship between location of secondary Schools and academic performance of

students in favor of urban secondary Schools. In supporting this, Fatunbi (1996)

found that there is statically significant difference between the achievement

scores of students in urban and rural areas with urban students performing better

than rural students. Corroborating this finding, Sjogen (2002), Sharma (1997) and

37
Onoyase (1996) contended that the home environment exerts a significant

influence on students’ educational aspirations.

2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The literature reviewed has made us to be aware that several studies have

been carried out by researchers on the influence of parental socio-economic on

students academic performances and host other factors which affect students’

academic performance in senior secondary school Mathematics, such as parental

educational background, student’s environment, health status, to mention but a

few.

In this Chapter, definitions of Mathematics were given as well as its beauty

and as some people like Aryabatta and Bhaskara worshipped Mathematics.

Several determinants of academic achievement of students were also stated,

including teacher effectiveness in delivering instructions to students in the

classroom, physical activity, socio-economic status of the parent, parental

educational background, student’s environment such as broken home, intact

family, single-parent family and among others; have on student’s academic

performance were also reviewed.

38
 The Chapter made us to know that there are Students who come from low-

income and single parent homes who are high achievers and many students from

high socio-economic and intact families who are low achievers.

39
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Despite the fact that, there are lots of factors affecting student’s academic

performance. But, the focus of the study was to find out the influence of parental

socio-economic status on the academic performance of senior secondary

students in Mathematics.

3.1 AREA OF STUDY

The target area of the study is the selected secondary schools in Ila – Local

Government Area.

3.2 DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Descriptive survey design was used in conducting this study since the

study attempts to investigate and describe the influence of parental socio-

economic status on student academic performance in senior secondary school

Mathematics at Ila Local Government Area.

40
3.3 POPULATION

The population for the study was the entire students offering Mathematics

and their respective parents in Ila Local Government Area of Osun State, Nigeria.

3.4 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

The sampling techniques adopted for this study was stratified random

sampling technique. It is adopted because the selection of a member of a group

has no influences on the other group. The sample was divided into private School

and Public School.

The sample used for the study consists of Eighty (80) respondents selected

out of the target population in Ila Local Government Area of Osun State.

3.5 INSTRUMENTATION

Two instruments were used for data collection. The instruments were

constructed by the researcher. They are parental socio-economic status Aptitude

Test and Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT). Parental socio-economic status

Aptitude Test was structural questionnaire. It was made up of two Sections A and

B. Section A deals with demographic data of the students like Age, Sex and

parental qualification. Section B deals with questions relating to the influence of

41
parental socio-economic status on academic performance of students in

Mathematics and it contains Fifteen (15) items. The items required the

respondent to tick the most appropriate response from the list of possible options

provided to indicate their opinion. Data collected from this section were used for

descriptive analysis in this study.

3.6 VALIDATION OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The instruments were given to supervisor for vetting and to make necessary

correction of items of the instrument in order to determine the validity and

usability of the instrument. Thus, the necessary corrections were made before the

final copies were produced for administration.

3.7 ADMISTRATION OF THE INSTRUMENT

The researcher visited the schools for the study with consultation and

assistance from the school principal and Mathematics’ teachers of the classes.

The instruments were administered on the participants and collected on the same

day.

3.8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

42
 The data collected were subjected to statistical analysis using frequency

percentage table and t-test (two-tail) was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05

level of significant.

43
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This Chapter presents the analysis obtained from the study. The purpose of

the analysis of the data was to test the hypotheses of the study. T-test was used

to test the hypotheses of the relationship between parental socio-economic

status and academic performance; parental educational background and

academic performance, and student’s environment and academic performance.

4.1 PRESENTATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Eighty (80) students were involved in the study. Their common

demographic characteristics included in the study were Sex, Age and Parental

qualification.

4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARATERISTICS OF THE STUDENTS

Table 4.2.1: Distribution of Respondents by Sex.

44
SEX FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

MALE 39 48.75

FEMALE 41 51.25

The Table above shows that 39% of the respondents are Male while 41%

were Female respondents.

Table 4.2.2: Distribution of Respondents by Age

AGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

14-18 46 57.5

19-23 18 22.5

24 and above 16 20.0

The above Table shows that the age range of the respondents was divided

into three groups for convenience. Those respondents that fall within the age

range of 14-18 years were forty-six (46) which represent 57.5% while Eighteen

(18) of the range of 15-18 years giving 22.5% and 24 and above were sixteen (16)

respondents represents 20%.

Table 4.2.3: Distribution of Respondents by parental qualification.

