New Users

  • Odoh
  • lilianangel
  • psalmy77s
  • justicemarv
  • Hailey
Powered by Spearhead Software Labs Joomla Facebook Like Button

Login

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Click Here to Download

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

Education is universally recognized as an instrument for social, political, scientific and technological development. This is the reason why no society can afford to toy with the education of its citizens as this could result in a snail speed development. Education is generally seen as an aggregate of all the processes by which a child or young adult develops his/her abilities, attitudes and other forms of behaviour which are of value to the society in which he lives. It is a conscious training of the young to a life which would be useful to him and to the society to which he belongs. Ohiwerei (2005) considers education as the development of person’s head, heart and hands for his self-fulfilment and optimum service to humanity.

Hence, education has continued to be important and this is why there has been a growing concern in the last few years about the quality of education that is offered in the nation’s schools, especially in tertiary level of education. This is because higher education is a prerequisite for the scientific and technological development of the nation. According to Peretomode and Chukwuma (2007), higher education is the facilitator, the bedrock, the power house and the driving force for the strong socio-economic, political, cultural, healthier and industrial development of a nation, as higher education institutions are key mechanisms increasingly recognized as wealth and human capital producing industries.

College of education as a form of higher education is one of the post-secondary education institutions in Nigeria, designed specifically to train and prepare students for the teaching industry. Colleges of Education are teacher education institutions which have as their objective the production of highly motivated, conscientious and efficient classroom teachers for the primary and post-primary levels of our educational system (Ogbonnaya, 2010). Colleges of Education is the institution solely meant for the training of teachers. It is a vehicle for economic and social development in different parts of the world. They have the responsibilities of equipping individuals with knowledge and skill required for positions of responsibilities in government, business and other spheres of life. The crucial roles Colleges of Education play in the education of future leaders and development of high level manpower cannot be overemphasized. However, these roles can only be played with proper management in place.

Hence, the success of any educational institution depends solely upon its management, which encompasses the organization and coordination of humans and materials within the institution in the most rational and efficient manner to achieve its desired goals. Management is the social interactional and economic process involving a sequence of coordinated events such as planning, organizing, and the control of available human and material resources to achieve desired outcomes. Management is considered effective if outlined objectives of an organization are to be accomplished and this can be done through careful and systematic arrangement and use of resources in a faster and efficient way. At the heart of management of colleges of education is the rector, who is the administrative head and works with both academic and non-academic staff of the institution to achieve the objectives of the institution.

In the administration of colleges of education, the administrator as key personnel is central. He is at the helms of affairs. He therefore receives all praises and blames. The jobs of the administrator in colleges of education has progressively become more complex and highly hazardous. For instance, lots of duties are supposed to be done by him/her, including administration of curriculum and teaching, assessment, evaluation and examination, resource allocation, costing and forward planning, staff appraisal, relationship with community and use of practical skills necessary for surviving the policies of organization (Ojo, 1999).

It is a fact that the aims and objectives of education cannot be achieved until and unless educational policies are properly implemented which is the basic responsibility of administrators of the schools. They are supposed to play very active part in formation and execution of organizational policies and must be a change agent to face the incoming challenges of the system. According to Maduabum (2002), the administrator is a planner, director, controller, coordinator, organizer, advisor and a problem solver. He/she is a person who identifies and shoulders the set goals and objectives of institutions which are according to national needs.

Countries that have an effective system of educational administration also happen to be the leaders of the world, both socially and economically. The major responsibility of school administrators is to uplifts the standard of teaching and learning in classroom. He/she must be capable of supporting teachers, classroom instruction through instructional supervision, professional development and classroom resources. Sindhvad (2009, as cited in Jamil, Khan, Ramzan, Malik, Muhammad, Uzma & Tahirullah, 2012) opined that school administrator’s confidence motivates teachers in classroom activities and their participation in instructional leadership programme.

Observations made by the researcher and comments by some major stakeholders including academic and non-academic union leaders however show that certain behaviour manifested by administrators of colleges of education in the country (especially Delta State) leave much to be desired. For example, they are weak, uncoordinated and lack administrative skills. Some do not have administrative knowledge or skills. According to Taiwo (1980) in Ekaette (2001), a lot of higher education system managers do not possess the charisma, or good human relations needed for effective and efficient leadership. They are characterized by obsolete traditional personnel administration style. As a result of the poor leadership and ineffective style of administration, a lot of programme of activities are not carried out in such institutions such as provision of grant for research and publications, staff welfare is neglected, no adequate control of staff and students, no vision for the colleges. Such leaders also do not have the zeal for supervision and monitoring of institutional activities. This can affect the systems performance in that, workers can result to a nonchalant attitude toward work and hence no sustainability or continuality of good track records of performance in the system.

A lot of reasons have been adjudged to be responsible for this abysmal failure of the administrators of colleges of education in the country. These reasons include inadequate infrastructures (Salisu, 2001), lack of political will (Ade-Ajaye, 2003), work environment (Akuezuilo, 2007), inadequate funding and over population in the university (Udida, Bassey, Udofia & Egbona, 2009). However, often neglected area, which is of interest to this study is educational facilities.

Educational facilities, which consists of all types of buildings used for academic and non-academic purpose, equipment, classroom facilities, furniture, instructional materials, audio-visual aids, toilet, ICT, library, laboratory materials and others play a pivotal role to the smooth running of teaching and learning process. As Buckley, Schneider and Shang (2004) stated, educational facilities enable the teacher to accomplish his/her task as well and help the learner to learn and achieve effectively. A discussion of educational facilities will naturally focus on the availability, adequacy and utilization of these facilities. This is particularly true as the availability, adequacy and utilization of these facilities will contribute to effective management of colleges of education while unattractive school buildings, crowded classrooms, non-availability of playground and flowerbeds and surroundings that have no aesthetic beauty will not only frustrate management, but can contribute to poor performance.

Availability of educational facilities refers to the provision made in this regard to the colleges for effective teaching and learning. Provision of educational facilities should be among the very first preparation necessary for opening a new school. Adesina (1980) corroborated this view by insisting that proprietors opening new schools should be aware of existing regulations on provision of educational facilities. For instance, Uzoechina (2014) reported that the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) among several other responsibilities usually carry out a resource visit to any new College of Education whether public or private to ascertain the extent of availability of educational facilities for its programmes. Consequently, proprietors of both public and private colleges of education ought to ensure that provisions are made for these facilities as availability of such facilities as lecture halls, classrooms, administrative blocks, students’ hostels, football fields, lawns, paths among others is a pre-requisite for approval of any college of Education in Nigeria. The unavailability of these facilities to teach the students are likely to lead to poor learning outcomes and also affects the lecturers output thereby frustrating the managers of such institutions. However, in most colleges, especially in Delta State, where these facilities are available, there is also the question of their adequacy for the management of colleges of education.

Ozioko (2014) defined adequacy as a state of being sufficient. Also citing the Oxford English Dictionary, she referred to adequacy as being sufficient or satisfying a requirement. Educational facilities are expected to be adequately provided to create favourable environment for the management of colleges of education, which will in turn enhance learning. The National Commission for Colleges of Education set out criteria for determining the adequacy of facilities. For instance, a standard chemistry laboratory is meant to serve only 50 students at a time and would be considered inadequate when utilized by more than that number of students. It is however not uncommon that facilities in most colleges of education in Delta State are dilapidated and inadequate to provide quality education service delivery. For instance, Afolabi (2002) reported that the classrooms in most of the schools were inadequate in terms of decency, space, ventilation and insulation from heat; the incinerators and urinal were not conveniently placed, and the school plant was poorly maintained; these combined deficiencies constituted a major gap in the quality of management of these institutions of learning, thus the attendant result of non-attainment of the set standards and goals of these colleges. The adequacy of most of these facilities however, will only be meaningful if they are well utilised.

Olagboye (2004) viewed utilization of educational facilities as the extent of usage of school buildings, laboratories, library, assembly-ground, flower garden, school garden, volleyball field, chairs, desks, chalkboard, and so on. Uguru and Abdullahi (2007) agrees that the goal of functional education is to prepare its beneficiaries with all it takes to adjust well in the societies, contribute meaningfully to the development of the society, and as well live a fulfilled life. It was therefore stressed that the above is possible through effective utilization of educational facilities in the management of these colleges of education. In some Colleges of Education in Delta State, the few educational facilities that are available are old and not properly installed due to lack of fund. There are instances where some of these facilities are available but the lecturers are not able to utilize them in teaching and learning process as a result of lack of skills. Also in some of these colleges, some modern equipment such as sophisticated sewing machines, computer machines, wood cutters and others are not used by lecturers because of their inability to use them. Overstretched of available physical space and facilities due to over enrolment as noted by Famade (cited in Akinfolarin, Ajayi & Oloruntegbe, 2012) are there too. All these have great consequences on the outcome of the programme. Also, too much pressure on their use could result in over utilization, a situation that could lead to rapid deterioration and breakdown. For instance, when a classroom built to accommodate 40 students is constantly being used for 60 students then the returns from these facilities may not be maximized in terms of teaching and learning. Comfortable learning facilities will not only boost the morale of teachers and students but will also ensure the realization of the set goals of these colleges. Kitheka (2005) noted that schools with abundant resources may not always utilize them efficiently and consequently fail to raise student’s level of performance. On the other hand schools with limited resources may utilize what they have efficiently and this may boost learning thus school managements should be able to maximize and utilize available resources so as to adequately achieve educational objectives. Similarly, Wanjiku (2013), citing Ngala noted that utilization of available resources is more important than the quantity. This is supported by Cohen et al (2003) who points out that it is not making resources available to schools that matters, but getting those resources utilized by administrators, teachers and students to achieve optimum result.

