Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
Psychology of education
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
Bronfenbrenners
ecological theory of
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
development that affect
students academic
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
performance
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfgh
.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
Students academic gain and learning performance is affected by
numerous factor including gender, age, teaching faculty, students
schooling, father or guardian social economic status, residential area of
students, medium of instructions in schools, tuition trend, daily study hour
and accommodation as hostelries or day scholar. These factors strongly
influence on the student performance, but these factors vary from person
to person and country to country. Many researchers conducted detailed
studies about the factors contributing student performance at different
study levels.
This study is being conducted to dig out the factors which are
important for the effective learning of students and enhance the quality of
education. Previously a lot of research has been done on this topic.
Different researchers researched on various variables and a lot of different
variables were studied. Our contribution to this study is that we explore
and discover the various factors which are classified by Bronfenbrenners
ecological
theory
of
development
that
affect
students
academic
performance.
These factors are students personal factor, personality traits of
lecturer, teaching skills of lecturer, management of faculty, other factors
such as facilities, family and peer as stressor and linkage between student
and faculty. In Malaysian scenario, many researchers have done a lot of
work on communication, learning facilities and so on. This research
hopefully will be helpful for the parents as well as the teachers of the
students to guide them properly and as per their abilities.
This study will explore two systems of Bronfenbrenners ecological
systems theory, which are microsystem and mesosystem. For instance, a
2 | Page
microsystem,
mesosystem,
exosystem,
macrosystem
and
chronosystem.
The microsystem is the small, immediate environment the child lives
in. Children's microsystems will include any immediate relationships or
organizations they interact with, such as their immediate family or
caregivers and their school or daycare. How these groups or organizations
interact with the child will have an effect on how the child grows; the more
encouraging and nurturing these relationships and places are, the better
the child will be able to grow.
Bronfenbrenner'stheory next level is the mesosystem, encompasses
the interaction of the different microsystems which the developing child
finds himself in. It is, in essence, a system of microsystems and as such,
involves linkages between home and school, between peer group and
family, or between family and church. If a childs parents are actively
involved in the friendships of their child, invite friends over to their house
and spend time with them, then the childs development is affected
positively through harmony and like-mindedness.
3 | Page
The exosystem, on the other hand, pertains to the linkages that may
exist between two or more settings, one of which may not contain the
developing child but affects him indirectly nonetheless. Other people and
places which the child may not directly interact with but may still have an
effect on the child, comprise the exosystem. Such places and people may
include the parents workplaces, the larger neighbourhood, and extended
family members. For example, a father who is continually passed up for
promotion by an indifferent boss at the workplace may take it out on his
children and mistreat them at home.
The macrosystem is the largest and most distant collection of
people and places to the child that still exercises significant influence on
the child. It is composed of the childs cultural patterns and values,
specifically the childs dominant beliefs and ideas, as well as political and
economic
systems.
Children
in
war-torn
areas,
for
example,
will
5 | Page
in
the
form
of
frequency
distribution
and
table
of
1.2Problem statement
The
government has
set ambitious
aspirations
to transform
Malaysias higher education system into the system that ranks among the
worlds leading education system. It is very significant to study the
contributing factors of successful and failure among university students in
the country. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of
environments towards the students of UiTM Puncak Alam.
There are many possible factors can contribute toward students
academic performances. This study will focus on students interest,
lecturers personality and professional skills, institutional and other
factors. These factors are classified by Bronfenbrenners ecological theory
of development.
This study will explore the two systems which are microsystem and
mesosystem of Bronfenbrenners ecological systems theory and its effects
on students academic outcomes. The microsystem is a setting in which
individual spends considerable time, such as the students family peers,
school, and neighborhood. Besides that, the mesosystem involves
linkages between microsystems. For instance, linkages between home and
school, between peer group and family, or between family and church.
1.3 Research Objective
Specifically, the objectives of this study were as follows:
1) To determine the extent to which identified factors influence
students academic outcomes.
2) To analyze students perception of their own behaviors, lecturers
personality traits, teaching skill of the lecturers, institutional
and other factors with their
academic
achievement
using
the
6 | Page
1.4
Research Question
7 | Page
DEFINITION
Effects
Environment
University
graduate
studies
together
with
several
Academic
college or university.
(Adjective) connected with education, especially in
Performance
8 | Page
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter is conducted to find out several opinions that had been made by local
researchers and other countries regarding on Effects of Environment towards Academic
Performance of UiTM Students.
American psychologist, Urie Bronfenbrenner, formulated the Ecological Systems
Theory to explain how the inherent qualities of a child and the characteristics of the external
environment which the child finds himself in interact to influence how the child will grow
and develop. Bronfenbrenner believed that a person's development was affected by
everything in their surrounding environment. He divided the person's environment into five
different levels: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the
chronosystem. This study focus on microsystem and mesosystem of Bronfenbrenners theory.
The microsystem is the system closest to the person and the one in which they have
direct contact. A microsystem typically includes family, peers, teachers or caregivers.
Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional. The mesosystem consists of the
interactions between the different parts of a person's microsystem. The mesosystem is where
a person's individual microsystems do not function independently, but are interconnected and
assert influence upon one another. These interactions have an indirect impact on the
individual.
2.1 Students Academic Performance
There exist unprejudiced evidence from previous empirical literature
that students academic performance can be assessed using numerous
methodologies (Ganyaupfu, 2013). Although some studies use grade point
averages in measuring students academic achievements, this research
adopts the procedure used by Hijaz & Naqvi (2006). The approach uses
the average of overall marks of all courses studied by the learner per
specific semester of the academic calendar year. The final academic
performance results are computed from formative and summative
assessments for the respective semester in consideration.
9 | Page
abilities
around
concepts
to
comprehension
be
imparted
and
to
transformation
learners
of
(Ganyaupfu,
learning
experiences,
enhance
learners
responsibility
to
become
11 | P a g e
According to a study by Manlove & Elliott (1977) found that the overall academic
performance of students an academic institution is negatively affected by high teacher
absenteeism. Moreover, further analysis from the research found a correlation between
teacher attendance and student achievement. Jacobs & Kritsonis (1997) conducted a study
involving certain classes revealed that teachers who posted the highest level of absenteeism
recorded the lowest scores of students academic performances. Woods & Montagno (1997)
purported that the high the teacher attendance rate becomes, the lower also the students
academic performances become.
Consistent with the above findings are the results from the study conducted by Pitkoff
(1993). The study found out that teachers who received low performance markings missed a
larger number of days than those who did not. This result provides an impetus for education
administrators to develop lecturer development plans early in the academic year for low
performing teachers than later in the respective academic year. However, Scott &McClellan
(1990) discovered that the higher the degree obtained by the lecturer, the higher the number
of days they became absent from the classroom. Additionally, Bruno (2000) purported that
high absenteeism by certain teachers tend to lower the morale of remaining teachers, thereby
resulting in high teacher turnover as other teachers tend to feel more burdened regarding
additional planning for their absent colleague.
2.3 Facilities and Learning Condition
A student and academic success is greatly influences by the type of university or school they
attend. University and school factors include the university structure, composition and
climate. The university or school one attends is the institutional environments that are sets the
parameter of a students learning experience. Barry (2005) states that, depending on the
environment, school can either open or close the doors that lead to academic performance.
Crosnoe et al. (2004) suggests that school sector (public or private and class size are two
important structural components of the school. Besides, according to Crosnoe (2004), school
climate is the general atmosphere of school. Kombo (2005) observes that the leadership style
of the head teacher creates a kind of learning environment. A cordial relationship between the
head teacher and learners creates an environment conducive to learning as discussions are
encouraged and learners are listened to. Griffin (1994) emphasizes that the students must be
effectively involved in the administration system of the school.
12 | P a g e
also
indicated
that
family
supports
have
significant
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis of data based on the finding of
the study. The analysis of data showed in the form of frequency
distribution and table of percentages. The total of samples who answer
this questionnaire was sixty, so the questions were analyzed in two parts.
Part A is about students personal background, while Part B is about
environmental factors that affect academic performance which are
includes six sections.
In section 1 include students personal factor, in section 2 include
personality traits of lecturer, in section 3 include teaching skills of lecturer,
in section 4 include management of faculty, in section 5 include other
factors such as facilities, family and peer and lastly in section 6 include
linkage between student and faculty.
To make this research success, the samples of sixty students from
different program which are from Faculty of Education, UiTM Puncak Alam
is involved. They were given a set of questionnaire by researcher. The
contents of that questionnaire was related on students personal
background and environmental factors that affect academic performance
which are students personal factor, personality traits of lecturer, teaching
skills of lecturer, management of faculty, other factors such as facilities,
family and peer and last but not least linkage between student and
faculty.
16 | P a g e
4. 1 Demographic profile
Part A: Personal Background
4.1.1 Question 1: Gender
Gender
Male
Female
Number of respondents 19
41
Percentage of
respondent
68.3%
31.7%
Table 1
Number of responents
Gender
Male
Female
Respondents'
Percentages(%)
Scale
Figure 1
17 | P a g e
19-22
23-25
Number
of
responde
nts
Percentag
e of
responde
nt
36
20
26 and
above
4
60%
33.3%
6.7%
Table 2
Age
Respondentss'
Percentages (%)
0
Number of respondents
19-22 years old
Scale
Figure 2
Table and figure 2 show that 60% of the respondents are in between
19-22 years old, 33.3% of them from 23- 25 years old and 6.7% of the
respondents are from age of 26 years old and above.
18 | P a g e
Science
Education
20
Physical and
Art and Design
Health Education Education
20
20
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
Table 3
Programmes
40
20
0
D
es
ig
n
Ar
ta
nd
Sc
ie
nc
e
Scale
Ed
uc
at
io
n
Respondents' Percentage
Ed
uc
at
io
n
Number of respondents
Figure 3
Table and figure 3 show that 33.3% of respondents are from Science
Education programme, 33.3% of the other respondents are from Physical
and Health Education while the another 33.3% of the respondents from
Art and Design programme.