45
PARENTAL QUALIFICATION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

PRIMARY EDUCATION 46 57.5

SECONDARY EDUCATION 18 22.5

HIGHER EDUCATION 16 20.0

The table above shows that 28.75% were Primary Certificate School

Holders, 37.5% respondents’ parent were Secondary School Certificate Holders

and 33.75% respondents parent were Higher Education Certificate Holders.

4.3 HYPOTHESIS TESTING

The hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Three

hypotheses were raised to test the influence of parental socio-economic status,

parental educational background, student’s environment on Academic

performance of students in Senior Secondary School Mathematics.

T – test was used to test the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between parent socio-economic

status and academic performances of students in Senior Secondary School

Mathematics.

46
Table 4.3.1: T – test analysis comparing the mean of academic performance

scores of students from high and low socio-economic status.

Parental socio-economic N X S2 T-cal T-cri D.F P

status

High 33 14.09 2.08 14.68 1.9921 75 0.05

Low 47 7.47 6.59

The Table above showed that t-calculated value of 14.68 shows a significant

relationship at 0.05 level of significance. This means that there is a significant

relationship between parental socio-economic status and academic performances

of students in Senior Secondary School Mathematics. Since t-calculated value is

greater that t-critical value. Therefore, reject the null hypothesis (HO2).

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between parental educational

background and academic performances of students in Senior Secondary School

Mathematics.

Table 4.3.2: Show t-test analysis comparing the mean of parental educational

background and academic performance.

47
Parental Educational N X S2 T-cal T-crt D.F P

background

Higher Education 37 13.76 3.37 13.82 1.6649 77 0.05

Ordinary Level 43 7.14 5.93

The result in the above Table showed that the t-calculated value of 13.82

shows a significant relationship at 0.05 level of significance where Table critical

value is 1.6649. This means that there is significant relationship between parental

educational background and academic performances of student in Senior

Secondary School Mathematics.

Since t-calculated value is greater than t-critical value. Therefore, reject the

null hypothesis (H02).

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between student’s environment

and student’s academic performances in Senior Secondary School Mathematics.

48
Table 4.3.3: Summary of the influence of student’s environment on academic

performance of Student in Senior Secondary School Mathematics.

Student’s Environment N X S2 T-cal T-crt D.F P

Conducive 32 9.72 31.27 -0.77 2.0301 35 0.05

Unconducive 48 10.52 4.87

The result in the above Table showed that the t-calculated value of -0.77

shows no significant relationship at 0.05 level of significance. This means that

there is no significant relationship between student’s environment and academic

performances of students in Senior Secondary School Mathematics.

Since t-calculated value is less than t-critical value. Therefore, do not reject

null hypothesis (HO2).

4.4 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The first hypothesis states that there is no significance relationship

between parental socio-economic status and academic performance of student in

Senior Secondary School Mathematics. The result shows that there is significant

relationship between the variables. It was found that parental socio-economic

49
status has effect on student’s academic performances in Senior Secondary School

Mathematics. This is in line with Okoye (1989) in Yara (2010) opinion about

parental socio-economic status. He opined that the socio-economic status of the

parents affect students’ academic performance.

Olubadewo and Ogwu (2006) revealed that parents’ socio-economic status

influence the academic performance of their children in Mathematics. No

wonder, Animasahun (2010) was able to describe low achievers in Mathematics

as the low ability student who has below average academically and others.

Supporting Animasahun (2010) description of low achiever in Mathematics, Ogwu

in Yara (2010) stressed that the high socio-economic status parents are able to

provide their young children with high quality child care, books and toys to

encourage them in their various learning activities. Rossi and Stringfield (1995)

arrived at a similar conclusion. They found out that the higher the occupation of

the bread-winner, the greater the level of achievement of the children.

Hypothesis 2 states that there is no significant relationship parental

educational background and academic performances in Senior Secondary School

Mathematics.

50
 Jacob and Harvey (2005) argued that students may come from homes

where the parent are highly educated and involved in their children’s education

yet achieve poorly at school.

In contrary to Jacob and Harvey (2005) argument, Hauser and warren

(1997) stressed that parental educational status reflect the potential for social

and economic resources available to student. Furthermore, parental educational

background is considered as one of the variables which has effect on student’s

academic performance in Mathematics because Dave and Dave (1971) found that

higher percentages of rank holders belong home with higher parental education

and higher percentage of failed students belong those who have lower parental

education.