There are basically two reasons why educational facilities are important in colleges of education. Firstly, use of dilapidated school buildings and grounds that are unsafe or unsuitable for modern functional education purposes will lead to the production of mediocre products. Such colleges cannot attain excellence in teaching and learning since teachers cannot discover giftedness in non-functional college environment. Secondly, modernization of college facilities is a prerequisite in this era of modern technology and science. Facilities and equipment constitute a strategic factor in organizational functioning and determine to a very large extent the smooth functioning of any social organization or system including education (Owoeye & Yara, 2010).

Similarly, availability, adequacy and utilization of instructional resources promote effective teaching and learning activities in schools while their inadequacy and/or unavailability may affect the academic performance of the learner negatively. The success of any system is a function of the available resources to run the system. Teaching facilities and equipment help to stimulate the interest of the students. Whenever these facilities and equipment are optimally utilized, they generate greater students’ interest in the learning system and also enhance retention of ideas. One of the issues of great controversy among educators in tertiary institutions today is the issue of the poor state of equipment and facilities. Umunadi (2011) argues that the problem is either that of inadequate equipment required for teaching the students that is responsible for the quality of graduate the colleges produce or that it is the manner of utilization of the available equipment and facilities in the colleges.

A cursory look at the states’ colleges of education seems to show that the schools are struggling with limited resources and dilapidated/out-dated instructional facilities. Furthermore, it appears that Nigerians in the last few years are dissatisfied with the outputs of these schools of learning. The classrooms seem overcrowded with little or no relevant and adequate learning facilities. Even the school personnel appear to be in short supply. In view of this, Oyeniyi (2010) maintained that by inference, instructional resources have been positively linked with educational efficiency, students’ academic performance and their capabilities when they leave school. This unwholesome situation of education in Nigeria has subsequently brought a growing concern about the quality and quantity of trained teachers and facilities in our schools. Even the National Policy on Education (2004) pointed out that the government is aware that only limited equipment and facilities exist for teachers at different levels.

Notably, availability of educational facilities in Colleges of Education in the state does not guarantee their adequacy and effective utilization. It is then necessary to assess them based on the factors raised as availability, adequacy and poor utilization constitute serious hindering factors in administrators’ effectiveness. This study therefore will examine the availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Delta State.

Statement of the Problem

Observations have shown that the colleges of Education in Delta State are in an abyssal state. A situation where some of the administrators do not possess the charisma, or good human relations needed for effective and efficient leadership. They are characterized by obsolete traditional personnel administration style, do not have the zeal for supervision and monitoring of institutional activities. This situation can spell doom for the performance of the systems in that, workers can result to nonchalant attitudes toward work and hence no sustainability or continuality of good track records of performance in the system. Reasons have been adjudged to be responsible for these poor effectiveness including availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities. This is so because, a workman, no matter how skilled, efficient and professional he/she is, will still need working tools for his/her work. It is rather unfortunate that most of these educational facilities are inexistence in colleges of education in the state. Where they exist, they are not adequate for the smooth running of the colleges. Also, there is a problem of utilization. Most of these educational facilities, where they exist and in adequate capacity, are either underutilized or over-utilized. The problem of this study therefore, is, to what extent will the availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities influence school administrators’ effectiveness in Delta State Colleges of Education?

Research Questions

The following research questions will guide the study:

  1. To what extent are educational facilities available in colleges of education in Delta State?
  2. To what extent are educational facilities adequate in colleges of education in Delta State?
  3. To what extent are educational facilities utilised in colleges of education in Delta State?
  4. What is the nature of the relationship between availability of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State?
  5. What is the degree of relationship between adequacy of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State?
  6. What is the nature of the relationship between utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:

  1. There is no significant difference in the availability of educational facilities among the various colleges of education in Delta State
  2. There is no significant difference in the adequacy of educational facilities among the various colleges of education in Delta State
  3. There is no significant difference in the utilization of educational facilities among the various colleges of education in Delta State
  4. There is no significant relationship between availability of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State
  5. There is no significant relationship between adequacy of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State
  6. There is no significant relationship between utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education. Superficially the study will:

  1. Determine the extent to which educational facilities are available in colleges of education in Delta State
  2. Find out the extent to which educational facilities are adequate in colleges of education in Delta State?
  3. Assess the extent to which educational facilities are utilised in colleges of education in Delta State
  4. Examine the relationship between availability of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State
  5. Assess the relationship between adequacy of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State
  6. Determine the relationship between utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will be useful to school administrators, lecturers, students, ministry of higher education and other researchers.

School administrators will benefit from the outcome of this study in that it will show how the state educational facilities influence their effectiveness, the need for urgent attention towards the provision of these facilities in adequate capacity and the need to put them into productive use.

The outcome of this study will also be useful to Lecturers as it will expose the benefit of having educational facilities which will improve the teaching and learning process and how to effectively utilize these facilities to achieve optimum performance.

The study will also benefit from the study as they are the end users of the educational facilities. When these are provided in the right quantity, they will benefit from their use as their academic performance will be enhanced through the facilities.

The outcome of this study will encourage the ministry of higher education on the need for adequate provision of educational facilities to colleges of education across the state and the need to monitor their utilization.

This study will provide an empirical data for other researchers who may be interested in similar studies.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study will focus on the influence of availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness. The study will be delimited to colleges of education in Delta State.

Operational Definition of Terms

Availability: In this study, availability is referred to as the presence of educational facilities across the colleges of education in Delta State

Adequacy: This is used in this study to mean the extent to which the available educational facilities are sufficient and in the right quantity in colleges of education across Delta State.

Utilization: This is referred to in this study to mean the extent of putting the educational facilities in the Colleges of Education across Delta State into productive use.

Educational Facilities: In this study, educational facilities referred to as those facilities which aids teaching and learning in colleges of education across Delta State. such facilities include classroom, offices, chalkboard, chairs, laboratories, tables, etc.

School Administrator: This is referred to in this study to mean an individual or group of individuals who are responsible to the day-day to management of colleges of education across Delta State.

Effectiveness: As used in this study, this is the extent to which the school administrator(s) perform his/her job well to an acceptable standard.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter will deal with a review of literatures related to this study. This will be done under the following sub-headings:

  • Theoretical Framework
  • Concept of Educational Facilities
  • Availability of Educational Facilities
  • Adequacy of Educational Facilities
  • Utilization of Educational Facilities
  • Availability of Educational Facilities and School Administrators’ Effectiveness
  • Adequacy of Educational Facilities and School Administrators’ Effectiveness
  • Utilization of Educational Facilities School Administrators’ Effectiveness
  • Summary of Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

This study drew upon Bertalanffy (1968) theory known as System Theory. According to this theory, a system can be said to consist of four things. The first is objects – the parts, elements, or variables within the system. These may be physical or abstract or both, depending on the nature of the system. Second, a system consists of attributes – the qualities or properties of the system and its objects. Third, a system has internal relationships among its objects. Fourth, systems exist in an environment. A system, then, is a set of things that affect one another within an environment and form a larger pattern that is different from any of the parts (Infante, Rancer & Womack, 1997).

According to Infante, et. al. (1997), the fundamental systems-interactive paradigm of organizational analysis features the continual stages of input, throughput (processing), and output. Several system characteristics are: wholeness and interdependence (the whole is more than the sum of all parts), correlations, perceiving causes, chain of influence, hierarchy, supra-systems and subsystems, self-regulation and control, goal-oriented, interchange with the environment, inputs/outputs, the need for balance/homeostasis, change and adaptability (morphogenesis) and equifinality.

This study was guided by the System Theory because schools are systems where the teaching/learning process is observed as a throughput (process) used to transform inputs students and resources into outputs (graduates with different skills and attitudes). In schools we also observe an interrelation between teachers, resources and students which constitute a sine quoi none condition for the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process. Realistically, any school has objectives to achieve and achieving them requires it to treat all the elements involved in the process (inputs like students, teachers and resources; throughput like teaching methods and outputs like graduates with different skills and attitudes) as interdependent.

Concept of Educational Facilities

Educational facilities according to the Federal Ministry of Education (FME, 2000) are classrooms, libraries, laboratories, workshops, school buildings, playfields, school farms, garden, electrical fixtures, the school environment, toilet facilities and portable water while human resources to include among others teachers, workshop attendance as well as the school administrators. Also, Ogbodo in Dodo, Ajiki and Abimiku (2010) see educational facilities to include those materials resources that facilitate teaching and learning in the schools. To them, these include; teachers, laboratories, workshops, teaching aids and devices such as modern educational hardware and software in form of magnetic tapes, films and transparencies. Ehiamelator in Dodo, et al (2010) sees educational facilities as operational inputs of every instructional programme. That is to say, they are inputs which aid the teacher to achieve some level of instructional efficiency and effectiveness.

Likewise, Offorma (2005) sees educational facilities as any material that facilitates teaching and learning activities and consequently the attainment of the lesson objectives. The relevance of educational facilities cannot be over emphasised in our colleges of Education. Anything a teacher used to achieve instructional objectives is called instructional materials. By implication the availability of the resource make meaningful conclusion in the teaching and learning and hence sustain development and human capacity.

School facilities form an integral part of the educational system and are observed as a potent factor to qualitative and quantitative education. According to Akande (1985), learning can occur through one’s interaction with the environment. Environment here refers to facilities that are available to facilitate students’ learning outcomes. Such environment includes the library, laboratory, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) centre etc. adequately equipped and properly utilized for efficient and effective learning. According to Oni (1992), facilities constitute a strategic factor in organizational functioning. This is so because they determined to a very large extent the smooth functioning of any social organization or system including schools. He further stated that their availability, adequacy and relevance influence efficiency and high productivity.

Osakunih (2002, cited in Ugwuanyi, 2013) defined educational facilities as facilities, equipment, supplies and personnel utilized in teaching physical education in schools. Also National Teachers Institute (2002) defines educational acilities as human, material and finance available in teaching and learning in schools. They are therefore all those facilities, equipment, supplies, fund as well as personnel used in implementing the educational programme in schools. The place of personnel, facilities, equipment and supplies as well as fund in the effective implementation of the school education programme is a prominent one. They are the hub on which the school education revolves.

