Return to issue Full Text - PDF Full text - EPUB Download MP3
Table of Contents
Greener Journal of Educational Research
Vol. 15(1), pp. 199-208, 2025
ISSN: 2276-7789
Copyright ©2025, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
https://gjournals.org/GJER
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15580/GJER.2025.1.091625137
1 Science Education Department, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu State, Nigeria. Email: abigailujo@gmail.com
2 Science Education Department, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu Alike Ikwo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Email: merciful.ssit@gmail.com
Type: Research
Full Text: PDF, PHP, HTML, EPUB, MP3
DOI: 10.15580/GJER.2025.1.091625137
Accepted: 18/09/2025
Published: 24/10/2025
Mercy Ifunanya Ani
E-mail: merciful.ssit@gmail.com
Keywords: Academic Performance, Basic Science, Environmental Factors, Public Secondary Schools
Academic performance is the measurable level of a student’s attainment of prescribed learning outcomes, demonstrated through grades, examination scores, continuous assessments, and practical competencies, relative to established standards and benchmarks. Academic performance is the documented evidence of students’ mastery of curriculum objectives and captured through tests, teacher-made exams, continuous assessment, and practical evaluations reflecting both cognitive achievement and skill acquisition (Olatoye, 2018; Adeyemi, 2019; Okebukola, 2020). Academic performance is the measurable level of a learner’s achievement in curriculum-based objectives, commonly evidenced through standardized tests, teacher-made examinations, continuous assessment records, and practical tasks, reflecting both cognitive attainment and skill acquisition (Olatoye , 2018). According to Adeyemi (2019), academic performance refers to the extent to which students demonstrate mastery of prescribed learning outcomes across subjects, indicated by grades, examination scores, and competency checks, and shaped by instructional quality, assessment practices, and school context. Okebukola (2020) noted that academic performance is the observable and documentable learning gains of students in relation to set benchmarks and standards captured through summative and formative assessments, practical evaluations, and external examinations signifying the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes. The academic performance of students in Basic Science has been a subject of interest for educators and policymakers alike. Various factors contribute to this performance, with environmental influences being paramount.
Learning environment is the totality of physical, social, and instructional conditions in which learning occurs including classroom climate (teacher support, peer relations, expectations), teaching practices and assessment routines, and the quality/safety of facilities and resources that collectively shape students’ engagement, motivation, and academic outcomes. The learning environment spanning classroom climate, instructional practices, and the physical science workspace—plays a decisive role in shaping Basic Science student outcomes, with research showing that students’ perceptions of teacher support, involvement, task orientation, equity, and clarity of goals strongly predict engagement, persistence in practicals, and achievement (Fraser, 2012, 2015; Aldridge & Fraser, 2016); inquiry‑oriented, autonomy‑supportive teaching with clear structure (choice in experiments, scaffolded investigations, explicit lab safety and feedback cycles) enhances motivation, conceptual understanding, and performance across continuous assessment and standardized examinations (Wang & Degol, 2016); and well designed, adequately resourced science spaces—proper lighting and ventilation, noise control, safe and sufficient apparatus, ergonomic layouts, and organized storage improve on‑task behaviour, practical competence, and reliability of assessment evidence, especially in resource‑constrained public schools (Puteh & Khalin, 2016; Puteh et al., 2018). This study aims to explore how different environmental factors affect the academic performance of Basic Science students in public secondary schools in Enugu North LGA of Enugu State.
