Academic performance and perceptions about contributing

Journal of Elementary Education
Vol.23, No. 2 pp. 39-48
Academic Performance and Perceptions about Contributing
Factors: Evidence from Engineering Students of Lahore
Ahmed Sher Awan*, Muhammad Mushtaq Mangat*
Ishtiaq Ahmed Gondal*
_______________________________________________________________
Abstract
The study intended to assess differences in the performance of students at school and at
university levels and the impact of the perception of students about the contributing factors of
family, teachers, and self-efforts on their academic achievements. Data were initially collected
through a structured questionnaire from a sample of 261 final year students of engineering
departments at universities of Lahore. The results were compared through the means of their
grades or scores at the school examinations and at the universities examinations. Similarly the
statistics were computed to know the impact of perceptions of the sampled students about the
above mentioned three contributing factors on their academic performance both at school and
at university level. The study found significant differences between university and school
levels regarding the performance of students. A significant change in the perception of students
about the share of family, teachers, and self-efforts on their performance was assessed.
Keywords: Performance, perception, family, teachers, self-efforts, academic achievements.
_______________________________________________________________
*Assistant Professor, University of the Punjab, Lahore - Pakistan

Academic Performance and Perceptions about Contributing Factors 40
Introduction
There are two main objectives of this study. The first is to estimate the
difference in the performance of students at two distinct levels, school and university.
The second is to assess the change in the perception of students about the role of
contributing factors on their academic achievements.
Before the initiation of the survey, a focus group of students of engineering
departments of different universities was formed to assess the most significant factors.
In the focus groups, students identified the following factors, which had a significant
effect on their academic achievements:
a. Family support (moral and economic)
b. Teachers (teacher’s skill, qualification, guidance, etc.)
c. Students’ self-profile (self-efficacy, commitment level, self-discipline, life
objectives, etc.)
Literature Review
The performance of a student depends on many factors. Nevertheless, three
factors, family, teacher, and personal profile of students, are most critical (Diaz,
2003). Significance of factors may vary depending upon the context, culture, level of
education. Family interaction and the Socio Economic Status (SES) of the family may
play an important role in the performance of students. As stated by Schulz (2005),
"The socio-economic status of families has been consistently found to be an important
variable in explaining variance in student’s achievement" (p. 3). Schulz explains that
family may contribute in many ways, for instance, it can provide financial, moral, and
other necessary and useful support to a student. They can provide a stimulating home
environment to promote cognitive development. The personal attention of a family
and its members is a strong variable. As identified by Hijaz and Naqvi (2006), merely
access to better resources does not provide a guarantee for the better performance of
students. They have established a negative correlation between the income of a family
and the performance of a student. Although it may vary from situation to situation, it
is difficult to refute and defy the role of family in the performance of students.
Coleman Report provides that family background accounted for the majority
of the variation in student achievement (as cited by Dills, 2006). Dills considers SES

Ahmed Sher Awan, Muhammad Mushtaq Mangat & Ishtiaq Ahmed Gondal 41
as a highly reliable predictor of the performance of a student. Rothman (2003) also
holds the view that "In one scenario, school students from low-SES homes are at a
disadvantage in schools because they lack an academic home environment, which
influences their academic success at school. Another scenario argues that school and
neighborhood environments influence academic success, so low-SES schools are
generally lower-performing" (p. 1).
Rothman’s finding is significant since facilities have a strong influence on
performance. Access to resources is a factor which is highly demanded for better
performance; particularly, it becomes more of a prime nature when students are in
universities and getting higher education. It has been observed during interaction with
students, that their performance partially depends upon the access to resources, like
research journals, data bases, availability of required software, and more.. Rothman
believes that access to resources depends upon the SES of a family. Nevertheless, it is
one factor, which may partially affect the performance though there are additional
factors which are also highly linked with performance.
The parents’ role is another factor which has a significant impact on the
performance of students. It may be due to the concern and influence of parents. Diaz
(2003) makes it clearer and says, "Educational condition attributed to the family is
beyond all doubt or discussion, as there is an ever-increasing awareness of the
importance of the parents’ role in the progress and educational development of their
children (p.46). The role of family, particularly a strong interaction between parents
and a school, has also been noticed by the United States government. The US
government put forward an act to improve the interaction of parents with schools.
Gianzero (1999) provides the detail of this act as quoted by Gianzero, "The Goals
2000: Educate America Act, federal legislation enacted in 1994, boldly predicts that
by the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental
involvement and participation in the social, emotional, and academic growth of
children”(p. 2). Gianzero further states that the role of a family is not simple.
"Nevertheless, the notion that families play a crucial role in their children’s
development and school success in both home and school environments elicits a host
of questions, all of which carry significant implications for the type of family-school
linkages a particular school district or individual school might choose to pursue"
(p. 2). Gianzero thrashes out various functions of a family that play a crucial role in
the performance of a student. Ginazero explains that a family leaves deeper effects on
the academic performance of a student. An education-friendly home environment,
values and priorities, living style and routines of family, support of parents to solve
difficult issues, help in homework, discussions on education related topics, monitoring
of after-school activities, and help while a student is enduring to work hard, are all

