Production and Utilization of Resources in Biology Education.

A Case Study Of
South West Nigerian Secondary Schools

A. M. Olagunju
Department of Teacher Education
University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

&

O. F. Abiona
Department of Teacher Education
University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Abstract
This study investigated the production and utilization of materials
resources in biology education in South West Nigerian Secondary
Schools. In this survey, 450 teachers from 150 randomly selected
secondary schools in Oyo, Ogun, Osun, Lagos and Ondo States were
used. Two instruments were prepared, validated and used for
collecting data.Chi-square, percentages and t-test statistics were used
in data analysis. Three research questions and two hypotheses were
addressed and tested The findings revealed: (i) Less than average
number of teachers produce material resources, (ii) Few teachers use
microscope, magnifying glasses, preserved specimen, models, quadrat
and aquarium, (iii) Male teachers’ perception of utilization of
resources is significantly higher than their female counterparts.
Appropriate recommendations were made for effective teaching-
learning process.

Introduction
School environment has been described as an organization where resources are
produced, managed and organized in such a way that enables the students to acquire
desirable learning competencies. The process of managing and organizing resources is called
resource utilization. The utilization of resources in teaching brings about fruitful learning
since it stimulates students sense as well as motivating them. Denyer (1998), in his study on
science games in National Curriculum in the United Kingdom reported that games when
used as a resource enable less able children to stay on task and remain motivated for longer
period.
There are varieties of resources, which the science teacher can readily use to enrich
learning. These resources are windvane, raingauge, metre rule, models, charts, preserved
specimens of plants and animals, culturing equipment, herbarium, terrarium, vivarium and
microscope (Olagunju, 2000). The resources should be provided in quality and quantity in
STM classroom for effective teaching-learning process (Umeoduagu, 2000). Nwoji, (1999)
in an empirical study, revealed that essential facilities such as equipment like radio, television,
computers, chemicals, specimens, video tape, stove, burners, models and charts are not
International Journal of African & African American Studies 50
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

available in schools. This inadequacy of teaching material resources, laboratory equipment /

reagents / chemical, and laboratory space, has been of serious concern to educators.
The decline in performance in STM may not be unconnected with poor learning
environment created by this state of infrastructure facilities (Fabayo, 1998 and Farombi,
1998). Mapaderun (2002) and Oni (1995) also emphasized that the availability and adequacy
of these facilities promote effective teaching and learning activities in schools while their
inadequacy affects the academic performance negatively. Several efforts have been extended
by Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) to train secondary school teachers on
improvisation techniques in various science subjects including Biology, hence there is need
to evaluate how far teachers have been able to improvise instructional materials for effective
teaching.
Moreover, a careful consideration of the statistics of contribution of gender in STM
in Nigeria reveals that participation of women is significantly low. Evidences abound in
every science and technology-based organization to this effect. Sobulo (1998) lamented that
this problem has been and is still in existence. Some studies have found gender disparity in
STME achievement in favour of male, (Awoniyi, 1999). Others have found none (Madu,
2004; Ibe, 2004 and Anaekwe, 1997). Hence gender differences in science are inconclusive.
In this study therefore, an attempt shall be made to investigate biology resources a
production and utilization, teacher’s attitude and gender in secondary schools. This study will
address three research questions and two hypotheses, as follows:
Research question
1. How do teachers perceive production of material resources in schools?
2. What are the teachers’ perceived levels of utilization of these resources?
3. What is the teacher’s attitude towards improvisation of material resources?
Hypotheses
1. There is significant difference between the male and female teachers in their
perceptions of production of biology resources.
2. There is no significant difference between the male and female teachers’
perceptions of utilization of biology resources.
Methodology
For this survey, four hundred and fifty (450) biology teachers were randomly selected
from one hundred (150) senior secondary schools which were randomly selected from Oyo,
Osun, Ogun, Lagos and Ondo States (30 schools per state). Two instruments were used,
basically –
(i) Teachers’ Questionnaire on Biology Material Resources’ Utilization (TQBMRU)
(ii) Teachers Questionnaire on Biology Material Resources’ Production (TQBMRP)
The two questionnaires were given to eight biology experts and four measurement
and evaluation experts from faculty of Education, University of Ibadan for face and content
validity. The questionnaires consisted of sections A and B. Section A contained items on
personal data of the teachers while section B consisted of items on utilization in TQBMRU
and its production in TQBMRP. The data was collected through research assistants for 3
months. Chi-square, percentages and t-test statistics were used in data analysis.

