CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The primary purpose of teaching in any level of education is to bring a fundamental change in the learners, (Tebabal $ Kahssay, 2011). To facilitate the process of knowledge transmission, teachers should put in their effort that best suit specific objectives and level exit outcome. In the traditional area, many teachers widely use collaboration, skills in communication to impact knowledge to learners’ comparative to what they have learned. Until today, question about the effectiveness of teachers on student academic performance consistently raise considerable interest in the experimental field of educational research (Hightower et el, 2011). Moreover, research on teaching and learning constantly endeavor to examine the extent to which teachers characteristics enhance growth in student learning.

Quite remarkably, regular academic performance by the majority of the students is fundamentally linked to application of ineffectiveness of teachers to impact knowledge to learners, (Adunola, 2011). Substantial research on the effectiveness of teachers indicates that the quality of teaching is often reflected by the achievement of learners. According to Ayeni (2011), testing is a process that involves bringing out desirable changes in learners so as to achieve specific outcome in order for the method used to be effective, maintain that teachers need to be conversant with numerous teaching strategies that take recognition of the magnitude of complicity of the concept to be covered.

This research project has five chapters, each chapter is divided into subtopics: chapter one comprises of background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, research questions, justification of the study, significant of the study, delimitations of the study and operational definition of terms. Chapter two is made up of conceptual review, theoretical review and empirical review. This will give detail explanation of related theories as well as related literature of various authors which explain them. Chapter three present the research design, area of the study, population of the study, sample techniques, method of data collection, research instrument, validity and reliability of the instrument, method of data analyses and ethical considerations. Chapter four focuses on the presentation, analyses and interpretation of result obtained from the data captured by questionnaires administered to the sample of the study and summary of findings. Chapter five consists of discussion of findings, conclusions, recommendations, limitation of the study suggestion for further studies.

Background of the study

Historically sociologists have long recognized the crucial role of teachers in education, and have focused their attention on several aspects of teachers’ work. Early examples include ethnographical or theoretical work on teachers’ social roles and networks, their working conditions, the organization of teaching, and structural factors that shape student–teacher interactions (Lortie 1975; Waller 1932; Polansky 1954; Dreeben 1970; Wilson 1962). Early quantitative work has complemented this body of literature, a prominent example being the first Coleman Report (Coleman et al. 1966), one of the largest and arguably most influential empirical studies in the sociology of education. One of Coleman’s major findings was that sources of inequality of educational opportunity are largely rooted in families, not in schools. Within schools, however, teachers are the most important factor. ‘Given the fact that no school factors account for much variation in achievement, teachers’ characteristics account for more than any other’, Coleman et al. wrote (1966, p. 325).

One of my favorite studies in the history of education is Emile Durkheim’s work on the history of secondary education in France (Durkheim 1977). Not only is this a magisterial account of educational change over many centuries, it also provides one of the best statements that there is on why history should be included in educational studies in general and the training of teachers in particular. Durkheim argued that there was a fundamental connection between past, present and future in teacher education that could only be understood through historical study: ‘it is only by carefully studying the past that we can come to anticipate the future and to understand the present’ (Durkheim 1977: 9). Indeed, according to Durkheim, history was an indispensable asset in its own right, as a means of illuminating organizations with all their ideals and aims over the course of time, and to comprehend what he called ‘man in his totality throughout time’. The present was itself merely ‘an extrapolation of the past, from which it cannot be severed without losing the greater part of its significance’ (Durkheim 1977: 12, 15) – its significance, he might well have added, for the future.

Durkheim was writing and lecturing over 100 years ago, as a professor of pedagogy, at the University of Paris. The range of his ideas over past, present and future may well be unmatched in the field of teacher education. McCulloch (2018), argue that, in a very generalized sense, towards the end of the 20^th Century, an idealized vision of teacher education for the 21^st Century came to displace earlier concerns to build on the foundations of the past; that is, that a notion of the future became systematically divorced from that of the past.

The first stage in this process occurred in a number of works produced in the post-war period, between the 1950s and the 1970s, that reflected on the future of teacher education. These tended to provide a classical liberal perspective in which the gradual progress of past developments would be continued ad infinitum into the future. They matched the then dominant paradigm of the history of education which emphasized how educational progress was based on consensus in the interests of society as a whole (McCulloch 2011).