Research indicates that the environment in which Basic Science students learn profoundly shapes how well Basic Science students absorb and retain information. As Anayo (2022) observes, classroom conditions such as lighting, seating arrangement, and noise levels directly affect learning and performance. Equally, access to appropriate science facilities and equipment is vital for practical lessons, which underpin deep understanding in Basic Science. Supportive teacher-student relationships and a positive classroom climate enhance engagement and persistence during inquiry activities, leading to stronger test and practical outcomes. Well-structured peer collaboration promotes problem solving and conceptual understanding, whereas poorly managed group work can impede progress. School level factors, including class size, timetable stability, and reliable electricity and water in laboratories, further shape the effectiveness of instruction and assessment. Moreover, community and home contexts such as the availability of a quiet study space and parental encouragement interact with school conditions to either strengthen or weaken students’ learning. Accordingly, this study seeks to identify the specific environmental factors that influence Basic Science students’ academic performance in Enugu North LGA of Enugu State, Nigeria.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The physical learning environment encompassing classroom and laboratory infrastructure, environmental quality, and resource availability exerts a direct influence on Basic Science students’ performance by shaping attention, safety, and opportunities for hands-on inquiry. Recent evidence shows that specific environmental parameters correlate with measurable gains in science outcomes. Victor et al. (2021) report that lighting quality, acoustic control, thermal comfort, and classroom design features collectively account for meaningful variance in student achievement, with well-lit, well ventilated, and acoustically treated spaces supporting sustained attention during demonstrations and experiments. Ugwueze and Igboke (2023) demonstrate that school facility quality like cleanliness, maintenance, and functional layout predicts student achievement indirectly through improved school climate and directly by reducing disruptions; for Basic Science, orderly labs with clear sightlines and reliable utilities reduce setup time and accidents, enabling more instructional minutes for practicals and boosting practical test scores. Obiekezie et al. (2020) further show that ergonomic seating, adequate workspace, safe storage, and availability of apparatus in science rooms are associated with greater on task behaviour and higher performance on practical assessments, particularly in resource-constrained contexts. Applied to Basic Science in public secondary schools, these findings imply that ensuring adequate lighting and ventilation, minimizing noise, maintaining functional water and power supply, and providing organized, safe laboratory spaces will enhance students’ ability to conduct experiments, retain concepts through experiential learning, and achieve higher scores on both continuous assessment and standardized examinations (Victor et al., 2021; Ugwueze & Igboke, 2023; Obiekezie et al., 2020).
The home environment is a critical determinant of Basic Science achievement. Anayo (2021) notes that family contexts can either support or impede progress, and recent research clarifies how: Jeynes (2022) finds that parental involvement especially high expectations, consistent communication, and study support moderately boosts achievement, translating in Basic Science to stronger homework completion, richer scientific explanations, and persistence with experiments; Hill and Tyson (2021) show that academic socialization (valuing science, goal-setting, and linking schoolwork to careers) predicts better self-regulation and greater subject interest, elevating engagement in investigations; Sirin and Rogers-Sirin (2020) highlight that material resources quiet study space, reliable electricity or internet, and learning materials mediate achievement gaps by enabling at-home practice and improving assessment performance. Núñez et al. (2020) report that structured routines and autonomy-supportive parenting foster intrinsic motivation and deeper learning strategies, helping students plan investigations, reflect on results, and excel in practicals and tests. Collectively, these findings underscore that parental involvement, adequate study space, and access to learning resources substantially shape Basic Science students’ outcomes.
Peer influence is a powerful pathway through which the school social environment shapes Basic Science achievement, operating via norms for effort, collaborative learning quality, and socio-emotional supports that enable inquiry. Building on Okolo (2019), recent work provides clearer mechanisms. Ryan and Shin (2020) show that peer academic norms and friendship networks predict engagement and persistence in STEM tasks; when a student’s close peers value science and prioritize homework, students exhibit higher time-on-task and greater willingness to tackle challenging experiments, yielding stronger Basic Science assessments. King and McInerney (2022) find that peer motivational climates characterized by mastery-oriented goals, encouragement, and constructive feedback foster self-efficacy and science identity, which in turn mediate gains in conceptual understanding during practicals and projects. Okolo (2019) report that prosocial peer behaviour (helping, sharing explanations, inclusive group processes) promotes classroom belonging and improves regulation during group investigations, reducing off-task behaviour and errors in laboratory work key drivers of performance in Basic Science. Rivas-Drake et al. (2021) further demonstrate that supportive peer networks buffer stress and stereotype threat in diverse classrooms, enabling sustained attention and better problem-solving in science activities; students embedded in such networks participate more in hands-on inquiry and achieve higher practical scores. Together, these findings indicate that cultivating peer groups with positive academic norms, mastery oriented collaboration, and prosocial interaction directly enhances Basic Science outcomes by increasing engagement in experiments, improving accuracy and safety in labs, and deepening conceptual understanding.
