qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
Psychology of education
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
Bronfenbrenners
ecological theory of
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
development that affect
students academic
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
performance
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfgh
.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
Students academic gain and learning performance is affected by
numerous factor including gender, age, teaching faculty, students
schooling, father or guardian social economic status, residential area of
students, medium of instructions in schools, tuition trend, daily study hour
and accommodation as hostelries or day scholar. These factors strongly
influence on the student performance, but these factors vary from person
to person and country to country. Many researchers conducted detailed
studies about the factors contributing student performance at different
study levels.
This study is being conducted to dig out the factors which are
important for the effective learning of students and enhance the quality of
education. Previously a lot of research has been done on this topic.
Different researchers researched on various variables and a lot of different
variables were studied. Our contribution to this study is that we explore
and discover the various factors which are classified by Bronfenbrenners
ecological

theory

of

development

that

affect

students

academic

performance.
These factors are students personal factor, personality traits of
lecturer, teaching skills of lecturer, management of faculty, other factors
such as facilities, family and peer as stressor and linkage between student
and faculty. In Malaysian scenario, many researchers have done a lot of
work on communication, learning facilities and so on. This research
hopefully will be helpful for the parents as well as the teachers of the
students to guide them properly and as per their abilities.
This study will explore two systems of Bronfenbrenners ecological
systems theory, which are microsystem and mesosystem. For instance, a
2 | Page

study conducted by Kek, Darmawan& Chen (2004) towards students in

International Medical University, Malaysia (IMU) reported that students
high self-directed learning readiness scores were influenced by their
parents high involvement in their university studies, their possession of
high general self-efficacy beliefs, their positive perceptions of the
university and classroom learning environments, and their adoption of
deep approaches to learning. The finding is also supported by another
study that was done towards Black High School students in The Ohio State
University by Strayhorn (2010).
UrieBronfenbrenner (1917-2005) developed the ecological systems
theory to explain how everything in a child and the child's environment
affects how a child grows and develops. He labeled different aspects or
levels of the environment that influence children's development, including
the

microsystem,

mesosystem,

exosystem,

macrosystem

and

chronosystem.
The microsystem is the small, immediate environment the child lives
in. Children's microsystems will include any immediate relationships or
organizations they interact with, such as their immediate family or
caregivers and their school or daycare. How these groups or organizations
interact with the child will have an effect on how the child grows; the more
encouraging and nurturing these relationships and places are, the better
the child will be able to grow.
Bronfenbrenner'stheory next level is the mesosystem, encompasses
the interaction of the different microsystems which the developing child
finds himself in. It is, in essence, a system of microsystems and as such,
involves linkages between home and school, between peer group and
family, or between family and church. If a childs parents are actively
involved in the friendships of their child, invite friends over to their house
and spend time with them, then the childs development is affected
positively through harmony and like-mindedness.

3 | Page

The exosystem, on the other hand, pertains to the linkages that may
exist between two or more settings, one of which may not contain the
developing child but affects him indirectly nonetheless. Other people and
places which the child may not directly interact with but may still have an
effect on the child, comprise the exosystem. Such places and people may
include the parents workplaces, the larger neighbourhood, and extended
family members. For example, a father who is continually passed up for
promotion by an indifferent boss at the workplace may take it out on his
children and mistreat them at home.
The macrosystem is the largest and most distant collection of
people and places to the child that still exercises significant influence on
the child. It is composed of the childs cultural patterns and values,
specifically the childs dominant beliefs and ideas, as well as political and
economic

systems.

Children

in

war-torn

areas,

for

example,

will

experience a different kind of development than children in communities

where peace reigns.
The chronosystem adds the useful dimension of time, which
demonstrates the influence of both change and constancy in the childs
environment. The chronosystem may thus include a change in family
structure, address, parents employment status, in addition to immense
society changes such as economic cycles and wars.The students'
academic performance may be influenced by various external factors
other than their personal characteristics. For the development of a
society, it becomes necessary to provide quality education to its people.
School, colleges and universities have no worth without student. Students
are most essential asset for any educational institute. Thus, this study is
focused on the findings effect of environment towards students academic
performance.
Effects can be defined as a change that is a result or consequence
of an action or other cause. Next, environment is the surroundings or
conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates. Towards
4 | Page

can be explained as in relation to. In the other hands, students are

persons who are studying at a school or college while academic is of or
relating to education and scholarship. Finally, performances are related to
the action or process of carrying out or accomplishing an action, task, or
function.
1.1

Background of the Study

This research will focus on the effects of environment towards

academic performances among the students of UiTM Puncak Alam. This
research involves sixty students of UiTM from Faculty of Education that
from different program which are Science Education, Physical and Health
Education and Art and Design Education which are include male and
female. A set of questionnaire with 25 questions regarding the issue will
used in order to get the feedbacks from them. The data will be analyzed
descriptively
percentages.

5 | Page

in

the

form

of

frequency

distribution

and

table

of

1.2Problem statement
The

government has

set ambitious

aspirations

to transform

Malaysias higher education system into the system that ranks among the
worlds leading education system. It is very significant to study the
contributing factors of successful and failure among university students in
the country. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of
environments towards the students of UiTM Puncak Alam.
There are many possible factors can contribute toward students
academic performances. This study will focus on students interest,
lecturers personality and professional skills, institutional and other
factors. These factors are classified by Bronfenbrenners ecological theory
of development.
This study will explore the two systems which are microsystem and
mesosystem of Bronfenbrenners ecological systems theory and its effects
on students academic outcomes. The microsystem is a setting in which
individual spends considerable time, such as the students family peers,
school, and neighborhood. Besides that, the mesosystem involves
linkages between microsystems. For instance, linkages between home and
school, between peer group and family, or between family and church.
1.3 Research Objective
Specifically, the objectives of this study were as follows:
1) To determine the extent to which identified factors influence
students academic outcomes.
2) To analyze students perception of their own behaviors, lecturers
personality traits, teaching skill of the lecturers, institutional
and other factors with their

academic

achievement

using

the

simple relationship and relate with Bronfenbrenners ecological

system theory.

6 | Page

1.4

Research Question

This research is conducted to find out the Effects of Environment

towards Academic Performances of UniversitiTeknologi Mara (UiTM)
Students. There are several problems that encounters;
1) How do identified environment factors affect students academic
achievement?
2) How are these factors related to Bronfenbrenners ecological system
theory?

7 | Page

1.5 Definition of Terms

In this research there is a need for some of the word and phrases to
be comprehended:
TERMS

DEFINITION

Effects

(Noun) something that is produced by an agency or

Environment

cause; result; consequence.

(Noun) the aggregate of surrounding things,

University

conditions, or influences; surroundings.

(Noun) an institution of learning of the highest
level, having a college of liberal arts and a program
of

graduate

studies

together

with

several

professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine,

and engineering, and authorized to confer both
Students

undergraduate and graduate degrees.

(Noun) a person who is studying at a school,

Academic

college or university.
(Adjective) connected with education, especially in

Performance

schools and universities.

(Noun) the manner in which or the efficiency with
which something reacts or fulfills its intended
purpose.

8 | Page

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter is conducted to find out several opinions that had been made by local
researchers and other countries regarding on Effects of Environment towards Academic
Performance of UiTM Students.
American psychologist, Urie Bronfenbrenner, formulated the Ecological Systems
Theory to explain how the inherent qualities of a child and the characteristics of the external
environment which the child finds himself in interact to influence how the child will grow
and develop. Bronfenbrenner believed that a person's development was affected by
everything in their surrounding environment. He divided the person's environment into five
different levels: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the
chronosystem. This study focus on microsystem and mesosystem of Bronfenbrenners theory.
The microsystem is the system closest to the person and the one in which they have
direct contact. A microsystem typically includes family, peers, teachers or caregivers.
Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional. The mesosystem consists of the
interactions between the different parts of a person's microsystem. The mesosystem is where
a person's individual microsystems do not function independently, but are interconnected and
assert influence upon one another. These interactions have an indirect impact on the
individual.
2.1 Students Academic Performance
There exist unprejudiced evidence from previous empirical literature
that students academic performance can be assessed using numerous
methodologies (Ganyaupfu, 2013). Although some studies use grade point
averages in measuring students academic achievements, this research
adopts the procedure used by Hijaz & Naqvi (2006). The approach uses
the average of overall marks of all courses studied by the learner per
specific semester of the academic calendar year. The final academic
performance results are computed from formative and summative
assessments for the respective semester in consideration.

