EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ON STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY OF JOS By Arc. Lekjep, Ripnung Shem MNIA Arc.

J. S. D. Dantong MNIA And Arc. Inusa, Yaktor Joshua MNIA

*Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Jos, Plateau State Corresponding authors email: lekjep@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT Many schools of Architecture in Nigeria were designed and built between nineteen sixties and nineteen eighties. Others were developed a few years after with facilities that met the required standards. The living environment was conducive and friendly for academic activities. The conducive living environment created a sense of importance and responsibility in the minds of the graduates of those days towards excellence performance. (Obasi,2005). In recent times, it has been observed that most of this infrastructure has degenerated in standard, while the number of students has increased compared to the facilities provided, hence affecting students performance academically. It is a fact that architecture create environment and the environment creates man, therefore the decayed infrastructure will definitely affect student performance. This paper examines the physical infrastructure provided in relation to number of students and their performance in Architecture Department, University of Jos. The methodology adopted for this research work is through questionnaires and data obtained through inventory of facilities in the Department of Architecture, University of Jos by the author. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. The result signifies that infrastructure has great effect on students performance in department of Architecture, University of Jos. It is believe that this research work will prove and proffer suggestion for improvement on the present ugly decayed infrastructure in our institution of higher learning in Nigeria. Key words: Performance, physical infrastructure. 1.0.INTRODUCTION The decline in quality of education in Nigeria has been a major concern. It has been observed that high quality of education was obtained in Nigerian institutions in the seventies. It was such that can be comparable to high quality of education offered by top world universities. (Obasi,2005, paraphrased). The quality of education at present time has deterioted substantially. Oral interview with some graduates of some premier universities revealed that a student occupied a comfortable room with area capacity of 12.969m2 with all the facilities that constitute a standard living accommodation. The libraries were well stocked with all sorts of books for any field of study. The classroom and facilities were adequate for the number of students.
1

It is a fact that the environment in which we live creates a sense of importance and responsibility in our minds. A student will become more focus in his academic pursuit without much direction, if the environment is conducive and the facilities are available for studies. ( Obasi, 2005) Generally, overcrowding and inadequate funding has always been pointed as factors responsible for decline in quality of education in Nigeria (Olagbemiro, 2010). More to that is the breakdown and deterioration of facilities, shortages of new books, current journals in libraries, supply of laboratories equipment and learning facilities, the infrastructure and facilities remain inadequate to cope with a system that is growing at rapid pace. It is on this basis that i have been motivated to carry out this research work on the effect of infrastructure on students performance in Department of Architecture, University of Jos. DEFINITION OF TERMS Physical infrastructure here refers to basic facilities and equipment needed for functioning of a department of architecture. The facilities here include lecture/classrooms, studios, drawing boards/stools, computer room and library. Performance here refers to students academic result base on senate approved result at the end of study. AIM: the aim of this study is to investigate the effect of physical infrastructure on students performance in Department of Architecture, University of Jos. OBJECTIVES: the objectives of this research work are: To analyse the facilities on ground and the number of students To analyse the performance of students in the department base on the infrastructural facilities available. To find out how adequate or inadequate are the physical infrastructure provided. To find out whether the facilities on ground are able to meet the required standard by NUC and NIA

BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Department of Architecture University of Jos was established in 1978/79 with the first batch of students population of twenty two at undergraduate level admitted in October, 1979 base on the facilities provided at that time. The first set of students were successful in their B.Sc.(Architecture) degree examination and were automatically admitted into M. Sc. (Architecture) programme in line with similar practices elsewhere, where the two tier 4year B. Sc/M.Sc. Architecture programme was being undertaken in the country. The department participated in various competitions and won both at the national and international level. The department won first position in UNESCO organised international completion for young Architects in 1984/85 (awarded, cited and exhibited at Tokyo, Japan). The Nigerian Institute of Architects granted full accreditation to the B. Sc.(Arch) programme of the department the same year. The department won second place in the commonwealth inter-school design competition in1991. The department again was voted the best school of Architecture in Nigerian in 1992 (cited by the Nigeria Institute of Architects as its AGM in Calaber. (Student Handbook, 2004/2005). The department participated in various competitions and won both at the national and international level.