The availability and quality of science facilities and equipment are foundational to deep learning in Basic Science because they enable frequent, safe, and conceptually aligned hands-on inquiry. Ezema and Thomos (2020), Anikwe and Madu (2024) synthesize evidence that well designed laboratory experiences supported by sufficient apparatus, clear procedures, and opportunities for reflection enhance conceptual understanding, scientific reasoning, and attitudes toward science. Agu and Nweke (2024) argue that practical work raises attainment when tasks are tightly aligned to learning goals and when equipment reliability allows students to focus on linking observations to underlying theory rather than on troubleshooting materials. Onyia and Okpala (2019) highlight that access to laboratories equipped for demonstrations, small-group experiments, and data logging fosters curiosity and sustained engagement, which are precursors to higher test performance. Moreover, Freeman et al. (2024) show across STEM fields that active learning often reliant on manipulatives, sensors, and simple experimental setups significantly improves exam scores and reduces failure rates, implying that resource-rich Basic Science classrooms can leverage interactive methods to close achievement gaps. Together, these studies indicate that schools with well maintained laboratories, adequate consumables, and appropriate safety infrastructure not only increase time-on-task and reduce procedural errors, but also promote the kind of evidence-based reasoning and conceptual integration that translate into superior performance in Basic Science.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the recognized importance of environmental factors on academic performance, many public secondary schools in Enugu North LGA face challenges related to inadequate facilities, poor classroom conditions, and unsupportive home environments. This study aims to investigate the extent to which these environmental factors influence the academic performance of Basic Science students in this area. Persistent shortages of laboratory equipment and consumables limit opportunities for hands-on experiments, thereby constraining students’ conceptual understanding and practical skills. Overcrowded classrooms, suboptimal lighting and ventilation, and excessive noise further reduce time-on-task and diminish attention during science instruction. In addition, disparities in home resources such as access to quiet study spaces, electricity, and learning materials create uneven readiness for classroom learning and homework completion. Limited parental involvement and weak academic socialization may also undermine motivation and persistence in Basic Science tasks. There is a lack of localized, empirical evidence quantifying the relative contributions of school and home environmental factors to Basic Science outcomes in Enugu North LGA. Addressing this gap will inform targeted interventions and resource allocation to improve the learning environment and raise Basic Science students’ performance.
Research Objectives
The study aims to assess the environmental factors influencing academic performance of Basic Science students in public secondary schools in Enugu North LGA, Enugu State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study sought to:
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance:
The study employed a correlational design with a target population comprising all Basic Science students in public secondary schools within Enugu North LGA (Junior Secondary 1–3 students). From the entire population, a sample of 300 students was drawn from 10 schools using stratified random sampling to ensure proportional representation by school, class level, and gender; within each stratum, participants were randomly selected from class registers. Data were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire and an academic records extraction form: the questionnaire captured environmental factors at school and at home, while the records form captured recent term examination scores and continuous assessment in Basic Science. Instrument validity was addressed through expert review by three specialists in Basic Science education, measurement, and evaluation. A pilot test with 30 students from a non-sampled school to refine item clarity; construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis (KMO ≥ 0.70, Bartlett’s test p < .001). Reliability was established using internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.70 for each subscale: classroom environment, laboratory resources, peer climate, parental involvement, and home study resources) and test retest reliability over a two-week interval on the pilot group (intra-class correlation coefficients ≥ 0.75). Data collection procedures included obtaining institutional approvals, informed consent, standardized administration of questionnaires during school hours under researcher supervision, and secure retrieval of Basic Science students’ scores from school records with identifiers anonymized. Data analysis was conducted in SPSS: data cleaning and screening (missing data analysis, outlier checks, normality), descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies), reliability and factor analyses for the scales, Pearson and Spearman correlations between environmental factors and Basic Science performance as appropriate, multiple linear regression to estimate the unique contribution of school and home factors while controlling for gender and grade level, and diagnostic checks for multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and model fit; where assumptions were violated, robust standard errors and nonparametric tests were applied at α = .05 level of significance with effect sizes reported (β weights, R², semi-partial r, and 95% confidence intervals).
Research Question 1: How do classroom conditions affect the academic performance of Basic Science students?
Table 1: Classroom Conditions and Academic Performance
The analysis in Table 1 shows that students agree that classroom conditions positively impact their learning experience in Basic Science, with a total mean score of 3.16 and a standard deviation of 0.96. Specifically, well-ventilated rooms and adequate lighting received high mean scores of 3.23 and 3.20, respectively, indicating their importance for concentration and comprehension. The consistent “Agree” decision across all items suggests that factors such as comfortable seating, cleanliness, and classroom size, with mean scores ranging from 3.07 to 3.17, all contribute to a supportive learning environment. The findings imply that improving these classroom conditions can enhance students’ academic performance and engagement in Basic Science.
Research Question 2: What is the impact of the home environment on the academic performance of Basic Science students?
Table 2: Home Environment and Academic Performance
The analysis in Table 2 reveals that students agree that their home environment significantly influences their academic performance in Basic Science, with a total mean score of 3.18 and a standard deviation of 0.95. A quiet study space at home and parental support received high mean scores of 3.27 and 3.23, respectively, indicating their importance for focus and motivation. The consistent “Agree” decision across all items suggests that factors such as availability of resources, stable home environment, and family encouragement, with mean scores ranging from 3.10 to 3.17, all contribute to a supportive learning environment. The findings imply that a conducive home environment can enhance students’ academic performance and attitude towards Basic Science.
Research Question 3: To what extent does peer influence affect the academic performance of Basic Science students?
