SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS ON CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF LECTURERS CLASSROOM TASK PERFOMANCE & RECTORS PLANNING STYLES IN THE NIGERIAS

DENTAL SCHOOLS. Frequencies School

Frequency school of dental tech & therapy Enugu medical school school of dental health Total 76 60 64 200 Percent 38.0 30.0 32.0 100.0

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

80 60 40 20 0 s chool ofdenta tech l & thera E u py nug m edica s l chool s chool ofdenta l hea lth

location
Frequency Ojo - lagos Enugu Kaduna Total 64 72 64 200 Percent 32.0 36.0 32.0 100.0

Source:
72 70 68 66 64 62 60

Field Survey, 2011

Ojo - la os g

E u nug

K duna a

your gender
Frequency male female Total 116 84 200 Percent 58.0 42.0 100.0

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

84

116

m le a fem le a

age range
Frequency 25 - 35yrs 36 - 46yrs 47 - 57yrs 58yrs - above Total 84 72 36 8 200 Percent 42.0 36.0 18.0 4.0 100.0

Source:
10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0

Field Survey, 2011

25 - 35 yrs

3 - 4 yrs 6 6

47 - 5 yrs 7

58 - ab ve yrs o

educational qualification
Frequency HND Bsc/BDS PGD Masters PhD Total 40 44 32 72 12 200 Percent 20.0 22.0 16.0 36.0 6.0 100.0

Source:
80 60 40 20 0

Field Survey, 2011

H D N

B c/B S s D

P GD

Ma ters s

PhD

years of teaching experience

Frequency below 5yrs 6 - 12yrs 13 - 19yrs 20 - 2yrs Total 56 76 52 16 200

Percent 28.0 38.0 26.0 8.0 100.0

Source:
80 60 40 20 0

Field Survey, 2011

below 5y s r

6 - 12y s r

13 - 19y s r

20 - 2y s r

THE DECISION RULE FOR THE LIKERT SCALES IS: If mean <2.5, the respondents disagree If 3.5 < mean 2.5, the respondents are undecided If mean 3.5, the respondents agree Rectors Perception of Lecturers Classroom Task Performance a) Lecturers Preparedness
In this school, lecturers SA (%) Comes to lecture rooms on time and specifies the 40 objectives for each lecture topic or unit (20) Introduces lecture topics in a stimulating and well- 80 thought out manner, using appropriate illustrations (40) Brings to class specific assignment for each lecture 36 topic and covers contents for each semester (18) Marks students tests scripts on time and make 36 necessary corrections promptly (18) Mean A (%) 140 (70) 92 (46) 96 (48) 92 (46) U (%) 12 (6) 28 (14) 28 (14) 32 (16) D (%) 8 (4) 0 (0) 40 (20) 36 (18) SD (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) Mean 4.060 0 4.260 0 3.640 0 3.600 0 3.890 0 Std. Dev. 0.6469 0.6890 0.9977 1.0418 0.2795

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

b) Mastery of Subject/Courses
In this school, lecturers Gives clear cut answers to questions from students Leaves students satisfied as having learnt something new Do not leave students confused as they leave the lecture rooms Summarises and agrees with what students found in text books Mean SA (%) 40 (20) 56 (28) 80 (40) 48 (24) A (%) 112 (56) 116 (58) 60 (30) 72 (36) U (%) 24 (12) 24 (12) 40 (20) 40 (20) D (%) 20 (10) 4 (2) 8 (4) 36 (18) SD (%) 4 (2) 0 (0) 12 (6) 4 (2) Mean 3.820 0 4.120 0 3.940 0 3.620 0 3.875 0 Std. Dev. 0.9338 0.6841 1.1386 1.0962 0.1819

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

c) Lecturers Personality
In this school, lecturers Are always pleasant, nice and very sensitive to students needs, though firm, but fair in the way they handle issues Enforces discipline and punctuality amongst students as well as discourage students involvement in examination malpractice and cultism Responds to students questions in such a way that students hardly ask questions in the lecture rooms Lectures topics in such a way that the lecture rooms are always lively Mean SA (%) 44 (22) A (%) 128 (64) U (%) 0 (0) D (%) 12 (6) 16 (8) 68 (34) 20 (10) SD (%) 16 (8) 4 (2) 12 (6) 8 (4) Mean 3.860 0 4.240 0 3.060 0 3.720 0 3.720 0 Std. Dev. 1.0799 0.9523