19 | P a g e
Less than
2.00
0
2.00-2.50
2.51-3.00
3.01-3.50
3.51-4.00
10
25
21
0%
6.7%
16.6%
41.7%
35%
Table 4
CGPA
3.
51
-4
.0
0
respondents'
Percentages (%)
Scale
Le
ss
th
an
2.
00
Number of respondents
Figure 4
Table and figure 4 show there are no respondent (0%) with CGPA
less than 2, 6.7% of the respondents are with CGPA of 2.00-2.50, 16.6% of
them get CGPA at range of 2.51- 3.00, 41.7% of the respondents having
CGPA of 3.01-3.50, and the another 35% of the respondents with CGPA of
3.51-4.00
20 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
3
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
19
26
Strongly
agree
8
5%
6.7%
31.7%
43.3%
13.3%
Table 5
Question 1
ag
re
e
So
m
Scale
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
ew
ha
t
di
sa
gr
ee
Scale
St
ro
ng
ly
Number of respondents
2600.00%
1900.00%
30
20 300.00%400.00%
800.00%
10
0
Figure 5
21 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
1
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
12
33
Strongly
agree
11
1.7%
5%
20%
55%
18.3%
Table 6
Question 2
3300.00%
300.00%
ew
ha
t
di
sa
gr
ee
Series 1
So
m
Scale
1100.00%
ag
re
e
1200.00%
St
ro
ng
ly
100.00%
di
sa
gr
ee
St
ro
ng
ly
Number of respondents
40
20
0
Figure 6
22 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
1
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
15
26
Strongly
agree
12
1.7%
10%
25%
43.3%
20%
Table 7
Question 3
ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly
ew
ha
t
Scale
Series 1
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
di
sa
gr
ee
40
20
0
Figure 7
23 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
16
28
Strongly
agree
12
0%
6.7%
26.7%
46.7%
20%
Table 8
ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly
ew
ha
t
Scale
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
2800.0%
1200.0%
400.0% 1600.0%
0.0%
Series 1
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
0 40
Question 4
Figure 8
24 | P a g e
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent
Strongly
disagree
5
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
21
16
Strongly
agree
9
8.3%
15%
35%
26.7%
15%
Table 9
Question 5
ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
ew
ha
t
Scale
Series 1
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
40 500.0%900.0%2100.0%
1600.0%900.0%
20
0
Figure 9
25 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
8
27
Strongly
agree
22
0%
5%
13.3%
45%
36.7%
Table 10
Question 6
Figure 10
St
ro
ng
ly
ew
ha
t
Scale
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
D
is
ag
re
e
0
Number of respondents
Respondents' Percentages (%)
Ag
re
e
50
Table and figure 2.1 show the opinion of the respondents about their
positive relationship with the lecturer. 0% of the respondents are strongly
disagree, 5% are disagree, 13.3% are somewhat disagree, 45% are agree
and 36.7% of them are strongly agree with this question.
26 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
13
29
Strongly
agree
15
0%
5%
21.7%
48.3%
25%
Table 11
QUESTION 7
ag
re
e
Respondents' Percentages
(%)
St
ro
ng
ly
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
100
50
0
Scale
Figure 11
Table and figure 7 show the opinions of the respondents about good
personality of their lecturers during teaching in classroom. 0% of them are
strongly disagree, 5% of respondents disagree, 21.7% are somewhat
disagree, 48.3% are agree and 25% are strongly agree with this question.
27 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
4
30
Strongly
agree
24
0%
3.3%
6.7%
50%
40%
Table 12
St
ro
ng
ly
Ag
re
e
Number of respondents
di
0
sa
gr
ee
QUESTION 8
Respondents' Percentages
(%)
Scale
Figure 12
Table and figure 2.3 show the opinion of respondents about the
opennesss ethic of their lecturers in classroom. 0% of them strongly
disagree, 3.3% are disagree, 6.7% of the respondents are somewhat
disagree, 50% are agree, and 40% are strongly agree with this question.
28 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
9
30
Strongly
agree
20
0%
1.7%
15%
50%
33.3%
Table 13
QUESTION 9
ag
re
e
Respondentss' Percentages
(%)
St
ro
ng
ly
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
100
50
0
Scale
Figure 13
Table and figure 9 show the opinion of the respondents about their
lecturers confidence during teaching and learning. 0% are strongly
disagree, 1.7% are disagree, 15% are somewhat disagree, 50% are agree
and 20% are strongly agree with this question.
29 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
1
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
8
33
Strongly
agree
17
1.7%
1.7%
13.3%
55%
28.3%
Table 14
QUESTION 10
60
40
Number of respondents
Respondents' Percentages
(%)
20
0
Strongly disagree
Scale
Figure 14
Table and figure 10 show the opinion of the respondents about their
lecturer which always have proper discipline. 1.7% of them are strongly
disagree, 1.7% are disagree, 13.3% are somewhat disagree, 55% of the
respondents are agree and 28.3% are strongly agree with this question.
