Premium
PRODUCTIVITY OF SCHOOLS IN RELATION TO PROCESS AND STRUCTURE VARIABLES OF EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: A STUDY OF ACHIEVEMENT IN GEOMETRY
Author(s) -
SINGH P.
Publication year - 1981
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02473.x
Subject(s) - mathematics education , productivity , psychology , curriculum , variables , academic achievement , regression analysis , pedagogy , mathematics , statistics , economics , economic growth
S ummary . A sample of 474 10th graders was drawn from 17 schools, governing a catchment area of one district in Punjab (India). Using process and structure variables as inputs and the criterion variable of achievement in geometry as an output, the schools were dichotomised as productive and under‐productive on the basis of their predicted achievement in multivariate regression equations. The global and analytical picture of such schools was viewed in terms of process and structure variables associated with school, classroom, teachers and students. It was observed that productive schools were characterised by bigger size, higher pupil: teacher ratio and lower expenditure per student in terms of teachers' salaries. The variables of schools characteristics such as: curriculum press, methods of teaching and student teacher interaction in the classroom, curricular activities, school rules, regulations, policies and school traditions revealed a trend in favour of productive schools, which was further substantiated in the analytic picture of schools giving the highest and the lowest output. The teachers of productive schools were conspicuous by superior self‐concept irrespective of their qualifications and experience. However, when these variables were made operative, experience favoured better attitudes toward ‘professional growth’ and ‘school discipline’. The pupils of productive and under‐productive schools did not differ in respect of their previous academic background; however intelligence and socio‐economic status emerged as differential variables.