9 | Page

2.2 Lecturer Competence

According to Akiri & Ugborugbo (2009), that lecturer competence is
regarded as a multidimensional construct teaching which encompasses
numerous interconnected elements towards transformation of knowledge
to learners. Previous studies conducted by Schacter &Thum (2004),
Adediwura & Tayo (2007) and Adu & Olatundun, (2007) reveal that
different elements of lecturer competence include lecturers subject
knowledge, teaching skills, lecturer attitude and lecturer attendance.
2.2.1 Subject Knowledge
According to Eggen & Kauchak (2001),there are three dimensions
under which a teachers knowledge of subject matter can be measured;
namely content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge of content and
general knowledge. The implications of these dimensions are that a
lecturer cannot teach what he or she does not know. Adediwura &Tayo
(2007) further emphasized existence of high correlation between what
teachers subject knowledge and what they teach students. In line with
these finding, Adediwura &Tayo (2007) further accentuated that the ability
of a lecturer to teach effectively depends on the depth of knowledge the
teacher possesses. Therefore, a lecturer whose understanding of the
subject content is thorough uses clearer expressions comparative to those
whose backgrounds of subject mastery are weaker.
2.2.2 Teaching Skills
The teaching skills of a lecturer can be measured based on the
lecturers
knowledge

abilities

around

concepts

to

comprehension
be

imparted

and
to

transformation

learners

of

(Ganyaupfu,

2013).Teaching requires one to first understand the specific outcomes of

the topic as well as the subject matter structures of the respective
discipline (Shulman, 1992). Therefore, comprehension of purpose is a very
important element of lecturer competence. According to Shulman (1992),
the educational purposes for engaging in teaching are to assist learners
gain literacy, develop skills and values to function well in the society,
equip them with opportunity to acquire and discover new information,
enhance understandings of new concepts, enable students to enjoy their
10 | P a g e

learning

experiences,

enhance

learners

responsibility

to

become

productive in the economy, contribute to the well-being of the social,

economic and business community.
Moreover, the lecturers ability to distinguish the knowledge base of
his or her teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy in the
respective teachers capacity to transform content knowledge into
practices that are pedagogically influential and adaptive to numerous
students abilities and backgrounds (Glatthorn, 1990). Transformations
require some combination effective presentation of ideas in the form of
new analogies and metaphors, instructional selections, adaptation of
student materials and activities that reflect the students characteristics of
students learning styles and tailoring of adaptations to students in
classrooms. Glatthorn (1990) further emphasized that it is also imperative
that teachers consider the relevant aspects of students distinct abilities,
languages, cultures, motivations and prior knowledge and skills that affect
their responses to different forms of representations.
2.2.3 Lecturers Attitude
Research in education policy reveals that lecturer attitude refers to consistent
tendency by the teacher to react in a particular way; often positively or negatively toward an
academic matter (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001).Another study by Fazio & Roskes (1994)
indicates that attitude possesses both cognitive and emotional components which strongly
influence the manner in which a teacher thinks and responses to specific experiences. In
proceeding further with the analysis, Eggen & Kauchak (2001) found out that positive
teachers attitudes are fundamental to effective teaching and students academic
achievements. Another study by Brunning et al. (1999) indicated a number of elements that
constitute teachers attitudes that will facilitate a caring and supportive classroom
environment. These elements include caring, enthusiasm, teaching efficacy, democratic
practices to promote students responsibility, effective use of lesson, constructive interaction
with learners and high expectation to promote learners motivation. Further analysis in this
study found out that these factors are associated with increase in students academic
performances.
2.2.4 Lecturer Attendance

11 | P a g e

According to a study by Manlove & Elliott (1977) found that the overall academic
performance of students an academic institution is negatively affected by high teacher
absenteeism. Moreover, further analysis from the research found a correlation between
teacher attendance and student achievement. Jacobs & Kritsonis (1997) conducted a study
involving certain classes revealed that teachers who posted the highest level of absenteeism
recorded the lowest scores of students academic performances. Woods & Montagno (1997)
purported that the high the teacher attendance rate becomes, the lower also the students
academic performances become.
Consistent with the above findings are the results from the study conducted by Pitkoff
(1993). The study found out that teachers who received low performance markings missed a
larger number of days than those who did not. This result provides an impetus for education
administrators to develop lecturer development plans early in the academic year for low
performing teachers than later in the respective academic year. However, Scott &McClellan
(1990) discovered that the higher the degree obtained by the lecturer, the higher the number
of days they became absent from the classroom. Additionally, Bruno (2000) purported that
high absenteeism by certain teachers tend to lower the morale of remaining teachers, thereby
resulting in high teacher turnover as other teachers tend to feel more burdened regarding
additional planning for their absent colleague.
2.3 Facilities and Learning Condition
A student and academic success is greatly influences by the type of university or school they
attend. University and school factors include the university structure, composition and
climate. The university or school one attends is the institutional environments that are sets the
parameter of a students learning experience. Barry (2005) states that, depending on the
environment, school can either open or close the doors that lead to academic performance.
Crosnoe et al. (2004) suggests that school sector (public or private and class size are two
important structural components of the school. Besides, according to Crosnoe (2004), school
climate is the general atmosphere of school. Kombo (2005) observes that the leadership style
of the head teacher creates a kind of learning environment. A cordial relationship between the
head teacher and learners creates an environment conducive to learning as discussions are
encouraged and learners are listened to. Griffin (1994) emphasizes that the students must be
effectively involved in the administration system of the school.

12 | P a g e

2.4 Family social supports

Research has found that Chinese parents influence their children's
achievement by means such as socializing their children for good
academic behavior (Chao, 1994). Fan (2001) demonstrates that the
parents educational aspiration for their children proved to be strongly
related to students academic growth. Research studies have found that
parental and family educational level also have the significant impact on
childs learning (Khan & Malik, 1992). Besides, Schneider and Lee (1990)
linked the academic success of the East Asian students to the values and
aspirations they share with their parents, and also to home learning
activities in which their family involved with them. All parents are desired
to do something better for their children according to their available
resources such as ethnicity, family income, and home environment and
their awareness about the importance of education. Khan, Khan and
Zubairi (1999) state that interacting with and sharing the childs activities
is effected by level of parents education and income. Some poor parents
make some arrangements for helping their children in studies and to do
home assignments, while others rely on school for education of their
children, as they do not have enough resources to spend extra money on
home tuition etc. This results on poor performance in academic
achievement of their children.
Researches

also

indicated

that

family

supports

have

significant

contribution in development of the positive self regard that is statistically

related to academic performance of students (Franco & Levitt, 1998;
Mahaffy, 2004; Gonzales-Pienda et al., 2002). Generally parents are not
directly involved in the teaching-learning activities in school. They are
only expected to provide financial and other material support for the
children. Gonzales-Pienda et al. (2002) stated that parental support
criteria were develop according to six dimensions that are strongly
associated to students behavior at school and attitude towards learning.
The six dimensions are parents expectations about their childrens
achievements, parents expectations about their childrens capacity to
achieve important goals, parents behavior that reveal interest in their
13 | P a g e

childrens school work, parents degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with their childrens level of school achievement, parents level and type
of help provided when their children do homework and parents
reinforcement behaviors of their childrens achievement.
2.5 Peers influences
Peers influences have dominated the study of the role of the peer group
and academic outcomes and has been associated with students
motivation and subsequent academic performances in a number of
studies (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Epstein, 1983; Kindermann, 1993). Berndt,
Laychak and Park (1990) found that peers do influence achievement
motivation, particularly when they have close non-conflictual relationship.
Despite findings that have linked students peers influence to both
positive and negative outcomes across several domains. Fordham and
Ogbu (1986) found that the students equated doing well in school with
acting white.

14 | P a g e

As the result, Steinberg, Dornbush and Brown (1992) argue students

receive less support for achievement from their peers. Peers group are
important socialization agent (Kirk, 2000). According to Santor et al
(2000), students learn about what is acceptable in their social group by
reading their friends reactions to how they act, what they wear, and
what they say. The peer group gives this potent feedback by their words
and actions, which either encourages or discourages certain behaviors
and attitudes.