One such, published in 1955 as part of an edited collection entitled Looking forward in education, was published by G. B. Jeffery, then the director of the Institute of Education, London, on ‘Universities and the teaching profession’. In this, Jeffery discussed the origins of the university tradition in Europe 800 years before, and the responses that had been developed in England in the 19th Century, before going on to explore developments that had taken place in the first half of the 20^th Century. Finally, he asked whether the Ministry of Education would be prepared to take full advantage of the McNair Report of 1944 (Board of Education 1944) as a basis for further progress in the future (Jeffery 1955). Reassuringly, its image of the future, while only sketchy, matched its positive view of the foundations laid in the past.

Another example is the collection of the future of teacher’s education, edited by J. W. Tibble of the University of Leicester (Tibble 1971a). This also dwelled on the origins of the study of education in England in the 19th Century and the historical development of the system of teacher education during the 20th Century. It took these as the starting point for a discussion of current proposals for further reform, including the potential for a unified system and possibilities for the colleges of education (Tibble 1971b). Several very interesting contributions looked at particular aspects.

A renewed interest in teacher involvement in curriculum development can be found in the writings on educational reform and curricular improvement over the last twenty years. Writers on educational reform call for greater teacher participation in the decisions related to curriculum and instruction as one way in which to promote educational improvement. During the 1980’s, various national reports (e.g., Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; National Governors Association, 1986; and Holmes Group, 1986) called for increased teacher participation in curriculum development to improve student achievement and professionalize teaching. Empowering teachers and professionalizing teaching were common themes in discussions of teacher involvement in curriculum development (e.g., Giroux, 1994; Paris, 1993; Sizer, 1992). The educational tasks of schools, and therefore the focus for decision making by school-based governance structures, include curriculum development and instructional program development, according to Glickman (1993, p. 68). Glickman (1998) asserted that since furthering democracy, or as he quoted Dewey, “education for democracy” should be the ultimate goal of education, democratic practices such as shared decision-making in matters of curriculum and instruction serve not only to professionalize teaching, but also to promote the ideal of “democracy as education” (p. 176). Other writers suggested that to separate teachers from the process of curriculum development (in effect, to have external curriculum experts develop a curriculum to be implemented by teachers) was ineffective because teachers’ and students’ perceptions, values, beliefs, and experiences served to mediate the curriculum.

Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) maintained that one thing that research in curriculum implementation has made clear is that “curriculum was never really implemented as planned but rather adapted by local users” (p. 428). While there were writers who argued against teacher involvement in curriculum development (e.g., Sullivan, 1975; Walker, 1978) and trends such as the calls for state and national standards (i.e., curriculum) which further removed teachers from the process, a large and growing body of current literature advocates teacher involvement in curriculum development.

Teacher involvement in curriculum development, however, is not a new idea in education. There is a significant historical record, concerning both theory and practice, about teacher participation in curriculum development. For example, writings on the idea can be found as early as 1903 with Dewey’s article entitled “Democracy in Education” in which he asserted that “questions of methods of discipline and teaching, and the questions of the curriculum, textbooks, etc.” should be submitted “to the discussion and decision of those actually engaged in the work of teaching” (pp. 194-195). Advocacy for the idea of teacher involvement in curriculum development was also found in the first half of the twentieth century in the writings of such educators as Newlon, Caswell, Briggs, Bonser, Hopkins, and from various educational groups.

Identification and influence of stake holders is critical to determine pupils academic performance because of the role they play (Mwika 2010). Ali (2009) observes that there was statistically significant relationship between teacher characteristics and student academic achievement. Adeyemo (2005) notes teacher characteristics influenced teaching and learning in classrooms. Olaleye (2011) establishes that there was relationship between teachers characteristics and pupils performance. Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf (2008) states that the explanations for good or poor student’s academic performance have been quite exhaustive yet controversy still exists among scholars as to what contribute singly or jointly to students’ poor performance. The teacher characteristics found to be dominant in cross-country studies are related to; qualification, experience, attitude and personality. Akinsolu (2010) asserts that availability of qualified teachers determined the performance of students in schools.

The present research sets out to study the effects of teachers’ behavior on the academic performance of secondary school students. In this introductory chapter, this study will bring out a background of the study and the problem statement. The chapter will also identify the study’s objectives, research questions and hypotheses, the significance, scope and definition of some terms related to the study.