Academically High Achieving Junior High School Students from Ghanaian Low Socio-

Economic Backgrounds

By

AMOAH, SAMUEL ASARE (PhD)

&

LARYEA, PRINCE

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of socio-economic status of student and their

academic achievements. Specifically it explored the factors that contribute to high

academic achievements of low socio-economic status of students in the Winneba

Municipality. The study was guided by the Zeegers’ model that looks at academic

performance using three variable; antecedent, mediators and criterion. Two (2)

hypotheses and one (1) research question were formulated to guide the study. Data

was collected via interviews and questionnaires using a sample size of 100 students

selected through cluster, stratified and purposive sampling techniques. From

ANOVA, t-test and thematic approach analysis, the study revealed there was no

significant difference in self-efficacy, internal locus of control and intrinsic goal

orientation with regards to the type of family of pupils (F = .207, sig. = .891, p >

0.05), neither was there gender difference regarding self-efficacy, internal locus of

control and intrinsic goal orientation (t = .342, df = 97, sig. = .733, p > .05). Factors

influencing top academic performers regardless of their socioeconomic status

include promoting active learning, developing thinking skills, enhancing motivation

and accepting individual differences. Students with higher educational aspirations

tend to have more positive academic self-concepts themselves. Irrespective of a

student’s home environment, the current study established that one major

1

contributing factor underlying students’ high academic performance is their intrinsic

goal orientation. The study recommended that precaution should be taken when it

comes to parental encouragement since unreasonably high demand and too much

pressure for good performance made by some parents on their children may cause

anxiety and fear of failure which may affect the child’s academic achievement

negatively.

2

Background

Relationship between socioeconomic home status (SES) and

student achievement has been debated for decades. Influential

arguments; Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman, 1968)

and Inequality (Jencks, Smith, Acland, & Michelson, 1973) in

the United States of America, and a number of commissioned

inquiries in Australia (Commission of Inquiry into Poverty

1976; Karmel, 1973), provides evidence to support the

assertion. For example school students from low-SES homes face

challenges such as un-conducive academic home environment,

which influences their academic success at school (Rothman,

2003).There is the other point of view that school and

neighbourhood environments influence academic success, so that

low-SES schools are generally considered low-performing, and

that only extremely resilient young people can overcome the

‘fate’ of low academic achievement (Rothman, 2003).

In most African Countries, socio-economic status (SES) of a

family is usually linked with the family’s income, parents’

educational level, parents’ occupation and social status among

the kith and kin. Ford and Harris (1997) followed this logic

while examining parental influences on African American

students’ school achievement by focusing on specific socio-

demographic factors, such as parents’ level of education,

marital status, and family income.

It is generally believed that children from high and middle

socio-economic status parents are better exposed to a learning

3

environment at home because of provision and availability of

extra learning facilities. This idea is supported by Becker

and Tomes (1979) when they asserted that it has become well

recognized that wealthy and well-educated parents ensure their

children’s future by providing them with a favourable learning

environment, better education, and good jobs. In contrast to

this belief, children from low socio-economic status parents

do not have access to adequate learning facilities; hence, the

opportunity to get to the top of their educational ladder may

not be very easy.

Problem Statement

Although family background and SES undoubtedly factor into at

risk status for poor and minority students, these variables

may only partially explain the level of academic achievement

attained. Models focusing on background characteristics cannot

explain why students possessing one or more risk

characteristics in the construct areas of self-efficacy, goal

orientations, internal locus of control and self-regulatory

learning strategies as do not drop out of school, or can they

explain why students possessing none of these characteristics

drop out. Further, reliance on these explanations seldom leads

to improvements in educational service delivery because

student backgrounds are difficult, if not impossible, to

change (Renee & Singh, 1998; p.49).

This research study investigates the factors influencing high

academic achievement among students from low socioeconomic

backgrounds in selected Public Junior High Schools (JHS) in

4

Winneba. This study seeks to challenge the already affirmed

position among the educational experts that students from low-

socioeconomic status households are bound to academic

underachievement. And more so, since, most similar studies

focused more on students’ academic failure and

underachievement than their successful experience with school.

Research Question

The study is aimed at answering the main question “What are the

factors influencing the high academic performance among students from low

socioeconomic background?”

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were raised and tested:

1. There will be no significant difference in self-efficacy,

internal locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation

with regards to the type of family of pupils.

2. There will be no sex difference in pupils’ self-efficacy,

internal locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation.

