6. Student Focus Groups
6.3 How TEF may affect the students’ behaviour and decisions
Table 1: Sex of the respondents
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Male 270 75.6%
Female 87 24.4%
Total 357 100%
The above table illustrates that out of the total number of 357 respondents, the male students had the highest representation of 270 representing 75.6% and the female respondents had less than 87 representing 24.4%. This was because the male respondents were more cooperative than their female counterparts.
33
Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to age
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
21-25 years 200 56.0%
26-30 years 90 25.2%
31-35 years 67 18.8%
More than 35 years 0 0%
Total 357 100%
Table 2 illustrates that the highest percentage of the respondents (56%) were ages between 21-25 years, while 90 of the respondents representing 25.2% are within the age of 2-30 years and the least number of respondents (18%) were ages between 31-35 years. This means that more than 57% of the respondents were aged between 21-30 years, which is the right age bracket of university education in Nigeria.
Table 3: Respondents according to department of study
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents Department of adult
Education and extension services
81 22.7%
Department of educational foundation
99 27.7%
Department of curriculum studies and educational
technology
95 26.6%
Vocational education 82 23%
Total 357 100%
34
The above table shows that the highest percentage of respondents came from the Department of Educational Foundation (27%) followed by the Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology with (26%) then followed by the Department of Science and Vocational Education with (23%) and the least number of respondents were from the Department of Adult Education and Services with (22%). This is because Department of Educational Education has the largest number of respondents among the sample of the population followed by Department of Science and Vocational Education and Department of Adult Education and Extension Services that shows the researchers we are undergraduate students from the Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Education and Extension Services, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto.
Table 4: Respondents according to the year of study
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
200 level 179 51%
300 level 178 49%
Total 357 100%
The table above indicates that the population sample of this research is unequal from level 200 and 300 of the four departments were 179 of the respondents representing 51% are from 200 level while 178 of the respondents representing 49% are from 300 level.
35 Table 5: Parents source of income
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Employed 67 18.0%
Self-employed 100 28.0%
Unemployed 190 53.2%
Total 357 100%
The table above showing parents source of income illustrates the highest percentage of the respondents almost (53%) were employed, while 100 of the respondents representing 28% were self-employed and only 67 with the least percentage (18%) of the respondents were employed.
This shows that about 53 of the respondents were unemployed.
Table 6: Reliability of income
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very reliable 20 8.5%
Reliable 90 38.3%
Unreliable 125 53.2%
Total 357 100%
Table 6 above illustrates that out of 235 respondents who were unemployed, 125 of them representing 53.2% are in the belief that their parents source of income is unreliable while 90 respondents representing 38.3% believe that their parents sources of income is reliable and 20 respondents representing 8.5% believe that their parents source of income is very reliable. This
36
indicates that students whose are their parents unemployed are faced with financial problems due to unreliability of their parents’ source of income.
Table 7: Respondents according to student’s educational responsibility
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Parents 150 60%
Government 70 28%
Others 30 12%
Total 357 100%
Table 7 above indicates that the highest percentage (60) of the respondents’ educational responsibility lies on their parents while 70 (28%) of the respondents are responsible by government scholarship and only 30 representing 12% are being sponsored by other sources.
This shows that most of the student’s educational responsibility relies on their parents.
Table 8: Parents/Guardian status in terms of occupation
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Upper 85 23.0%
Medium 157 44.0%
Lower 115 33.0%
Total 357 100%
37
Table 8 above shows that 157 out of 357 respondents representing 44% are from medium class, while 115 of the respondents representing 33% come from lower class parents and only 85 with 23% are from upper class parents. This result indicates that majority of the students in Faculty of Education and Extension Services, UsmanuDanfodiyo University Sokoto were from medium class background and by implication their educational attainment is likely to be affected.
Children from medium and lower class background tend to perform lower in their academic performance than those from upper class background. This therefore means that the economic status of the family is also a significant variable or factor that affects the educational life chances of a child (Mahuta, 2007).
Table 9: Cost of living in the school
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very High 50 14.0%
High 230 64.4%
Low 77 21.6%
Total 357 100%
Table 9 above indicates that 50 out of the total respondents representing 14%agreed that the cost of living in the university is very high, while 230 representing 64% of the respondents agreed that the cost of living in the university is high and 21% representing 77 out of the respondents believed that cost of living in the university is lower. This result however, illustrates that more than 64% of the respondents believed that the cost of living in the university is high which will in turn affect student’s academic performance.
38
Table 10: Cost of study/learning materials in the university mini-market
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very high 25 7.0%
High 230 77.6%
Low 77 15.4%
Total 357 100%
Table 10 above shows that, 277 out of 357 respondents representing 77% agreed that the cost of study/learning materials in the university is high while 55 representing 15.4% of the respondents believed that cost of learning/study materials is low in the university and the least number 25 representing 7% of the respondents believed that the cost of learning/study material is very high.