15 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis of data based on the finding of
the study. The analysis of data showed in the form of frequency
distribution and table of percentages. The total of samples who answer
this questionnaire was sixty, so the questions were analyzed in two parts.
Part A is about students personal background, while Part B is about
environmental factors that affect academic performance which are
includes six sections.
In section 1 include students personal factor, in section 2 include
personality traits of lecturer, in section 3 include teaching skills of lecturer,
in section 4 include management of faculty, in section 5 include other
factors such as facilities, family and peer and lastly in section 6 include
linkage between student and faculty.
To make this research success, the samples of sixty students from
different program which are from Faculty of Education, UiTM Puncak Alam
is involved. They were given a set of questionnaire by researcher. The
contents of that questionnaire was related on students personal
background and environmental factors that affect academic performance
which are students personal factor, personality traits of lecturer, teaching
skills of lecturer, management of faculty, other factors such as facilities,
family and peer and last but not least linkage between student and
faculty.

16 | P a g e

4. 1 Demographic profile
Part A: Personal Background
4.1.1 Question 1: Gender
Gender

Male

Female

Number of respondents 19

41

Percentage of
respondent

68.3%

31.7%
Table 1

Number of responents

Gender
Male

Female

Respondents'
Percentages(%)

Scale

Figure 1

Table and figure 1 show that 31.7% of the respondents are

male where as 68.3% of the respondents are female.

17 | P a g e

4.1.2 Question 2: Age

Age

19-22

23-25

Number
of
responde
nts
Percentag
e of
responde
nt

36

20

26 and
above
4

60%

33.3%

6.7%

Table 2

Age
Respondentss'
Percentages (%)
0

Number of respondents
19-22 years old
Scale

Figure 2

Table and figure 2 show that 60% of the respondents are in between
19-22 years old, 33.3% of them from 23- 25 years old and 6.7% of the
respondents are from age of 26 years old and above.

18 | P a g e

4.1.3 Question 3: Programme

Programme
Number of
respondents
Percentage of
respondents

Science
Education
20

Physical and
Art and Design
Health Education Education
20
20

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

Table 3

Programmes
40
20
0

D
es
ig
n

Ar
ta
nd

Sc
ie
nc
e

Scale

Ed
uc
at
io
n

Respondents' Percentage

Ed
uc
at
io
n

Number of respondents

Figure 3

Table and figure 3 show that 33.3% of respondents are from Science
Education programme, 33.3% of the other respondents are from Physical
and Health Education while the another 33.3% of the respondents from
Art and Design programme.

19 | P a g e

4.1.4 Question 4: Current CGPA

CGPA
Number of
responden
ts
Percentag
e of
responden
ts

Less than
2.00
0

2.00-2.50

2.51-3.00

3.01-3.50

3.51-4.00

10

25

21

0%

6.7%

16.6%

41.7%

35%

Table 4

CGPA
3.
51
-4
.0
0

respondents'
Percentages (%)

Scale

Le
ss

th
an

2.
00

Number of respondents

Figure 4

Table and figure 4 show there are no respondent (0%) with CGPA
less than 2, 6.7% of the respondents are with CGPA of 2.00-2.50, 16.6% of
them get CGPA at range of 2.51- 3.00, 41.7% of the respondents having
CGPA of 3.01-3.50, and the another 35% of the respondents with CGPA of
3.51-4.00

20 | P a g e

4.2 Overall findings

Part B: Environmental Factors That Effect Academic
Performances
4.2.1 Students Personal factor
Question 1: I make myself prepared for the subject.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
disagree
3

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
19

26

Strongly
agree
8

5%

6.7%

31.7%

43.3%

13.3%

Table 5

Question 1

ag
re
e

So
m

Scale

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee
ew
ha
t

di
sa
gr
ee

Scale

St
ro
ng
ly

Number of respondents

2600.00%
1900.00%
30
20 300.00%400.00%
800.00%
10
0

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the result about the students preparation of their

courses in general. Most of the students agree that they have prepared for
the course generally which covered 13.3%. This is followed by somewhat
disagree (31.7%), strongly agree (43.3%), disagree ( 31.7 %) and strongly
disagree (5%).

21 | P a g e

Question 2: I look forward to attending classes.

Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
12

33

Strongly
agree
11

1.7%

5%

20%

55%

18.3%

Table 6

Question 2
3300.00%
300.00%

ew
ha
t

di
sa
gr
ee

Series 1

So
m

Scale

1100.00%
ag
re
e

1200.00%

St
ro
ng
ly

100.00%

di
sa
gr
ee
St
ro
ng
ly

Number of respondents

40
20
0

Figure 6

Figure 6 presents the view point of the students toward attending

classes. Most of them agree that they are looking forward for classes
which covered ( 55%). Then, ( 20%) of them somewhat disagree followed
by abot the same percentage of strongly agree (18.3%). Then, percentage
of disagree is ( 5% ) and strongly disagree (1.7%).

22 | P a g e

Question 3: I actively participate in the discussion, answering exercises

and clarifying things
I did not understand.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
15

26

Strongly
agree
12

1.7%

10%

25%

43.3%

20%

Table 7

Question 3

ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly

ew
ha
t

Scale

Series 1

So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

di
sa
gr
ee

40
20
0

Figure 7

Figure 7 presents the students perception on their participation in

class. ( 43.3% ) are agree,

( 20% ) strongly agree,(25%) somewhat

disagree, (10% ) disagree and only (1.7%) strongly disagree.

23 | P a g e

Question 4: I want to get good grades on tests, quizzes, assignments and

projects.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
16

28

Strongly
agree
12

0%

6.7%

26.7%

46.7%

20%

Table 8

ag
re
e

St
ro
ng
ly

ew
ha
t

Scale

So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

2800.0%
1200.0%
400.0% 1600.0%
0.0%
Series 1

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

0 40

Question 4

Figure 8

Figure 8 describes on the attitude of students towards their grades. (

46.7 %) are agree, (26.7% ) are somewhat disagree and (20%) of them
are strongly agree. While percentage of disagree covered (6.7%) and (0%)
of strongly disagree.

24 | P a g e

Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
disagree
5

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
21

16

Strongly
agree
9

8.3%

15%

35%

26.7%

15%

Table 9

Question 5: I get frustrated when the discussion is interrupted or the

lecturer is absent.

Question 5

ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

ew
ha
t

Scale

Series 1

So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

40 500.0%900.0%2100.0%
1600.0%900.0%
20
0

Figure 9

Figure 9 describes the viewpoint of students when the lecturer is

absent. The highest percentage ( 35% ) is from the scale of somewhat
disagree and (26.7%) of agree, followed by ( 15%) of strongly agree and
disagree. Lastly, there were (8.3%) of students were strongly disagree.

25 | P a g e

4.2. 2: Personality traits of lecturer

Question 1: Have good student-lecturer relationship.
Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
8

27

Strongly
agree
22

0%

5%

13.3%

45%

36.7%

Table 10

Question 6

Figure 10

St
ro
ng
ly

ew
ha
t

Scale

So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

D
is
ag
re
e

0
Number of respondents
Respondents' Percentages (%)

Ag
re
e

50

Table and figure 2.1 show the opinion of the respondents about their
positive relationship with the lecturer. 0% of the respondents are strongly
disagree, 5% are disagree, 13.3% are somewhat disagree, 45% are agree
and 36.7% of them are strongly agree with this question.

26 | P a g e

Question 7: Have appealing personality with good sense of humor.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
13

29

Strongly
agree
15

0%

5%

21.7%

48.3%

25%

Table 11

QUESTION 7

ag
re
e

Respondents' Percentages
(%)

St
ro
ng
ly

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

100
50
0

Scale

Figure 11

Table and figure 7 show the opinions of the respondents about good
personality of their lecturers during teaching in classroom. 0% of them are
strongly disagree, 5% of respondents disagree, 21.7% are somewhat
disagree, 48.3% are agree and 25% are strongly agree with this question.

27 | P a g e

Question 8: Are open to suggestions and opinions.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
4

30

Strongly
agree
24

0%

3.3%

6.7%

50%

40%

Table 12

St
ro
ng
ly

Ag
re
e

Number of respondents

di
0
sa
gr
ee

QUESTION 8
Respondents' Percentages
(%)

Scale

Figure 12

Table and figure 2.3 show the opinion of respondents about the
opennesss ethic of their lecturers in classroom. 0% of them strongly
disagree, 3.3% are disagree, 6.7% of the respondents are somewhat
disagree, 50% are agree, and 40% are strongly agree with this question.