factors that play a decisive role in the life of a student during which he achieves high
targets.
Eagle's study (as cited byGianzero,1999) identifies the role of parents’
interaction in the better performance of students. He concluded that "twenty-seven
percent of students whose parents were highly involved during high school (defined as
frequency of communication with teachers, monitoring of schoolwork, and planning
for post-high school activities) attained bachelor's degrees" (p. 6).
Deutscher (2004) studied the impact of parents’ involvement in the
performance of students and found convincing evidence that "Parent involvement has
been shown to be an important variable in children’s education, and more schools are
trying to encourage increased involvement. It therefore becomes essential to
understand what types of parent involvement have the most impact on children’s
academic performance." Deutscher's view fortifies the arguments that the role of a
family is a factor which has influence on the performance of students. This argument
is further supported by Silins and Harvey (2000).
The second crucial factor which can alter the performance is the teacher.
UNESCO (2005) explains, Teachers are a key enabling factor in improving the quality
of education. The evidence of this and many other reports is that teachers are critical
to any reform designed to improve quality (p. 154).
UNESCO has rightly reported that the learning process completely depends
upon the teacher's ability and experience. Sweatt (2000) cited findings of a study
conducted by Goldenberg, which concludes that teachers’ expectations from students
do not matter a lot , whereas, teachers’ actions matter a lot and play a dominating role
in the learning process. "A reciprocal relationship between students and teachers
showed that such a relationship influences students’ achievement to the extent that
teacher’s expectations may not have as much influence on achievement as do teachers’
actions" (p. 26). Sweatt further states that "teachers with high standards and strong
beliefs about student’s work habits and classroom behavior promoted higher student
achievement and more individualized planning at the classroom level" (p. 27). It is
important to note that all such studies demonstrate a correlation between a teacher's
ability, commitment, hard work and the outcome in the form of student’s performance.
Xu and Gulosino (2006) discuss the combined effort of teacher and parents in
the learning process and concluded, "One of the behavioural aspects of teaching,
teacher efforts in building and maintaining a strong teacher–parent partnership, is
found to have significant impact on improving early childhood student performance

(p. 364). Xu and Gulosino have shown their concern on the quality of the teacher, not
on the qualification of the teacher. Furthermore, they concluded that the ability of
teachers to work closely with parents should be the key quality of teachers.
According to Gonzalez, as cited by Diaz (2003), a consensus exists among the
diverse motivational theories and approaches as they conceptualize motivation in
terms of conscious beliefs and values (p.45). Marchesi and Martin, as cited by Diaz
(2003), elaborated on the role of the aptitude of the students. They believe that "that
the pupil’s socio cultural level and his previous aptitudes indirectly influence the
outcomes of learning since they delimit the classroom procedures" (p. 47). Aptitude is
a broad term; it covers skill, talent, ability, and more, and these factors are major
contributors in the performance of a student. Ergul (2004) discussed the role of self-
motivation, level of discipline, and learning style of students in the distance-learning
program. Ergul concludes that the motivation of a student plays a leading role in the
whole learning process. Motivation is a broad term, which explains the inspiration,
persuasion, inducement, impulse, and incitement of a student. Ergul emphasizes that
self- efficacy is also a major contributing factor.
The possible explanation of the previous discussion is that SES and the
interaction of family, ability/skill of teacher, and the profile of a student are key
factors in the whole learning process. This list is not exhaustive in nature.
Objectives of study
Following are the objectives of the study:
a. To estimate the difference in the performance of students at two distinct
levels, school and university
b. To assess the change in the perception of students about the role of
contributing factors of family, teachers, and their self- efforts on their
academic achievements at school and university levels
Methodology
A focused group of students from engineering colleges and universities was
formed to examine the perceptions of students about the role of different factors in
their academic performance. A questionnaire was made to gather information about
the performance of students and their perceptions about the role of family, teachers,
and their self-contribution on their academic achievements.