The human resources are the personnel involved in teaching of students in the schools. Mgbor (2002) indicated that poor staffing in terms of number of teachers, their level of preparation and motivation constitute major constraint to effective learning. In other words, for the programme to be successful there is need for adequate number of teachers that are professionally trained and motivated. According to Mgbodile, Ogbonnaya, Enyi, Oboegulem and Onwura (2004) no country can move forward politically, socially and economically without adequate human and material resources. They added that abundant human resources represent potential for educational development, but education development of people is necessary to translate such potential into per capita income. Longe, Uwadia and Longe (2005) opined that it is the responsibility of our educational system to provide graduates with the background and skills necessary to be successful in their chosen fields of endeavour. Longe et al (2005) noted that the decline of staff quality is a consequence of obsolete and inadequate teaching and learning facilities in schools.

Olagboye (2004) stated that educational facilities consist of instructional resources such as audio and visual aids, graphics, printed materials. Display materials and consumable materials. They also include physical resources such as land, building, furniture, equipment, machinery, vehicles, electricity and water supply infrastructure. In another dimension, Ojedele (2004) identified three components of educational faculties. These are school infrastructure, such as buildings and playgrounds; instructional Facilities (teaching-learning materials, equipment and furniture) and school physical environment (beautification of the school environment). Thus, there are different kinds of facilities that could be used for teaching and learning purposes. They are located within and outside school premises (Abdulkareem, 2012).

Availability of Educational Facilities and School Administrators’ Effectiveness

The basic facilities needed for the implementation of this programme are still not fully provided by the government. Few schools are being renovated while no new ones are being built where there are none. Most of the renovation works are in the hands of the politicians who are not interested in executing the jobs according to specification. Even in some areas where the Secretaries of Local Education Boards were given the money to ensure that the Head Teacher executed the projects, the Secretaries gave them money far below the cost of the jobs. The implication is that the jobs were not completed (Lawanson & Tari, 2011).

The facilities provided by government for the execution of education projects in Nigeria are inadequate and irregular as highlighted by the frequency of industrial actions in the education sector. Moreover, due to the general level of poverty in the country, the contributions of communities and households to educational provision have been negligible. Consequently, the best alternative is prudence in the use of available resources. This is because when a given level of resources is efficiently utilized, more services are provided and more goods are produced than when inefficiency abounds. Prudence in the use of education resources begins with the identification and exploration of all sources of resources relevant to education. It also includes the careful harnessing, rational distribution, efficient utilization and adequate maintenance of the identified resources (Agab, 2010).

The relevance of the presence of facilities, equipment and supplies to the smooth running of school physical education programme has been severally emphasized in the literature (Mgbor, 2005). The level of success of most colleges of education programmes is greatly dependent on the degree of availability of equipment and facilities as these form the hub around which such programmes revolve. Longman (2003) explains available as something that is able to be used or can easily be found and used. In other words they are those resources that are committable or usable upon demand to perform their designated or required function.

Writing on availability of school facilities and academic achievement Owoeye (2011) opined that availability of school facilities is a potent factor to quantitative education. According to them the importance of provision of instructional facilities for teaching and learning in the education sector cannot be over-emphasized. The authors added; “teaching is inseperable from learning but learning is not seperable from teaching”. According to them this means that teachers do the teaching to make the students learn, but students can learn without the teachers. They added that learning can occur through one’s interaction with one’s environment. Environment here refers to facilities that are available to facilitate students learning outcome.

Salami (1999) in Akin-Taylor and Aboyomi (2008) noted that availability of adequate facilities and equipment is of vital importance in physical education. The author added that funding or financing is equally an important factor affecting the implementation of the school physical education programme.

Afework (2014) studied the availability of school facilities and their effects on the quality of education in government primary schools of Harari Regional State and East Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. The study sample was selected through simple random sampling technique and available sampling techniques. School principals, district and regional education bureau heads were the sample of the research. The data collection instruments were questionnaire, interview and observation. The data analysis was done using statistical tools such as percentages, frequencies, means and grand means. Research result showed that the availability of school facilities and instructional materials were unavailable, less in quantity and quality that created a great challenge on teaching and learning activities that in turn had a negative impact on the improvement of the quality of education.

Ekundayo (2012) studied school facilities as correlates of students’ achievement in the affective and psychomotor domains of learning. The study was a descriptive research design of the survey type. The population consisted of all the teachers in public secondary schools in south-west Nigeria. The sample was however made up of 1200 teachers from 60 secondary schools. Multistage, simple and stratified random sampling techniques were used to select the states, the schools and the teachers for the study. A self-structured instrument tagged “Secondary School Effectiveness Questionnaire (SSEQ)” which was validated by research experts in educational management and tests and measurement was used to collect the data for the study. The data collected were analysed using frequency counts, simple percentages, bar charts and Pearson product moment correlation. The study revealed that the schools’ physical facilities were not all that adequate. The study further revealed that the students achieved well in the affective and psychomotor domains of learning. The study revealed that there was a significant relationship between school facilities and students’ achievement in the affective domain as well as a significant relationship between school facilities and students’ achievement in the psychomotor domain of learning.

Bizimana and Orodho (2014) also studied teaching and learning resource availability and teachers’ effective classroom management and content delivery in secondary schools in Huye District, Rwanda. A descriptive survey research design was used. Stratified sampling technique was applied to select a sample size of 619 respondents comprising 81 school administrators, 160 teachers and 378 students. A questionnaire was the main research instrument used to collect data. Data was analysed using Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient statistical technique. The major finding was that although the level of teaching and learning resources in the study locale was insufficient, hence compromising the effectiveness of classroom management and content delivery. There was a positive and significant correlation between most of the teaching and learning resources and level of classroom management and content delivery.

Muhammad (2017) did a survey of availability, utilization and maintenance of biology laboratory equipment and facilities in secondary schools in sokoto state, Nigeria. Descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. A sample of 30 Senior Secondary Schools and 30 biology teachers was selected from the population of secondary schools in the state using stratified sampling technique. Four research questions were answered using observation schedule. Findings of the study indicated that most senior secondary schools in Sokoto State have no laboratories. Where they exist, they are poorly equipped. Teachers indicated reluctance and inability in conducting practical works using the few available laboratory facilities. Poor maintenance culture was also discovered among biology teachers in Sokoto state.

Adequacy of Educational Facilities and School Administrators’ Effectiveness

Onyesom and Okolocha (2013) did an assessment of the adequacy of instructional resources in business education programmes relative to NCCE Standards for Colleges of Education in Nigeria. The study adopted the ex-post facto research design and was guided by five research questions. The population of the study comprised all the six business education departments of the colleges of education in Edo and Delta states of Nigeria. The entire population was studied in terms of adequacy of instructional resources. The data for the study was collected through direct observation using the NCCE benchmarks as inventory and analysed using ratio and percentage scores. The study found that lecturers and physical facilities available for business education programmes are adequate in some of the colleges and not adequate in others. Equipment and supplies in the typing laboratories, shorthand studios and model offices were found to be grossly inadequate in all the colleges studied.

Wanjiku (2013) also studied availability and utilization of educational resources in influencing students’ performance in secondary schools in Mbeere South, Embu County, Kenya. A survey design was used in the study. The study sample comprised of 3 boys, 4 girls boarding and 8 mixed day secondary schools. Purposive sampling was used to sample 15 principals, 30 H.O.Ds, while simple random sampling technique using lottery was used to sample 1 form 3 English language class, and 15 students in form 3 class in each category of schools. Questionnaires, lesson observation schedule and checklist were used to collect data. Content Validity of the instruments was determined by employing the expertise of my supervisors and lecturers at the department, while reliability was determined through test-retest method. Data was coded and keyed in the computer for analysis using the (SPSS). Qualitative data was analysed thematically according to objectives and presented in narration form according to objectives. Quantitative data were analysed by use of descriptive statistics such as averages, percentages, mean and range. The study found out that the text books were not sufficient but there was no acute shortage since a text book could be shared by a considerable number of students in all categories of schools. The study also found out that Library services were largely inadequate in almost all the secondary schools with only 1 boy’s (33.3 %) and 1 girl’s school (25%) having 1 library each and none in the 8 mixed (87%)sampled secondary schools The subsidized secondary education and CDF had not significantly contributed to availability of libraries in secondary schools. As far as laboratories are concerned all the girls and boys boarding schools had at least two laboratories (53.3%) and 6 mixed schools 40% had 1 laboratory each. Available text books were utilized by students in reading ahead of the teachers, writing notes among others while teachers utilized textbooks in preparation of lessons, giving assignments and setting exams in all categories of schools. However, unavailability of textbooks hindered utilization especially in mixed day schools. Utilization of library services was hindered by lack of libraries and inadequate learning materials. Utilization of laboratories was hampered by inadequate laboratories and equipment which made teachers to demonstrate to students rather than students doing experiments on their own especially in mixed day schools. Inadequate educational resources may have contributed to poor performance especially in mixed day schools among other factors. Government funding was found to be inadequate.

In another study, Uzoechina (2013) studied the availability of physical facilities in Colleges of Education in South East Nigeria. Descriptive survey design was adopted in the study. Proportionate stratified random sampling procedure was the technique for the selection of sample students. 30% of the population of each stratum was selected to realize 1205 as sample. Researcher- developed instrument titled ‘Checklist on Availability of Physical Facilities’ (CAPF) was used for data collection. The instrument was validated by two experts and also tested for reliability using spearman rho and cronbach alpha which yielded high index of 0.95. Population of the study consisted of 13845 respondents made up of the principal officers and students of the colleges studied. Sample of 1,425 was drawn from the population using proportionate stratified random sampling technique and used for the study. One research question and one null hypothesis guided the study while data collected were analysed using frequency counts and percentages. Hypothesis was tested using chi-square. Among the findings made were that physical facilities were available but not adequate in the colleges of education.