30 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
8
31
Strongly
Agree
20
0%
2%
13%
52%
33%
Table 15
40
QUESTION 11
Number of respondents
0
QUESTION 11
Strongly Disagee
Agree
Scale
Figure 15
Table and figure 11 show that as much as 52% students agree that
in general their lecturers content knowledge is up-to-date while
33%
31 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
6
34
Strongly
Agree
18
0%
3%
10%
57%
30%
Table 16
Ag
re
e
QUESSTION 12
Scale
St
ro
ng
ly
St
ro
ng
ly
Number of respondents
D
is
ag 0
re
e
QUESTION 12
Figure 16
Table and figure 12 show that as much as 57% students agree that in general their
lecturer possess mastery of the subject matter while 30% strongly agree that their lecturer
possess mastery of the subject matter. As much as 10% students somewhat disagree and 3%
student are disagree with this question.
32 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
11
33
Strongly
Agree
15
0%
2%
18%
55%
25%
Table 17
St
ro
ng
ly
Scale
QUESSTION 13
Ag
re
e
Number of respondents
D
is
0 40
ag
re
e
QUESTION 13
Figure 17
Table and figure 13 show that as much as 55% students agree that in general their
lecturer use various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting lessons while 25%
strongly agree. As much as (18%) students somewhat disagree and 2% student is disagree
that their lecturer use various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting lessons.
33 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
14
33
Strongly
Agree
12
0%
2%
23%
55%
20%
Table 18
QUESTION 14
Ag
re
e
QUESTION 14
St
ro
ng
ly
D
is
ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly
Number of respondents
40
30
20
10
0
Scale
Figure 18
Table and figure 14 show that as much as 55% students agree that
in general their lecturer implement lessons effectively while 20% strongly
agree. As much as 23% students somewhat disagree and 2% student is
disagree that their lecturer implement lessons effectively.
34 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
9
30
Strongly
Agree
19
2%
2%
15%
50%
31%
Table 19
QUESTION 15
40
Number of respondents
20
0
Strongly Disagree
QUESTION 15
Agree
Scale
Figure 19
Table and figure 15 show that as much as 50% students agree that in general their
lecturers are able to engage student learning while 31% strongly agree. As much as 15%
students somewhat disagree, 2% student is disagree and 2% student is strongly disagree with
this question.
35 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
20
25
Strongly
Agree
6
15
33.3
41.7
10
Table 20
Question 16
So
m
ew
ha
t
di
sa
gr
ee
Series 1
Scale
600.0%
ag
re
e
900.0%
2000.0% 2500.0%
St
ro
ng
ly
0.0%
di
sa
gr
ee
St
ro
ng
ly
Number of respondent
30
20
10
0
Figure 20
36 | P a g e
Strongly
Disagree
Number of
3
responden
t
Percentag
5
e of
responden
t
Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
20
24
10
33.3
40
Strongly
Agree
7
11.7
Figure 21
Question 17
Scale
ag
re
e
Series 1
St
ro
ng
ly
ew
ha
t
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondent
di
sa
gr
ee
2000.0%2400.0%
30
20 300.0% 600.0%
700.0%
10
0
Figure 21
37 | P a g e
Strongly
agree
2
Agree
Disagree
10
Somewhat
disagree
22
20
Strongly
disagree
6
3.3
16.7
36.7
33.3
10
Figure 22
Question 18
200.0%
1000.0%
2200.0% 2000.0%
600.0%
ag
re
e
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
Scale
ew
ha
t
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Series 1
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondent
40
20
0
Figure 22
38 | P a g e
QUESTION 19
ag
re
e
Respondentss'
Percentages (%)
St
ro
ng
ly
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
100
50
0
Scale
Figure 23
Table and figure 19 show the opinion of the respondents about their
satisfaction with the facilities provided in their faculty or university. 3.3%
of the respondents are strongly disagree, 6.7% are disagree, 26.7% are
somewhat disagree, 50% are agree, 13.3 are strongly agree with this
question.
39 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
4
22
Strongly
agree
33
0%
1.7%
6.7%
36.6%
55%
Table 24
QUESTION 20
ag
re
e
Respondents'
Percentages (%)
St
ro
ng
ly
St
ro
ng
ly
di
sa
gr
ee
Number of respondents
100
50
0
Scale
Figure 24
40 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
0
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
12
30
Strongly
agree
18
0%
0%
20%
50%
30%
Table 25
Question 21
Number of respondents
60
40
20
0
Strongly disagree
Respondents' Percentages
(%)
Scale
Figure 25
41 | P a g e
YES
53
NO
7
88%
12%
Table 26
QUESTION 22
12%
88%
YES
NO
Figure 26
Table and figure 22 show that as much as 88% students answered yes to this question
which they found the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM beneficial for their
academic performance whereas as much as 12% students answered no to this question.
42 | P a g e
Question 23: The institution provide good financial support (eg: zakat,
food allowance, etc.)
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t
YES
50
NO
10
83%
17%
Table 27
QUESTION 23
17%
83%
YES
NO
Figure 27
43 | P a g e
YES
51
NO
9
85%
15%
Table 28
QUESTION 24
15%
85%
YES
NO
Figure 28
Table and figure 24 show that as much as 85% students answered yes to this question
which institution provide good psychological support (eg: counseling, etc.) whereas as much
as 15% students answered no to this question.