Meanwhile, Adesemowo and Adenuga (1998) had early noted that educated

parents were more concerned about their children than the uneducated ones. As

a matter of fact, this might be as a result of their levels of education which have

exposed them to series of information about life generally. Ali (2003) stated that

“there is evidence to show that parents’ education has the strongest influence in

students’ choice of career, thereby influencing achievement in Mathematics.

51
 Hypothesis there state that there is no significant relationship between

student’s environment and student’s academic performances in Senior Secondary

School Mathematics. The result of this hypothesis showed that between students’

environment and students’ academic performance there is no significant

relationship.

The finding differs from what was obtained by other researchers. Adepoju

and Akinwiem (2002), established by their study that there was a significant

relationship between location of Secondary Schools. Supporting this, Fatunbi

(1996) found that there is statically significance between the achievement scores

of students in urban area; with urban students performing better than rural

students.

Rumberger (1995) supported the findings of earlier researchers who argued

that the home has a major influence on student school success and that it is the

quality of relationships within students’ home environment that has an important

effect on school performance. Ichado (1998) concluded that the environment in

which the student comes from greatly influence his performance in school.

Corroborating this conclusion, Sjogen (2002), Sharma (1997) and Onoyase (1996)

52
contended that the home environment exerts a significant influences on student’s

educational aspirations.

Buttressing the above points, Bojuwaye and Eniola in Yara (2010) have also

argued that marital relationship of the parents, socio-economic status of the

family, authority pattern in the home, how warm or hostile the parents are, all

have their effect on the social learning and psychological experience of the child

at home and at school. However, Jacob and Harvey (2005) considered that, there

are students who come from low-income and single parent home who are high

achievers and many students from high socio-economic and intact families who

are low achievers.

53
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.0 INTRODUCTION

The research work has attempted to investigate parental socio-economic

status on student academic performance in senior secondary school Mathematics

in Ila Local Government Area of Osun State, Nigeria. This chapter gives a general

summary of the major findings conclusion and makes recommendations on how

to enhance the academic performance in senior secondary school Mathematics.

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

The main point of the study is to examine the relationship among parental

socio-economic status and academic performance.

The study began with a general introduction where the background to the

study and statement of the problem were made. It was followed by the purpose

of the study, research questions, significant of the study. A review of related

literature was carried out to provide basis for data interpretation, result finding

and recommendation on the study. The review centered on the following themes:

54
socio-economic status of parent, parental educational background, students,

environment and their effect on academic performance.

The research instrument used in this work was questionnaire (Mathematics

Achievement Test and socio-economic status aptitude Test) for students,

population of the study, sample and sampling procedure, instrumentation,

validity and reliability, procedure for data administration and statistical

instruments were discoursed in chapter three. It was from the instrument that

the data for the study were obtained, analyzed and interpreted in chapter four.

Each variable was tested statistically to determine the level of relationship on

student’s academic performance.

The findings revealed that, on the first hypothesis (HO1). There is significant

relationship between the parental socio-economic status and academic

performance of the student in senior secondary school Mathematics. The

hypothesis (Hoi) was rejected because its t-calculated value was 14.68 and t-

critical value was 1.9921 and t-calculated value is greater that table critical value.

The second hypothesis was also rejected because it has 13.82 t-calculated value,

1.6649 t-critical and t-calculated value is greater that t-critical value. The third

55
hypothesis was retained sequel to the fact that, it has -0.77 t-calculated value,

2.0301 t-critical value and t-calculated value is less that t-critical value.

5.2 CONCLUSION

Based on the findings from the data collected, parental socio-economic

status, and parental educational background have effect on the academic

performance of students in senior secondary school Mathematics. But students’

environment does not have any significant relationship on academic performance

of students in senior secondary school Mathematics.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were made based on the findings of the

study.

1. Parents from low socio-economic class should encourage and motivate

their children by providing them with basis essential learning materials

which will make them improve on their academic performance.

2. Parent who does not well educated should encourage and support their

children to learn and develop academically especially in Mathematics

56
3. Students should utilize every provision given to them at home by their

parents to excel.

4. Government should develop more useful and reliable policies for provision

and distribution of educational facilities and resources in the nation. Also

Government should provide free textbooks for the students.

5. The environment for teaching and learning Mathematics should be

conducive. Therefore, Government should as a matter of urgency build

more classes in our secondary schools.

5.4 RECOMMEDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In conclusion, this study did not address all variable that may relate to

academic performance of students in senior secondary school Mathematics. It

becomes therefore, more challenging for researcher to direct their effort towards

more variable not address in this study.