In the same vein, Umar and Ma’aji (2010) investigated a study titled Repositioning the Facilities in Technical College Workshops for Efficiency: A Case Study of North Central Nigeria. A descriptive survey design was adopted. Two research questions and a hypothesis were formulated to guide the study. A 35-item questionnaire was developed based on the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) standards on Technical College workshops, and was validated by three experts. Data was collected from 101 administrators, 140 teachers, and 24 workshop personnel randomly sampled and stratified along trades in 19 Government Technical Colleges in North Central Nigeria. Mean was employed to answer the research questions while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the hypothesis using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Results revealed that administrators, teachers, and workshop personnel shared similar views on inadequacy of facilities in Technical College workshops.

Adepoju, Oluwatola and Abomoge (2015) studied the perception of secondary school administrators towards school library development and use in Akinyele Local Government, Moniya Ibadan, Nigeria. The researchers employed a descriptive survey research design to execute this work, using a total enumeration as the sampling technique due to the small size of the population. The main instrument for the data collection was the questionnaire, whereby one hundred and seventy nine (179) copies of questionnaire were administered to the school administrators in Akinyele Local Government in Oyo State Nigeria. Descriptive statistical method was used to analyse the collected data. The findings showed that monograph; textbooks, journals, reference materials; newspapers and magazines were available in school libraries. Lending service, reference service, photocopy services and library use instruction were the library services and resources used by the students. Library facilities and resources were inadequate. Lack of relevant and up to date resources, inadequate budget were also amongst some problems facing the school libraries.

Okoli and Okorie (2015) also studied the adequacy of material resources required for effective implementation of Upper Basic Education Business Studies Curriculum in Nigeria. A descriptive survey research design was adopted in the study. Two research questions and two hypotheses guided the study. The entire population of two hundred and forty-one (241) business studies teachers were used for the study. A four point structured questionnaire, with a reliability coefficient of 0.81 was administered on the 241 respondents. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while t-test was used to test the hypotheses. The two null hypotheses were accepted at 0.05 significant level. The results showed that business studies facilities are lowly adequate; business studies curriculum, compliant textbooks are lowly adequate; there is no significant difference between the adequacy of business studies facilities in public and private junior secondary schools; and there is no significant difference between the adequacy of business studies curriculum compliant textbooks in urban and rural junior secondary schools.

Nwankwo, Nwogbo, Okorji and Egboka (2015) studied the adequacy of learning facilities for implementing entrepreneurship education programme in secondary schools in Anambra State. It was a descriptive survey carried out in Anambra State of Nigeria. One research question and one hypothesis guided the study. The population of the study comprised all the 3,286 teachers and 252 principals in all the public secondary schools in the State. The sample for the study was 585 Stratified sampling technique was used in the sample selection. A researcher–developed instrument was used in data collection. The instrument was validated by three experts. The instrument is a checklist and required no reliability test since each facility on the list is specific in purpose and its presence on the list needs not depend on any reliability. The researcher together with six (6) research assistants administered the instrument. Simple percentage was used to answer the research question while chi-square statistic at 0.05 level of confidence was be used in testing the hypothesis. Findings of the study indicated that learning facilities for implementing the entrepreneurship education programme in the State are inadequate.

Asiyai (2012) assessed school facilities in public secondary schools in Delta State, Nigeria. The study employed the ex-post-facto research design. The questionnaire was the instrument for data collection from 640 respondents selected through stratified sampling techniques from all the 358 public secondary schools in the state. Findings revealed that school facilities in the schools are generally in a state of disrepair. The findings further revealed that the maintenance carried out on school facilities were inadequate for majority of the facilities.

Utilization of Educational Facilities School Administrators’ Effectiveness

Utilization of resources according to Chakraborty, Islam, Chowdhury, Bari and Akhter (2011 as cited in Ugwuanyi, 2013) is a complex behavioural phenomenon, however it is always related to the availability and quality of such resources or services as the case may be. Ugwuanyi (2013) explain utilization as to make use of available services at the individual’s disposal. Obi (2006) asserts that from the National Policy on Education (NPE; 2004) it could be observed that one of the objectives of education is to make learning permanent. According to him the utilization of instructional materials in teaching is a sure way of achieving this objective.

The process of managing and organizing resources for teaching and learning is referred to as resource utilization (Lewin 2000) Resources utilization has to do with the extent to when facilities are provided to schools, these are three possibilities, they are either used effective or inefficiently or they may remain unused. When item of equipment is maximally used such as equipment is effectively utilized. If the equipment is not maximally used it can be said to be underutilized. When there is so much pressure on the use of an equipment this may result to over utilization which could lead to breakdown of such item of equipment. Teaching leaning facilities improves the quality of teaching and make learning content meaningful. According to Ihiegbulem (2006) resource materials utilization during practices lessons inculcates in the students the spirit of careful observation, manipulative skills, respective thinking and creativity in the learners, Lewin (2000) however reported that science facilities are only important when they are used.

Similarly Awoniyo (1999 as cited in Muhammad, 2017) reported that the availability of resource input into the education system has no value for achieving educational objectives if they are not actually utilised. One of the major problems facing the teaching and learning of science is connected with the management of available resources (Ogunleye, 2003) movement of resources requires the science teacher himself be resourceful and creative and be careful in handling and using available facilities are handled cautiously especially the fragile ones. This is necessary because once the facilities are misused they cannot offer the best service required.

Nwadiani, Mon and Ugolo (2012) observed that the facilities are not only over utilized, they are also poorly maintained Similarly, in a study conducted by Aigboje (2007) on Universal Basic Education in Nigeria, he found out that some school facilities, were inadequate while others were not available at all. These situations are posing challenges to administrators and inspectors of schools who are supposed to manage available facilities efficiently and effectively (Abdulkareem, 2012).

When real objects or their representatives are used in teaching, students see, touch and interact with these materials. Interaction with learning materials will help the students not to forget what they learnt easily. Olagunju and Abiona (2008) explained that the process of managing and organizing resources is resource utilization. They added that in a school, the available resources should be utilized in such a way that enables the effective management of colleges of education.

According to Asiyai, (2012) many scholars, researchers, administrators and educational planners have confirmed that school facilities in Nigerian schools are inadequate and few available ones are being over utilized due to the astronomical increase in school enrolment. (Ikoya, 2008) reported that only 26% of secondary schools across the country have school infrastructures in adequate quality and quantity. Ajayi (1999) reported that most of the Nigerian primary schools are dilapidated due to inadequate funding while most tertiary institutions are living in their past glories. Such situation hinders effective teaching and learning, making the process rigorous and uninteresting to students and teachers. Similarly, Owuamanam (2005) noted that the inadequacy of infrastructural facilities and lack of maintenance for available facilities were major problems facing Nigerian educational system. The school facilities are grossly inadequate to match the student’s population and the available facilities were poorly maintained. The inadequacy, deterioration and lack of maintenance of school facilities will spell doom for the teachers and students in the teaching and learning activities. Negligence in the maintenance of school facilities has many negative consequences. When school facilities are not well managed and maintained, they constitute health hazards to pupils and teachers who use the facilities. For instance Ogonor (2001 as cited in Asiyai, 2012) reported the killing of pupils and teachers of a primary school in Nigeria when the school walls and roofs collapsed. Even large amount of money invested on school facilities are wasted when school buildings and equipment are left to deteriorate without maintenance (Asiyai, 2012).

Facilities tend to depreciate as soon as they are provided-and put into use. Therefore, there is need for maintenance through repair and servicing of components in order to restore their physical condition and sustain their working capacity. Maintenance enhances performance and durability. It also prevents wastages. There are preventive, corrective, breakdown and shutdown maintenance services. Preventive maintenance occurs regularly by checking and rechecking the available facilities and taking necessary measures to prevent mal functioning or non-functioning of a particular facility. Prevention is not only better: it is also cheaper than any other measure, It is ' proactive in nature. Corrective maintenance involves reactivation or replacement of facilities in order to normalize their performances. When a Facility or equipment breaks down completely, a major repair or replacement may be needed. There may be a time when the institution may need to close down in order to allow a major repair to be carried out. Flood, fire or wind disaster may warrant closure of an institution for a major repair to be effected (Abdulkareem, 2012).

Akinfolarin, Ajayi and Oloruntegbe (2012) did an appraisal of resource utilization in Vocational and Technical Education in Selected Colleges of Education in Southwest Nigeria. The descriptive research of the survey type was used. The sample for the study was made up of 1,040 which in turn was made up of 40 heads of department; 200 lecturers and 800 students. The subjects were selected using stratified, purposive and simple random sampling techniques. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select eight (8) colleges of education in the south west Nigeria. (3 Federal and 5 States). Purposive sampling technique was used to select the heads of department; simple random sampling technique was used for lecturers and the students in school of Vocational and Technical Education in South West of Nigeria. Questionnaire and inventory were the instruments used for this study. Data were analysed using percentages means and standard deviation. Result showed that most of the required resources in Vocational and Technical Education were available, adequate and well utilized.

Usen (2016) investigated teachers’ utilization of school facilities and academic achievement of student nurses in human biology in Schools of Nursing in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Four (4) specific objectives, four (4) research questions and four (4) null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. Ex-post facto survey design was adopted for the study. The research population was One Hundred and Seventy Three (173) student nurses in Preliminary Training Session (PTS) in the three (3) accredited Schools of Nursing in Akwa Ibom State. The sample size of One Hundred (100) students was selected for the study using proportionate stratified random sampling technique. The researcher developed two (2) instruments tagged ‘Teachers’ Utilization of School Facilities Questionnaire (TUSFQ)’ and ‘Students’ Achievement Test on Human Biology (SATHB)’ used in collecting data for the study. The TUSFQ and SATHB were validated through face validity by three (3) experts in the Test and Measurement unit of Faculty of Education, University of Uyo, Uyo and three (3) other experts in Directorate of Nursing Services, Ministry of Health, Uyo respectively. The reliability coefficients of 0.82 and 0.74 for TUSFQ and SATHB respectively were established using Spearman Brown Reliability Analysis. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) was used for data treatment. The findings of the research revealed that there exists significant positive relationship between teachers’ utilization of school facilities (library, laboratory, information and communication technology (ICT) center and recreation center) and academic achievement of student nurses in Human Biology.