LITERATURE REVIEW. Learning is a complex activity that puts students motivation and physical condition to the test (Lyons, 2002,). It has been a long-held assumption that curriculum and teaching have an impact on learning. However, it is becoming more apparent that the physical condition of our schools can influence student achievement. According to Olagbemiro, (2010), some challenges confronting the Nigerian University system ranges from: -Funding -Infrastructure -Globalization -ICT -Management Style -Relevance curriculum to national need -Brain Drain -Undue interference. This research work only focus on one aspect of the numerous challenges, which is Physical infrastructure in department of architecture and its effect on students performance. Earthman, Cash and Van Berkum (1996) recently found that 11th grade students in above standard buildings scored higher as measured by the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills than did their counterparts attending class in substandard facilities. The National Priorities Project (2000) report indicates that Texas students follow the trend found in the study conducted by Earthman et al. (1996). In a Virginia study, Cash (1993) developed research that examined the impact of various factors of building condition on student achievement in a manner that controlled for socioeconomic status of the students. Cash (1993) found that when socio-economic factors were constant, facility condition had a significant correlation with student achievement. Specifically, Cash (1993) found that air conditioning, absence of graffiti, condition of science laboratories, locker accommodations, condition of classroom furniture, wall colour and acoustic levels correlated with student achievement at a significant level when controlling for socio-economic status of students. Chan (1996) conducted a similar study of the impact of physical environment on student success. This study classified 165 Georgia schools into one of three categories: Modern Learning, Obsolete Learning, or Half Modern Learning Environment. Other than building age, differences in the three categories included lighting, colour schemes, air control and acoustic levels (Chan, 1996). As one might expect, Chan (1996) found student achievement to be highest in Modern Learning Environments and lowest in Obsolete Learning Environments. Chan (1996) concluded that technology and adaptabilities of modern environments better equipped students for success and that to ignore that fact was to disregard the physical difficulties of learning. PHYSICAL INTRASTRUCTURE IN ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT Right from the modest start of architectural education, university of Jos has recorded a phenomenal growth both in terms of students population and staffing with no additional infrastructure. Some of the challenges faced in the department of architecture currently are shortage of space; the existing buildings are old and they are in a state of decay due to lack of
3

maintenance and repair. The present condition of buildings impact negatively on the quality of education, students no more take interest in working in studio, rather they prefer to work in their hostels or homes. This very act deprives the students the opportunity for their mentors to properly mentor their studio works. The tables below capture the physical infrastructure and Students utilization of studio for their design and Students performance.

s/n space

No. of students 67 65 71 46 50 40 -

NUC rqd std m2 3 3 3 3 2 2 -

NIA rqd std m2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 -

Avail. space m2 201.6 129.9 129.9 256 129.9. 43.2 85.5

Require d space m2 201 195 213 138 100 80 -

Shortfall in space m2 65.1 83.1 36.8 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Studio 100L Studio 200L Studio 300L Studio 400L Computer Lab Data rm/Lib Gallery

Table 1: Some facilities in Department of Architecture Source: Authors field work

s/n level

Working in studio 7 5 13 11

Not working in studio 57 55 51 29

Studio not Studio is Other Total no. conducive conducive reasons of students 57 55 51 29 7 5 13 17 3 5 7 6 67 65 71 46

1 2 3 4

100 level 200 level 300 level 400 level

Table 2: Record of students attitude to their studio Source: Authors Field work

s/n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Class of degree 1st class 2nd class upper 2nd class lower Third class Pass Repeat courses Withdrawn Vol. withdrawal Probation Deferment Total no. of std