Results and Discussions.

Research Question 1: How do Teachers perceive Production of Materials resources

in Schools?
International Journal of African & African American Studies 51
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

Table 1a: Teachers’ Perceptions of Production of Teaching Resources

Item Statement Mode Yes No
1 Do you produce biology material resources F% 210 249
by yourself? 44.7 55.3
2 Do you produce material resources F% 231 195
commercially? 51.3 43.3
3a Do you produce material resources in F% 246 171
collaboration with Local or state government? 54.7 38.0
3b Do you produce material resources in F% 132 117
collaboration with Other nearby institutions? 29.3 26.0
3c Do you produce material resources in F% 84 165
collaboration with Federal or national agency? 18.7 36.7
4 Do you produce resources from source F% 42 393
centres? 9.3 87.3

Table 1b: How Teachers Produce Material Resources

Method Frequency Percentage
1 Using collecting equipment to collect 230 51
materials e.g insect nets, quadrat,
hook, transect, cage etc
2 Making charts 320 71
3 Making models 46 10.2
4 Using plants and animals 404 89.8
5 By culturing e.g aquarium, vivarium, 228 50.7
terrarium, herbarium, snailery, pigry,
goatry, rabbitry, poultry
6 By preserving/dissecting/staining on 422 93.8
slides in bottles with formalin, alcohol
etc.
7 Using waste materials e.g empty tins, 204 45.3
bottles, cans
8 Using students’ collections 312 69.3

Tables 1a and 2b show the perceptions of the teachers on the production of teaching
resources. 44.7% indicated that they produce resources by themselves. 51.3% produce
commercially, 54.7% produce through collaboration with local government, 29.3% produce
with nearby institution, 18.7% produce with federal or national agencies and 9.3% produce
for resources centres. This shows that generally, less than average number of teachers does
produce material resources.
Table 1b reveals how the few teachers produce materials. 51% of the teachers use
collecting equipment to collect materials, 71% use charts, 10.2% make models, 89.8% use
plants and animals, and 50.7% use cultured materials 93.8% of the teachers use
preservation/dissection/staining on slides, 45.3% used waste materials e.g cans, empty tins,
bottles etc and 69.3% collect their own materials through their students.

Research Question 2: What are the Teachers perceived level of Utilization of these
resources?
International Journal of African & African American Studies 52
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

Table 2: Teachers Perceptions of Utilization of Material Resources

S/ STATEMENTS Always Sometimes Not Mean Std. D
N Used
1 How frequent do you use the - 426 24 1.95 .23
microscope? (0.0) (97.7) (4.3)
2 How frequent do you use the 39 273 138 1.78 .59
magnifying glasses? (3.7) (60.7) (30.7)
3 How often do you use the 195 255 - 2.43 .50
hand lens? (43.3) (56.7) (0.0)
4 How frequent do you use the 66 231 72 1.99 .56
preserved specimens? (14.7) (69.3) (16.0)
5 How often do use the food 153 231 66 2.19 .67
test reagents and chemicals in (34.0) (51.3) (14.7)
the laboratory?
6 How frequent do you use the 132 246 72 2.13 .66
measuring cylinders? (29.3) (54.7) (16.0)
7 How frequent do you make 228 207 - 2.44 .67
use of the wall charts? (50.7) (46.0) (0.0)
8 How often do you use the 42 264 126 1.73 .68
models? (9.3) (58.7) (28.0)
9 How frequent do you use - 210 210 1.40 .61
quadrats? (0.0) (46.7) (46.7)
10 How frequent do you visit - 159 291 1.35 .48
aquarium with your students? (0.0) (35.3) (64.7)
11 How frequently does the use 267 141 24 2.46 .77
of material resources help you (59.3) (31.3) (5.3)
to communicate with your
students?
Weighted Average 1.99 (66.2%)

Table 2 reveals that microscope, magnifying glasses, handlens, preserved specimen,

chemicals, measuring cylinders, wall charts and models are sometimes used. (x = 2.08) but
quadrats and aquarium are not used. (x = 1.38).
The weighted average mean score is 1.99 which gives the proportion to be 66.2%. This
implies that the teachers perceived that these materials are sometimes used and their
perception can be rated up to 66.2%. This implies that biology materials resources are
available and used in schools.