57
 REFERENCES

Abitogu S. O. (2002). The relationship between students’ socio-economic

background and their achievement in Mathematics in selected Secondary
Schools in Akure – South Local Government Area, Ondo State, Nigeria
Unpublished PGDE Project, Obafemi Awolowo University, Adeyemi College of
Education Ondo.

Adediwura, A. & Tayo, B. (2007). Perception of Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitude

and Teaching Skills as Predictor of Academic Performance in Nigerian
Secondary Schools. Educational Research and Review 2(7).

Adepoju, T. L. & Akinwumi, F. S. (2002). Location of Secondary Schools as a

Factor in Determining Academic Performance of Students in Senior School
Certificate Examination in Oyo State. Ibadan Journal of Educational Studies,
2 (1).

Adesemowo, P. O. & Adenuga, A. R. (1998). Focuses of parental Anxiety

attending to the special need for counseling the parents. The counselor:
Journal of counseling association of Nigeria, 1(16).

Adewale, A. M. (2002). Implication of parasitic infections on school performance

among school-age children, Ilorin Journal of science education, 2(1), 78-81.

Adeyemo, D. A. (2006). Parental Involvement, Interest in Schooling Environment

as Predictors of Academic Self-Efficacy among Fresh Secondary School
Students in Oyo State, Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 5 (1), 163 – 180.

Adu E. O. & Olatundun S. O. (2007). Teachers’ Perception of Teaching Correlates

of Students’ Academic Performance in Oyo State Nigeria. Essays in Education,
20, 57-63.

Aduwa, S. E. (2004). Dynamising the Instructional System: An inquiry for effective

childhood education in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal Curriculum Studies, 11(2),
239–245.

58
Agulanna, G. G. (1999). Family Structure and Prevalence of Behavioural Problems
among Nigerian Adolescents. The Counselor, 17(1), 154-159.

Agwagah, U. B. (2008). Mathematics beyond Calculation Aesthetic Values.

ABACUS: The Journal of the Mathematical Association of Nigeria (MAN), 33
(1), 70 – 79.

Ajila, C., & Olutola, A. (2000). Impact of parents’ socio-economic status on

university students’ academic performance. Ife Journal of Educational
Studies, 7(1), 31-39.

Ali, M. (2003). Parents’ socio-economic status and students’ achievement in

Mathematics. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(8), 98-103.

Amato, P. R. and Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children:
a meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.

American Heritage Dictionary (2009). Dictionary of the English Language. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Annie Ward, H. W. & Stoker, M. M. (1996). Achievement and Ability Tests -

Definition of the Domain. Educational Measurement 2, University Press of
America.

Aremu, A. O. & Sokan, B. O. (2002). Multi casual evaluation of academic

performance of Nigerian learners: Issues and Implications for National
Development. An unpublished paper.

Astone, N. M. & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and

high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320.

59
Ayodele, S.O. (2006). Educational opportunities for Nigerian learner; How do we
fare thus far? A paper presented at the workshop organized by Network for
Gender Sensitive Educational Management in Africa and the British Consult
in Nigeria.

Balogun, P. & Ukwiye, R. P. (1988). The effect of working parents on the child.
Education Today, 1, 42.

Bello, M. O. (1997). Sociology of Nigeria education for University and Colleges.

Owerri, New Africa Publishing Co.

Bliss, I. (2004). Social class differences in conception of the use of Toys. London:
Macquibben Kee.

Bojuwoye, J. O. (2000). Disciplined behavior in career decision making: the role of

parents. The Counselor. Journal of Counseling association of Nigeria, 7(2), 91.

Bookcock, O. J. (2000). Relationship between Academic Expectations and School

Attainment of Children. Sociology of Education 9(6), 174 – 188.

Bossaert, G., Doumen S., Buyse E. & Verschueren, K. (2011). Predicting Students'
Academic Achievement After the Transition to First Grade: A Two-Year
Longitudinal Study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32, 47–57.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (2013).

http://www.answers.com/topic/MathematicsIIBritinnica_Conciseia_ds
Retrieved January 26, 2013.

Caldas, S. J. (1993). Reexamination of input and process factor effects on public

school achievement. Journal of Educational Research 86(4), 206–214.

Campbell, J., Hombo, C., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1999 trends in academic
progress: Three decades of student performance. Education Statistics
Quarterly 2, 4.

60
Chapman M., Skinner E. A. & Baltes P. B. (1990). Interpreting correlations between children's
perceived control and cognitive performance: Control, agency, or means-endsbeliefs?
Developmental Psychology 26, 246 – 253.

