The Influence of Socio-Economic Status of Parents on the Performance of Chemistry Student
Chapter One
Objective of the study
The main objective of the study is to examine the influence of socio economic status of parents on the performance of chemistry student. Specific objectives of the Study include:
- To find out the influence of parental social economic status on school involvement of Secondary Students.
- To investigate into the effect of parental socio-economic status on academic performance of chemistry students.
- To ascertain the influence of parental educational attainment in the school involvement of their children.
- To determine the influence of parents’ occupation on school involvement.
- To study the influence of parental school involvement on academic performance of chemistry students.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
CLASS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
Some scholars in sociology perceive class as more about lifestyles of people since it determines even the ‘birth weight and cause of death, when to marry and whom to marry… (Conley, Strully and Bloom, 2003) cited in Hout (2007:2). This line of argument clearly portrays division (Wright, 1997; Giddens, 2005; and Bob, 2008). The reason is that class societies are formed primarily between two opposing classes, one stronger and the other weaker (Giddens, 2005 and Bob, 2008). This implies that class portrays a master-servant relationship, and this explains why the rich in society wants to ‘rule’ the poor because by virtue of their wealth they are influential and powerful in their communities (Giddens, 2005; and Bob, 2008). Socio-economic status is the social standing of an individual in society with respect to his or her level of education, income, type of occupation and general quality of life. It also includes his or her access to goods and services in the market place. The upper-class ‘persons are influential and powerful in their communities’ (Ornstein and Levine, 2006:320). On the other hand, people with low socio-economic statuses are seen as ‘low in prestige and power’. Indeed, the factors that determine one’s class may vary from one society to another and even within the same society. Studies have established that there is a ‘strong relationship between social class and educational achievement’ (Ornstein and Levine, 2006:320). They note that different studies have proved that ‘working-class students have performed less well than middle and upper- class students’. In support of this argument, Mooney, et al.(2007:263) are of the view that ‘one of the best predictors of educational success and attainment is socioeconomic status’. The upper class is the highest on the class structure. This is sub-divided into upper-upper class and lower-upper class (Warner, 1949; Coleman and Rainwater, 1978). The upperupper class people are born into rich families (Warner 1949, Coleman and Rainwater, 1978) which probably implies they inherited their wealth from family members. Coleman and Rainwater (1978) describe them as people who have college degrees with a household income level of over $60,000 as at 1978. Thompson and Hickey (2005), consider the upper class as group of people who have control over the nation’s economic resources and political affairs. One characteristic of the upper class is that they have a united front. Just as Marx observes that the proletariat or the suffering masses who became ‘more conscious of their shared class position and common interest of overthrowing capitalism’ and therefore mobilized themselves to ‘resist capitalist exploitation’ (Bob, 2008:56). This means class society embraces solidarity and may aim at protecting their positions in society (Hout, 2007; and Bob, 2008). The lower-upper class are individuals who have made it by dint of hard work either through education, entrepreneurship and other high paid jobs (Warner, 1949 and Coleman and Rainwater, 1978), unlike the upper-upper class who are born into it or inherited it. This class consists of successful elites, top professionals, senior corporate executives, entrepreneurs among others. They have degrees from good Colleges and their household income is in excess of $60,000 (Coleman and Rainwater, 1978). The second category of people on the social structure is the middle class. The middle class is made up of individuals of an upper middle class who are professionals, managers and small business owners who have distinguished themselves through high educational attainment and are economically secured; and the lower middle class, consists of semiprofessionals such as technical workers, technicians, sales personnels and clerical workers (Ornstein and Levine, 2006:320). Even though the groups overlap, there are major differences between them. The lower middle class have low educational attainment with considerable less autonomy at the work place, and lower incomes compared to the upper middle class (Thompson and Hickey, 2005 and Gilbert, 1998). This class is made up of people with technical and lowerlevel management ranks such as craft peoples who work for the middle class (Williams, Swayer, and Wahlstrom, 2005). However, sociologists like Gilbert, Henslin, Hickey, and Thompson have indicated that the upper middle class constitutes 15% of the American population. This is a reasonable percentage of the American population, it is therefore, no wonder that Gilbert (1997) indicated that the upper middle class has grown over the years and this has resulted in a change in its composition. He notes that the secret of their success is the increasing awareness of the importance of education and certification. They are noted to have graduate degrees such as Masters in Business Administration and PhDs. They usually have income levels that exceed $100,000 per household (US Census, 2005). The last stratum on the social structure is the working class. This is divided into upper working class who include skilled craft workers and lower working class made up of unskilled workers (Ornstein and Levine, 2006). They observed that ‘skilled workers may be either middle class or working class’, taking into consideration their education, income, and other factors such as the community in which the people live (Ornstein and Levine, 2006:320). Studies conducted reveal that the working class constitute about 53% of the American population (Gilbert 1998; and Thompson and Hickey, 2005). One can therefore say that a larger percentage of the population is in the working class. A situation like this makes occupation an important determinant of class than income (Levine, 1998). In addition, Ornstein and Levine have identified another social class they call underclass’ which can be identified with Coleman and Rainwater’s (1978) the bottom class within the working classes.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work the choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought to the influence of socio economic status of parent on the performance of chemistry student.