Table 3: Peer Influence and Academic Performance
The analysis in Table 3 shows that students agree that peer influence has a positive impact on their academic performance in Basic Science, with a total mean score of 3.01 and a standard deviation of 0.93. The results indicate that studying with friends, positive interactions, and collaborative learning are all beneficial, with mean scores ranging from 2.93 to 3.07, highlighting the importance of peer relationships in Basic Science learning. The “Agree” decision across all items suggests that peers’ engagement and academic performance also contribute to individual Basic Science students’ motivation and understanding. The findings imply that fostering a collaborative and supportive peer environment can enhance students’ academic performance and engagement in Basic Science.
Research Question 4: Is there a significant relationship between the availability of science facilities and the academic performance of Basic Science students?
Table 4: Availability of Science Facilities and Academic Performance
The analysis in Table 4 reveals that students strongly agree that the availability of science facilities significantly impacts their academic performance in Basic Science, with a total mean score of 3.15 and a standard deviation of 0.96. Well-equipped laboratories and adequate science facilities received the highest mean scores of 3.20, indicating their crucial role in enhancing practical skills and academic performance. The consistent “Agree” decision across all items suggests that access to science equipment and facilities also improves understanding, engagement, and interest in Basic Science. The findings imply that investing in and maintaining quality science facilities can lead to better students academic outcomes in Basic Science.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis One: There is no significant relationship between classroom conditions and the academic performance of Basic Science students.
Table 5: Pearson correlation analysis of the Relationship between Classroom Conditions and Academic Performance
Table 5 indicated that the calculated r-value (0.425) is greater than the critical r-value (0.113), and the p-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant positive relationship between classroom conditions and academic performance of Basic Science students. This suggests that better classroom conditions are associated with improved academic performance.
Hypothesis Two: The home environment does not significantly influence the academic performance of Basic Science students.
Table 6: Pearson Correlation Analysis of the Relationship between Home Environment and Academic Performance
Table 6 revealed that the calculated r-value (0.378) is greater than the critical r-value (0.113), and the p-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant positive relationship between home environment and academic performance of Basic Science students. This implies that a supportive home environment is associated with improved academic performance.
Hypothesis Three: Peer influence has no significant effect on the academic performance of Basic Science students.
Table 7: t-test Analysis of the Effect of Peer Influence on Academic Performance
(Positive Peer Influence)
(No Positive Peer Influence)
Table 7 indicated that the calculated t-value (4.56) is greater than the critical value (1.96) and the p-value (0.0001) is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis. This implies that peer influence have a significant effect on the academic performance of Basic Science students.
Hypothesis Four: There is no significant relationship between the availability of science facilities and the academic performance of Basic Science students.
Table 8: Pearson Correlation Analysis of the Relationship between Availability of Science Facilities and Academic Performance
Table 8 revealed that the calculated r-value (0.75) shows a strong positive correlation between the availability of science facilities and academic performance. The p-value (0.0001) is less than the 0.05 significance level, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The decision to reject the null hypothesis indicates a statistically significant relationship between the variables. This implies that there is a significant relationship between the availability of science facilities and the academic performance of Basic Science students.
The findings of this study revealed a significant relationship between classroom conditions and academic performance of Basic Science students, answering research question 1. This is consistent with the rejection of null hypothesis 1, which stated that there is no significant relationship between classroom conditions and academic performance. The result aligns with Anayo (2022), who found that well-maintained schools enhance student outcomes. Similarly, a study by Tanner (2019) emphasized the importance of physical learning environments in promoting student achievement. These findings suggest that improving classroom conditions can lead to better academic outcomes for Basic Science students.
The study also investigated the relationship between home environment and academic performance, addressing research question 2. The rejection of null hypothesis 2, which stated that there is no significant relationship between home environment and academic performance, supports the findings of Henry and Igboka (2024), who emphasized the role of family in academic progress. Fan and Chen (2001) also found that parental involvement in students’ academic lives significantly predicted academic achievement. However, some studies have reported mixed results, highlighting the complexity of this relationship (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2023). Nonetheless, the current study’s findings underscore the importance of a supportive home environment for Basic Science students.
Furthermore, the study explored the effect of peer influence on academic performance, answering research question 3. The rejection of null hypothesis 3, which stated that peer influence has no significant effect on academic performance, corroborates Wentzel and Caldwell (1997), who noted the importance of positive peer interactions. A study by Kindermann (1993) also found that students’ peer groups significantly influenced their academic motivation and engagement. However, some research has suggested that peer influence can have both positive and negative effects on academic performance, depending on the nature of the peer relationships (Berndt, 2019). The current study’s findings highlight the need for promoting positive peer interactions in Basic Science classrooms.