92 88 0 (46) (44) (0) 32 (16) 44 (22) 40 (20) 92 (46) 48 (24) 36 (18)

1.1931 1.0426 0.4259

Source: Field Survey, 2011 d) Lecturers Assessment Strategy

In this school, lecturers Always reviews questions students missed in the tests Gives regular tests or quizzes at the rate of above two or more a month Allows students performance in a test to affect the way they teach students Awards students marks that are fair assessment of students work Mean SA (%) 24 (12) 28 (14) 32 (16) 44 (22) A (%) 64 (32) 84 (42) 68 (34) 92 (46) U (%) 60 (30) 36 (18) 48 (24) 32 (16) D (%) 44 (22) 48 (24) 36 (18) 16 (8) SD (%) 8 (4) 4 (2) 16 (8) 16 (8) Mean 3.260 0 3.420 0 3.320 0 3.660 0 3.415 0 Std. Dev. 1.0574 1.0663 1.1767 1.1440 0.1526

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

SA (%) 36 (18) 32 (16) 80 (40) A (%) 128 (64) 88 (44) 96 (48) U (%) 16 (8) 36 (18) 16 (8) D (%) 16 (8) 40 (20) 4 (2) SD (%) 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2) Mean 3.880 0 3.520 0 4.220 0 3.873 3 Std. Dev. 0.8657 1.0465 0.8337 0.2858

e) Lecturers Professional Development

In this school, lecturers Experiments with innovative approaches and materials to facilitate instructional delivery Brainstorm with fellow lecturers to find solutions to instructional problems Attend seminars organised locally, nationally and/or internationally as well as in-service training such as sandwich programmes Mean

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

Lecturers Perception of Rectors Planning Styles

a) Autocratic Planning Styles
In this school, the rectors SA A U D SD (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Mean Std. Dev.

Dictates policies, procedures and imposes tasks and methods to lecturers with little or no participation of lecturers in decision-making Centralisation of authority to the top and assigning tasks to lecturers without commensurable authority discourages lecturers to perform Objection to lecturers use of their innovative ideas and changes that dampens the morale of lecturers on assigned tasks Self-centredness and unwillingness to make sacrifices for the development and upliftment of the image of the school, when the need arises only dampens lecturers spirit to perform on assigned tasks Mean

20 8 (10) (4)

32 68 72 (16) (34) (36)

2.180 0 3.360 0 2.820 0 2.040 0

1.2472 1.3414 1.2472 1.2023

60 32 44 48 16 (30) (16) (22) (24) (8) 32 20 52 72 24 (16) (10) (26) (36) (12) 8 (4) 24 28 48 92 (12) (14) (24) (46)

2.600 0

0.5282

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

b) Free-Rein/Lassie Fairer Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors Allows lecturers complete freedom to do what they wish at will, and is always indecisive, indifferent and vacillated about his/her responsibilities to lecturers Misuses functional authority and establishes careless and poor measurable goals for lecturers Careless, coordinates and implementation of personnel good policies destroy lecturers morale to perform Poor arrangement and combination of both human and material resources make lecturers lose confidence in a given task Mean SA (%) 4 (2) 0 (0) 8 (4) 16 (8) A (%) 16 (8) 8 (4) 20 (10) 32 (16) U (%) 24 (12) 28 (14) 24 (12) 32 (16) D (%) 84 (42) 100 (50) 80 (40) 56 (28) SD (%) 72 (36) 64 (32) 68 (34) 64 (32) Mean 1.980 0 1.900 0 2.100 0 2.400 0 2.095 0 Std. Dev. 0.9922 0.7830 1.1028 1.2994 0.1899

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

SA (%) 40 (20) A (%) 60 (30) U (%) 36 (18) D (%) 36 (18) SD (%) 28 (14) Mean 3.240 0 3.400 3.760 0 4.020 0 Std. Dev. 1.3384

c) Democratic Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors Involves lecturers full participation in organisational administration, decision making and policy formulation, giving room for self-expression, interactions and criticisms Obtains from lecturers the information needed for planning school programmes and encourages lecturers to follow standard rules and regulations Regard for lecturers initiative, suggestion, creativeness and outward mark of respect for them, improves their performance on assigned tasks Use of stabilised policies, division of labour and work simplification, programs with equal and fair treatment,