28 | P a g e

Question 9: Display confidence.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
9

30

Strongly
agree
20

0%

1.7%

15%

50%

33.3%

Table 13

QUESTION 9

ag
re
e

Respondentss' Percentages
(%)

St
ro
ng
ly

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

100
50
0

Scale

Figure 13

Table and figure 9 show the opinion of the respondents about their
lecturers confidence during teaching and learning. 0% are strongly
disagree, 1.7% are disagree, 15% are somewhat disagree, 50% are agree
and 20% are strongly agree with this question.

29 | P a g e

Question 10: Imposes proper discipline.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
8

33

Strongly
agree
17

1.7%

1.7%

13.3%

55%

28.3%

Table 14

QUESTION 10
60
40
Number of respondents

Respondents' Percentages
(%)

20
0
Strongly disagree
Scale

Figure 14

Table and figure 10 show the opinion of the respondents about their
lecturer which always have proper discipline. 1.7% of them are strongly
disagree, 1.7% are disagree, 13.3% are somewhat disagree, 55% of the
respondents are agree and 28.3% are strongly agree with this question.

30 | P a g e

Section 4.2. 3: Teaching Skills of Lecturer

4.1.7.1 Question 11: My lecturers content knowledge is up-to-date.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
Disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
8

31

Strongly
Agree
20

0%

2%

13%

52%

33%

Table 15

40

QUESTION 11
Number of respondents
0

QUESTION 11
Strongly Disagee

Agree

Scale

Figure 15

Table and figure 11 show that as much as 52% students agree that
in general their lecturers content knowledge is up-to-date while

33%

strongly agree that their lecturers content knowledge is up-to-date. As

much as 13% students somewhat disagree and 2% student is disagree
with this question.

31 | P a g e

Question 12: Have mastery of the subject matter.

Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentage
of
responden
t

Strongly
Disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
6

34

Strongly
Agree
18

0%

3%

10%

57%

30%

Table 16

Ag
re
e

QUESSTION 12

Scale

St
ro
ng
ly

St
ro
ng
ly

Number of respondents

D
is
ag 0
re
e

QUESTION 12

Figure 16

Table and figure 12 show that as much as 57% students agree that in general their
lecturer possess mastery of the subject matter while 30% strongly agree that their lecturer
possess mastery of the subject matter. As much as 10% students somewhat disagree and 3%
student are disagree with this question.

32 | P a g e

Question 13: Use various teaching techniques and strategies in

presenting lessons.
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

Strongly
Disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
11

33

Strongly
Agree
15

0%

2%

18%

55%

25%

Table 17

St
ro
ng
ly

Scale

QUESSTION 13
Ag
re
e

Number of respondents

D
is
0 40
ag
re
e

QUESTION 13

Figure 17

Table and figure 13 show that as much as 55% students agree that in general their
lecturer use various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting lessons while 25%
strongly agree. As much as (18%) students somewhat disagree and 2% student is disagree
that their lecturer use various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting lessons.

33 | P a g e

Question 14: Implement lessons effectively.

Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
Disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
14

33

Strongly
Agree
12

0%

2%

23%

55%

20%

Table 18

QUESTION 14

Ag
re
e

QUESTION 14

St
ro
ng
ly

D
is
ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly

Number of respondents

40
30
20
10
0

Scale

Figure 18

Table and figure 14 show that as much as 55% students agree that
in general their lecturer implement lessons effectively while 20% strongly
agree. As much as 23% students somewhat disagree and 2% student is
disagree that their lecturer implement lessons effectively.

34 | P a g e

Question 15: Are able to engage student learning.

Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

Strongly
Disagree
1

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
9

30

Strongly
Agree
19

2%

2%

15%

50%

31%

Table 19

QUESTION 15
40
Number of respondents

20
0
Strongly Disagree

QUESTION 15
Agree

Scale

Figure 19

Table and figure 15 show that as much as 50% students agree that in general their
lecturers are able to engage student learning while 31% strongly agree. As much as 15%
students somewhat disagree, 2% student is disagree and 2% student is strongly disagree with
this question.

35 | P a g e

4.2.4 Management of institution

Question 1: The faculty addresses students issues and concerns.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
Disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
20

25

Strongly
Agree
6

15

33.3

41.7

10

Table 20

Question 16

So
m

ew
ha
t

di
sa
gr
ee

Series 1

Scale

600.0%
ag
re
e

900.0%

2000.0% 2500.0%

St
ro
ng
ly

0.0%

di
sa
gr
ee
St
ro
ng
ly

Number of respondent

30
20
10
0

Figure 20

Figure 1 illustrates on students opinion about the concern of the

faculty toward them. Most of them choose agree and somewhat disagree
41.7% and 33.3% followed by 15% of disagree, 10% of strongly agree and
0% of strongly agree.

36 | P a g e

Question 2: The faculty look reasonary steps to identify students issues.

Scale

Strongly
Disagree
Number of
3
responden
t
Percentag
5
e of
responden
t

Disagree

Somewhat Agree
Disagree
20
24

10

33.3

40

Strongly
Agree
7

11.7

Figure 21

Question 17

Scale

ag
re
e

Series 1

St
ro
ng
ly

ew
ha
t
So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondent

di
sa
gr
ee

2000.0%2400.0%
30
20 300.0% 600.0%
700.0%
10
0

Figure 21

Figure shows satisfaction of students on facultys initiatives in

identifying students issues. Most of them are agree which is 40% , 33.3%
are somewhat disagree, 11.7% are strongly agree, 10% are disagree and
only 5% are strongly agree.

37 | P a g e

Question 3: The faculty promotes close relationship between staff and

students.
Scale
Number of
respondent
Percentage
of
respondent

Strongly
agree
2

Agree

Disagree

10

Somewhat
disagree
22

20

Strongly
disagree
6

3.3

16.7

36.7

33.3

10

Figure 22

Question 18
200.0%

1000.0%

2200.0% 2000.0%

600.0%
ag
re
e

So
m

St
ro
ng
ly

Scale

ew
ha
t

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Series 1

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondent

40
20
0

Figure 22

Figure shows stdents perception on facultys initiative in promoting

relationship between staff s and students. 36.7% of stdents ae somewhat
disagree, 33.3% are agree, 16.7% are disagree, 10% are strongly agree
and only 3.3% are strongly disagree.

38 | P a g e

Section 4.2. 5: Other factors

Question 19: I am happy with the facilities and learning conditions
provided.
Scale
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
disagree
disagree
agree
Number of
2
4
16
30
8
respondent
s
Percentage
3.3%
6.7%
26.7%
50%
13.3%
of
respondent
s
Figure 23

QUESTION 19

ag
re
e

Respondentss'
Percentages (%)

St
ro
ng
ly

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

100
50
0

Scale

Figure 23

Table and figure 19 show the opinion of the respondents about their
satisfaction with the facilities provided in their faculty or university. 3.3%
of the respondents are strongly disagree, 6.7% are disagree, 26.7% are
somewhat disagree, 50% are agree, 13.3 are strongly agree with this
question.

39 | P a g e

Question 20: My family always provides the social support.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
4

22

Strongly
agree
33

0%

1.7%

6.7%

36.6%

55%

Table 24

QUESTION 20

ag
re
e

Respondents'
Percentages (%)

St
ro
ng
ly

St
ro
ng
ly

di
sa
gr
ee

Number of respondents

100
50
0

Scale

Figure 24

Table and figure 20 show the opinion of respondents about their

familys supports and motivations during studying. 0% are strongly
disagree, 1.7% are disagree, 6.7% are somewhat disagree, 36.6% are
agree and 55% are strongly agree with this question.

40 | P a g e

Question 5.3: I find my peers helpful.

Scale
Number of
respondent
s
Percentage
of
respondent
s

Strongly
disagree
0

Disagree

Agree

Somewhat
disagree
12

30

Strongly
agree
18

0%

0%

20%

50%

30%

Table 25

Question 21

Number of respondents

60
40
20
0
Strongly disagree

Respondents' Percentages
(%)

Scale

Figure 25

Table and figure 21 show the opinion of respondents about helpful

peers in learning and studying in university. 0% are strongly disagree, 0%
are disagree, 20% are somewhat disagree, 50% are agree and 30% are
strongly agree that their peers are helpful.