Children's Defence Fund (1994). The state of America's children. Year Book,
Wahington D.C. 21.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McParland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., &
York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Cornell, D. & Grossberg, I. (1987). Family environment and personality

adjustment in gifted program children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 59-64.

Courant, R. & Robbins, H. (1996), What is Mathematics? (2nd ed.).New York:

Oxford University Press.

Crane, J. (1991). The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighbourhood Effects on

Dropping out and Teenage Childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, 96,
1226 – 1256.

Danesty, A. H. (2004). Psychosocial Determinants of Academic Performance and

Vocational Learning of Students with Disabilities in Oyo State.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan.

Dave, P.N & Dave J.P. (1971). Socio- economic environment as related to the
non-verbal intelligence of rank and failed student. Individual Study:
University of Myscore.

Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother and

single-father families, Journal of Family Issues, 5(1), 129–147.

Dubey, K. R. 1999. Effects of Home Environment on the Mental Development of

Children. Journal of Social Psychology, 174, 221 – 236.

61
Enoh, A. C. (1992). Handbook of Education. Lagos: Longman Challenge Press.

Entwisle, D. R. & Alexander, K. L. (1995). A parent’s economic shadow: family

structure versus family resources as influences on early school achievement,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 399–409.

Epistein, J. L & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School Programmes and teacher practices

of parent involvement in inner city elementary and middle schools
elementary. School Journal, 91, 289 – 305.

Eze, O.M. (2002). The effects of parental economic status and pupil sex on
school achievement in English language. Journal of Vocational and Technical
Education in Nigeria, 3(3), 27.

Ezewu, M. V. (1987). A new introduction to educational psychology. London: Evan

Brothers Ltd.

Ezeinuoma, C.O. (1985). A Comparison of the Availability of Teaching Facilities and

the School Result Biology Performance of 14 Schools in Agula LGA of
Anambra State. Unpublished B.Sc(ed) thesis, University of Lagos Nigeria.

Fatumbi, T. O (1996). Urban and Rural Location of Secondary School as a

Variable in Students achievement in Home Economics. Journal of ANCOPSS,
4(2), 116 – 120.

Ferguson, F. (1995). Shifting challenges: 50 years of economic change toward

Black –White earnings equality. Dae dalus 124 (1), 1- 25.

Fraser, B. J. (1994). Classroom and School Climate. In: Handbook of Research on

Science Teaching and Learning, Gable, D. (Eds.). National Science Teachers
Associations, Australia, Macmillan, 493-541.

Frazer, W.J. (2001). Family structure, Parental Practices and High School
Completion. American Sociology Review, 56, 309-320.

62
Guerin,N., Reinberg, A., Testu, F., Boulenguiez, S., Mechkouri, M. & Touitou, Y.
(2001) Role of School schedule, age and parental socio-economic status on
sleep duration and sleepiness of Parisian children. Chronobio. Int., 18(6):
1005-17.

Hauser, R. & Warren, J. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A

review, update, and critique. In A. E. Raftery (Ed.) Sociological methodology.
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Health, S.B. (1990). The Wider Society and Education. Boston, Allyn and Bacon Inc.

Herderson, A. T. & Berla, N. (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The family is

critical to students Achievement. National committee for citizens in
Education Washington.

Heiss, J. (1996). Effects of African American family structure on school attitudes

and performance, Social Problems, 43(3), 246–267.

Hill, N.E., Castelino, O.R., Lansford. J.E., Nowlin, E., Dodge, P., Bates, K.A. & Pettit,
G.S (2004). Parents academic involvement as related to school behaviour,
achievement and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence.
Child development 75(5), 1491-1509.

House, W. H. (2002). Educational Environment, Social Class and Cognitive

Development. Journal of Social Psychology, 68(2), 160 – 167.

Ibebuike, M. (1986). Methods of instruction and Mathematics achievement.

Journal of Education, 2(8), 60-68.

Ichado, S. M. (1998). Impact of broken home on academic performance of

secondary school students in English language. Journal of Research in
Counselling Psychology, 4(1), 84-87.

63
Jacobs, N. & Harvey, D. (2005). Do parents make a difference to children’s
academic achievement? Differences between parents of higher and lower
achieving students, Educational Studies, 31(4), 431–448.
Jaffe, B. D. (1985). The Relationship between two Aspects of Socio-Economic
Disadvantage and the School Success of 8th Grade Negro Students in a Detroit
Junior High School. Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University.

James, A. (2005). Teaching of Mathematics. Hydrabad, Neslkamal Publications.