44 | P a g e
YES
57
NO
3
95%
5%
Table 29
QUESTION 25
5%
95%
YES
NO
Figure 29
question; when organize student activity, faculty encourages networking between students
and faculty or industry whereas as much as 5% students answered no to this question.
45 | P a g e
Table 30
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree (%)
(%)
36.4
63.6
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree (%)
(%)
62.5
37.5
Under this
section, we discuss more on students perceptions on their personal factors and how these
may affect their academic outcome. The first factor is students preparation before class.
Based on the percentage, it was found out that high performing students agreed more which is
(63.6%) than lower performing students, which is (37.5%). This means that high performing
students have make
students. Therefore, it can be assumed that a good preparation before class can positively
affecting students grades.
Question 2: I look forward to attending classes.
High CGPA
Agree
Disagree
79.5%
20.5%
Low CGPA
Agree
Disagree
56.3%
43.8%
Table 31
The second factor is the motivations level of students to attend classes. From the
table, it can be seen that low performing students agreed less which is only (56.3%),
compared to high performing students which is (79.5%). This shows that low performing
students have lower level of motivation than the high performing students. Thus we can
assume that high motivations level of students in attending classes may affect their
achievement.
46 | P a g e
exercises and
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
43.8%
56.3%
Table 32
Table 33
47 | P a g e
Disagree
56.3%
the
Low CGPA
Agree
43.8%
Table 34
feel frustrated when their lecturer is absent. Based on the table 2.5, it can
be concluded that percentage of students which has high CGPA and low
CGPA disagreed to the question at almost the same level. The high CGPA
students agreed by (59.1%) while the low CGPA students agreed by
(56.3%). Thus, it can be assumed that almost all the students disagreed
that they did not feel really upset when the lecturer is absent. This shows
that almost all of the students perceived that undisturbed class is
essential for effective learning. The faculty should highlight this issue as it
may affect students feeling when the lecturer is absent.
The findings are supported by other stdy conducted with high school
students.
48 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Agree
84%
Disagree
31%
Agree
69%
Table 35
Low CGPA
Agree
80%
Disagree
31%
Agree
69%
Table 36
50 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Agree
93%
Disagree
12%
Agree
88%
Table 37
Low CGPA
Agree
82%
Disagree
12%
Agree
87%
Table 38
subjects that have been taught. On the other side, the perception on low
performing students is they may not get or apply what their lecturers
teach although they agreed with this question. So, it can be concluded the
confidence level may positively and negatively effected students
academic performance.
52 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Agree
79%
Disagree
12%
Agree
88%
Table 39
agreement is come from students with low CGPA level (88%) while low
percentage of agreement from students with high CGPA level (79%). In
contrast, students with high CGPA pointed out this question with the
higher percentage (20%) of disagree than students with low CGPA (12%).
From the data analyzed, majority of students with high CGPA not agree
that their lecturers imposed proper disciplines as a good lecturer. This
may due to they have experienced bad situations for instances, the time
when their lecturers are coming late or not showing proper ethics in
classroom. To acquire a good achievement, they might be practice selflearning outside the classes. On other hand, low performing students may
not have or use other strategies in learning although they slightly agreed
their lecturers imposing proper discipline. But, in general this question is
positively and negatively influences students academic performances.
The findings are congruent to other study by Dunn (2000). He revealed that the theory
requires a lot from teachers in terms of their personality, in order to for meaningful learning
to take place in their students. Besides, Sikora (1997) profound that teacher have been
universally accepted as one of the most important component of education. Umoren and
Ogbodo (2001) pointed out that emotional stability is one of the needed competences of the
teacher. So, they highlighted that teachers should be emotionally stable in order to change
students under their control. The main focus of many researches of the classroom
environment has been on educators personality and behaviors. This study has found that the
positive personalities of the lecturers have a positive impact on behavior of students as well
as academic performances. It also found that the lecturers who run respectful classrooms are
in turn to be more respected by their students and students believe that these lecturers also
hold higher learning expectations. (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007) found that there is a
53 | P a g e
strong positive relationship between students level of motivation and engagement and their
perceptions of the classroom environment as being socially supportive.
Disagree
13.6%
High CGPA
Agree
86.4%
Disagree
12.5%
Low CGPA
Agree
87.5%
Table 40
The first teaching skills of the lecturer that has studied is having
content knowledge that is up-to-date. The study found that out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of them agree that in general their
lecturer have up-to-date content knowledge and remaining (13.6%)
students disagree with this question. Meanwhile out of 16 students with
low CGPA, only (12.5%) of the students disagree that their lecturers have
up-to-date content knowledge and remaining (87.5%) students agree with
this question. It seems that lecturers that have up-to-date content
knowledge are affecting the CGPA level of student in high rates. However,
students with low CGPA that are not success even though their lecturer
have up-to-date content knowledge may due to their own personals
factors.