Surveys were conducted in the engineering colleges and universities of
Lahore, Punjab. The city was chosen purely due to reasons of convenience.
Information was collected about the total figure of students seeking knowledge in
these institutions. Based on the total strength of students, a quota was allotted to each
university. Students were approached in the relevant university on a random basis.
The questionnaire was tested before using it for data collection.
Approximately 271 students showed willingness to provide data but we could collect
data of only 261students. Statistical analysis was carried out with the help of SPSS. A
common element among all the students was that they were in the final year of their
graduation (electrical, mechanical, textile, computer).
There are a number of ways to estimate the performance of students, but the
most frequently used method is to check their grades at different levels. There are
certain shortcomings attached with this method.
As discussed by Schulz (2005), considering aggregate performance in shape
of grades is one method, which is commonly used by different researchers in various
empirical studies. In this study, we are relying on aggregate grades that are used
commonly, as posited by Schulz.
As expressed by students during focus group discussions, there are a number
of dissimilarities in the subjects, courses descriptions, depth/breadth of knowledge,
and ways to measure performance. It is assumed that such differences will not affect
the results significantly since we are comparing the same group of students at two
distinct points.
In this study, we asked students about the impact of family, teachers, and
self -efforts in their performance at school and university levels.
Assumptions
a. The student’s grades at the university level will be higher in comparison to
secondary school level grades.
b. The contributing factors of family, teachers and self- efforts will be lower at
the university level as compared to the school level.
Data Measurement
The universities in which we conducted survey utilize a semester system in
grading and a GPA (Grade Points Average) for each subject and a CGPA (Cumulative

Grade Points Average) at the end of the programs. Conversely, school examinations
are conducted on an annual basis, and grades are given in percentage form. For
purposes of this study, the CGPA was converted into percentages, for easy comparison
with the school grades. For this purpose, help was given by the examination
departments of the university concerned.
Another part of the data pertains to the perception of students about different
contributing factors. For this purpose, the students were asked to provide the share of
percentage of different factors
Overview of Data Collected
Based on stratified sampling, we contacted 271 students. Data was collected
from 261 students from engineering departments of six different universities of
Lahore. The participants were students in their final year of their respective discipline.
Data Analysis
SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution) software was used to test the
hypotheses and get the frequencies. In the following lines, outcome of data analysis is
given.
Scores of Students
Table 1, shows that mean value of score at university level is less (73.70 %)
than the school level (78.30%). It shows a decline in performance of students. In
addition to that, there is another clear difference in standard deviation. Standard
Deviation at university level (10.80) is quite high than at school level (6.67). It
indicates that variance at school level is comparatively low. Apparently, there is a
reasonable difference in the performance of students at two levels. Paired sample t test
proved that there is a significant variation in the means of scores at university and
school level (p = 0.000 and t= 5.28).
Table 1
Mean of grades of students at school and university level
Score of Students in School
Examination (%)
Score of Students in University
Examination (%)
Valid 224 246
Missing 37 15
Mean 78.30 73.70
Std. Deviation 6.60 10.80

Contribution of Teachers, Family, and Self- Effort in the Performance of Students
Table 2
Contribution of teacher, self- efforts, family in the performance of students at school and
university level
NContributing Factors
Valid Missing
Mean
School
Level
Mean
University
level
Students’ Perception Towards Contribution of
Teachers on their Performance at School Level
256 5 28.98 20.36
Teachers on their Performance at University
level
261 0 24.24 19.21
their Self -Efforts on their Performance at
School Level
256 5 24 21.59
their self-Efforts on their Performance at
university Level
260 1 32.74 21.69
Family Efforts on their Performance at School
Level
255 6 32.69 21.86
Family Efforts on their Performance at
University Level
261 0 22.01 20.86
Table 2 depicts that students perceive that family contributes more at school
level and decreases at university level, whereas, contribution of teachers at university
level is low as compared to when they were in school. Conversely, role of self-efforts is
higher at university level. It shows that students at university rely more on their efforts.
Data explored that there is a statistically significant difference in the
perception of students about the contribution of family in their performance (t= 6.098,
p= 0.000). It provides enough evidence that students perceive that contribution of
family at university level is not equal to contribution at school level. Table 2 shows
that at school level it was 32.69.00%, whereas ay university level it has gone down to
22.01%. Based on the results we can reject the hypothesis that contribution of self-
efforts at university and school level is same.
There is a statistically significant difference in the perception of students
about the contribution of their teachers in their performance (t= -3.1093, p= 0.002).
This result provides sufficient evidence that students perceive that contribution of