Theoretical Framework

In an attempt to enhance understanding on the factors that

contribute to the academic performance of students, Zeegers

(2004) proposes models that make use of three types of

variables. These are namely:

1. Antecedents, which are variables that involve students’

characteristics. They are independent variables that are

not necessarily influenced by others. They include

5

students’ inherent background information, such as age

and gender status

2. Mediators, which are variables that may be influenced by

other factors. According to Zeegers (2004), they include

students;’ approaches to studying, self-efficacy, self-

regulation, text anxiety, executive control, study choice

and junior high school scores.

3. Criterion, which Zeegers’ (2004) study refers to

students’ academic performance. It is the outcome measure

that is predicted by the other variables in the model.

The model type proposed by Zeegers (2004) is demonstrated in

Figure 2.1

Figure 1:Zeegers’ (2004) proposed model type of academic performance

Several studies have attempted to articulate the variables

that influence the academic performance of students in Junior

High Schools. The principles behind other proposed models

(Schweitzer, 2004) are similar to those proposed by Zeegers

(2004). According to Ofori and Charlton (2002), various

6

Antecedents

factors either have direct or indirect effects on the

criterion, which in this case is academic performance.

Relationships between variables and the criterion would be

considered to be indirect if they are being mediated through

other variables. Ofori and Charlton (2002) observe that

students’ age, for instance, is mediated through both support

seeking and entry qualifications, in relation to academic

performance. In addition, they observe internal control

beliefs to be mediated through support-seeking in relation to

academic performance.

Differences have been observed in the various models

propounded by different writers with regard to the factors

that predict academic performance of Junior High school

students. However, the factors that stand out as contributors

to academic performance of the students are ability,

motivation, which includes measures of attitudes, drives and

learning strategies, learning approaches, and personality

traits. They are further discussed in the subsequent sessions

Methodology

Research Design

The descriptive survey design, mixed approach, was adopted,

because taking the purpose of the study into consideration, it

was the most obvious and appropriate design that could lead to

the drawing of meaningful conclusions from the study.

Consequently this design was utilised to establish the factors

that significantly influence academic performance among

7

students in the groupings of gender in public Junior High

School as well as give in-depth understanding of factors

contributing to SES background.

Sample and sampling procedure

Cluster, Stratified and purposive sampling techniques were

used to select the public JHS for the study. Out of three

public JHS comprising an estimated number of 720 eligible

students, the researcher used 100 JHS students drawn from the

three (3) public schools in the municipality.

Instrument

Structured questionnaire and interview guide were used to

collect data for the study. The questionnaire was in two

sections; Section “A” dealt, with the demographics which

included age, gender, class or form of the respondents.

Section “B”, addressed 36 students’ characteristics, in the

construct areas of self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic goal

orientations (IGO), and internal locus of control (ILO) self-

regulatory learning strategies.

The student characteristics’ items were closed-ended and

provided on a 4-point Likert scale that consist of the

responses of 4= strongly disagree to 1= strongly agree, given to

positively and negatively phrased statements. Students were

asked to share the source of support in their academic

career; identify the factors that have sustained their

efforts and have contributed to their high academic

performance in school.

8

The interview guide consisted of six (6) items that centered

on factors that contributed to high academic performance

among students from low SES background.

Data Analysis Procedure

The quantitative data gathered were coded and analyzed. The

main techniques applied in testing the hypothesis and research

questions were One-way ANOVA and independent t-test samples to

establish significant differences in the means of the

groupings of gender and type of family at significant levels

of p≤0.05.

The research question was analysed through thematic analysis.

Similar ideas were grouped together to form sub-themes. These

ideas were then fitted to give one main idea and conclusions

were drawn. In some instances direct quotations that were

deemed relevant were reported verbatim. Thus reporting of data

took the form of thick description and verbatim quotations.

Findings

The study developed on the premise of two null hypotheses

which were tested and tabulated as well as research questions:

Hypothesis1: There will be no significant difference in self-efficacy, internal

locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation with regards to the type of family of

pupils.

Table 1: Summary of one way between-subjects ANOVA results

Item BothParent Father Motheronly Eldersibl F Sig.

9

s only ings

M SD M SD M SD M SDSE 2.77 2.45 2.96 .58 3.11 .63 2.97 .36 .207 .891ILC 2.60 .47 2.64 .54 2.61 .57 2.72 .39 .150 .930IGO 3.04 .51 3.02 .54 3.14 .42 3.12 .33 .368 .776

*p <0.05(2-tailed)

From Table 1, it can be seen that pupils living with their

mothers only had the greatest number of self-efficacy (mean =

3.11). Statistically, it was highly significant. There was no

significant difference in mean (F = .207, sig. = .891, p >

0.05).

