FACTORS THAT AFFECT LEARNING SUBJECT DIFFICULTY

TEACHER’S IMPACT

This includes: Teacher’s interest and attitude personality qualification, understanding and methods of teaching.

According to Allen and Valet (2004), the teacher is the key figure in science courses and he is someone who has the knowledge and can impact the knowledge to the students.

It is the teacher who set the task for the learning activities, the teachers plays a significant role in affecting student progress and he said further that teachers attitudes have influence on students performance in the sense that “a positive attitudes on the part of the teacher is essential to their performance and this technique will work in learning science subjects”.

Ogunniyi (2001) also contends that “No matter how dedicated the students may be, if the teacher is not dedicated or delighted in his work, the result on the effort of the students will fall short of expectation.

Avele and Williams (2000) noted that the socio-cultural dimension of the problem has made it become conscious enough to believe that science is a “Man land”.

Afon (2003) observed that lack of acute motivation by teachers in the classroom as well as use of infrastructural materials affects student’s performance in their examinations.

Omojuwa (1995) remarked that teacher influences students in two significant ways: by their own examples and also by the procedure they adopt in teaching. He buttresses his view by saying that “Unequipped teacher cannot impact the skill that he does not have, so the learning programme under such teacher is bound to suffer”.

Akinola (2005) stated that the problem of gender difference in schools is affected by the shortage of science teacher. Therefore, he advocated that employment of incompetent teacher to the teaching of Agricultural Science, thereby leading to inefficient and wrong way of impacting the knowledge in relation to the subject.

He stated further that a teacher who cannot actually make the students to understand his instruction discourage the learners and this could leads to the problem of not achieving the objectives of science or the objective set for the student before the commencement of the lesson.

Ashiru (2000) discovered that the methods employed in impacting Agricultural Science knowledge in school were as deficient and inefficient. Methods of teaching used by some science teachers were not encouraging.

Some teacher misuse little infrastructural materials available, some unqualified teachers do not know the objectives behind the use of infrastructural materials and when to introduce the teaching aids in order to make learning more meaningful and permanent to learner.

The purpose of infrastructural materials is to arouse and sustain the interest of the learners.

According to Balogun (2002), using of inadequate or inappropriate infrastructural material is another factor that leads to mass failure in Agricultural Science.

STUDENT’S INTEREST AND ATTITUDE

Another factor that influences the performance of students in agricultural science is student’s interest and attitude. Students create little interest and attitude towards the study of Agricultural Science and this has influenced their academic achievement in Agricultural Science.

King Olson and Balah (2003) considered that the act of practicing the theory and facts in science is considered on females. The study enables them to belief that “anxiety” in females also constitutes a factor among others to their dislike to science. And these can be rectified through proper and adequate use of reward and punishment, adequate teaching method and conditioning.

Highness (2005) said that poor teaching condition and use of unstable approach in the methodology and teaching science are two important factors contribute to students’ performance in Agricultural Science.

PARENT INFLUENCE

Parent also has their contributions in enhancing the performance of students in Agricultural Science; these include provision of written materials and textbooks. Counseling of students, providing extra lesson for them. Some parents show non-challant attitude towards the progress of their children in Agricultural Science and therefore lead to their poor performance in Agricultural Science.

GOVERNMENT IMPACT

Government has a great role to play in academic performance of the students in Agricultural Science. Government should provide laboratory equipment, infrastructural materials to all schools and the employment of teachers both in quality and quantity. Motivation of teachers to teach Agricultural Science, establishment of seminars, workshops and training for science teachers in order to improve their methods of teaching, provision for other infrastructural facilities like electricity, pipe-borne water, hardware and software to make practical aspect of science easier for the teachers and the learners, without all these facilities little science learning would take place.

According to Bankole (2004) commends that it is a problem in many parts of the world, most especially in developing countries, where students cannot afford high cost of books.

AVAILABILITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Instructional materials are not enough in schools, especially in rural schools.

Olanrewaju (1987) observed that inadequate of science equipment and materials resulted in abstract nature with which science are been taught in secondary school.

Students have no access to these materials in order to improve their performance. Some materials in Agricultural Science are very scarce and costly and not within the easy reach of most Nigeria schools.