Eze and Aja (2014) conducted a study on the availability and utilization of information and communication technology (ICT) in Ebonyi Local Government area of Ebonyi state. Four research questions guided the study. The population of the study comprised of two hundred and twenty five (225) teachers and Eight thousand one hundred and twenty eight (8,128) students in the fifteen (15) senior secondary schools in the study area. Simple random sampling technique was used to select ten (10) teachers and twenty six (26) students from ten (10) schools used for the study to give a sample size of three hundred and sixty (360) respondents. The instrument used for data collection was structured questionnaire. Pearson’s Moment Correlation Co-efficient was used to calculate the reliability co-efficient of the pilot tests to get established reliability value of 0.78. the data collected were analysed using mean scores. It was found among other things that ICT devices are not adequately utilized, personnel to operate ICT devices are not adequately trained and most of the ICT devices are not in good working condition in schools studied.

Appraisal of Reviewed Literature

This chapter has dealt with a review of related literatures. The meaning educational facilities was adequately given. The theoretical framework adopted in the study was the system theory. Several empirical studies were adequately reviewed. It is noticeable in the study that there were divergent opinions as to the availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities in the various schools. Also noticeable in the empirical review is the fact that only one was studied in Delta State. Again, none of the studies dealt with the influence of availability, adequacy and utilization on school administrators’ effectiveness and only few were conducted in colleges of education. These are the gaps that this study is aimed to fill. This study will be conducted in Colleges of Education in Delta State and in relation to the influence of availability, adequacy and utilization of educational facilities on school administrators’ effectiveness.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE

This chapter will deal with the research method and procedure adopted in the study. The chapter will treat the following sub-headings:

  • Research Design
  • Population of the Study
  • Sample and Sampling Techniques
  • Research Instrument
  • Validity of Research Instrument
  • Reliability of Research Instrument
  • Method of Data Collection
  • Method of Data Analysis

Research Design

This study will adopt a descriptive research design. This research design is considered appropriate because the researcher want to study the availability, adequacy, utilization of educational facilities and school administrators’ effectiveness as they exists in their natural state.

Population of the Study

The population of the study will comprise all staff of the public colleges of education across Delta State. There are currently four colleges of education in Delta State and 2,925 staff. This is shown in table 1 below:

Table 1: List of Colleges of Education in Delta State

S/N Name of College of Education Year of Establishment No of Staff
Academic Non-Academic
1 College of Education, Warri 1979 207 597
2 College of Education (Technical), Asaba 1987 203 501
3 College of Education, Agbor 1989 211 817
4 College of Education, Mosogar 2006 92 297
Total 713 2,212
2,925

Source: Nominal roll from the various colleges of Education in Delta State (2017)

Sample and Sampling Techniques

The sample size will comprise the four (4) colleges and 800 staff which represents 27% of the total population. The sampling techniques to be adopted in the study is simple random sampling techniques. The simple random sampling technique is considered appropriate because it gives all the staff in the colleges of education equal chance of being selected. This is shown in table 2 below:

Table 2: Name of Selected colleges of Education as sample

S/N Name of College of Education Year of Establishment No of Staff Selected
1 College of Education, Warri 1979 200
2 College of Education (Technical), Asaba 1987 200
3 College of Education, Agbor 1989 200
4 College of Education, Mosogar 2006 200
Total 750

Source: Field Study (2017)

Research Instrument

Two instruments will be used to obtain data for the study. A questionnaire and an Educational Facility Inventory Checklist (EFIC). The questionnaire will be titled Staff Survey for Administrator’s Effectiveness (SSAE), adapted from Minnesota Department of Education’s Teacher Survey for Principal Development and Evaluation: Administration Guidance (2016) and reorganise to reflect the objective of the study. It contains 2 sections; section A will contain demographic data of respondents which will include sex, years of experience and cadre. Section B of the questionnaire will contain items structured on a 4-point likert scale of SA for Strongly Agree (4), A for Agree (3), D for Disagree (2) and SD for Strongly Disagree (1). The Staff Survey for Administrator’s Effectiveness (SSAE) will be used to measure the dependent variable of school administrator effectiveness.

The inventory Checklist will contain educational facilities which the respondent will be required to respond in order of availability, adequacy and utilization.

Validity of Research Instrument

The instruments was validated based on experts’ judgement and factor analysis. The Educational Facility Inventory Checklist (EFIC) was given to the research supervisor, who is an expert in Educational Administration and Policy Studies including 2 other experts in the same Department. The experts were given copies of the instruments for them to ascertain and assess their relevance to the study. They ensured that the face and content validity of the Educational Facility Inventory Checklist (EFIC) was met. Initially, they made some recommendations which entailed obtaining the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) standard requirement for educational facilities, which was used to compile the educational facilities inventory checklist.

The Staff Survey for Administrator’s Effectiveness (SSAE) was validated using factor analysis by a Psychometrician in the Department of Guidance and Counselling. The instrument was administered to 57 staff of College of Education Ekiadolor, Edo State and the data obtained was subjected to factor analysis to determine the construct validity of the instrument. The factors (components) was extracted using Principal Component Analysis, and factors whose eigenvalue is greater than 1.0 were retained while those whose eigenvalue is less than 1.0 were discarded. The factors were thereafter rotated to determine the loading of each item in the various components. This was done using orthogonal solution with Varimax method. The reason for the factor analysis was because the instrument was adapted originally from an instrument which measures secondary school principal’s effectiveness far away in Minnesota USA. Since the researcher is adapting it for the measurement of the effectiveness of an administrator in College of Education here in Delta State Nigeria, there was need to ascertain the suitability of the instrument to the area and objective of study. The total cumulative variance was obtained as expressing the content validity of the instrument (see Appendix II). The values for shared vision for high students’ achievement was 71.34%, for Instructional leadership, 82.00%, for high quality and effective staff, = 75.79%, for personal leadership, = 79.63% and for Systems and Operation, = 80.44. These values are the content of validity of the total number of items that measure the variables domain which also indicated the percentage or amount of contribution made to the shared vision for high students’ achievement, instructional leadership, high quality and effective staff, personal leadership and systems and operation that explains the total cumulative variance.

However, the construct validity was estimated by using the rotated factor loading matrixes. The Eigen values were used to select factors that genuinely measure similar constructs. The items in the instrument that measured staff survey for administrative effectiveness had loading matrixes that ranged between 0.51 and 0.93 for shared vision for high students’ achievement, 0.61 and 0.91 for instructional leadership, 0.65 and 0.91 for high quality and effective staff, 0.55 and 0.90 for personal leadership and 0.81 and 0.91 for Systems and Operation.

Reliability of Research Instrument

In order to ascertain the reliability of the research instrument, the Staff Survey for Administrator’s Effectiveness (SSAE) was administered to 30 staff of College of Education Ekiadolor, Edo State, since they were not part of the study. The data obtained was subjected to a cronbach alpha reliability coefficient and the coefficient obtained was 0.83.

Method of Data Collection

The instrument will be administered directly to the respondents by the researcher with the help of 6 research assistants. The staff of the various colleges will be approached and asked to respond to the questionnaire and the inventory checklist, after permission must have been sought from him/her. Salient areas will be explained to the respondents for clarity. The data will be retrieved on the spot.

Method of Data Analysis

The data obtained will be analysed with the aid of descriptive and inferential statistics. Research question 1-3 will be analysed with mean and standard deviation while research question 4-6 will be analysed with Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. Hypothesis 1-3 on the other hand will be tested with independent samples t-test while hypothesis 4-6 will be tested with Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. All hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

REFERENCES

Abdulkareem A.Y. (2012). Managing Distressed Secondary Schools: A Challenge for Today’s Principal in Nigeria

Abdulkareem, A.Y. (2012). Managing Distressed Secondary Schools: A Challenge for Today’s Principal in Nigeria.

Ade-Ajayi, J.F. (2003). Position paper presented at the University Stakeholders National consultative forum, Abuja Federal Ministry of Education March:1-

Adepoju, S.O., Oluwatola, I.K. & Abomoge, S.O. (2015). Perception of secondary school administrators towards school library development and use in Akinyele Local Government, Moniya Ibadan, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology, 5(8), 341-349.

Adesina, S. (1980). Some aspects of school management. Ibadan: Board publications Ltd.

Afework, T.H. (2014). The Availability of School Facilities and Their Effects on the Quality of Education in Government Primary Schools of Harari Regional State and East Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 11, 59-71.

Afolabi, F.O. (2002). The school building and its environment. Implication on the achievement of functional Universal Basic Education programme in Ondo State. In T. Ajayi, J. O. Fadipe, P. K. Ojedele, & E. E. Oluchukwu (Eds.), Planning and Administration of Universal Basic Education in Nigeria (pp. 101-110). Ondo: National Institute for Educational Administration and Planning (NIEPA).

Agab, C.O. (2010). Prudential Approach to Resource Management in Nigerian Education: A Theoretical Perspective. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 3(2), 94-106.

Aigboje, C.D. (2007). Head teachers’ perception of adequacy of the facilities provided for the implementation of Universal Basic Education (UBE) in Nigerian primary schools. Journal of Applied Research in Education.

Ajayi,A.O. (1999). Resources utilization: The Mandate of Education Managers. Faculty lecture series, Faculty of Education University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Akande, O.M. (1985). Hints on Teaching Practice and General Principles of Education. Lagos: OSKO Associates.