With regards to internal locus of control, pupils living with

elder siblings have the highest mean (mean = 2.72). There was

no significant difference in mean (F = .150, sig. = .930, p >

0.05).

Lastly, pupils staying with mothers only had the greatest mean

with regards to intrinsic goal orientation (mean = 3.14).

There was no statistically significant difference (F = .368,

sig. = .776, p > 0.05).

It can then be concluded that the hypothesis that there will

be no significant difference in self-efficacy, internal locus

of control and intrinsic goal orientation with regards to the

type of family of pupils is accepted.

Results from the findings showed no self-efficacy, internal

locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation with regards

to the type of family of pupils. This finding was consistent

10

with studies (Tuckman, 1999; Carroll & Garavalia, 2004)

investigating the attitudes of self- efficacy and locus of

control to be predictors of the academic performance of

students in relation to their type of family. Results of these

studies revealed that the type of family students belong to

was an influential factor in their academic performance. In

that the motivation of a student to learn, in turn, is

influenced either by the parents, elder siblings or other

relatives as well as theindividual's emotional states,

beliefs, interests, goals and thoughts.

The results with the available literature could be as a result

of the background of the students who participated in the

study, the parental and guardian support variables of the

sample revealed that majority of the students reside with both

parents, and elder siblings who had obtained a higher level of

education to influence and motivate their wards academically

and therefore it is possible these parents’ experience

influenced the students responses in this study. This result

however does add to the available literature on the

significant impact the family type has on academic performance

among students from low socioeconomic background. On the other

hand, the results was inconsistent with studies (Smith, 2001;

Buchman, 2001; Wilson & Corpus, 2005) exploring the self-

efficacy and intrinsic goal orientation of students. Their

findings revealed that there is significant difference in

self-efficacy, and intrinsic goal orientation with regards to

the type of family a person may belong. It further states the

variables are distinct as far as academic performance is

11

concerned. A person may belong to a well renowned group of

kinship but yet achieve poorly academically whereas a person

may achieve highly from a very low background. The students’

belief in their own capability to achieve, perform and apply

skills could cause them to experience a sense of control over

their learning and achieve academic excellence.

12

Hypothesis2: There will be no sex difference in pupils’ self-efficacy, internal

locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation.

Table 2: Independentsamples t-testofsexwith thedependentvariables

Item Male Female t Df Sig.

M SD M SDSE 2.73 2.52 3.05 .52 -.85 97 .399ILC 2.56 .52 2.67 2.56 -1.14 97 .259IGO 3.09 .52 3.06 3.09 .34 97 .733

*p <0.05(2-tailed)

From Table 2, it can be seen that the females’ mean scores for

their self-efficacy was more (mean = 3.05) than that of the

male pupils (mean = 2.73). From an independent sample t-test

analysis, there was no statistically significant difference

between the two groups (t = -.847, df = 97, Sig. = .399, p

> .05).

With internal locus of control, the test shows that female

pupils’ mean scores was more (mean = 2.67) than that of the

male pupils (mean = 2.56). There was no statistically

significant difference (t = -1.136, df = 97, Sig. = .259, p >

0.05) on intrinsic goal orientation, the test shows that male

pupils mean scores (mean = 3.09) was more than that of female

pupils (mean = 3.06). Similarly, the test of significance

shows that there was no statistically significant difference

between the two independent groups (t = .342, df = 97, sig.

= .733, p > .05).

In conclusion there was no sex difference in pupils’ self-

efficacy, internal locus of control and intrinsic goal

13

orientation. Although differences were observed between the

means of the male and female students in relation to their

school attendance, levels of self-efficacy, internal locus of

control, and intrinsic goal orientations, the mean differences

were considered to be insignificant.

Results from the findings showed no sex difference in pupils’

self-efficacy, internal locus of control and intrinsic goal

orientation. This finding was inconsistent with studies (Yip &

Chung, 2005; Harackiewicz, 2002; Eppler, 2000) investigating

the effects of student characteristics on their level of self-

efficacy, and intrinsic goal orientation in predicting

academic performance. Results of these studies revealed that

the students’ sex was an influential factor in predicting

their academic performance in schools with female students

providing lower scores on school attendance than male

students; male students more often attend to school activities

as well as being more active in their academic pursuit than

their female counterparts who are challenged by cultural,

social and home obligations and aspirations. The females are

often branded to be homemakers and need not compete with their

male counterparts academically since after all they will

definitely be needed so much in family and home affairs as

compared to the significant roles their male counterparts

would have to play in future. This result further adds to the

available literature on sex differences in self-efficacy,

internal locus of control and intrinsic goal orientation in

predicting the academic performance of students.