41 | P a g e

Section 4.2.6: Linkage between Student and Faculty

Question 22: I found that the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM beneficial for
my academic performance.
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

YES
53

NO
7

88%

12%

Table 26

QUESTION 22
12%
88%
YES

NO

Figure 26

Table and figure 22 show that as much as 88% students answered yes to this question
which they found the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM beneficial for their
academic performance whereas as much as 12% students answered no to this question.

42 | P a g e

Question 23: The institution provide good financial support (eg: zakat,
food allowance, etc.)
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

YES
50

NO
10

83%

17%

Table 27

QUESTION 23
17%

83%
YES

NO

Figure 27

Table and figure 23 show that as much as 83 students answered yes

to this question which institution provide good financial support (eg: zakat,
food allowance, etc.) whereas as much as 17% students answered no to
this question.

43 | P a g e

Question 24: The institution provides good psychological support (eg:

counseling, etc.)
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

YES
51

NO
9

85%

15%

Table 28

QUESTION 24
15%

85%
YES

NO

Figure 28

Table and figure 24 show that as much as 85% students answered yes to this question
which institution provide good psychological support (eg: counseling, etc.) whereas as much
as 15% students answered no to this question.

44 | P a g e

Question 25: When organize student activity, faculty encourages

networking between students and faculty or industry.
Scale
Number of
responden
t
Percentag
e of
responden
t

YES
57

NO
3

95%

5%

Table 29

QUESTION 25
5%

95%
YES

NO

Figure 29

Table and figure 25 show that as much as

95% students answered yes to this

question; when organize student activity, faculty encourages networking between students
and faculty or industry whereas as much as 5% students answered no to this question.

45 | P a g e

4.3. Environmental Factors That Affect Academic Performance.

4.3. 1 STUDENTS PERSONAL FACTOR
Question 1: I make myself prepared for the subject.

Table 30

High CGPA
Disagree
Agree (%)
(%)
36.4
63.6

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree (%)
(%)
62.5
37.5

Under this

section, we discuss more on students perceptions on their personal factors and how these
may affect their academic outcome. The first factor is students preparation before class.
Based on the percentage, it was found out that high performing students agreed more which is
(63.6%) than lower performing students, which is (37.5%). This means that high performing
students have make

a better preparation before the class compared to low performing

students. Therefore, it can be assumed that a good preparation before class can positively
affecting students grades.
Question 2: I look forward to attending classes.
High CGPA
Agree
Disagree
79.5%
20.5%

Low CGPA
Agree
Disagree
56.3%
43.8%

Table 31

The second factor is the motivations level of students to attend classes. From the
table, it can be seen that low performing students agreed less which is only (56.3%),
compared to high performing students which is (79.5%). This shows that low performing
students have lower level of motivation than the high performing students. Thus we can
assume that high motivations level of students in attending classes may affect their
achievement.

46 | P a g e

Question 3: I actively participate in the discussion, answering

clarifying things I did not understand.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
34.1%
65.9%

exercises and

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
43.8%
56.3%

Table 32

The third factor is engagement of students in class in forms of

discussion, answering

exercises and clarifying things they did not

understand. The study found that high performing students agreed by

(65.9%) while the low performing students agreed by (56.3%). This data
reveals that achievement of students may be affected positively by
students engagement in class.
Question 4: I want to get good grades on tests, quizzes, assignments and
High CGPA
Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
25%
75%
56.3%
43.8%
projects.

Table 33

Table 1.4 shows the

fourth factor which is the data of students

based on their aim to get excellent score in each assessment. Based on

the data collected, it can be seen that students with high CGPA agreed by
(75%), while students with low CGPA agreed by only (43.8%). The present
study concluded that higher aim may affect academic outcome of
students positively. Thus, students should set a higher aim and strive for
their academic assessments

47 | P a g e

Question 5: I get frustrated when the discussion is interrupted or

lecturer is absent.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
59.1%
40.9%

Disagree
56.3%

the

Low CGPA
Agree
43.8%

Table 34

The last personal factor studied

is students opinion wether they

feel frustrated when their lecturer is absent. Based on the table 2.5, it can
be concluded that percentage of students which has high CGPA and low
CGPA disagreed to the question at almost the same level. The high CGPA
students agreed by (59.1%) while the low CGPA students agreed by
(56.3%). Thus, it can be assumed that almost all the students disagreed
that they did not feel really upset when the lecturer is absent. This shows
that almost all of the students perceived that undisturbed class is
essential for effective learning. The faculty should highlight this issue as it
may affect students feeling when the lecturer is absent.
The findings are supported by other stdy conducted with high school
students.

According to Theresa M. Akey (2006), engagement in school

and students perception of their own academic potential can significantly

affecting achievement in mathematic and reading. Furthermore, another
study conducted on students of DAnnunzio University fond that stdents
attendance has a positive effect on students academic performances
(Andrietti & DAddazio, 2012).
Other than that, there is also a stdy empahasized that stdents with higher
adaptation and stress management level as well as better interpersonal
skill were more likely to excel through their first year of niverity (Parker,
Hogan, Estabrook,Oke, and Wood , 2006 as cited in Bilodeau
& Meissner, 2016).

48 | P a g e

4.3.2PERSONALITY TRAITS OF LECTURER

.
Question 1: Has good relationship with students and lecturers.
High CGPA
Disagree
16%

Low CGPA
Agree
84%

Disagree
31%

Agree
69%

Table 35

A simple investigation was made by students having high and low

CGPA with their lecturers personality traits. The first lecturers personality
trait that has studied is having good students-lecturers relationship. The
study found out, the percentage of agree (84%) is higher on high
performing students while the percentage of disagree (31%) is higher on
low performing students. These showed that this question is positively
effects students with high CGPA while students with lower CGPA confirmed
they are not having good relationship between their lecturers. So, in some
extent lecturers with good students-lecturer relationship are affecting the
CGPA level of student in high rates.
Question 2 : Has an appealing personality with good sense of humor.
High CGPA
Disagree
20%

Low CGPA
Agree
80%

Disagree
31%

Agree
69%

Table 36

The second personality traits of lecturer investigated is having

appealing personality with good sense of humor. Study revealed that the
percentages of agree is higher on high performing students (80%)
compared to low performing students (69%) while percentage of disagree
is higher on low performing students (31%) compared to high performing
students (20%). These pointed out, lecturers who have appealing
personality with good sense of humor are positively effects students with
high level of academic performances. On the other hand, students with
low CGPA perceived the lack of good personality of their lecturers may be
the reasons of their low academic achievements.
49 | P a g e

50 | P a g e

Question 3: Is open to suggestions and opinions and its worthy of praise.

High CGPA
Disagree
6%

Low CGPA
Agree
93%

Disagree
12%

Agree
88%

Table 37

The third personality traits are open to suggestions and opinions.

When compared between high performing and low performing students,
the percentage of agree are 93% and 88% respectively. While the
percentage of disagree of students with low CGPA is 12% while high CGPA
is 6%. Study found good achievements of high CGPA students are affected
by their lecturers who able to give and accept opinions and suggestions
during teaching and learning. On the other side, low CGPA students gave
perceptions that their lecturers are still lacking of personality in accepting
and giving suggestions until they disable to get good grades in
examination. But in general, this question pointed out that the higher
openness of the lecturers with their students, the higher of percentage
students can get excellent results.
Question 4: Shows smartness, confidence and firmness in making
decision.
High CGPA
Disagree
18%

Low CGPA
Agree
82%

Disagree
12%

Agree
87%

Table 38

The fourth question on personality of lecturers is displaying

confidence. Based on study, the highest percentage of agree is from low
performing students which is 87%, while lowest is from high performing
students which is 82%. In contrast, the percentage of disagree is higher
on high CGPA students (18%) while lower on low CGPA students (12%).
Thus, it revealed although majority of students are able to get high CGPA,
but they still disagree that their lecturers having self-confidence during
teaching and answering given questions. They may be get consulted by
other lecturers outside of the class if get might confused regarding certain
51 | P a g e

subjects that have been taught. On the other side, the perception on low
performing students is they may not get or apply what their lecturers
teach although they agreed with this question. So, it can be concluded the
confidence level may positively and negatively effected students
academic performance.

52 | P a g e

Question 5: Imposes proper discipline.

High CGPA
Disagree
20%

Low CGPA
Agree
79%

Disagree
12%

Agree
88%

Table 39

Next, the last personality traits of the lecturers investigated is

imposing proper discipline.