96/ 97 6 38 1 108

97/ 98 15 53 33

99/ 00 3 19 2 17

00/ 01 5 11 3 23

01/ 02 9 25 2 32

02/ 03 3 28 4 29

03/ 04 6 43 7 38

04/ 05 6 49 2 39

05/ 06 5 31 4 72

06/ 07 6 42 1 52

07/ 08 5 25 2 48

08/ 09 3 25 35

10/ 11 2 15 1 39

4 160

4 105

41

1 4 47

1 2 71

2 2 68

1 1 96

2 1
99

1 2 115

102

1 81

1 64

1 58

Table 3: Students performance in B. Sc from 1996-2011 Source: Examination Office records. EFFECTS OF INSFRASTRUCTURE ON STUDENTS PERFORMANCE The effect of physical infrastructure on students performance does not affect the students alone but the quality of graduates we have in the market. This tends to affect the nations productivity. The worst situation is that students who should aspire to have the best grade through hard work now want that grade with an empty brain. The result is that employers of labour employ graduates who cannot defend their certificates. This is the situation that has led to the non recognition of Nigerian universities certificates in most advanced countries. Inadequate physical infrastructure tend to affect the lecturers in terms of productivity, the facilities are not there for them to give their best. Most lecturers are discouraged by this fact, which led to brain drain in the country. From table 1, the space provided for Studio, Data/ library, and Computer Lab in relation to the number of students is inadequate. In all the studios, only 400level studio has adequate space to accommodate the students during studio work. The implication is that during studio work not all students have the space to work in studio; this has negative impact on students performance in design studio which is a core course in Architecture. From table 2, one can deduce that majority of students dont work in studio, rather they prefer to work in their hostels or homes for studio assignments. The effect of this is that mentors cannot follow the students to the hostels or homes to mentor them. The resultant effect is poor performance. Majority of the students stated the reasons for not working in studio to poor and inadequate facilities in the studios.
5

Table 3, shows the performance of students in B.Sc. class as from 1996-2011, the result clearly shows the high rate of failure. In 1996/97 the total number of students was 160, out of which only 45 graduated; in 1997/98 total number of students was 105, out of which 68 graduated; in 1999/2000 number of students reduced to 41and 27 graduated. In 2000/01 the number of students stands at 47, out of which 19 graduated. In 2001/02, number of students was 71, out of which 36 graduated. In 2002/03, number of students was 68, out of which 35 graduated. In 2003/04, the number of students stands at 96, out of which 56 graduated. The number of students was 99 and 57graduated in2004/05. The number again increased to 115 in 2005/06, out of which 40 graduated. In 2006/07, the number of students was 102, out of which 49 graduated. In 2007/08 session, the number of students was 81, out of which 32 graduated. In 2008/09, the number of students was 64, out of which 28 graduated. Finally in 2010/11, the number of students was 58, out of which 18 graduated. It was also established in the course of this research that most of the space provided is for maximum of forty students. From table 3, it can be deduced that the more the number of students in class the higher the rate of failure.

FINDINGS The department right from inception maintain the number of intake base on its facilities on ground, but eventually the number of intake keep increasing without any increase on the facilities. The overcrowding of students on the few facilities leads to decline in their performance academically. More to this is the new technology equipment for class room teaching and learning. It was observed that the design made in those days has no room for the new technological equipment, hence making the space inadequate to accommodate modern facilities. The need to adjust classroom design to accommodate technological advances exists beyond computer labs and media centres. In order to support the increase in technology equipment, school designers must also address items such as lighting, power supply and classroom size. Classroom space must be increased to allow room for computer hardware as well as raising ceiling heights to accommodate projectors and video screens. The increase of electronic media such as computer monitors, LCD projectors, digital whiteboards and file servers have greatly increased the burden placed upon the power infrastructure of school buildings, but it is expedient that spaces provide should be able to accommodate these facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusion of the study, there is the need for effective collaboration between the Department of Architecture and other stakeholders to proactively and significantly contribute towards the development of solid learning infrastructure, so as to create conducive working environment for a sustainable high-quality education assurance practices in the Department of Architecture, University of Jos. The financial resources needed to ensure adequate provision of infrastructural facilities and grant- in-aids for proper maintenance of the facilities should be provided through increase in governments budgetary allocation, the institutions internally generated revenue and community support, so as to create good and sustainable working climate for effective teaching and learning processes in the Department of Architecture University of Jos.