14

Performance of Students from low socioeconomic background

During the key informant discussion, about 33.4% of teachers

are fully satisfied with the academic standard of students

from low socioeconomic backgrounds, whiles 53.3% of teachers

are satisfied to a certain extent because though their

performance is above average in relation to the general

students’ performance in class, the students can still do

better, and 13.3% of teachers are slightly satisfied with the

academic standard of students.

To further explain their position, a teacher disclosed that:

in view of students’ low socioeconomic background and the

facilities in the school which is woefully inadequate, the

performance of students from low socioeconomic

background is encouraging even though some students can

still do better than their present academic performance

(male JHS teacher).

Another female JHS teacher recounted that:

The exceptional students in my class are two students (i.e.

male and female) who are from a very poor socioeconomic

background in Winneba but yet they perform incredibly.

Sometimes it baffles me to know what actually their secret

is. I personally enquire from them and the fact is they

have determined and declared to themselves to achieve

better than what their parents could not do no matter their

difficulties.

15

School facilities influence on students’ performance

A male JHS teacher stated

one of the top students in my class from low SES who I

admire so much said that being given the freedom to

choose and do what she likes is one of the reasons that

contribute to her excellent academic results. This is about

doing things or even learning things in ways or styles or

zones that are comfortable and conducive to the students.

Comfortable and conducive zones are those with which the

student identifies or has some affinity with.

In a similar study by Mclnerney (2000), Teachers can create

effective learning zones in the classroom by seating, for

example a verbally confident student next to a reflective

student, or a student strong in mathematics with a student

less confident in the subject or even a student who presents

work well with a student who is not so careful or creative

with presentation.

According to Azizi (2003), Students have different strategies,

approaches, and capabilities for learning that are related to

prior experience. Individuals are born with and develop their

own capabilities, skills and talents. In addition, through

learning and social upbringing, they have acquired their own

preferences for how they like to learn and the pace at which

they learn.

However, these preferences are not always useful in helping

learners reach their learning goals. There is no ideal or

16

perfect learning strategy and this must be accepted as normal

by teachers.

The discussion also examined the various factors within the

school environment that might influence or contribute to the

high academic achievement of students from low socioeconomic

backgrounds.

Our educational institutions are suffering from several

inadequacies: insufficient number of proper classrooms,

desks, chalkboards, laboratory facilities, etc. Lack of proper

finance is one of the key factors. The government is

providing funds to further its educational policy but

misappropriation, misuse of funds caused by bureaucratic

red tape causes educational dislocation a male teacher

disclosed.

A teacher revealed that it does not require any elaboration

that libraries, computer laboratories, co-curricular

activities like excursions, debates, guidance information from

experts, parent-teacher associations are necessary components

of a proper educational system for these students from low

socioeconomic background to achieve higher academic standards

in the public (government) schools. A perusal of the school

environment, exhibits that the schools are generally lagging

behind in all these spheres.

A statement by a female teacher hinted that

It is often remarked that our schools do not improve and

extend their knowledge, which is limited to the textbooks

17

and they do not acquire the ability to think beyond what

they are taught in school. The administrators and

educationists sadly criticize students who do not devote

their time to studies. They have no reading habits and no

thirst for the acquisition of knowledge.

The question was “do we provide our students the opportunities

to enlarge their awareness and information? What opportunities

are available to talented and ordinary students? Do we create

thirst and curiosity for the acquisition of knowledge?” The

answer was that they do not because the available facilities

are extremely limited. Unfortunately, in some institutions

they do not utilize them properly.

Generally there have been some provision of books and one

teacher is deputed for the care of these books. Some of

these books are kept in the staff room or in the secretary’s

office. There is no librarian kept for this purpose. Limited

accessibility curtails knowledge, a female teacher

remarked.

It was also gathered that excursions and educational trips are

most significant for educational attainment and social

development of children. Students obtain a lot of knowledge by

visiting Kwame Nkrumah museum, parliament house, etc. and other

industrial companies like Nestle Ghana Limited, Ghana Ports

and Harbour Authority, etc. they see everything with their own

eyes and observe the practical application of the theoretical

knowledge which they study in textbooks. In spite of awareness

of the value of sports and co-curricular activities, very few

18

educational institutions provide the students with these

facilities in an appropriate manner.

In the case of rewards which implies a form of appreciation

for an attainment and which does not have to be essentially in

the form of a material possession but instead, a word of

approval, a smile, or a pat on the back, is also lacking in

the school. Awards motivate children towards the best

achievements. They create healthy competition among students

and bring out their latent potentialities. It also makes a

profound imprint on children’s behaviour. Jones (2008) found

that, when positive techniques, in the form of praise,

encouragement, or balanced criticism, are used in schools,

desirable responses outweigh the undesirable in the ratio of

46 to 1. Even children who at first seem recalcitrant later

show desirable responses.