The findings are the high percentage of

agreement is come from students with low CGPA level (88%) while low
percentage of agreement from students with high CGPA level (79%). In
contrast, students with high CGPA pointed out this question with the
higher percentage (20%) of disagree than students with low CGPA (12%).
From the data analyzed, majority of students with high CGPA not agree
that their lecturers imposed proper disciplines as a good lecturer. This
may due to they have experienced bad situations for instances, the time
when their lecturers are coming late or not showing proper ethics in
classroom. To acquire a good achievement, they might be practice selflearning outside the classes. On other hand, low performing students may
not have or use other strategies in learning although they slightly agreed
their lecturers imposing proper discipline. But, in general this question is
positively and negatively influences students academic performances.
The findings are congruent to other study by Dunn (2000). He revealed that the theory
requires a lot from teachers in terms of their personality, in order to for meaningful learning
to take place in their students. Besides, Sikora (1997) profound that teacher have been
universally accepted as one of the most important component of education. Umoren and
Ogbodo (2001) pointed out that emotional stability is one of the needed competences of the
teacher. So, they highlighted that teachers should be emotionally stable in order to change
students under their control. The main focus of many researches of the classroom
environment has been on educators personality and behaviors. This study has found that the
positive personalities of the lecturers have a positive impact on behavior of students as well
as academic performances. It also found that the lecturers who run respectful classrooms are
in turn to be more respected by their students and students believe that these lecturers also
hold higher learning expectations. (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007) found that there is a
53 | P a g e

strong positive relationship between students level of motivation and engagement and their
perceptions of the classroom environment as being socially supportive.

4.3.3) TEACHING SKILLS OF LECTURER

Question 1: Lecturers content knowledge is up to date.

Disagree
13.6%

High CGPA
Agree
86.4%

Disagree
12.5%

Low CGPA
Agree
87.5%

Table 40

The first teaching skills of the lecturer that has studied is having
content knowledge that is up-to-date. The study found that out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of them agree that in general their
lecturer have up-to-date content knowledge and remaining (13.6%)
students disagree with this question. Meanwhile out of 16 students with
low CGPA, only (12.5%) of the students disagree that their lecturers have
up-to-date content knowledge and remaining (87.5%) students agree with
this question. It seems that lecturers that have up-to-date content
knowledge are affecting the CGPA level of student in high rates. However,
students with low CGPA that are not success even though their lecturer
have up-to-date content knowledge may due to their own personals
factors.
Question 2: Have mastery of the subject matter.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
9.1%
90.9%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
18.75%
81.25%
Table 41

The second teaching skills of lecturer that being investigated is

lecturers possess mastery of the subject matter. Study reveal that out of
44 students with high CGPA level, (90.9%) of the students agreed that in
general their lecturers have possess mastery of the subject matter and
remaining (9.1%) students disagree with this question. Meanwhile out of
54 | P a g e

16 students with low CGPA, (81.25%) students agree with this question
and the remaining (18.75%) students are disagree. This also pointed that
lecturers who have possess mastery of the subject matter are positively
affecting students academic performance. However, for the case students
with low CGPA that agree their lecturers have possess mastery of the
subject matter, may due to their own personals factors or other factors
such as their preparations, participation in class and etc.
High CGPA
Disagree
25%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
6.25%
93.75%

Agree
75%
Table 42

Question 3: Uses various teaching techniques and strategies in

presenting the lessons.
The third teaching skills of the lecturer that has studied is the
lecturers use various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting
lessons. Study found that out of 44 students with high CGPA level, (75%)
of them positively approved that in general their lecturers have use
various teaching techniques and strategies in presenting lessons and
remaining

(25%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students

with low CGPA,

(93.75%) students agree whereas only (6.25%) person

disagree with this question. This shows that majority of the students
agreed that their lecturers use various teaching techniques and strategies
in presenting lessons. This shows that various teaching techniques and
strategies in presenting lessons that had been used by the lecturers are
affecting students on how they perceived some subjects with different
methods and this will eventually affecting their academic performance.
However, for those with low CGPA and not success in academic may due
to the other factor.
Question 4: Can effectively and clearly plan lessons.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
55 | P a g e

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree

27.3%

72.7%

25%

75%

Table 43

The fourth teaching skills of lecturers that had been studied is

lecturers implement lessons effectively. Study show that out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (72.7%) students agreed that in general
their lecturers have implement lessons effectively and the remaining
(27.3%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students with low
CGPA,

(75%) of them are agree with this question and the remaining

(25%) students are disagree. This shows that lecturers who have
implement lessons effectively are positively affecting students academic
performance. However, for students with low CGPA that positively
answered this question but not success in academic performance may due
to their own personal factors.
Question 5 : Able to engage student learning.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
13.6%
86.4%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
18.75%
81.25%
Table 44

Lastly, the final teaching skills of lecturers that had been studied is
lecturers are able to engage student learning. From the study, out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of them agreed that in general
their lecturers are able to engage student learning and remaining 6
(13.6%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students with low
CGPA, (18.75%) of them agree with this question and the remaining
(18.75%) students are disagree. It seems that lecturers who are able to
engage students learning are positively affect students academic
performance. However, for low CGPA students that positively answered
this question but not success may due to their own personal factors
.
According to Eggen&Kauchak (2001),there are three dimensions
under which a lecturers knowledge of subject tmatter can be measured;
56 | P a g e

namely content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge of content and

general knowledge. The implications of these dimensions are that a
lecturer cannot teach what he or she does not know. Adediwura&Tayo
(2007) further emphasized existence of high correlation between what
lecturers subject knowledge and what they teach students. In line with
these finding, Adediwura &Tayo (2007) further accentuated that the ability
of a lecturer to teach effectively depends on the depth of knowledge the
lecturer possesses. Therefore, a lecturer whose understanding of the
subject content is thorough uses clearer expressions comparative to those
whose backgroundsof subject mastery are weaker.

57 | P a g e

Moreover, the lecturers ability to distinguish the knowledge base of his or

her teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy in the
respective lecturers capacity to transform content knowledge into
practices that are pedagogically influential and adaptive to numerous
students abilities and backgrounds (Glatthorn, 1990). Transformations
require some combination effective presentation of ideas in the form of
new analogies and metaphors, instructional selections, adaptation of
student materials and activities that reflect the students characteristics of
students learning styles and tailoring of adaptations to students in
classrooms. Glatthorn (1990) further emphasized that it is also imperative
that lecturers consider the relevant aspects of students distinct abilities,
languages, cultures, motivations and prior knowledge and skills that affect
their responses to different forms of representations.
In addition, according to Shulman (1992), the educational purposes
for engaging in teaching are to assist learners gain literacy, develop skills
and values to function well in the society, equip them with opportunity to
acquire and discover new information, enhance understandings of new
concepts, enable students to enjoy their learning experiences, enhance
learners responsibility to become productive in the economy, contribute
to the well-being of the social, economic and business community.
Although most research regarding teacher-student relationships investigate the
elementary years of schooling, teachers have the unique opportunity to support students
academic and social development at all levels of schooling (Baker et al., 2008;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner& Morris, 1998; McCormick, Cappella, OConnor,
&McClowry, in press). Aligned with attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1982; Bowlby, 1969),
positive lecturer-student relationships enable students to feel safe and secure in their learning
environments and provide scaffolding for important social and academic skills (Baker et al.,
2008; OConnor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011; Silver, Measelle, Armstron, & Essex, 2005).
Lecturers who support students in the learning environment can positively impact their social
and academic outcomes, which is important for the long-term trajectory of school and
eventually employment (Baker et al., 2008; OConnor et al., 2011; Silver et al., 2005).

58 | P a g e

4.3.4 MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTION

Question 1: The faculty addresses students issues and concerns.
High CGPA
Agree
52.3

Low CGPA

Disagree
47.7

Agree
50

Disagree
50

Table 45

Students perception on the quality of management of institution is

analysed. It was found that there is only a little differences on the
percentage of students satisfaction towards the management between
high CGPA and low CGPA students. Both group of the students

agreed

that the faculty addressed students issues and concerns at almost the
same percentage. The high CGPA students agreed by about 52.3 % while
the low CGPA students agreed by 50%. This shows the level of satisfaction
towards institution management is moderately low.

however, the data

shows higher percentage of agreement by high CGPA stdents. Thus, it can

be conclded that good faclty management will positively influence stdents
grade.
High CGPA
Disagree
45.5

Low CGPA
Agree
54.5

Disagree
56.3

Agree
43.8

Table 46

Question 2: The faculty look reasonary steps to identify students issues.