 

INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND OTHER

CO-TEACHERS

Some school principals do not release enough fund for the science teachers in buying necessary materials to teach science in schools.

Time allocated for teaching Agricultural Science is not enough in schools. Some colleagues or other teachers do not cooperate with science teachers (they believe that science teachers are superior to themselves and students would like science teacher then them).

All these factors would influence the academic achievement of students in Agricultural Science.

Backman (1972), examined sex differences by comparing total test scores while others have focused on the proportion of students who answered a particular item correctly.

Marshall (1983) analysis was based on comparison of the mind of errors made by male and female students. And over all findings were that boys and girls did not differ significantly in computational skills, although boys were superior in problem solving.

An interest aspect was the observation that girls’ performance was strongly influenced by the context of the problem. For example, within the overall superiority of boys on problem solving, it was found out that a notable exception occurred with domestic problems that favoured girls

Apart from sex-role issues, Fennera (1980 and 2009) suggests that girls face an additional problem in the response of their teachers who tends to give more attention and specific criticisms to boys.

Cooper Smith (2007) said that socio-economic status of parents affects the academic achievement of students in schools. This statement was however disapproved by Gbolagunte in 1991. He found out that there is no significant difference between the socio-economic status of parents and student’s achievement in Agricultural Science.

Butler (1999) saw a common notion in many theories that career choice is the outcome of a series of adjustment by the individual to the realities of his own capabilities, needs and interests. An individual’s total experiences are thought to predispose him to select certain occupational possibilities and to exclude others.

Michaels (1978) viewed that student perform better in courses that will earn them a better carrier in life. For example, a student who wants to be an engineer first put in more effort in science subjects.

Osborn in his own findings in 1991 states that “a child’s pattern of occupational aspiration could be expected to fall in line according to the educational level of parents”. This is just an extension to parental socio-economic status and perhaps, other home factors have less effect on attitude or performance of students towards Agricultural Science than on attitude towards more verbal subject.

Callahan (1971) finds out that 70% of the students he studied enjoyed answering Agricultural Science problems when they know how to work well on them. Boys and girls showed a much stronger dislike on practical and science work / problems.

SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS

According to Bradbury (2001) the term “biosphere” is used principally in two ways: firstly, the biosphere is said to encompass all the zones of the earth in which life is present. Secondly, the term is used to describe planet. Both however refer to the physical, socio-economic status which harbours the species or organisms of the animal kingdoms which interact with it and themselves.

Sada (2004) sees the socio-economic status as a system within which living organisms interact, with the physical elements.

Titilola Igben (2003) conceive of the socio-economic status as an embodiment of conditions or circumstances, which influence the rate and course of economic, social and political behaviour.

GENDER AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Adejumo (1976), some studies and researches have been carried out to determine the factors influencing the achievement of Agricultural Science. Among these factors is the role of gender in science and technological courses and comes up that the performance of the students was independent of gender.

Therefore, it is important to note that the concept of sex role and teachers influence when considering the effects of gender on students academic achievements in school.

Sofolahan and Odunsi (2001) and (20020 stated that the positive influence caused by gender differences to the academic performance of student is very definite and that there is no conclusive evidence that understanding of science is “sex based”.

It has been observed that female question for social science was seen as compromise with societal expectation and the needs to choose career, which filled in line with marriage.

Furthermore, the relatively small number of science and science related occupation is a common feature all round the world.

Beothroyd and Chapman (2005) stated that countries with higher female enrolment rates have showed lower facility and materials, morality and higher life expectancy than countries with low female enrolment rate.

HISTORY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

Throughout the world, Agricultural Science has always been a peculiar subject. The role it played in its practical applications in many aspects of human activities and in the development of other areas in learning as evidence. Agricultural science is no longer a subject for the few talented but for all. For example, the phrase, ‘Green Revolution was coined by the late William Daud, Director of USAID, to describe the breakthrough in wheat and rice production in Asia that began during the mid-1960s. This process of applying Agricultural Science to develop third world agriculture actually begins in Mexico with the “quiet” wheat revolution in the mid-1950s. During the 1960s and 1970s in India, Pakistan and the Philippines received world attention for their agricultural progress. Since 1980, China has been the greatest success story. Home to one-fifth of the world’s people, China today is the world’s biggest food producer. With each successive year, its cercal crop yield approach that of the United State.