Knapp, M. S. & Woolverton, S. (1995). Social Class and Schooling. In J. A Banks and
CAM Banks (Eds) Handbook of research on Multicultural education, New
York. Macmillan.

Kulshrestham A.K. (2005). Teaching of Mathematics. India: Surga publications

Mccrut.

Lockhead, E. M. & Komenan, A. (1988). School Effects and Students’ Achievement

in Nigeria and Swazi-Land. Working Paper Series 71, Washington DC: World
Bank.

Lockheed, M. E.; Fuller, B. and Nyirongo, L. (1989). Family Effects on Students’

Achievement in Thailand and Malawi. Journal of Sociology of Education, 62,
239 – 256.
Levin, J. (2001). For whom the Redundant Counts: A Quantile Regression Analysis
of family influence on scholastic Achievement Empirical Economics, 26(1),
221-246.

Lloyd, A. K. (2002). Factors Influencing Academic Achievement of Students in

Science and Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 56 – 71.

Magnuson, K. (2007). "Maternal Education and Children's Academic

Achievement during Middle Childhood". Developmental Psychology 43,
1497–1512.

64
Marjoribanks, K. (2003). Birth Order, Family Environment, Academic and Affective
Outcomes. Journal of Psychological Reports, 92, 1284 – 1298.

Martini, M. (1995) Features of home environments associated with children’s

school success, Early Child Development and Care, 111, 49–68.

Mok, M.M.C. and M. Flynn, (2008). The quality of school life and self-concept
among elementary school students. International Journal Humanity Science,
5, 41-54.

Neisser, U. (1986). New answers to an old question, in: U. Neisser (Ed.) The school
achievement of minority children: new perspectives, 1–17.

Obodo, G. C. (2004). Principles and Practice of Mathematics Education in Nigeria.

Enugu: Floxtone Press.

Odili, G.A. (2006). Mathematics in Nigeria Secondary Schools: A Teaching

Perspective. Lagos: Anachuna Educational Books.

Odubone, M. (2001). Attitudes and perception and Mathematics achievement.

Journal of Science Education, 8(6), 78-85.

Odukwe, E. O. (1999). Aspiration and expectation a dimensional analysis Journal

of social issue, 25 (2), 65 – 89.

Ofoegbu, F. I. (2004). Teacher Motivation: A Factor for Classroom Effectiveness

and School Improvement in Nigeria. Gale Group.
http://www.findArticles.com. Retrieved August 15, 2005.

Ogwu, S. (2004). Influence of parental SES on academic performance of JSS

students in Kano metropolis: Implication for educational planning and
Administration. M.Ed Dissertation, Department of Education, Bayero
University, Kano, Nigeria.

65
Olubadewo S.O. & Ogwu S. (2006). Influence of parents SES on students’
academic performance: Implication for the planning of UBE programme.
Retrieved on 24th July, 2006.

Onoyase, A. (1996). The relationship between parents’ socio-economic status and

student occupational interests on Okpe Local Government Area, Delta State.
The Counselor Journal of Counseling association of Nigeria, 2(14), 38-40.

Oredein, A. O. (2000). Leadership Characteristics and Personnel Constraints as

Factors of School and Industrial Effectiveness. Ph.D. Thesis, Unpublished,
Ibadan: University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ramey, S. L. & Ramey, C. T. (1994). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter
for a lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (30), 194-198.
Rhea, A. & Otto, L. (2001). Mothers’ influences on adolescents’ educational
outcome beliefs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 491-510.

Rossi, R. J. & Stingfield (1995). What we must do for students placed at risk. Phi.
Delta Kappan, 71(1), 73 – 36.

Rothestein, R. (2004). Class and schools using social economic and

educational reforms to close the white and black achievement gap.
Economic Policy Institute, U.S.A.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995) Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of

students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625.

Scale, E. C. & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (2003). Boosting Student's Achievement. New

Research on the Power of Developmental Assets. Search Institute Insights
Evidence, 1(1), 1-10.

Schacter, J. & Thum, Y. M. (2004). Paying for High and Low Quality Teaching.
Economics of Education Review, 23, 411-430.

Schmitt, D. (1996). Parent and Schools as partners in Pre-school education.

Educational Leadership, 44(3): 5-12.

66
Schultz, G. (2006). Broken family structure leads to Educational Difficulties for
children. Journal of Educational Psychology 27, 70-80.

Sharma, F. (1977). Predicting the adult earning capacity of minors. America. The
economic Ltd.