Sources of data collection
Data were collected from two main sources namely:
- Primary source and
- Secondary source
- Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire method for this study.
Secondary source:
These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration, various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.
Population of the study
Population of a study is a group of persons or aggregate items, things the researcher is interested in gathering information relevant to the influence of socio economic status of parent on the performance of chemistry student. Two hundred (200) staffs of selected secondary schools in Mbano was selected randomly by the researcher as the population of the study.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
Efforts will be made at this stage to present, analyze and interpret the data collected during the field survey. This presentation will be based on the responses from the completed questionnaires. The result of this exercise will be summarized in tabular forms for easy references and analysis. It will also show answers to questions relating to the research questions for this research study. The researcher employed simple percentage in the analysis.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was on the influence of socio economic status of parents on the performance of chemistry student. In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in addressing the challenges of socio economic status of parents on the performance of chemistry student.
Summary
This study was on the influence of socio economic status of parents on the performance of chemistry student. Five objectives were raised which included: To find out the influence of parental social economic status on school involvement of Secondary Students, to investigate into the effect of parental socio-economic status on academic performance of chemistry students, to ascertain the influence of parental educational attainment in the school involvement of their children, to determine the influence of parents’ occupation on school involvement and to study the influence of parental school involvement on academic performance of chemistry students. In line with these objectives, two research hypotheses were formulated and two null hypotheses were posited. The total population for the study is 200 staff of selected secondary school in Mbaino. The researcher used questionnaires as the instrument for the data collection. Descriptive Survey research design was adopted for this study. A total of 133 respondents made principals, vice principals administration, senior staff and junior staff was used for the study. The data collected were presented in tables and analyzed using simple percentages and frequencies
Conclusion
This study reveals that family background including family structure, parental occupation and parental education level had no significant influence on students’ achievement. The implication of this is that parents of this age are more aware and serious about giving their children the best education they can irrespective of their own shortcomings. Most studies carried out earlier were showing significant influence of family background on students’ achievement. Consequently many researchers indicted parents as contributing to students’ poor performance in science, for example Okafor (2010). It is gratifying to note that things are changing for the better as regards family background influence on academic achievement as this study reveals. Perhaps from the foregoing, researchers should intensity their research efforts towards other possible factors in order to find lasting solution to the problem of poor performance
Recommendation
Based on the findings and discussion made above, the researchers recommend as follows:
- Parents should continue getting involved in their children’s academic progress by monitoring their activities in and out of school, ensuring that home work is done, providing all necessary materials they need in school and meeting with their teachers when the need arises.
- Since the findings of this study seem to suggest that parents, irrespective of their background status, are getting involved in their children’s academic work, they should be regularly informed of their children’s academic progress by the school authorities.
- Similar studies could be carried out in other states of the federation with different cultures to ascertain whether the same result will be obtained
REFERENCES
- Emejulu, P. (2006). Modern Approach to Guidance and Counselling. Onitsha: Osyora Press.
- Essien, I. T. (2002). Influence of home environment on secondary school students’ achievement in Geography in Akwa-Ibom state. Journal of the Nigerian Society for Educational Psychologists (NISEP). 1(1), 109-116.
- Ikechukwu, A. (2009). Child Abuse and Neglect- A Book of Reading. 170- 171. Onitsha: Gold Publishers.
- Nwachukwu, J. F. (2002). The impact of the family background on the academic performance of students. Journal of the Nigerian Society for Educational Psychologists (NISEP).
- Obasi, O.K. (1999). The influence of the students’ family background on their academic achievement as perceived by students in Aboh Mbaise L.G.A. PGD Thesis. Imo State University.
- Odebunmi, A. (1988). The effects of home background on students’ academic performance. Nigerian Journal of Educational Psychology. 3 (1). 83-91.
- Okafor, C. (2010). Educational Administration – New Perspectives. Owerri: Alpha Publishers.
- Okeke, E. A. C. (2009). Attracting women into science-based occupations: Problems and Prospects. In Nnaka, C. and Njoku, Z. (eds). Gender and STM Education Series, No 3. 89-108. STAN.
- Okoye, B. E & Okeke, O. C (2007). Efficacy of eliminating superstitious beliefs strategy of achievement and knowledge retention in Genetics among Secondary School Students. Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 42(1&2), 73-77
- Curry R.L. (1996): understanding human learning for college and universities. Law publishers of Education Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