MEANING OF SCIENCE

The word science was derived from word “science” which means “knowledge”. 

Abdulahi (2002) reported that some people defined science as an organized body of knowledge in form of concepts, laws and theories. He further explained science as activities culminating into a testable, falsifiable and verifiable body of knowledge.

Generally, we can look at science as a body of knowledge generated from the activities of man, in term of formulating hypothesis designing, experiment and synthesizing theories based on the ethnical rules of the stand and control nature.

Science can also be defined from the sociological point of view as an intellectual through which man seeks to understand the nature.

Ogunniyi (1986), defined science as an attempt by human beings to organize their experiences about the nature of science and scientific knowledge explosion, some scientists agitated that science should be presented as an organic whole to a beginner; this led to the formulation of agricultural science.

Integration of science means the presentation of scientific knowledge to a beginner as organic whole rather than in bit such as physics, chemistry or biology.

Bejah (2003) defined integration in science as an approach to the teaching of science in which concept and principles are presented so as to express the destructions between the various scientific fields.

Integration in science therefore does not note combination of the various branches of science rather it is a method of teaching common appropriate to the generalization of scientific knowledge.

Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Socioeconomic Status—Research Exploring Their Effects on Child Health: A Subject Review Committee on Pediatric Research Next Section

Abstract

Data on research participants and populations frequently include race, ethnicity, and gender as categorical variables, with the assumption that these variables exert their effects through innate or genetically determined biologic mechanisms. There is a growing body of research that suggests, however, that these variables have strong social dimensions that influence health. Socioeconomic status, a complicated construct in its own right, interacts with and confounds analyses of race/ethnicity and gender. The Academy recommends that research studies include race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status as explanatory variables only when data relevant to the underlying social mechanisms have been collected and included in the analyses.

During recent decades, our understanding of the biological and psychosocial bases of diseases affecting individual children has markedly increased.^1,,2 The capacity to apply newly derived information from molecular and genetic science toward preventive child health care will continue to grow in the coming years. Although biological research is necessary and valid, studies that do not address the importance of social determinants as fundamental causes or contributors to disease and unfulfilled potential limit the scope and impact of research conclusions.³

In the United States, data on research participants and populations frequently include race, ethnicity, and gender as categorical variables, with the assumption that these variables exert their effects through innate or genetically determined biologic mechanisms. There is a growing body of research that suggests, however, that these variables have strong—and in many areas predominantly—sociological and psychological dimensions. Because data are collected and research questions are formulated in ways that generally do not include the social as well as biological dimensions of these variables,^4,,5 it is often difficult to disentangle the biological from the social dimensions. The purpose of this subject review is to highlight the interrelationships among factors such as race, ethnicity, and gender, viewed as social constructs, along with socioeconomic status, and to stimulate appropriate definition and analysis of these variables within any study that proposes mechanisms of disease associated with them.

Previous SectionNext Section

RACE AND ETHNICITY

It is standard practice to describe participants and populations in terms of “race” or “ethnicity.” For example, the decennial census has classified respondents according to the 1977 Office of Management and Budget Directive 15, which includes 4 racial categories (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and 2 ethnic categories (Hispanic Origin and not of Hispanic Origin). The recent revision of this Directive⁶ has expanded these categories to 5, by separating Asian from Pacific Islander and expanding the latter to “Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,” but the existence of this small number of categories limits investigators to use only those categories to frame and analyze questions. The Revised Directive 15 rejected the use of a “multiracial” category, but does recommend that the 2000 Census allow respondents to check more than 1 category.

Although race historically has been viewed as a biological construct, it is now known to be more accurately characterized as a social category that has changed over time and varies across societies and cultures.⁷ Racial disparities in health generally do not reflect biologically determined differences in the genome or physiology.⁸ Indeed, genetic differences between racial groups are small compared with genetic differences within groups, so racial differences in diseases are, to a significant degree, currently unexplained.⁹ It is possible that racial prejudice (both individual and institutional) as a social stress on groups of children and families can influence health behaviors, such as eating habits, activity levels, and substance use and abuse that might place individual children at increased risk for both short-term and long-term health impairment and disease.^10–12 In addition to effects on behavior, racial prejudice may influence access to and the quality of health services.^11–13 Similarly, difficulties in definition and measurement, heterogeneities of populations, and ethnocentric interpretations of research data⁸ make “ethnicity” an imprecise construct by which to attribute causal relationships. Given that race and ethnicity are similar in their social origins, that is, determined predominantly by the relationships among groups who define themselves or define others, the term race/ethnicity is becoming more widely used.