From the second question, it was found out that high CGPA students
agreed more that the faculty look reasonary steps to identify students
issues. 54.5% of high CGPA students agreed with it compared to only 43.8
% of low CGPA students. It can be assumed that stdents academic
achievement is slightly related to their satisfaction towards management
of faculty

59 | P a g e

Question 3: The faculty promotes close relationship between staff and

students.
High CGPA
Low CGPA
Disagree
52.3

Agree
47.7

Disagree
68.8

Agree
31.25

Table 47

The last question

revealed that the level of satisfaction among

stdents on the faclty is slightly low.

Both high CGPA and low CGPA

students showed higher percentage of disagree. Thus, the faculty need to

take additional action to increase stdents satisfaction level. In general,
the data showed higher percentage of agreement by high CGPA stdents
(47.7 % ) compared to low cGPA stdents (31.25%). Therefore, it can be
assmed that the initiatives taken by the faculty to promote close
relationship between staff and students is still low. In spite of this, this
factor is considered positively affecting students achievement.
Previos stdies showed many significant relationship between stdents
satisfaction on institution management and their academic performance.
For instance, a stdy proved that perceived service quality was directly
influencing stdents motivation in a positive way (Annamdevula & Bellamkonda,
2016). Another stdy highlighted that incompetent services provided by the
staff either academic or non academic will affect stdents emotions and
also reslted in poor achievements in academic. (Ahmed et al., 2000;
Hufton et al., 2003; Mason, 2012 as cited in Annamdevula & Bellamkonda,
2016).

60 | P a g e

4.3.5 OTHER FACTORS

Question 1: I am happy with the facilities and learning conditions provided.
High CGPA
Disagree
41%

Low CGPA
Agree
59%

Disagree
25%

Agree
75%

Table 48
The investigation also was conducted by relating students CGPA level to the other
factors. The first factor is students satisfaction on facilities and learning conditions that have
provided by the university. The study found out the percentage of agreement is higher on
students from low CGPA but lower percentage of agreement on students from high academic
achievement. This showed that those current facilities and learning conditions provided by
faculty still are not conducive for learning and teaching. This proven as the percentage of
disagree regarding this question is higher on high performing students (41%) compared to
and low performing students (25%). The perceptions is although there are less facilities
provided, but students with good grades might be using the other approaches to acquire the
best ways of learning condition. Low performing students that majority agreed with this
question might not use those provided facilities and learning conditions in order to achieve
good results. So it can be concluded, the available facilities and learning condition are
considered positively and negatively effecting the academic performances.
Question 2: Parents and family always provides the social support.
High CGPA
Disagree
4%

Low CGPA
Agree
95%

Disagree
19%

Agree
82%

Table 49

Second factor is regarding social supports from their family. Study revealed out that
95 % of high performing students where as 82% of low performing students agreed that their
family give support during studying. In some extents, seems that social supports in the
aspects of emotional, financial and physical are positively influence a student academic
performance. Previous study, Fan (2001) demonstrated that familys aspiration proved to be
strongly related to students academic growth and performances.

61 | P a g e

Question 3: I find my peers are helpful

High CGPA
Disagree
23%

Low CGPA
Agree
77%

Disagree
19%

Agree
81%

Table 50

The last other factor is a helpful peer. Study pointed out the percentage of agreement
is higher on low CGPA students (77%) compared to high CGPA students (81%). This shows
students with good grades not fully found their peers are able to facilitate and inspire them
towards getting a good academic performance. They might have different approaches in
learning such as learning from other tutors based on many sources. So, it is proven that peers
influenced are affecting students academic achievements in positive and negative ways. This
congruent to a study conducted by Ryan (2000). He found that peer groups were influential
regarding changes in students intrinsic value for school as well as achievement.
Previous research has revealed that classroom with highly cooperative group appears
to have students with more positive perceptions in grading, higher degree of social supports
as well as higher achievement scores. Based on this study, the perception of climate of mutual
respect between lecturers and students such as having good relationship and positive
openness to opinions and suggestions are required in order for students to improve their usage
of effective study strategies using the facilities provided by the university. Moreover, it can
increase their feeling of confidence about their abilities to successfully complete the
assignments, tests and quizzes.

Furthermore, when students perceive that they receive

emotional supports and encouragements from their lecturers and family, academic support
from their peers they more likely to be on task during learning and enhance their usage of
self-regulated strategies. Fan (2001) demonstrated that familys aspiration proved to be
strongly related to students academic growth and performances.

62 | P a g e

4.3.6 LINKAGE BETWEEN STUDENT AND FACULTY

In Bronfenbrenners theory, development occurs as a result of the
interaction of a person and the environment. This ecology consists of
four components process, person, context and time.

The person, or

college student is the focus of the development and possesses certain

characteristics and personality traits that influence or impact the
trajectory of their development. The person develops thorough proximal
processes that are the interactions that spur or retard their development.
All of this takes place through time and in context.
Question 1: I found that the collaborative program held by faculty and
UiTM beneficial for my academic performance.
High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
11.4%
88.6%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
6.25%
93.75%
Table 51

The first linkage between student and faculty that had been studied
is students found that the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM
beneficial for their academic performance. The study found that out 44
students with high CGPA level,

(88.6%) of the students found that

collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM beneficial for their

academic performance and remaining

(11.4%) students are disagree.

Meanwhile out of 16 students with low CGPA, (93.75%) students agree

with this question and only one (6.25%) person disagree. This shows that
the collaborative program held by faculty and UiTM beneficial for
students academic performance. Majority students with low CGPA
answered this question positively. However, they are still get low CGPA
this may due to they are acknowledge the collaborative program held by
faculty and UiTM beneficial for students academic performance but they
are not joining the program.

63 | P a g e

Question 2a:The institution provides good financial support

High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
16%
84%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
12.5%
87.5%
Table 52

The second linkage between student and faculty that being

investigated is the institution provides good financial support such as
zakat, food allowance and etc. Study reveal that out of 44 students with
high CGPA level, (84%) of them agreed that the institution provides good
financial support and remaining (16%) students are disagree. Meanwhile
out of 16 students with low CGPA, (87.5%) of them answered positively to
this question and the remaining

(12.5%) students are disagree. This

shows that good financial support will result in positive effect on the
students academic performance as they will not stress on their financial
and reduce their burden in financial. However, for students with low CGPA
that answered this question positively but not success may due to their
parents have high salary and they do not depending on institutional
financial support and this is not one of the factor that affect their
academic performance. This can be conclude that, financial support may
or may not affect students academic performance as not all the students
in university are depending on the financial support.

64 | P a g e

Question 2b: The institution provides good psychological support

High CGPA
Disagree
Agree
13.6%
86.4%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
12.5%
87.5%
Table 53

Besides that, the third linkage between student and faculty that
been studied is institution provides good psychological support for
instance counseling and etc. From the study it shows that out of 44
students with high CGPA level, (86.4%) of the students positively
approved that institution has provides good psychological support and the
remaining (13.6%) students are disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students
with low CGPA, (87.5%) students are agree and the remaining (12.5%)
students are disagree with this question. This also pointed that good
psychological support provided by institutions positively affect students
academic performance. However, for those with low CGPA that positively
answered this question acknowledged that there are good psychological
support but they are not seek for the help in terms of social support or
motivational support in order to improve their academic performance.

65 | P a g e

Question

3:

When

organize

student

activity,

faculty

encourages

networking between students and faculty or industry.

High CGPA
Disagree
6.8%

Low CGPA
Disagree
Agree
0%
100%

Agree
93.2%
Table 54

Lastly, the fourth linkage between student and faculty that been
studied is when organize students activity, faculty encourages networking
between students and faculty or industry. Study found that out of 44
students with high CGPA level,

(93.2%) students agreed that when

organize students activity, faculty encourages networking between

students and faculty or industry and the remaining (6.8%) students are
disagree. Meanwhile out of 16 students with low CGPA all (100%) of them
are agreed with this question. This has proved that faculty encourages
networking between students and faculty or industry when organize
students activity positively affect students academic performance.
However, for those with low CGPA and not success in academic may due
to the other factor.