Question 2: Have mastery of the subject matter.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
9.1%
90.9%
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
18.75%
81.25%
Table 41
16 students with low CGPA, (81.25%) students agree with this question
and the remaining (18.75%) students are disagree. This also pointed that
lecturers who have possess mastery of the subject matter are positively
affecting students academic performance. However, for the case students
with low CGPA that agree their lecturers have possess mastery of the
subject matter, may due to their own personals factors or other factors
such as their preparations, participation in class and etc.
High CGPA
Disagree
25%
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
6.25%
93.75%
Agree
75%
Table 42
disagree with this question. This shows that majority of the students
agreed that their lecturers use various teaching techniques and strategies
in presenting lessons. This shows that various teaching techniques and
strategies in presenting lessons that had been used by the lecturers are
affecting students on how they perceived some subjects with different
methods and this will eventually affecting their academic performance.
However, for those with low CGPA and not success in academic may due
to the other factor.
Question 4: Can effectively and clearly plan lessons.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
55 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
27.3%
72.7%
25%
75%
Table 43
(75%) of them are agree with this question and the remaining
(25%) students are disagree. This shows that lecturers who have
implement lessons effectively are positively affecting students academic
performance. However, for students with low CGPA that positively
answered this question but not success in academic performance may due
to their own personal factors.
Question 5 : Able to engage student learning.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
13.6%
86.4%
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
18.75%
81.25%
Table 44
Lastly, the final teaching skills of lecturers that had been studied is
lecturers are able to engage student learning. From the study, out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of them agreed that in general
their lecturers are able to engage student learning and remaining 6
(13.6%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students with low
CGPA, (18.75%) of them agree with this question and the remaining
(18.75%) students are disagree. It seems that lecturers who are able to
engage students learning are positively affect students academic
performance. However, for low CGPA students that positively answered
this question but not success may due to their own personal factors
.
According to Eggen&Kauchak (2001),there are three dimensions
under which a lecturers knowledge of subject tmatter can be measured;
56 | P a g e
57 | P a g e
58 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Disagree
47.7
Agree
50
Disagree
50
Table 45
agreed
that the faculty addressed students issues and concerns at almost the
same percentage. The high CGPA students agreed by about 52.3 % while
the low CGPA students agreed by 50%. This shows the level of satisfaction
towards institution management is moderately low.
Low CGPA
Agree
54.5
Disagree
56.3
Agree
43.8
Table 46
59 | P a g e
Agree
47.7
Disagree
68.8
Agree
31.25
Table 47
60 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Agree
59%
Disagree
25%
Agree
75%
Table 48
The investigation also was conducted by relating students CGPA level to the other
factors. The first factor is students satisfaction on facilities and learning conditions that have
provided by the university. The study found out the percentage of agreement is higher on
students from low CGPA but lower percentage of agreement on students from high academic
achievement. This showed that those current facilities and learning conditions provided by
faculty still are not conducive for learning and teaching. This proven as the percentage of
disagree regarding this question is higher on high performing students (41%) compared to
and low performing students (25%). The perceptions is although there are less facilities
provided, but students with good grades might be using the other approaches to acquire the
best ways of learning condition. Low performing students that majority agreed with this
question might not use those provided facilities and learning conditions in order to achieve
good results. So it can be concluded, the available facilities and learning condition are
considered positively and negatively effecting the academic performances.
Question 2: Parents and family always provides the social support.
High CGPA
Disagree
4%
Low CGPA
Agree
95%
Disagree
19%
Agree
82%
Table 49
Second factor is regarding social supports from their family. Study revealed out that
95 % of high performing students where as 82% of low performing students agreed that their
family give support during studying. In some extents, seems that social supports in the
aspects of emotional, financial and physical are positively influence a student academic
performance. Previous study, Fan (2001) demonstrated that familys aspiration proved to be
strongly related to students academic growth and performances.
61 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Agree
77%
Disagree
19%
Agree
81%
Table 50
The last other factor is a helpful peer. Study pointed out the percentage of agreement
is higher on low CGPA students (77%) compared to high CGPA students (81%). This shows
students with good grades not fully found their peers are able to facilitate and inspire them
towards getting a good academic performance. They might have different approaches in
learning such as learning from other tutors based on many sources. So, it is proven that peers
influenced are affecting students academic achievements in positive and negative ways. This
congruent to a study conducted by Ryan (2000). He found that peer groups were influential
regarding changes in students intrinsic value for school as well as achievement.
Previous research has revealed that classroom with highly cooperative group appears
to have students with more positive perceptions in grading, higher degree of social supports
as well as higher achievement scores. Based on this study, the perception of climate of mutual
respect between lecturers and students such as having good relationship and positive
openness to opinions and suggestions are required in order for students to improve their usage
of effective study strategies using the facilities provided by the university. Moreover, it can
increase their feeling of confidence about their abilities to successfully complete the
assignments, tests and quizzes.
emotional supports and encouragements from their lecturers and family, academic support
from their peers they more likely to be on task during learning and enhance their usage of
self-regulated strategies. Fan (2001) demonstrated that familys aspiration proved to be
strongly related to students academic growth and performances.