Previous SectionNext Section

GENDER

Sex and gender are often used interchangeably, but the former is a biologic characteristic, defined by genetic and anatomic features, whereas the latter is a social characteristic, determined by culturally defined roles and behaviors. Analogous to race/ethnicity, the development of gender is a function of relationships. Ironically, the genetic, physiologic, and behavioral differences between men and women have historically been deemphasized, if not ignored, in research that has extrapolated conclusions based on male populations to women. In recent years, recognition of the importance of considering differences between men and women as a salient independent variable in research led the National Institutes of Health to include women as participants for special consideration in clinical research grant applications, but the focus is primarily on the biological variable, that is, sex, rather than the social variable, gender.¹⁴

Inclusion of both men and women as participants in research studies is certainly a first step in understanding sex and gender differences in health and disease. However, given the health correlates of the differences in the social roles and behaviors of men and women, any differences found are not inevitable expressions of the biological factor. For example, the increased risk of anorexia and bulimia in girls likely reflects perceived social pressures to adhere to culturally prescribed norms for body shape and size. Furthermore, socially defined gender roles, expectations, and behavior can vary across both time and culture, as well as across subgroups of individuals, defined socially by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. For example, the social and psychological pressures experienced by an African-American woman might be very different from those experienced by a white woman, with these pressures having differential impact on the long-term trajectory of disease.¹⁵

Previous SectionNext Section

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

Analysis of the relationship among biological and social variables is complicated, however, by the difficulty in operationalizing socioeconomic status, a complex concept consisting of 2 aspects, both of which may exert influences on health directly or through associated behaviors. One aspect includes resources, such as education, income, and wealth and the other includes status or rank, a function of relative positions in a hierarchy, such as social class.¹⁶A recent National Institutes of Health conference examined measures of socioeconomic status and proposed ways to incorporate a variety of these measures into health surveillance and research.¹⁷

Demonstrated racial/ethnic and gender “effects” may be intricately related to socioeconomic factors, because race/ethnicity interacts with and is confounded by social class or socioeconomic status. For example, environmental pollution may be more intense in impoverished areas and may even be sited in those areas because of discrimination based on race/ethnicity or class.¹⁸ Consequently, it is difficult to disentangle the adverse consequences of that pollution from the effects of discrimination. Although most studies of such confounding and/or interaction have focused on adults, the need for inquiries into such factors affecting child health is equally strong. Little is known about the way that the relationships among these social factors influence the health of children or their effects on the trajectory of the development of adult disease.

Two domains of the relationship between socioeconomic status and health are particularly active areas of research, possibly shedding light on the complexity of the mechanisms whereby this multidimensional variable influences health. The first domain deals with the relationship between the extent of discrepancies in socioeconomic status and health. Numerous studies have documented the relationship between socioeconomic status and health.¹⁹ Despite advances in quality and access to health care services, it is noteworthy that the discrepancy in health status between social classes has persisted over time, even though the specific diseases that produce morbidity and mortality have changed.²⁰ Furthermore, standard measures of health correlate with the extent of income discrepancy between rich and poor, and the extent of income inequality appears to explain more of the variation in health than is explained by other socioeconomic factors, even the absolute level of income.^20–22 Across industrialized countries, the greater the discrepancy in income distributions, the worse the health status of the entire population.²⁰ Data across individual states within the United States demonstrate a similar relationship.^21,,22

The second domain of the relationship between socioeconomic status and health explores the relationship between childhood socioeconomic conditions and adult health. In Finland, for example, the childhood socioeconomic status of adult men correlated more closely with ischemic heart disease during middle age than did their adult socioeconomic status.²³ Further research is needed to clarify how the socioeconomic status of children affects both their current and future health status.²⁴