Research Question 3: What is the Teachers’ Attitude towards Improvisation of Material

Resources?
Table 3: Teachers Attitude towards Improvisation
Statement Yes No
Do you improvise material resources with available materials 336 90
from your local environment? (74.7) (20.0)
Do you believe that things around can be used for 384 66
improvisation? (85.3) (14.7)
International Journal of African & African American Studies 53
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

Table 3 reveals that majority of the teachers do improvise materials from available
materials from local environment (74.7%) and they did believe that things around can be
used (85.3%). This shows that the teachers have positive attitude towards improvisation of
materials. This implies that they are highly interested in production and improvisation of
biology material resources. This is related to Olagunju and (2000), Ezeudu (1997) on similar
research.

Testing the Hypotheses

Research Hypothesis 1 (RHO1): There is significant difference between the male and
female teachers in their perceptions of production of biology resources.

Table 4: Summary of T-test Table on Teachers’ Perceptions of Material Production

by Gender.

Variables/Gender N Mean Std. D t df P Remark

Male Teachers 225 8.81 1.47 1.460 448 .146 Not Sig.
Female Teachers 207 8.48 1.27
t-critical = 1.976
Since t-calculated (1.460) is less than t-critical (1.976), then the difference between
male and female teachers in their perceptions of material production is not significant.
Therefore, RHO2 is not rejected.

Research Hypothesis 2 (RHO2): There is no significant difference between the male and
female teachers’ perceptions of utilization of biology resources.

Table 5: Summary of T-test table on Teachers’ Perceptions of Material Utilization

by Gender.
Variables/Gender N Mean Std. D t df P Remark
Male Teachers 225 22.59 2.89 2.329 448 .021 Sig.
Female Teachers 207 21.26 3.90
t-critical = 1.976
Since t-calculated (2.329) is greater than t-critical (1.976), then, the difference
between male and female teachers in their perceptions of utilization of biology resources is
significant. Therefore, RHO3 is rejected.

Teachers’ Perception of Production of Material Resources by Gender

From the perceptions of the teachers on the production of teaching
resources, 44.7% indicated that they produce resources by themselves This shows that
generally, less than average number of teachers do produce material resources by themselves.
Moreover, table 1b reveals that few teachers produce materials- 10.2% of the teachers make
models and 45.3% use waste materials e.g cans, empty tins, bottles etc. In essence, about
50% of the teachers had positive perceptions of production of material resources and few of
them (less than 50%) do produce material resources like models and waste materials. From
the findings on tables 6-9 the male and female teachers do not differ significantly in their
perceptions of materials’ production. That is, both sexes produce the resources equitably.
International Journal of African & African American Studies 54
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

This is relatively the same with previous studies of Olagunju (2000); Olagunju (2003);
Egbegbedia (1997) and Sobulo (1998).

Teachers’ Perception of Utilization and Management of Material Resources by

Gender
The findings reveal that microscope, magnifying glasses, handlens, preserved
specimen, chemicals, measuring cylinders, wall charts and models are sometimes used. (x =
2.08) but quadrats and aquarium are not used. (x = 1.38). This implies that the teachers
perceived that these materials are sometimes used and their perception can be rated up to
66.2%. That is, biology materials resources are available and used in schools. This finding is
similar to that of Akano (2005) and Eze (2002) that rightly pointed out that resources can
only be utilized when they are available and that there should be investment in this wise in
educational institutions for proper utilization of materials resources and skills for effective
teaching of STM.
However, male teachers’ perception of utilization of resources is significantly higher
than their female counterparts ( x = 29.39 and x = 22.59 respectively). This finding implies
that the females perceived low utilization of material resources. This finding is similar to
previous studies of Olagunju,(2003) and Awoniyi (1999). Therefore, the need to train and
retrain all biology teachers (especially the females) on improvisation and utilization of
material resources cannot be overemphasized.

Recommendations
On the bases of the above findings the following recommendations are made:
1. A biology teacher should always use his immediate environment to teach as it
contains a lot of material-resources for effective teaching of the concepts in the
subject.
2. The Federal and State Ministries of Education should make appropriate plans to
expose biology teachers to training workshops on improvisation in order to update
their techniques for improvising specific equipments.
3. Government should make funds available and sponsor the teachers’ attendance at
conferences, seminars and workshops on biology material resource production
utilization and management.
4. Creative and resourceful teachers who improvise equipments and materials should
be rewarded and motivated adequately.
5. There is need for organizations, government, parent Teacher Association Voluntary
Organisations and philanthropists to join hands in procuring necessary biology
materials resources in schools.
6. Biology teachers should select the cheapest available equipment for demonstration or
illustration of principles and concepts in science teaching. The functionality and
duration of equipment should be taken into consideration.