62 | P a g e
The person, or
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
6.25%
93.75%
Table 51
The first linkage between student and faculty that had been studied
is students found that the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM
beneficial for their academic performance. The study found that out 44
students with high CGPA level,
63 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
12.5%
87.5%
Table 52
shows that good financial support will result in positive effect on the
students academic performance as they will not stress on their financial
and reduce their burden in financial. However, for students with low CGPA
that answered this question positively but not success may due to their
parents have high salary and they do not depending on institutional
financial support and this is not one of the factor that affect their
academic performance. This can be conclude that, financial support may
or may not affect students academic performance as not all the students
in university are depending on the financial support.
64 | P a g e
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
12.5%
87.5%
Table 53
Besides that, the third linkage between student and faculty that
been studied is institution provides good psychological support for
instance counseling and etc. From the study it shows that out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of the students positively
approved that institution has provides good psychological support and the
remaining (13.6%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students
with low CGPA, (87.5%) students are agree and the remaining (12.5%)
students are disagree with this question. This also pointed that good
psychological support provided by institutions positively affect students
academic performance. However, for those with low CGPA that positively
answered this question acknowledged that there are good psychological
support but they are not seek for the help in terms of social support or
motivational support in order to improve their academic performance.
65 | P a g e
Question
3:
When
organize
student
activity,
faculty
encourages
High CGPA
Disagree
6.8%
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
0%
100%
Agree
93.2%
Table 54
Lastly, the fourth linkage between student and faculty that been
studied is when organize students activity, faculty encourages networking
between students and faculty or industry. Study found that out of 44
students with high CGPA level,
66 | P a g e
67 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction
This chapter discussed two major of title that consists of summary
and conclusion. For summary, it focused on the findings relationship
between environmental factors and students academic performance. For
the conclusion, it emphasized on what could be concluded from this
research.
5.1 Summary
In Chapter 1, the researcher began with discussing the research
objectives in which to identify and explore the effect of environment
towards students academic performances in UiTM Puncak Alam, Selangor.
So, the researcher encountered several questions regarding these
problems:
1) How the identified environment factors can affect students
academic achievement?
2) How are these factors related to Bronfenbrenners ecological system
theory?
Health Education, and the other 20 of questionnaire for students from Art
and Design Education.
69 | P a g e
5.3: Conclusion
In general, this study has revealed that environmental factors which are
students good personal factor, positive personality traits of lecturer, wellorganized teaching skills of lecturers, good management of faculty, other
factors such as current facilities, supportive family and helpful peers and
last but not least effective linkage between student and faculty are
positively affecting students academic performances. On the other hand,
Bronfebrenners Ecological Theory which is microsystem and mesosystem has developed a
model for conceptualizing all the environmental factors can influence a students academic
performance. Every student has many Microsystems such as the family, lecturers, and peers
as the platform for forming a positive relationship as well as experiences personal success
and failure in academic. As the mesosystem also has the potential to provide students with
social supports and consistency in daily activities, it is revealed as a good medium for
students to build a bridge between two settings during learning process in order to enhance
their academic achievements. These proven as majority of the students (about
70%) who involved in this study are managed to get higher CGPA level. In
conclusion, the model proposed in this study provides a first step toward
the development of a basic theory to guide our understanding of
undergraduate academic performance based on the environmental
factors.
70 | P a g e
APPENDIX
Data Analysis (in the form of table percentages before it is been
simplified)
1)
No. Ques.
I make myself
prepared for
the subject.
I look forward
to attending
classes.
I actively
participate in
the
discussion,
answering
exercises and
clarifying
things I did
not
understand.
I want to get
good grades
on tests,
quizzes,
assignments
and projects.
I get
frustrated
when the
discussion is
interrupted or
the lecturer is
absent.
71 | P a g e
Strongly
disagree
High
Low
CGPA
CGP
A
Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A
3.3
%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly
disagree
agree
Low High Low Hig Low Hig Low
CGP CGP CGP
h
CGP
h
CGP
A
A
A
CGP
A
CGP
A
A
A
3.3
20% 11.7 36.7 6.7 10% 3.3
%
%
%
%
%
3.3%
1.7%
0%
1.7%
3.3
%
1.7
%
11.7
%
8.3
%
45%
10%
13.3
%
5%
0%
1.7%
3.3
%
6.7
%
21.7
%
3.3
%
36.7
%
6.7
%
11.7
%
8.3
%
0%
0%
1.7
%
5%
16.7
%
10%
43.3
%
3.3
%
11.7
%
8.3
%
3.3%
5%
11.7
%
3.3
%
28.3
%
6.7
%
20%
6.7
%
10%
5%
Table 55
72 | P a g e
Has good
relations
hip with
students
and
lecturers.
Has an
appealing
personali
ty with
good
sense of
humor.
Is open to
suggestio
ns and
opinions
and its
worthy of
praise.
Shows
smartnes
s,
confidenc
e and
firmness
in making
decision.