This result indicates that the prices of study will affect students’ academic performance thereby making it difficult or even impossible to afford.
Table 11: Cost of other goods and services in the university mini-market
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very high 50 14.0%
High 220 61.7%
Low 87 24.3%
Total 357 100%
39
Table 11 above indicates that 50 out of 357 respondents representing 14% agreed that cost of other goods and services ion the university mini market is very high while 220 representing 61%
of the total respondents believed that the cost of other goods and services in the university is high and 87 respondents representing 24% are on the belief that cost of goods and services in the university mini market is low. This explains that the cost of goods and services in the university market is high and this will have a negative impact on the student’s academic achievement due to their low level of income.
Table 12: Cost of accommodation in off campus
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very high 271 75.9%
High 57 15.9%
Low 29 8.2%
Total 357 100%
Table 12 above shows that 271 out of 357 of the respondents representing 75.9% believed that the cost of accommodation in off campus is very high while 57 respondents representing 15.9%
of the total respondents agreed that cost of accommodation in off campus is high and only 29 out of 357 respondents representing 8.2% believed that the cost is low. This table clearly explain that the cost of accommodation in the town is very high because of the high demand of accommodation from the students in the university are inadequate and this is affecting their level of academic performance.
40 Table 13: Cost of transport from town to school
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very high 70 19.6%
High 200 56.0%
Low 87 24.4%
Total 357 100%
Table 13 above shows that 70 of the respondents representing 19% agreed that, the cost of transport from town to school is very high while 200 out of 357 representing 56% of the respondents believed that the cost of transport from town to school is high and only 87 representing 24.4% of the respondents believed that the cost is low. The outcome from the above table illustrates that the cost of transport from town to school is high and this to a great extent affects the level of students’ academic performance because most students find it difficult to bear the cost.
Table 14: Cost of using personal vehicle to the university
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Very high 39 10.9%
High 251 70.4%
Low 67 18.7%
Total 357 100%
41
Table 14 above shows that 67 out of 357 representing 18% of the total respondents believed that the cost of using personal vehicle to the university is very high while 251 representing 70% of the respondents agreed that cost of using personal vehicle to the university is high and only 39 representing 10% respondents that the cost is low. The outcome of the table indicates that the cost of using personal vehicle to the university is high and by implication, this inhibits the level of students academic achievement.
Table 15: Comparison of price between items in the university mini market with other market in town
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Higher 215 60.2%
Lower 27 7.6%
Equal 115 32.2%
Total 357 100%
Table 15 above indicates that 215 out of 357 respondents representing 60% are on the belief that prices of items in the university mini market are higher than the price of items in the town while 115 respondents representing 32.2% are on the belief that the prices in both markets are equal.
And only 27 respondents representing 7% agreed that the prices of items in the university mini market are lower than how they are in town. This table shows that there is a significant price difference in the university markets when compared with other market in town and this will in turn affect the students’ academic performance because in most cases students find it difficult to afford the exorbitant price considering the level of their income.
42 Table 16: Accommodation in the university
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Available 92 25.7%
Not available 265 74.3%
Total 357 100%
Table 16 above shows that 265 out of the total respondents re[presenting the highest percentage (74%) believed that there is not available accommodation facility in the university while 92 out of 357 representing 25.7% agreed the fact that there is available accommodation facility in the university.
Table 17: Percentage of students with accommodation
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
70% and above 0 0%
50% - 69% 25 7.0%
49% and below 332 93.0%
Total 357 100%
Table 17 above illustrating the percentage of students with accommodation in the university shows that 332 out of 357 respondents representing 93% believed that less than 30% of the students (49% and below) are accommodated in the university while 25 out of the total respondents believed that 50% - 69% representing 25% of the students are living in the university hostel. This table indicates that less than 50% of the students are living in the hostel provided by the university. This means that more than half of the students are living in off campus despite the high cost of accommodation in off campus.
43
Table 18: Reliability of transport facilities in the university
Responses Frequency Percentage of Respondents
Total reliable 27 7.6%
Reliable 150 42.0%
Unreliable 180 50.4%
Total 357 100%
Table 18 above shows that 180 out of 357 respondents representing 50% believed in the unreliability transport facilities in the university while 150 out of the total respondents with 40%
believed that the transportation facilities in the university is reliable. The outcome of the table indicates that the transportation is reliable. The outcome of the table indicates that the transportation facilities in the university is not reliable due to the fact that majority of the students are living in off campus considering the percentage of students with accommodation in the university (49% and below) and their means of transportation depends largely on school bus services which is not sufficient enough to meet the demand of students at the right time.
Evidently, this can be seen from the long queue of students in bus stop waiting for the bus for their conveyance to school.