Akinfolarin, C.A., Ajayi, I.A. & Oloruntegbe, K.O. (2012). An Appraisal of Resource Utilization in Vocational and Technical Education in Selected Colleges of Education in Southwest Nigeria. Education, 2(1), 41-45.

Akinfolarin, C.A., Ajayi, I.A. & Oloruntegbe, K.O. (2012). An appraisal of resource utilization in Vocational and Technical Education in Selected Colleges of Education in Southwest Nigeria. Education, 2(1), 41-45.

Akin-Taylor, M.A. and Aboyomi, O. (2008). Sports resources: Predictors of sport performance in colleges of education in western Nigeria. Fourth International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance (ICHPER.SD) Africa Regional Congress 14-17. vol.1 No. 5.

Akwezuilo, S.O. (2007). An Appraisal of Administrative Task of School Managers Unpublished M.ED. Thesis Delta State University, Abraka.

Asiyai, R.I. (2012). Assessing School Facilities in Public Secondary Schools in Delta State, Nigeria. African Research Review, 6(2), 192-205.

Bertalanffy, L.V. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.

Bizimana, B. & Orodho, J.A. (2014). Teaching and Learning Resource Availability and Teachers’ Effective Classroom Management and Content Delivery in Secondary Schools in Huye District, Rwanda. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(9), 111-122.

Buckley, J., Schneider, M. & Shang, Y. (2004). Effects of school facility, quality on teacher retention in urban school district. National clearing house for educational facilities. Washington Dc.

Cohen, D.K: Raudenbush, S.W: & Ball, D.B: (2003): Resources Instruction and Research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 25.119-142

Dodo, A.Y., Ajiki, S.I. and Abimuku, J.M. (2010). Provision and Management of Material Resource for Effective Teaching and Learning of Vocational and Technical education in Nigeria. A Journal of Vocational and Technical Educators (JOVTED) 2,4 JOVED. (2,4).

Ekaette, U.J. (2001). “Policy Focus and Value system in higher education” The Guardian, Lagos: June 18, 58-59.

Ekundayo, H.T. (2012). School facilities as correlates of students’ achievement in the affective and psychomotor domains of learning. European Scientific Journal, 8(6), 208-215.

Eze, P.I. & Aja, S.N. (2014). Availability and utilization of information and communication technology (ICT) in Ebonyi Local Government area of Ebonyi state. International Research Journal, 5(4), 116-121.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2004). National policy on education (4th ed.). Lagos: NERDC.

Ihiegbulem V. N. (2006) Enhancing the Teaching of Biology through the use of Available Local Natural Resources. Proceedings of the 47th Annual National Conference of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) Nzewi (Ed).

Ikoya, P.O. (2008). “Centralization and Decentralization of schools Physical facilities Management in Nigeria”. Journal of Education Administration, 46(155:5), 630-649.

Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S. and Womack, D.F. (1997). Building Communication Theory. Prospect Heights. Illinois: Waveland Press. Available on: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Communication%20Processes/System_Theory.doc/.

Jamil, A., Khan, K.P., Ramzan, A., Malik, A.A., Muhammad, Y., Uzma, K. & Tahirullah, J. (2012). Gender Comparison of the Performance of Secondary Level Institutional Heads in DIK, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(3), 162-171.

Kitheka, A.M. (2005). Factors Contributing to Students Poor Performance in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education. Unpublished Med Thesis Kenyatta University.

Lawanson, O.A.G. & Tari, N. (2011). Provision and Management of School           Facilities for the Implementation of UBE Programme. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(4),

Lewin K. M. (2000) Mapping Science Education Policy iin Developing Countries, World Bank Human Development Network secondary Education Science. Palmer Press, London

Longe, O., Uwadia, C., and Longe, F. (2004). An x-ray of potentials for collaboration between the academia and the IT industry, proceedings of the 8th international conference of the Nigerian computer society.

Longman (2003) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Pearson Education Limited England.

Maduabum, M.A. (2000) “Occupational stress factors among secondary school principals in Abia state, Nigeria”. International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 1(1), 17-27.

Mgbodile, T.O., Ogbonnaya, N. Enyi, D., Oboegbulem, A., & Onwura, C. (2004). Fundamentals in Educational administration and planning. Magnet Business Enterprises 10 Nise Street, Uwani, Enugu Nigeria.

Mgbor, M.O. (2002). Physical education in Nigeria schools, past, present, and the future, Journal of Nigerian association of physical and health education recreation sports and dance (ICHAPHER SD) (2) 1.

Mgbor, M.O. (2005). The implementation of School Sports in the UBE programme: Challenges and Implications. Journal of Nigeria Association for Physical, Health Education, Recreation, Sports and Dance, 2(1), 146-152.

Muhammad, R. (2017). A Survey of Availability, Utilization and Maintenance of Biology Laboratory Equipment and Facilities in Secondary Schools in Sokoto State, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Technology, 6(1), 662-668.

National Teacher Institute (2002). Nigeria certificate in education course book on physical and health education, Kaduna.

Nwadiani, Mon & Ugolo, S. P (2012). The Availability, Adequacy And Utilization Of Physical Facilities In Public Secondary Schools In Bayelsa State. African Journal of Studies In Education, 8(1 & 2), 34-47.

Nwankwo, I.N., Nwogbo, V.N., Okorji, P.N. & Egboka, P. (2015). Adequacy of learning facilities for implementing entrepreneurship education programme in secondary schools in Anambra State. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 4(9), 88-91.

Obi, C.M. (2006). Availability and utilization of instructional material for teaching and learning Agricultural Science in Secondary Schools in Okigwe Education zone of Imo state. Unpublished\ M.ED. Thesis Department of Vocational Teachers Education, University of Nigeria Nsukka.

Offorma, G.C. (2005). Curriculum for Wealth Creation. WCCL 3rd Biennial Seminar Lecture held in FCOE Kano on 25th October, 2005.

Ogbonnaya, N. (2010). Principles and applications of educational polices in Nigeria. Onitsha: Cape Publishers.

Ogunleye A. O (2003) Towards Optimal Utilization and Management of Resources for the Effective Teaching of Physics in Schools. Proceedings of the Second State Conference of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) Ondo State Branch. July Calvary way Publishers.

Ohiwerei, F. O. (2005). Effect of reciprocal peer tutoring on the academic achievement of students in business studies (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Benin, Benin city.

Ojedele, P.K. (2004). Facilities provision and management for the successful implementation of the universal basic education (UBE) programme in Nigeria.

Ojo, K. (1999). Administration and management of secondary education in Ekiti State – our experiences and anxieties. In D. Ajayi and S. Ibitola (eds) Effective management of secondary schools: the principal’s challenge. Ibadan: Adeose Publication. 9 – 20.

Okoli, B.E. & Okorie, O. (2015). Adequacy of material resources required for effective implementation of Upper Basic Education Business Studies Curriculum in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6), 1-8.

Olagboye, A.A. (2004). Introduction to educational administration planning and supervision. Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.

Olagboye, A.A. (2004). Introduction to educational administration planning and supervision. Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.

Olagunju, A.M. & Abiona O.F. (2008). Production and Utilization of Resources in Biology Education. A case Study of South West Nigeria Secondary Schools; International Journal of Africa & African American Studies, 11(2).

Oni, J.O. (1992). Resource and Resource Utilization as Correlates of School Academic Performance (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Onyesom, M. & Okolocha, C.C. (2013). Assessment of the Adequacy of Instructional Resources in Business Education Programmes Relative to NCCE Standards for Colleges of Education in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(2), 165-178.

Owoeye and Yara (2010). School Facilities and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Agricultural Science in Ekiti State Nigeria. AsianSiciak Sciences, 7(7).

Owoeye, J.S. (2011). School Facilities and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Agricultural Science in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda.

Owuamanam, D.O. (2005). Threats to Academic Integrity in Nigerian Universities. Lead paper presented at the conference of the National Association of Educational Researchers and Evaluators, University of Ado-Ekiti, June 13-17.

Oyeniyi, O.L. (2010). Analysis of the educational facilities in southern universities in Nigeria. Academic Leadership Journal, 8(2).

Ozioko, A.N. (2014). Implementation of student personnel services in Federal and state colleges of education in South-East Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Peretomode, V.F., and Chukwuma, R.A. (2007). Manpower development and lecturers’ productivity in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Journal of Education Studies, English Edition Poland, 5-11.

Salisu, R.A. (2001). The Influence of School Physical Resources on Students Academic Performance. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, department of Educational Administration, University of Lagos – Nigeria.

Udida, L.A., Bassey, U.U., Udofia, I.U. & Egbona, E.A. (2009). System performance and sustainability of higher education in Nigeria. A paper presented at the 11th International Conference of Educational Management Association of South Africa (EMASA) 7th – 9th August 2009

Uguru, C. & Abdullahi H. (2007) The Educational Implications of the core courses, and Elective courses, To Agric Education lecturers and students: A review Journal of educational Research and Development. Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. 2 (3), Page

Ugwuanyi, J.I. (2013). Availability, adequacy and utilization of physical education teaching resources in secondary schools in Enugu State. Unpublished M.Ed. Dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Umar, I.Y. and Ma’aji, A.S. (2010). Repositioning the Facilities in Technical College Workshops for Efficiency: A Case Study of North Central Nigeria. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 47(3), 1-10.

Umunadi, E.K. (2011). Provision of equipment and facilities in vocational and technical education for improving carrying capacity of Nigeria’s tertiary institution. Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, 835-845.

Usen, O.M. (2016). Teachers’ utilization of school facilities and academic achievement of student nurses in human biology in Schools of Nursing in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 73-80.

Uzoechina, G. (2014). Availability of Physical Facilities in Colleges of Education in South East Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(2), 2201-2204.