The above discoveries indicate that rewards create a positive

effect and a competitive attitude not only among students, but

also on people pertaining to different professions. Despite

such profound importance of rewards in relation to building

good educational characteristics of students, the institutions

in the study area are not giving proper importance to it.

Teachers affirmed that there are virtually no significant

factors and strategies within the school environment that

forestalls the academic performance of students even when it

comes to those from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Conclusion

19

Irrespective of a student’s home environment, the current

study has established the fact that one major contributing

factor underlying students’ high academic performance in

school is centered on intrinsic goal orientation.Students with

higher educational aspirations tend to have more positive

academic self-concepts. They are more engaged in schools and

have higher hopes for their life long education than students

with low educational aspirations.

However, students with low intrinsic goal orientation who

heavily rely on extrinsic goal orientation are bound not to

achieve highly in their academic since the facilities

available alone cannot signify higher academic performance.

Students play critical role to be high achievers as a result

of:

Effective learning strategies or styles,

Learninggoals,

Ability to build on knowledge and

Strategic thinking.

Family influences, positive interpersonal support and

instruction in self-motivation strategies can offset factors

that interfere with optimal learning such as negative beliefs

about competence in a particular subject, high levels of test

anxiety, and undue pressure to perform well. Positive learning

climates can also help to establish the context for healthier

levels of thinking, feeling, and behaving to help students

feel safe to share ideas, actively participate in the learning

process, and create a learning community.

20

Recommendations

Precaution should be taken when it comes to parental

encouragement since unreasonably high demand and too much

pressure for good performance made by some parents on

their children may cause anxiety and fear of failure

which may affect the child’s academic achievement

negatively.

Parents need to set achievable targets for their children

to enhance their academic achievement motivation.

Government and educationist should attempt to improve the

attitude of students to academic work by providing

libraries and laboratories for practicals, so that the

learning experiences of the students can become more

meaningful and at the same time interesting.

Reference

Azizi, A. (2003). Socioeconomic background of parents of higher learning.

Pretoria, South Africa: Prentice-Hall

Becker, G.S., & Tomes, N. (1979). An Equilibrium Theory of the

Distribution of Income and Inter-generational mobility.

Journal of Political Economy, 87, 1153-1189.

Buchman, T. (2001). Online implementation of an IPIP five

factor personality inventory. Online report.

Carroll, C.A., & Garavalia, L.S. (2004). Factors contributing

to the achievement of pharmacy students: Use of the goal-

efficacy framework. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68, 4,

88.

Coleman, J.S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington,

DC: US Government Printing Office.

21

Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1976). Poverty and education in

Australia. Fifth mainreport. (R.T. Fitzgerald, Commissioner). Canberra:

AGPS.

Eppler, M. A. (2000). Achievement goal, failure attributions

and academic performance of non-traditional and traditional

college students. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 15, 3,

353-372

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. III., (1997). A Study of the

racial identity and Achievement of Black males and females.

Roeper Rev. 20, 105-110

Harackiewicz, J.M. (2002). Predicting success in college: A

longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability

measures as predictors of interest and performance from

freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,

3.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., & Michelson, S. (1973).

Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New

York: Basic Books.

Jones, E. (2008). Enhancing academic performance. Journal of

Educational for Business. 77, 25-45

Karmel, P. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee.

Canberra: AGPS.

Mclnerney, E. (2000). Academic performance among students from

high socioeconomic background. Journal of Higher Education, 3, 71-89

Ofori, R. & Charlton, J.P. (2002). Issues and innovations in

nursing education: a path model of factors influencing the

academic performance of nursing students. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 38, 507 -515

22

Rothman, S. (2003) The gifted child movement in New South Wales: public

schools and the new class. Unpublished MEd thesis, University of

New England, Armidale, NSW.

Smith, P. A. (2001). Understanding self-regulated learning and

its implications for accounting educators and

researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 16, 4, 1-38

Tuckman, B.W. (1999). A triplicate model of motivation for

achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Psychological Association, Boston.

Wilson, L.M. & Corpus, D.A. (2005).The effects of reward

systems on academic performance. Middle School Journal Research

Articles.Retrieved fromwww.che.go.ke

Yip, M.C.W., & Chung, O.L.L. (2005). Relationship of study

strategies and academic performance in different learning

phases of higher education in Hong Kong. Educational Research

and Evaluation, 2, 61-70

Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: a

path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher

Education Research & Development, 23, 1, 35 – 56.

23