28 88 32 40 12 (14) (44) (16) (20) (6) 20 144 16 (10) (72) (8) 8 (4) 12 (6) 4 (2)

1.1342 0.9091 0.8852

60 100 28 8 (30) (50) (14) (4)

with fair remuneration that could afford lecturers performance to enhance their task performance Mean

3.605 0

0.3048

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

SA (%) 60 (30) A (%) 100 (50) U (%) 16 (8) D (%) 24 (12) SD (%) 0 (0) Mean 3.980 0 3.200 0 4.040 0 4.300 0 3.880 0 Std. Dev. 0.9295 1.2521 0.8257 0.8328 0.4106

d) Consultative Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors Invites educational experts to study current trends in curriculum development and advises instructional lecturers on planning for improved curriculum policies Consults lecturers when handling complex problems and solicits for lecturers feedback (both positive and negative) on school plans Consultative approach at new ideas with other lecturers encourages lecturers perform better, in a free working environment with a minimum friction and confusion Invitation of experts to advice lecturers on instructional planning improves lecturers task performance Mean

20 88 36 24 32 (10) (44) (18) (12) (16) 52 120 16 (26) (60) (8) 92 88 12 (46) (44) (6) 8 (4) 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2)

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

SA (%) 12 (6) 12 (6) A (%) 120 (60) U (%) 40 (20) D (%) 16 (8) SD (%) 12 (6) Mean 3.520 0 3.420 0 3.340 0 3.340 0 3.405 0 Std. Dev. 0.9456 1.0436 1.1093 1.0910 0.0740

e) Delegative Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors Permits organisation of such activities relative to the development of lecturers professional organisational life to the lecturers which enhance their performance Delegates the responsibility of curriculum delivery and development of other academic programmes to academic heads and other competent lecturers Assigns the planning and organisation of lecturers professional development tasks to his/her deputy and other competent lecturers Delegates responsibility of overseeing the school after extra-curricular activities to lecturers Mean

120 20 36 12 (60) (10) (18) (6)

20 92 40 32 16 (10) (46) (20) (16) (8) 12 (6) 112 24 36 16 (56) (12) (18) (8)

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

Influence of Sex in Rectors Planning Styles

a) Sex Influence on Rectors Planning
Male Rectors Are better planners, organisers and coordinators and are willing to take responsibility for directing their lecturers behaviour at work than the female rectors Have lesser capacity to analyse large amounts of SA (%) 24 (12) 0 A (%) 32 (16) 12 U (%) 44 (22) 52 D (%) 60 (30) 96 SD (%) 40 (20) 40 Mean 2.700 Std. Dev. 1.2878

2.180

0.8191

seemingly unrelated, complex information and see patterns or opportunities and threats where other female rectors might not see them Have lesser emotional attachment in the discharge of their duties and are less concerned about a few group of favoured lecturers dominating in school affairs than the female rectors Have high levels of effort, tenacity, energy and initiatives towards motivating, other lecturers achieve their ambition and aspirations than the female rectors Even when things go wrong, they remain eventempered and consistent in their outlook and the way in which they treat lecturers, as they know precisely what is expected of their lecturers and give lecturers specific guidelines for performing their tasks than the female rectors Mean

(0)

(6)

(26) (48)

(20) 20 (10) 8 (4)

0 3.320 0 3.560 0 3.360 0 1.3215

44 64 24 48 (22) (32) (12) (24) 52 64 36 40 (26) (32) (18) (20)

1.1889

60 40 32 48 20 (30) (20) (16) (240 (10)

1.3856

3.405 0

0.0740

Source:

Field Survey, 2011

Research Question One What planning styles do Rectors in the Nigerias Dental Schools mostly use? From the above Likert Scale tables on Leaders Perception of Rectors Planning Styles, Autocratic Planning Style has a mean response of 2.6000, Free-rein/Lassie Fairer Planning Style has a mean response of 2.0950, Democratic Planning Style has a mean response of 3.6050, Consultative Planning Style has a mean response of 3.8800 and Delegative Planning Style has a mean response of 3.4050. From the foregoing, with Consultative Planning Style having the high mean response (3.8800), it can be concluded that the planning styles rectors in the Nigerias dental schools mostly use is the Consultative Planning Style. Research Question Two To what extent are lecturers performances influenced by rectors planning styles?