Wanjiku, M.E. (2013). Availability and utilization of educational resources in influencing students’ performance in secondary schools in Mbeere South, Embu County, Kenya.

APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

I am currently carrying out a researcher titled Availability, Adequacy and Utilization of Educational Resources and Administrators’ effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Delta State. You are expected to respond to the following questionnaire. Your responses will be kept confidential, it will only serve the purpose of research. Thank you.

STAFF SURVEY FOR ADMINISTRATOR’S EFFECTIVENESS (SSAE)

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Sex: Male [   ] Female [   ]

Years of Experience: 1-5 [   ] 6-10 [   ] 11-15 [   ] 16-20 [   ] 21-Above [   ]

Cadre: Academic Staff [   ] Non-Academic Staff [   ]

SECTION B: STAFF SURVEY FOR ADMINISTRATOR’S EFFECTIVENESS

Instruction: Kindly tick (√), the option that best suits your opinion on the statement presented.

Key:

SA   -      Strongly Agree (4)

A     -      Agree (3)

D     -      Disagree (2)

SD   -      Strongly Disagree (1)

S/N Item SA A D SD
SHARED VISION FOR HIGH STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
The administrator:
1 engages staff in the development of shared visions for high achievement
2 clearly communicate shared visions for high achievement
3 effectively implements plans to address school-wide priorities
4 ensures school-wide processes for recognizing students’ academic accomplishments or behaviour
5 shows appreciation for staff members
6 demonstrates that high expectations for students are a shared responsibility among all staff
7 builds a sense of community where all students are valued and treated equally
8 fosters understanding and appreciation of student diversity
9 fosters understanding and appreciation of staff diversity
10 encourages respect for students and families from all backgrounds
11 ensures that parents are provided with information about student progress
12 provides parents with information about how they can support their child’s academic success
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
The administrator:
1 establishes the systems for teacher teams (e.g. professional learning communities, instructional teams) to work together effectively
2 effectively supports the efforts of teacher teams to align assessments to standards across grade levels
3 supports staff to develop effective instructional strategies to address diverse student learning needs
4 supports staff to develop instructional strategies to increase intellectual challenge
5 supports staff to carefully track student academic progress to inform instructional strategies
6 ensures a system of intervention for a range of student needs
HIGH QUALITY AND EFFECTIVE STAFF
The administrator
1 facilitates high-quality professional development opportunities that support effective teaching
2 makes systematic visits to staff’s office
3 ensures staff receive timely constructive feedback
4 ensures staff receive effective coaching to improve performance
5 ensures staff’s evaluations are implemented systematically
6 encourages staff to reflect on their own practices
7 supports the d continuous improvement of an instructional leadership team
8 encourages staff with diverse skills to participate in instructional leadership teams
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP
The administrator:
1 is respectful
2 is fair and consistent with students
3 is fair and consistent with staff
4 demonstrates an ability to achieve success in the face of adversity
5 is continually focused on improving students’ learning
6 is effective at having difficult conversations
7 effectively collaborates with staff to solve problems
8 establishes structures to manage the thoughtful implementation of changes
9 communicates effectively with staff
10 communicates effectively with students
11 demonstrates strong facilitation skills for multiple audiences
SYSTEMS AND OPERATIONS
The administrator:
1 manages operations to maximize learning for all students
2 ensures teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues
3 manages resources effectively
4 collaborates with staff to maintain a safe learning environment
5 promotes a supportive learning environment for all students

Adapted from Minnesota Department of Education’s Teacher Survey for Principal Development and Evaluation: Administration Guidance (2016)

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES INVENTORY CHECKLIST

Instruction: Kindly rate the following in terms of their availability, adequacy and utilization in line with the rating scale provided.

Key

HAV -      High Availability

MAV       -      Moderate Availability

LAV -      Low Availability

NAV -      Not Available

AD  -      Adequate

NAD -      Not Adequate

HU  -      Highly Utilised

MU  -      Moderately Utilised

U     -      Utilised

NU  -      Not Utilised

S/N Item Availability Adequacy Utilization
HAV MAV LAV NAV AD NAD HU MU U NU
1              Classrooms
2              Lecture theatres
3              lecture halls
4              Office furniture
5              Computers
6              Science Laboratory
7              School library
8              Departmental library
9              Library facilities
10          Vehicles for administrative use
11          Counselling Centre
12          Demonstration Schools
13          Staff Offices
14          Typewriters
15          Reprographic machines
16          Books
17          Photographic studio
18          Graphic studio
19          Projection room
20          Computer room
21          Workshop for production of instructional materials
22          Closed circuit television (CCTV)
23          CCTV Monitors (television sets with remote controls)
24          Video camera with accessories
25          Video player/recorder
26          Editing/dubbing machine
27          Slide projectors with accessories
28          Opaque projectors with accessories
29          Overhead projectors with accessories
30          Audio projectors
31          Amplifiers
32          Microphones
33          White board
34          Magnetic chalkboards
35          Air-conditioners
36          Toilets
37          Water supply
38          Electricity supply
39          Tables and chairs
40          Hostel accommodation for students
41          Co-curricula facilities
42          Electricity (power supply)
43          Water supply
44          Medical facilities
45          Sport facilities
46          School bookshop
47          White board marker
48          Magnetic white board duster

APPENDIX II

FACTOR ANALYSIS

FACTOR

/VARIABLES SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 SV6 SV7 SV8 SV9 SV10 SV11 SV12

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 SV6 SV7 SV8 SV9 SV10 SV11 SV12

/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION KMO EXTRACTION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/ROTATION NOROTATE

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

COMPONENT: SHARED VISION FOR HIGH STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT

Factor Analysis

Correlation Matrix
SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 SV6 SV7
Correlation SV1 1.000 .000 .000 .057 .077 .121 .051
SV2 .000 1.000 -.013 .079 .015 -.056 .383
SV3 .000 -.013 1.000 -.220 .136 -.021 -.060
SV4 .057 .079 -.220 1.000 -.067 .093 .273
SV5 .077 .015 .136 -.067 1.000 .388 -.133
SV6 .121 -.056 -.021 .093 .388 1.000 .167
SV7 .051 .383 -.060 .273 -.133 .167 1.000
SV8 -.038 .072 -.161 -.122 .420 .286 .084
SV9 .058 -.015 -.046 .147 -.275 -.310 .184
SV10 .426 -.078 -.051 .132 -.397 -.177 .205
SV11 -.091 .283 .347 .215 .011 .248 .455
SV12 .218 .089 -.100 .438 -.033 .152 .623

Correlation Matrix
SV8 SV9 SV10 SV11 SV12
Correlation SV1 -.038 .058 .426 -.091 .218
SV2 .072 -.015 -.078 .283 .089
SV3 -.161 -.046 -.051 .347 -.100
SV4 -.122 .147 .132 .215 .438
SV5 .420 -.275 -.397 .011 -.033
SV6 .286 -.310 -.177 .248 .152
SV7 .084 .184 .205 .455 .623
SV8 1.000 .017 -.264 .040 .272
SV9 .017 1.000 .230 .098 .460
SV10 -.264 .230 1.000 -.021 .101
SV11 .040 .098 -.021 1.000 .263
SV12 .272 .460 .101 .263 1.000

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .445
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 187.880
df 66
Sig. .000

  Communalities
  Initial Extraction
  SV1 1.000 .760
  SV2 1.000 .413
  SV3 1.000 .862
  SV4 1.000 .531
  SV5 1.000 .695
  SV6 1.000 .699
  SV7 1.000 .725
  SV8 1.000 .743
  SV9 1.000 .817
  SV10 1.000 .727
  SV11 1.000 .760
  SV12 1.000 .830
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
         

  Total Variance Explained
  Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.573 21.442 21.442 2.573 21.442 21.442
  2 2.162 18.017 39.460 2.162 18.017 39.460
  3 1.465 12.210 51.670 1.465 12.210 51.670
  4 1.287 10.722 62.392 1.287 10.722 62.392
  5 1.076 8.966 71.357 1.076 8.966 71.357
  6 .981 8.179 79.536
  7 .739 6.159 85.695
  8 .484 4.031 89.727
  9 .443 3.694 93.421
  10 .358 2.983 96.404
  11 .294 2.448 98.852
  12 .138 1.148 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
                 

 

Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
SV1 .242 -.133 .457 .685 .073
SV2 .342 .207 -.391 -.163 -.272
SV3 -.107 .110 -.630 .495 .443
SV4 .570 -.022 .145 -.078 -.422
SV5 -.232 .740 .201 .178 .145
SV6 .107 .683 .219 .344 -.234
SV7 .811 .163 -.158 -.023 -.122
SV8 .079 .633 .369 -.271 .357
SV9 .503 -.369 .068 -.279 .588
SV10 .358 -.608 .173 .445 -.039
SV11 .519 .343 -.585 .176 .032
SV12 .825 .156 .246 -.095 .236

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a
a. 5 components extracted.