Sharma, K. R. (2004). Effect of Early Home Environment on the Mental

Development of Down Syndrome Infants. A J. Mental Deficiency. 85(1), 39-
44.
Simon, R. L. (2004). Families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 83(2), 594-606.
Simonson, S. & Guouvea, F. (2007). How to Read Mathematics. Britain.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-

analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75( 3), 417-453.

Sjogen, A. (2002). Occupational choice and incentives; the role of family back
ground. The Research institute.

Starr, L. (2002). Measuring the Effects of Effective Teaching . Education World.

www.education-world.com/a_issues.shtml. Retrieved October 16 2005.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M. & Darling, N. (1992) Impact of

parenting practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting,
school involvement and encouragement to succeed, Child Development, 63,
1266–1281.

Teese, R. (2003). Blueprint Funding reform. A presentation to the Department of Education

and Training.
Teese, R. (2004). Staying on at School: Improving Student Retention in Australia.
Centre for Post Compulsory Education and Life Long Learning, University of
Melbourne.

Thompson, M., Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Household composition

parental expectations, and school achievement. Social Forces, 67, 424-451.

67
Thomaskutthy, P.G. & George, M. (2007). Mathematics and Civil Society.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/civil. Retrieved January 26, 2013.

Tomporowski, P., Catherin D., Patricia M. & Jack, N. (2008). Exercise and
Children's Intelligence, Cognition and Academic Achievement. Educational
Psychology 20 (2), 111–131.

Tucker, C. M., Harris, Y. R., Brady, B. A., & Herman, K. C. (1996). The association
of selected parent behaviors with the academic achievement of African
American children and Caucasian children. Child Study Journal, 26(4), 253-
277.

Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and maths groups: parents’ involvement in

children’s placement, Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.

Von Stumm, S., Hell, B. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). The Hungry Mind:
Intellectual Curiosity Is the Third Pillar of Academic Performance. Perspective
on Psychological Science 6 (6): 574–588.

Walker, S. P., Grantham-McGregor, S. M., Himes, J. H., Williams, S. & Duff, E. M.

(1998). School performance in adolescent Jamaican girls: associations with
health, social and behavioral characteristics and risk factors for dropout,
Journal of Adolescence, 21, 109–122.

Yara P. O. (2010). Socio-Economic Background and Mathematics Achievement of

Students in Some Selected Senior Secondary Schools in Southwestern
Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 7(1); 23-27.

68
 APPENDIX I

UNIVERSITY OF UYO
Parental socioeconomic status questionnaire
Dear respondents,

The researcher is an undergraduate of the University of Uyo. He is carrying

out a study on the “influence of parental socioeconomic status on student’s

academic performance in senior secondary school Mathematics”. He needs

certain information from you. Please feel free to respond honestly to all the items

given below. You are assured that all information given will be kept confidentially.

Oyewole Oluwatosin J.
Researcher

SECTION A
INSTRUCTION: Fill and tick appropriately
I) NAME OF SCHOOL:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
II) AGE: 14 - 18 Year ( ), 19 - 23 Year ( ), 24 Year & above ( )
III) SEX: Male ( ), Female ( )
IV) CLASS: SSS 3
V) PARENT QUALIFICATION: Primary ( ), Secondary ( ), Graduate ( )
V) PARENT OCCUPATION:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

69
 SECTION B
SD: Strongly disagree, D: Disagree, SA: Strongly agree, A: Agree.
S/N ITEMS RESPONSE

SD D SA A

1 Socioeconomic status of parent determines

student’s achievement in Mathematics.
2 Environment plays an important role in
children’s performance in Mathematics.
3 The environment does not determine children
performance in Mathematics.
4 Children whose parents have higher
qualification achieved more than the children
whose parents do not have higher qualification.
5 Parents do not have impact in the academic
performance of their children.
6 Mathematics is an easiest subject among the
entire subject offer in secondary school.
7 Parental economic status affects every aspect of
life of a child.
8 Parent’s income has no influence on child’s
academic performance.
9 A home where parent lives separately has no
influence on children academic performance.
10 All students can perform well in Mathematics if
all his/her needs are provided.
11 Literacy level of parent has no influence o
children academic performance.
12 Children levels of reasoning are limited to the
environment they are.
13 Children whose parents do not have educational
background perform poorly in Mathematics

70
14 Children living in rural area perform equally well
in Mathematics with those living in urban area.
15 Parents who are rich always supply all the needs
of their children for their educational
development.

71
 APPENDIX II

UNIVERSITY OF UYO

FALCULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

Fill and tick appropriately.

NAME OF SCHOOL:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………......