Conclusion
In this paper utilization and production of biology material resources are presented
as indispensable tasks in the scientific enterprise to enrich the teaching and learning of
biology as a subject. The biology teacher must improvise, produce and use both materials
and ideas to aid instruction at all times. Some issues which could aid adequate training of
teachers in production and utilization of available biology material resources should be
highlighted in the teacher education curriculum and instructions.
International Journal of African & African American Studies 55
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

Reference
Adole, I. A. (1998). Basic Instructional Technology. Unpublished Handbook,
Teacher Education series pp. 6-7.

Akano, B.U (2005). The use of the Local Materials in the Teaching and Learning of
Science in the Primary School. A paper presented in 1st Science Workshop, Science
Teachers Association of INigeria on May 2005 at FCE Kontagora.

Akinsola, M. K. (2000). Enriching Science, Technology and Mathematics Education:

Effect of Resources Utilization on Students’ Achievement in Geometry. 41st Annual
Conference Proceedings of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 289 – 291.

Anaekwe M.C (1997). Effects of Students Interaction Patterns in Cognitive.

Achievement, Retention and Interest in Chemistry. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis University
of Nigeria Nsuka.

Ango, M (19990) Basic Science Laboratory, Jos: Ehindero Nigeria Limited.

Awoniyi,M.A.(1999).Selection and Designing of Instructional Aids. Ibadan: University

Press, 50-51.

Denyer, G (1998). “Science Games in the National Curriculum”. Science Education

Newsletter, 140, 5 – 6.

Egbegbedia E.A (1997) An Investigation into the Attitude of Primary School

Teachers towards Improvisation in Primary Science Teaching in Niger State. Science
Teachers Association of Nigeria, 38th Annual Conference Proceedings of Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria, 285-289

Eze S.U (2002) Effect of Target Task Approach on Students Achievement and
Interest in Senior Secondary School Physical Chemistry. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ezeudu F.O (1997). Availability and Extent of Improvisation of Instructional

Materials in Integrated Science at Junior Secondary School level in Enugu State of Nigeria . ,
38th Annual Conference Proceedings of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria,204-208.

Fabayo O.R (1998). Evaluation of Some Aspects of Schools Quality in Secondary

Schools in Kwara State. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Ibadan.

Farombi (1998) Resources Concentration Utilization and Management as Correlates

of Students’ Learning Outcomes Study of Quality in Oyo State. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,
University of Ibadan.
International Journal of African & African American Studies 56
Vol. VII, No. 2, Jul 2008

Ibe, E. (2004). Effect of Gender and teaching Methods on Science Process Skills
Acquisition among Senior Secondary School Students. Journal of Educational Foundation (IEF)
1, University of Nigeria Nsukka.

Madu, B.C (2004). Effects of A Constructivist-Based Instructional Model on

Students’ Conceptual change and Retention in Physics. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Mapaderun O. (2002). Teaching Method for Business, Science Social Science and
Technical Education, Ibadan: Holyem Communications

Nwoji, Queen, J. R (1999). Evaluating the Use of Learning Resources for Primary
Science Education. Implications for Learners: 40th Annual Conference Proceedings of
STAN., 245 – 249

Olagunju, A. M. (2000). An Investigation into Teachers Attitude Towards and

Extent of Improvisation of Resources for Effective Teaching of Biology. STAN 41st Annual
Conference Proceedings, 120 – 125.

Olagunju, A. M. (2003). Science Education Students’ Level of Awareness and

Utilization of Information and Communication Technology: Implications for Tertiary
Institutions. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of Science Teachers Association of
Nigeria, 99-104

Oni J.O (1995) Education Resources: An Introduction. Abeokuta Gbemisodipo Press

Limited, 1-21.

Onwuakpa and Apkan (1999). A Descriptive Survey of Resources Concentration in

Imo State Secondary Schools. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 23(1).

Sobulo E.A (1998). Need for Improvisation of Resources for Effective Teaching of
Environmental Education Topics in Biology. An Unpublished B.Ed Project, University of
Ibadan.

Umeoduagu, J. N. (2000). Resources Utilization for Effective Teaching of Science

Technology and Mathematics in the New Millennium 41st Annual Conference Proceedings
of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 38 – 41..