Lastly, the study examined the relationship between availability of science facilities and academic performance, addressing research question 4. The rejection of null hypothesis 4, which stated that there is no significant relationship between availability of science facilities and academic performance, is in line with Ugwueze and Thomas (2019), who underscored the value of practical experiences in science education. A study by Igwe and Emwk (2018) also emphasized the importance of laboratory experiences in promoting science learning. These findings suggest that providing adequate science facilities can enhance the academic performance of Basic Science students, and highlight the need for investment in science education infrastructure.
This study concludes that environmental factors significantly influence the academic performance of Basic Science students in public secondary schools in Enugu North LGA. Classroom conditions, home environment, peer influence, and availability of science facilities all play crucial roles in shaping student outcomes. Addressing these factors could lead to significant improvements in academic performance of Basic Science students in Enugu North LGA, Enugu State, Nigeria.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:
Acknowledgment
The researchers acknowledges the contributions of all participating schools, students, and colleagues who supported this study.
Adeyemi, T. O. (2019). Educational research and policy making. JAPS Publisher.
Agu, N. N., & Nweke, C. N. (2024). Practical work and attainment in Basic Science. Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 34-47
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Learning environment research. Springer.
Anayo, O. N. (2021). Family contexts and Basic Science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 845-858.
Anayo, O. N. (2022). Classroom conditions and student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(5), 655-671.
Anikwe, C. O., & Madu, P. N. (2024). Laboratory experiences and conceptual understanding in Basic Science. International Journal of Science Education, 46(1), 123-138.
Berndt, T. J. (2019). Peer influence on academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 449-463.
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement on children’s educational achievement. Department for Education and Skills.
Earthman, G. I. (2002). School facility conditions and student academic achievement. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access.
Ezema, I. J., & Thomos, P. O. (2020). Hands-on inquiry and deep learning in Basic Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 278-293.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Fraser, B. J. (2012). Learning environments. Springer.
Fraser, B. J. (2015). Learning environment research: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Springer.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new wave of evidence: The impact of family, school, and community connections on student achievement. National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education.
Henry, U. O., & Igboka, G. N. (2024). The role of family in academic progress. Journal of Educational Research, 117(4), 432-445.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Igwe, I. O., & Emwk, C. N. (2018). Laboratory experiences and science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 34-47.
Jeynes, W. H. (2022). Parental involvement and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 938-953.
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 970-977.
King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2022). Peer motivational climates and science identity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 278-293.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., & Epstein, J. L. (2020). Parenting style and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology.
Obiekezie, E. N., Ugwueze, F. N., & Igboke, G. A. (2020). Ergonomic seating and student performance in science classrooms. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(4), 501-518.
Okebukola, P. A. O. (2020). Teaching and learning in science. Heinemann Educational Books.
Okolo, C. M. (2019). Peer influence and academic achievement in Basic Science. Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 432-445.
Olatoye, R. A. (2018). Assessment in science education. National Open University of Nigeria.
Onyia, C. N., & Okpala, P. N. (2019). Access to laboratories and student engagement in Basic Science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1620-1635.
Puteh, M., & Khalin, S. Z. (2016). Science classroom environment and student engagement. Springer.
Puteh, M., Khalin, S. Z., & Ali, M. (2018). Learning environment and student outcomes. Springer.
Rivas-Drake, D., Saleem, F., Schaefer, D. R., & Medina, M. (2021). Peer networks and stereotype threat in diverse classrooms. Child Development, 92(1), 245-262.
Ryan, A. M., & Shin, H. (2020). Peer academic norms and friendship networks in STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 956-971.
Sirin, S. R., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2020). Material resources and achievement gaps in science education. Journal of Educational Research, 113(6), 845-858.
Tanner, C. K. (2019). The effects of school design on student outcomes. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Ugwueze, F. N., & Igboke, G. A. (2023). School facility quality and student achievement in Basic Science. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(2), 201-218.
Ugwueze, F. N., & Thomas, P. O. (2019). Practical experiences and science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2), 278-293.
Victor, U. O., Ugwueze, F. N., & Obiekezie, E. N. (2021). Environmental parameters and student achievement in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 821-838.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). Motivation and achievement in STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 289-303.
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68(6), 1198-1209.
Obodo, AC; Ani, MI (2025). Assessing Environmental Factors Influencing Academic Performance of Basic Science Students in Public Secondary Schools in Enugu North LGA, Enugu State. Greener Journal of Educational Research, 15(1): 199-208, https://doi.org/10.15580/GJER.2025.1.091625137.
Download [429.02 KB]
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