 

  Component Matrixa  
  Component  
  1 2 3 4 5  
  SV1 .685  
  SV2  
  SV3 -.630  
  SV4 .570  
  SV5 .740  
  SV6 .683  
  SV7 .811  
  SV8 .633  
  SV9 .503 .588  
  SV10 -.608  
  SV11 .519 -.585  
  SV12 .825  
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a  
  a. 5 components extracted.  
  Communalities  
  Extraction  
  SV1 .760  
  SV2 .413  
  SV3 .862  
  SV4 .531  
  SV5 .695  
  SV6 .699  
  SV7 .725  
  SV8 .743  
  SV9 .817  
  SV10 .727  
  SV11 .760  
  SV12 .830  
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.573 21.442 21.442 2.161 18.009 18.009
  2 2.162 18.017 39.460 2.001 16.678 34.688
  3 1.465 12.210 51.670 1.538 12.817 47.504
  4 1.287 10.722 62.392 1.515 12.629 60.134
  5 1.076 8.966 71.357 1.347 11.224 71.357
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Rotated Component Matrixa  
  Component  
  1 2 3 4 5  
  SV1 .860  
  SV2 .587  
  SV3 .925  
  SV4 .529  
  SV5 .791  
  SV6 .670  
  SV7 .794  
  SV8 .759  
  SV9 .874  
  SV10 .702  
  SV11 .741  
  SV12 .509 .636  
 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

 
  a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.  
  Component Transformation Matrix  
  Component 1 2 3 4 5  
  1 .785 -.034 .502 .325 -.156  
  2 .295 .891 -.201 -.255 .113  
  3 -.416 .391 .180 .448 -.664  
  4 .005 .082 -.366 .793 .481  
  5 -.351 .212 .736 -.007 .539  

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

 
                                                                         

FACTOR

/VARIABLES IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6

/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION KMO EXTRACTION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/ROTATION NOROTATE

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

COMPONENT: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Factor Analysis

Correlation Matrix
IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6
Correlation IL1 1.000 .454 .080 .315 .228 -.015
IL2 .454 1.000 .419 .605 .073 .009
IL3 .080 .419 1.000 .625 -.033 .275
IL4 .315 .605 .625 1.000 .023 .062
IL5 .228 .073 -.033 .023 1.000 .514
IL6 -.015 .009 .275 .062 .514 1.000

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .575
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 95.134
df 15
Sig. .000

  Communalities  
  Initial Extraction  
  IL1 1.000 .832  
  IL2 1.000 .743  
  IL3 1.000 .855  
  IL4 1.000 .796  
  IL5 1.000 .838  
  IL6 1.000 .856  
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.347 39.112 39.112 2.347 39.112 39.112
  2 1.480 24.673 63.785 1.480 24.673 63.785
  3 1.093 18.218 82.004 1.093 18.218 82.004
  4 .435 7.242 89.245
  5 .376 6.267 95.512
  6 .269 4.488 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
                             

 

Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
IL1 .552 .001 .726
IL2 .809 -.217 .203
IL3 .730 -.080 -.562
IL4 .848 -.231 -.152
IL5 .240 .839 .278
IL6 .279 .819 -.330

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a
a. 3 components extracted.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6

/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION KMO ROTATION

/FORMAT BLANK(.5)

/CRITERIA FACTORS(3) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

Factor Analysis

Correlation Matrix
IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6
Correlation IL1 1.000 .454 .080 .315 .228 -.015
IL2 .454 1.000 .419 .605 .073 .009
IL3 .080 .419 1.000 .625 -.033 .275
IL4 .315 .605 .625 1.000 .023 .062
IL5 .228 .073 -.033 .023 1.000 .514
IL6 -.015 .009 .275 .062 .514 1.000

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .575
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 95.134
df 15
Sig. .000

Communalities
Initial
IL1 1.000
IL2 1.000
IL3 1.000
IL4 1.000
IL5 1.000
IL6 1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.347 39.112 39.112 1.962 32.706 32.706
2 1.480 24.673 63.785 1.523 25.387 58.093
3 1.093 18.218 82.004 1.435 23.911 82.004
4 .435 7.242 89.245
5 .376 6.267 95.512
6 .269 4.488 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
  Component Matrixa  
   
                 

a. 3 components extracted.  
  Rotated Component Matrixa
  Component
  1 2 3
  IL1 .905
  IL2 .610 .608
  IL3 .912
  IL4 .830
  IL5 .852
  IL6 .880
           

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

 
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.  
  Component Transformation Matrix
  Component 1 2 3
  1 .823 .226 .521
  2 -.226 .972 -.065
  3 -.521 -.064 .851
           

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES HQ1 HQ2 HQ3 HQ4 HQ5 HQ6 HQ7 HQ8

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS HQ1 HQ2 HQ3 HQ4 HQ5 HQ6 HQ7 HQ8

/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION KMO EXTRACTION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/ROTATION NOROTATE

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

COMPONENT: HIGH QUALITY AND EFFECTIVE STAFF

Factor Analysis

Correlation Matrix
HQ1 HQ2 HQ3 HQ4 HQ5 HQ6 HQ7
Correlation HQ1 1.000 .650 .511 .323 .266 .279 .041
HQ2 .650 1.000 .421 .227 -.071 .174 -.051
HQ3 .511 .421 1.000 .506 .333 .556 .514
HQ4 .323 .227 .506 1.000 .683 .209 .098
HQ5 .266 -.071 .333 .683 1.000 .116 .138
HQ6 .279 .174 .556 .209 .116 1.000 .615
HQ7 .041 -.051 .514 .098 .138 .615 1.000
HQ8 .397 .385 .249 .160 .010 .046 .146

Correlation Matrix
HQ8
Correlation HQ1 .397
HQ2 .385
HQ3 .249
HQ4 .160
HQ5 .010
HQ6 .046
HQ7 .146
HQ8 1.000

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .594
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 184.710
df 28
Sig. .000

  Communalities  
  Initial Extraction  
  HQ1 1.000 .750  
  HQ2 1.000 .790  
  HQ3 1.000 .782  
  HQ4 1.000 .826  
  HQ5 1.000 .868  
  HQ6 1.000 .767  
  HQ7 1.000 .825  
  HQ8 1.000 .455  
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 3.101 38.761 38.761 3.101 38.761 38.761
  2 1.572 19.655 58.416 1.572 19.655 58.416
  3 1.390 17.372 75.788 1.390 17.372 75.788
  4 .763 9.542 85.330
  5 .426 5.320 90.650
  6 .344 4.298 94.948
  7 .243 3.037 97.985
  8 .161 2.015 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
                             

 

Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
HQ1 .727 -.470 -.018
HQ2 .574 -.656 .176
HQ3 .864 .150 .110
HQ4 .660 .116 -.614
HQ5 .493 .317 -.725
HQ6 .618 .438 .439
HQ7 .487 .607 .469
HQ8 .445 -.474 .181

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a
a. 3 components extracted.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES HQ1 HQ2 HQ3 HQ4 HQ5 HQ6 HQ7 HQ8

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS HQ1 HQ2 HQ3 HQ4 HQ5 HQ6 HQ7 HQ8

/PRINT ROTATION

/FORMAT BLANK(.5)

/CRITERIA FACTORS(3) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

Factor Analysis

Component Matrixa

  a. 3 components extracted.  
  Rotated Component Matrixa  
  Component  
  1 2 3  
  HQ1 .809  
  HQ2 .889  
  HQ3 .646  
  HQ4 .877  
  HQ5 .927  
  HQ6 .861  
  HQ7 .905  
  HQ8 .671  

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a

 
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.168 27.103 27.103
  2 2.016 25.196 52.299
  3 1.879 23.489 75.788
                       

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
  Component Transformation Matrix  
  Component 1 2 3  
  1 .628 .571 .529  
  2 -.756 .608 .241  
  3 .184 .551 -.814  
           

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6 PL7 PL8 PL9 PL10 PL11

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6 PL7 PL8 PL9 PL10 PL11

/PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/ROTATION NOROTATE

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

COMPONENT: PERSONAL LEADERSHIP

Factor Analysis

  Communalities  
  Initial Extraction  
  PL1 1.000 .844  
  PL2 1.000 .769  
  PL3 1.000 .839  
  PL4 1.000 .774  
  PL5 1.000 .599  
  PL6 1.000 .859  
  PL7 1.000 .773  
  PL8 1.000 .802  
  PL9 1.000 .831  
  PL10 1.000 .833  
  PL11 1.000 .838  
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.981 27.097 27.097 2.981 27.097 27.097
  2 2.034 18.494 45.591 2.034 18.494 45.591
  3 1.408 12.802 58.394 1.408 12.802 58.394
  4 1.241 11.285 69.678 1.241 11.285 69.678
  5 1.095 9.953 79.632 1.095 9.953 79.632
  6 .696 6.329 85.961
  7 .540 4.912 90.873
  8 .393 3.572 94.445
  9 .284 2.578 97.023
  10 .198 1.797 98.820
  11 .130 1.180 100.000
                         

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

  Component Matrixa
  Component
  1 2 3 4 5
  PL1 .224 .587 -.145 .322 -.570
  PL2 .463 .551 -.360 -.312 -.154
  PL3 .258 .115 .606 .601 .175
  PL4 .831 .001 .176 -.229 -.022
  PL5 .499 .379 -.334 .284 -.117
  PL6 .647 -.281 .421 -.289 -.318
  PL7 .781 -.115 .283 .240 .107
  PL8 .150 .490 .353 -.612 .200
  PL9 .674 -.291 -.431 .137 .297
  PL10 .430 -.690 -.399 -.098 .054
  PL11 .147 .580 -.143 .042 .676
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a  
a. 5 components extracted.  
               

FACTOR

/VARIABLES PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6 PL7 PL8 PL9 PL10 PL11

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6 PL7 PL8 PL9 PL10 PL11

/PRINT INITIAL ROTATION

/FORMAT BLANK(.5)

/CRITERIA FACTORS(5) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX

/METHOD=CORRELATION.

Factor Analysis

  Communalities  
  Initial  
  PL1 1.000  
  PL2 1.000  
  PL3 1.000  
  PL4 1.000  
  PL5 1.000  
  PL6 1.000  
  PL7 1.000  
  PL8 1.000  
  PL9 1.000  
  PL10 1.000  
  PL11 1.000  
  Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.  
  Total Variance Explained
  Component Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
  Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
  1 2.981 27.097 27.097 2.145 19.497 19.497
  2 2.034 18.494 45.591 1.982 18.016 37.512
  3 1.408 12.802 58.394 1.780 16.178 53.690
  4 1.241 11.285 69.678 1.474 13.401 67.091
  5 1.095 9.953 79.632 1.379 12.541 79.632
  6 .696 6.329 85.961
  7 .540 4.912 90.873
  8 .393 3.572 94.445
  9 .284 2.578