teachers at university level is not equal to contribution at school level. Table 2 shows
that at school level it was 28.98%, whereas at university level it has come down to
24.24%. Based on these results we can reject the hypothesis that contribution of
teachers at university and school level is same.
It was found that there is a statistically significant difference in the perception
of students about the contribution of their self- efforts in their performance (t= -4.751,
p=0.000). These results provide sufficient evidence that students perceive that
contribution of their efforts at university level is not equal to contribution at school
level. Table 2 shows that at school level it was 24.00%, whereas at university level it
has gone up to 32.74%. Based on the results we can reject the hypothesis that
contribution of self-efforts at university and school level is same.
Discussion
The objectives of this study have been addressed into two main areas; measure
of change in the performance of student at university and at school level and the
change in the perceptions of students about different contributing factors on their
academic performance. Literature also provides a number of reports which have
successfully demonstrated a link between the academic performance of students and
the role of various factors. The most common factors are family, teacher, school
environment, and personal profile of the students (Diaz, 2003; Gianzero, 1999; Hijaz
& Naqvi, 2006). As put forward by Hijaz and Naqvi(2006) there are many ways to
consider different factors which can affect performance of students. It seems that
there is no universally accepted method to measure the performance of students. In
this context, Table 1, shows the average grades of students at school level are 78.30
%, whereas at university level it is 73.70 %. It looks that there is a negative growth
and this growth may be due to many reasons. It may be due to some difficulties in
learning process, complex studies etc. At the same time, there is a drastic change in
the perception of students (Table 2). Table 2 indicates that students feel the
contribution of teachers at school is 28.98 % and it has gone down to 24.24%. It is the
same case with contribution of family. Students view that family contribution is more
at school level (32.69 %), whereas, it decreases to 22.01% only at university level.
Moreover, students view that their self- contribution increases from 24% (at school
level) to 32.74 % (at university level).
All above discussion provides evidence that students' performance at
university level becomes low as compared to the performance in schools exams. In
addition, family and teachers’ contribution has also given a decreasing trend. Based on

the analysis, it can be concluded that low contribution of teachers and family might
have affected the performance of students in the negative direction.
References
Deutscher, R. (2004). In what ways does parent involvement affect children’s academic
performance? Paper presented at the National Association of Laboratory Schools
Conference and at the National Head Start Association Training.
Diaz, A. L. (2003). Personal, family, and academic factors affecting low achievement
in secondary school. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology and Psycho pedagogy 1(1), 43-66.
Dills, A. K. (2006). Trends in the relationship between socioeconomic status and
academic achievement [Electronic Version], from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm? abstract_id=886110
Ergul, H. (2004). Relationship between student characteristics and academic
achievement in distance education and application on students of Anadolu
University Turkish. Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 5(2).
Gianzero, G. (1999). Promoting parental involvement, improving student outcomes.
Paper presented at the San Diego Dialogue.
Hijaz, S. T., & Naqvi, S. M. M. R. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance: a
case of private colleges Bangladesh. e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1), 1-10.
Rothman, S. (2003). The changing influence of socioeconomic status on student
achievement: recent evidence from Australia. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association.
Silins, H. C., & Harvey, R. M. (2000). Students as central concern. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(3), 230-246.
Schulz, W. (2005). Measuring the socio-economic background of students and its
effect on achievement in PISA 2000 and PISA 2003. Paper presented at the
Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association.
Sweatt, S. S. (2000). The relationship among teacher expectations, teacher attitudes
toward the TAAS, and student achievement University of North Texas
UNESCO. In EFA Global Report 2005: UNESCO.
Xu, Z., & Gulosino, C. A. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of

teacher–parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and
private schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345-367.

Academic performance and perceptions about contributing

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Academic performance and perceptions about contributing (20)

More from Muhammad Mushtaq Mangat (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Academic performance and perceptions about contributing