Imposes
proper
discipline
.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Hig
h
CG
PA
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
0%
6%
2%
12%
14%
13%
52%
25%
32%
44%
0%
0%
0%
19%
20%
12%
57%
31%
23%
38%
0%
0%
0%
6%
7%
6%
59%
25%
34%
63%
0%
0%
0%
6%
18%
6%
57%
31%
25%
56%
2%
0%
0%
6%
18%
6%
59%
44%
20%
44%
Table 56
73 | P a g e
74 | P a g e
No. Ques.
Lecturers
content
knowledg
e is up to
date.
Posses
mastery
of the
subject
matter.
Uses
various
teaching
technique
s and
strategies
in
presentin
g the
lessons.
Can
effectively
and
clearly
plan
lessons.
Able to
engage
student
learning.
Strongly
disagree
Hig Low
h
CGP
CG
A
PA
Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Somewhat
disagree
High Low
CGP CGPA
A
Agree
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Strongly
agree
High Low
CGP CGPA
A
0%
0%
2%
6.5%
11.6
%
6%
52%
55.5
%
34.4
%
32%
0%
0%
0%
5%
9.1%
13.75
%
50%
51%
40.9
%
30.25
%
0%
0%
0%
4.25
%
25%
2%
55%
73%
20%
20.75
%
0%
0%
9.3
%
17%
18%
8%
57%
41%
15.7
%
34%
0%
0%
2%
6%
11.6
%
12.75
%
59%
44%
27.4
%
37.25
%
Table 57
75 | P a g e
76 | P a g e
4 ) Management of instituition
No. Ques.
Strongly
disagree
High Low
CGPA CGP
A
The faculty
addresses
students
issues and
concerns.
The faculty
look
reasonary
steps to
identify
students
issues.
The faculty
promotes
close
relationship
between staff
and students.
Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Somewhat
disagree
High Low
CGP CGP
A
A
Agree
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Strongly
agree
Hig Low
h
CGP
CGP
A
A
0%
0%
10%
5%
25%
8.3
%
33.3
%
8.3%
5%
5%
1.7%
3.3
%
6.7
%
3.3
%
25%
8.3
%
31.7
%
8.3%
8.3
%
3.3
%
0%
3.3
%
11.7
%
5%
26.7
%
10%
28.3
%
5%
6.7
%
3.3
%
Table 58
5) Other factor.
No. Ques.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
High
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGPA
2%
6%
9%
0%
30%
19%
I am happy
with the
facilities
and
learning
77 | P a g e
Agree
Strongly
agree
High Low
CGP CGP
A
A
Hig
h
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
43%
16%
6%
69%
conditions
provided.
Parents and
family
always
provides
the social
support.
I find my
peers are
helpful
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
19%
45%
13%
50%
69%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23%
19%
47%
50%
30%
31%
Table 59
78 | P a g e
No. Ques.
YES
High
CGP
A
Low
CGPA
High
CGP
A
Low
CGP
A
88.6
%
93.75
%
11.4
%
6.25
%
84%
87.5
%
16%
12.5
%
86.4
%
87.5
%
13.6
%
12.5
%
93.2
%
100%
6.8%
0%
Table 60
79 | P a g e
NO
Questionnaire:
Male
Fem
ale
2- Age
19-22
3- Program /Part
4- Current CGPA
23-25
26-above
:
:
Less
2.00-
2.51-
3.01-
3.51-
than
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
2.00
80 | P a g e
No
.
1
1)
5-strongly agree
No
.
1
2
3
4
5
1-
2-disagree
81 | P a g e
2-disagree
1-
No
.
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
4)
Management of institution
2
3
5-strongly agree
No
.
1
No
.
1
5) Other factors
I am happy with the facilities and learning
conditions provided.
Parents and family always provides the
social support.
I find my peers are helpful
82 | P a g e
2-disagree
1-
No
1
83 | P a g e
Yes
No
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., Perry, R. P., & Leventhal, L. (1982). The relationship between
student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 111.
Ali, H. O. Factors Affecting Students Academic Performance in
Mathematical Sciences Department in Tertiary Institutions in Nigeria.
Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived
service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian
universities: development of HiEduQual. Journal of Modelling in
Management, 11(2).
Bilodeau, C., & Meissner, J. (2016). The Effects of a Combined Academic
and Personal Counselling Initiative for Post-Secondary Student Retention.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 0829573516644554.
Chukwuemeka, O. (2013). Environmental Influence on Academic
Performance of Secondary School Students in Port Harcourt Local
Government Area of Rivers State. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 4(12), 34-38.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement.
Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1.
Egunsola, A. O. (2014). Influence of home environment on academic
performance of secondary school students in Agricultural Science in
Adamawa State Nigeria. Journal of Research and Method in Education,
4(4), 46-53.
Fraser, W. J., & Killen, R. (2003). Factors influencing academic success or
failure of first-year and senior university students: do education students
and lecturers perceive things differently?. South African Journal of
Education, 23(4), 254-263.
Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2013). Teaching Methods and Students Academic
Performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Invention, 2(9), 29-35
84 | P a g e
85 | P a g e