Research Question Three To what extent is sex a factor in Rectors planning styles? Response from the Likert Scale table on influence of sex in rectors planning styles indicates that with a general mean response of 3.4050, the respondents

are undecided as to whether sex is factor in rectors planning styles. Research Question Four To what extent is lecturers performance environmentally determined?

Test of Hypothesis One Ho: Perception on Lecturers classroom task is not significantly different among the lecturers. Hi: Perception on Lecturers classroom task is significantly different among the lecturers In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors perception of lecturers classroom task performance, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z non-parametric test (as n > 30). Mean Response on Rectors Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Performance

Mean Response 2.63 2.68 2.84 2.95 3.16 3.21 3.26 3.32 3.37 3.42 3.47 3.53 3.58 3.63 3.74 3.79 3.84 3.89 4.05 4.11 4.16 4.32 4.53 4.58 4.68 4.74 Total Mean Std. Dev.

Frequency 4 4 8 4 4 24 8 4 8 4 12 12 4 8 12 16 4 8 4 8 16 4 8 4 4 4 200 3.6495 .50912

Percent 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have; NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics N Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task 200 Mean 3.6495 Std. Deviation .50912 Minimum 2.63 Maximum 4.74

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task N Normal Parameters

a,,b

200 3.6495 .50912 .076 .076 -.074 1.069 .203

Most Extreme Differences

Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data.

Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 1.069 (which is less than Z-critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.203 > 0.05 indicates that there is no significant difference in the respondents responses on the rectors perception of lecturers classroom tasks performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be accepted and the alternate rejected accordingly. Test of Hypothesis Two Ho: Perception on Rectors Planning Styles is not significantly different among the lecturers. Hi: Perception on Rectors Planning Styles is significantly different among the lecturers. In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors planning styles, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z non-parametric test (as n > 30). Perception on rectors' planning style

Mean Response
1.80 2.35 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.85 2.90 3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 3.40 3.60 3.70 3.75 4.05 4.35 Total Mean Std. Dev.

Frequency 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 12 24 20 8 32 12 4 12 16 8 4 4 4 4 4 200 3.1170 .39680

Percent 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 12.0 10.0 4.0 16.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have; NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics N Perception on rectors' planning style 200 Mean 3.1170 Std. Deviation .39680 Minimum 1.80 Maximum 4.35

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Perception on rectors' planning style N Normal Parametersa,,b Most Extreme Differences Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data. 200 3.1170 .39680 .164 .139 -.164 2.320 .000

Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 2.320 (which is greater than Z-

critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.000 < 0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference in the respondents responses on the rectors planning styles. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate accepted accordingly. Test of Hypothesis Three Ho: The perception of lecturers about the rectors planning style is not significantly different from their perception about the lecturers classroom task. Hi: The perception of lecturers about the rectors planning style is significantly different from their perception about the lecturers classroom task. In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors perception of lecturers classroom task performance and rectors planning styles are tested with the Z nonparametric test (as n > 30). Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have; NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics N Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Perception on rectors' planning style Mean Std. Deviation .50912 .39680 Minimum Maximum 2.63 1.80 4.74 4.35 200 3.6495 200 3.1170

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks N Perception on rectors' planning style Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total 168
a

Mean Rank 107.45 64.00

Sum of Ranks 18052.00 2048.00

32b 0
c

200

a. Perception on rectors' planning style < Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task b. Perception on rectors' planning style > Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task c. Perception on rectors' planning style = Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Test Statisticsb Perception on rectors' planning style - Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Based on positive ranks. b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test -9.765a .000

From the Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, most of the mean responses of the respondents on perception of rectors planning style are higher than their responses on rectors perception on lecturers classroom task performance. This indicates that there is a difference of perception in these two perceptions. Furthermore, testing these mean responses of the respondents with the two related Zstatistics, the Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 9.765 (which is greater than Z-critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of

0.000 < 0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference between the respondents perception of the rectors planning style and the rectors perception about the lecturers classroom task performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate accepted accordingly.