Administrators and designers should take into account factors such as interior environment and academic learning space when planning schools to positively impact student performance. School design and construction should focus on specialized learning spaces and other academic areas when striving to increase student performance and satisfaction with physical working conditions. Admission in the Department of Architecture should be base on the facilities available; number of students should not exceed the facilities provided. CONCLUSION The failure to adequately fund school facility maintenance not only postpones needed improvements and additions, but it also accelerates that deterioration of our schools. Physical infrastructure in our institution of higher learning requires constant maintenance and addition to accommodate new technological facilities that will aid in teaching. Recently, studies are increasing their focus on the impact that the environmental design will have on student outcomes. When the learning process is at the core of design priorities, there is a significant likelihood that the facility will positively influence performance (Blair, 1998). The correlation appears to be positive between facility design and learning. Chan (1996) clarifies that poor learning facilities can foster negative attitudes just as exceptional designs may bolster achievement. The growth of brain-based research has provided a shot in the arm for facility design studies. Caine and Caine (1990) make the point that brain-based research is not an independent movement in education, but an approach from which all learning research will benefit. The brain is a physiological system and can be stimulated, both positively and negatively, by its physical surroundings (Chan & Petrie, 1998). Base on all these facts infrastructural facility play an important role in students performance. The performance of students in Department of architecture, University of Jos will greatly be influenced, if the entire physical infrastructures are greatly improved on.

REFERENCES Becker, F. D. (1981). Workspace: Creating environments in organizations. New York: Praeger Publishers. Bell, D. L. (2003). A team approach to building a new school. School Administrator, 60(4), 32. Bhimani, K., & Pantaleo, A. (2001).Getting a grip on facility condition assessments. College Planning and Management, 4(11), 31-33. Blair, L. (1998). Constructing knowledge by design. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory News, 10(4), 3-8. Bowers, J. H., & Burkett, C. W. (1989). Effects of physical and school environment on students and faculty. CEFPIs Educational Facility Planner, 27(1), 28-29. Brady, T. (2002). Facility planning for educational change: The perfect storm. Facilities Manager, 18(3), 33-35. Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 66-70. Cash, C. S. (1993). Building condition and student achievement and behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Centifonti, G., & Gerber, D. (1997). A report on asbestos management. School Business
7

Affairs, 63(10), 53-56. Chan, T. C. (1996). Environmental impact on student learning. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State College, School of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 722) Chan, T. C., & Petrie, G. (1998). The brain learns better in well designed school environments. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development: Classroom Leadership Online, 2(3), 1. Christopher, G. (1991). Effect of architecture on education. Educational Facility Planner, 29(1), 11-15. Erlichson, B. A. (2001). New schools for a new millennium: Court-mandated school facilities construction in New Jersey. Journal of Education Finance, 27(2), 663-682. Fisher, D., & Grady, N. (1998). Teachers images of their schools and perceptions of their work environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 334-348. Lackney, J. A. (1994). Educational facilities: The impact and role of the physical environment of the school on teaching, learning and educational outcomes. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Architecture and Urban Planning Research McGowen R. S.,(2007). Impact of school facilities on student achievement, attendance, behaviour, completion rate and teacher turnover rate in selected Texas High School. Unpublished Ph D thesis, A & M University of Texas. Obasi S. C. E. (2005). Students living environment and the menace of cultism in Nigerian Universities. AARCHES Journal, 4. (1), 42-47 Olagbemiro T. O. (2010). The Nigerian university System: In search of relevance. A paper presented at Bowen University Iwo, Nigeria ONeill, D., & Oates, A. (2001). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, behaviour, attendance, and teacher turnover rate in Central Texas middle schools. Educational Facility Planner, 36(3), 14-22. Schneider, M. (2003). Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Siegel, J. M. (1995). Patterns for effective school environments. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Architecture and Urban Planning Research. Stevenson, K. R. (2001). School facilities for the 21st century: 12 trends that school facility planners need to know about. School Business Affairs, 67(12), Witzling, L., Childress, H., & Lackney, J. A. (1994). The nature of environmental quality in the workplace. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Architecture and Urban Planning.