SEX: MALE ( ) FEMALE ( )

AGE: AGE: 14 - 18 Year ( ), 19 - 23 Year ( ), 24 Year & above ( )

CLASS: SSS3

INSTRUCTION: Answer all questions.

1. The 6th term of a G.P is -2 and its first term is 18. What is its common ratio?

A. -1/2 B. -1/3 C. 1/4 D. 2 E. 3

2. Convert the decimal number 89 to a binary number.

A. 101101 B. 111001 C. 1001001 D. 1001101 E. 1011001

3 Simplify Log104 + Log1025

A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5

4. M varies directly as n and inversely as the square of p. If M = 3, when n = 2

and p = 1 find M in term of n and p.

A. M = 2n/3p B. M = 3n2/2p2 C. M = n2/2p D. M = 3n/2p2 E. M =

2n/3p2

5. Expand (2x – 5)(x – 3)

72
A. x2 – 11x - 15 B. 2x2 – 11x + 15 C. 2x2 – 5x -8 D. x2 – 5x – 15 E. 2x2 – 6x + 15

6. If 3p – q = 6 and 2p +3q = 4, find q,

A. 0 B. 1/2 C. 2/3 D. 1 E. 3 (3/7)

7. S = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), T = (2, 4, 5, 7) and R = (1, 4, 5). Find (S n T) u R

A. (1, 4, 5) B. (2, 4, 5) C. (1, 2, 4, 5) D. (2, 3, 4, 5) E. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

8.

3.5cm
600

P Q

What is the area of the minor sector POQ [Take π = 22/7].

A. 148 1cm2 B. 77cm2 C. 32 1cm2 D. 6 5cm2 E. 1 5cm2

2 12 12 6

9. Find, correct to 1 decimal place, the volume of a cylinder of height 8cm and
base radius 3cm [ Take π = 3.142].

A. 503.0cm3 B. 300.0cm3 C. 250.0cm3 D. 226.2cm3 E. 150.9cm3

10. Two towns X and Y both on latitude 600S have longitude 270E and 330W
respectively. Find to the nearest kilometer, the distance between X and Y
measured along the parallel of latitude. [Take 2πR = 4 X 104km, where R is the
radius of the earth].

A. 28850km B. 16667 km C. 33 km D. 6667 km E. 3333 km

73
No. of goals 0 1 2 3 4 5

No. of matches 3 5 7 4 1 0

Use the table to answer question 11 and 12

11. What is the mean goal scored?

A. 0.75 B. 1.75 C. 1.9 D. 2 E. 2.15

12. What is the modal goal scored?

A. 0 B. 1 C. 2 D. 5 E. 7

13. How many sides have a polygon if the sum of its interior angles is 14400?

A. 6 B. 7 C. 8 D. 9 E. 10

14. If tan x = 2 2, find the value of sin x.

5

A. 5/13 B. 5/12 C. 144/169 D. 12/13 E. 13/12

15. The angle of a sector of a circle of radius 35cm is 2880. Find the perimeter
of the sector

[Take π = 22/7].

A. 246cm B. 211 cm C. 141 cm D. 114 cm E. 44 cm

16. A town P is 150km from a town Q in the direction 0500. What is the bearing of
Q from P?

A. 0500 B. 1300 C. 2500 D. 2700 E.

3100

74
17. The angle of elevation of the top X of a vertical pole from a point P on a
level ground is 600. The distance from P to the foot of the pole is 55m. Without
using tables, find the height of the pole.

A. 50/3m B. 50 m C. 55√3 D. 60m E. 65m

18. The cumulative frequency curve may be used to find the

A. Variance B. Standard Deviation C. Mode D. median E. Mean

19. A bag contains 3 red, 4 black and 5 green identical balls. Two balls are
picked at random, one after the other without replacement. Find the probability
that one is red and the other is green.

A. 2/3 B. 5/11 C. 5/22 D. 5/24 E. 5/48

20. The table gives the distribution of outcomes obtained when a die was rolled
100 times.

No. of die 1 2 3 4 5 6

Frequency 18 14 20 16 15 17

What is the experimental probability that is shows at most when rolled 100
times?
A. 8/5 B. 12/25 C. 13/25 D. 2/3 E. 1/5

75
 APPENDIX III

SAMPLE SCHOOLS

The following Schools were the selected Schools used in the study.

- Ila Grammar School, Ila

- College High School, Ila

- Camila High School, Ila

- Baptist High School, Ila

76
 APPENDIX IV

STATISTACAL ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT

77
78