66 | P a g e

4.3.7 SUGGESTIONS FROM THE RESEARCHS FINDINGS.

Based on this researchs findings, . the lecturers as well as faculty

should encourage more inspirational talk and programmes to enhance
students personal motivation especially the low performing students as
the findings show they have lack in self-esteem.
The lecturers of this faculty should improve their personality traits especially in terms
of their readiness in giving opinions and accepting suggestions from students, confidence
level in delivering the lessons, self-disciplines or ethics during teaching and learning process.
Furthermore, in order to have the best learning conditions and environment, the
faculty needs to provide students with more learning facilities that accompanied with current
technology. The faculty also need to highlight on students issues in a more intensive way.
According to Philias and Wanjobi (2011), the better the performance of the students, the more
effective the system assumed to be.
Besides, the faculty or lecturers should encourage the students to involve in peer
groups learning as one of the strategies to upgrade students academic performances. This is
spported by Elvis Munyaradzi Ganyaupfu (2013); as he stated that teacher-student interactive
method was the best teaching method followed by student-centered method and teachercentered approach.

67 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction
This chapter discussed two major of title that consists of summary
and conclusion. For summary, it focused on the findings relationship
between environmental factors and students academic performance. For
the conclusion, it emphasized on what could be concluded from this
research.
5.1 Summary
In Chapter 1, the researcher began with discussing the research
objectives in which to identify and explore the effect of environment
towards students academic performances in UiTM Puncak Alam, Selangor.
So, the researcher encountered several questions regarding these
problems:
1) How the identified environment factors can affect students
academic achievement?
2) How are these factors related to Bronfenbrenners ecological system
theory?

In the other sides, Chapter 2 examined and review various related

literatures that referred to research topic regarding on the Effects of
Environment towards Academic Performances among the students in
UiTM Puncak Alam, Selangor.
Next, Chapter 3 discussed on the methodology that used to conduct
this research study. The data is collected by distributing the questionnaire
to UiTM students in Faculty of Education. Then, all the information and the
results will be analyzed and determined by using tables of percentage
from the respondents. The questionnaire provided to 60 of students in
Faculty of Education. 20 questionnaires are distributed to students from
Science Education, 20 of questionnaire for students from Physical and
68 | P a g e

Health Education, and the other 20 of questionnaire for students from Art
and Design Education.

In Chapter 4, all of findings are analyzed. This chapter is divided into

three parts which are 4.1: Data and Results, 4.2: Discussion. The first part
(4.1) is represented based on the sections in the questionnaire. There are
two different parts of questionnaire. The first part (A) is regarding students
background which are gender, age, programme and CGPA where as the
second part (B) is about the environmental factors that effects students
academic performances. While the second part (4.2: Discussion) is
discussing more on the research question of the research.
Finally Chapter 5 is to discuss about the study comprehensively
where the detail of each chapter was listed to provide more clear
understanding about the study. Besides, this part also presents the
limitation of the study, recommendations for future research and
conclusion of the research.
5.2: Limitations and future directions
There are a few limitations of the study that can be highlighted in future research. The
number of respondents is very small which may affect the accuracy of the finding. Other than
that, the findings is only presented and analyzed on the form of frequency distribution and
table of percentages. There are not any specific approaches such as correlation and regression
analysis is being used to validate the findings. Finally, this study assesses a specific group,
primarily students attending a private university, who may differ from other students in the
other faculties and universities.
Future studies should consider on investigating higher number of respondents with more
variety of background such as extravert and extrovert personality. Furthermore, it is
recommended to analyze the data based on more valid approaches such as regression
analysis.

69 | P a g e

5.3: Conclusion
In general, this study has revealed that environmental factors which are
students good personal factor, positive personality traits of lecturer, wellorganized teaching skills of lecturers, good management of faculty, other
factors such as current facilities, supportive family and helpful peers and
last but not least effective linkage between student and faculty are
positively affecting students academic performances. On the other hand,
Bronfebrenners Ecological Theory which is microsystem and mesosystem has developed a
model for conceptualizing all the environmental factors can influence a students academic
performance. Every student has many Microsystems such as the family, lecturers, and peers
as the platform for forming a positive relationship as well as experiences personal success
and failure in academic. As the mesosystem also has the potential to provide students with
social supports and consistency in daily activities, it is revealed as a good medium for
students to build a bridge between two settings during learning process in order to enhance
their academic achievements. These proven as majority of the students (about
70%) who involved in this study are managed to get higher CGPA level. In
conclusion, the model proposed in this study provides a first step toward
the development of a basic theory to guide our understanding of
undergraduate academic performance based on the environmental
factors.

70 | P a g e

APPENDIX
Data Analysis (in the form of table percentages before it is been
simplified)
1)

Students Personal factor

No. Ques.

I make myself
prepared for
the subject.
I look forward
to attending
classes.
I actively
participate in
the
discussion,
answering
exercises and
clarifying
things I did
not
understand.
I want to get
good grades
on tests,
quizzes,
assignments
and projects.
I get
frustrated
when the
discussion is
interrupted or
the lecturer is
absent.
71 | P a g e

Strongly
disagree
High
Low
CGPA
CGP
A

Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A
3.3
%

Somewhat Agree
Strongly
disagree
agree
Low High Low Hig Low Hig Low
CGP CGP CGP
h
CGP
h
CGP
A
A
A
CGP
A
CGP
A
A
A
3.3
20% 11.7 36.7 6.7 10% 3.3
%
%
%
%
%

3.3%

1.7%

0%

1.7%

3.3
%

1.7
%

11.7
%

8.3
%

45%

10%

13.3
%

5%

0%

1.7%

3.3
%

6.7
%

21.7
%

3.3
%

36.7
%

6.7
%

11.7
%

8.3
%

0%

0%

1.7
%

5%

16.7
%

10%

43.3
%

3.3
%

11.7
%

8.3
%

3.3%

5%

11.7
%

3.3
%

28.3
%

6.7
%

20%

6.7
%

10%

5%

Table 55

72 | P a g e

2) Personality traits of lecturer.

No. Ques.

Has good
relations
hip with
students
and
lecturers.
Has an
appealing
personali
ty with
good
sense of
humor.
Is open to
suggestio
ns and
opinions
and its
worthy of
praise.
Shows
smartnes
s,
confidenc
e and
firmness
in making
decision.
Imposes
proper
discipline
.

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Somewhat
disagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

Hig
h
CG
PA

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

0%

6%

2%

12%

14%

13%

52%

25%

32%

44%

0%

0%

0%

19%

20%

12%

57%

31%

23%

38%

0%

0%

0%

6%

7%

6%

59%

25%

34%

63%

0%

0%

0%

6%

18%

6%

57%

31%

25%

56%

2%

0%

0%

6%

18%

6%

59%

44%

20%

44%

Table 56

73 | P a g e

74 | P a g e

3) Teaching skills of lecturer

No. Ques.

Lecturers
content
knowledg
e is up to
date.
Posses
mastery
of the
subject
matter.
Uses
various
teaching
technique
s and
strategies
in
presentin
g the
lessons.
Can
effectively
and
clearly
plan
lessons.
Able to
engage
student
learning.

Strongly
disagree
Hig Low
h
CGP
CG
A
PA

Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Somewhat
disagree
High Low
CGP CGPA
A

Agree
Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Strongly
agree
High Low
CGP CGPA
A

0%

0%

2%

6.5%

11.6
%

6%

52%

55.5
%

34.4
%

32%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9.1%

13.75
%

50%

51%

40.9
%

30.25
%

0%

0%

0%

4.25
%

25%

2%

55%

73%

20%

20.75
%

0%

0%

9.3
%

17%

18%

8%

57%

41%

15.7
%

34%

0%

0%

2%

6%

11.6
%

12.75
%

59%

44%

27.4
%

37.25
%

Table 57

75 | P a g e

76 | P a g e

4 ) Management of instituition
No. Ques.
Strongly
disagree
High Low
CGPA CGP
A
The faculty
addresses
students
issues and
concerns.
The faculty
look
reasonary
steps to
identify
students
issues.
The faculty
promotes
close
relationship
between staff
and students.

Disagree
Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Somewhat
disagree
High Low
CGP CGP
A
A

Agree
Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Strongly
agree
Hig Low
h
CGP
CGP
A
A

0%

0%

10%

5%

25%

8.3
%

33.3
%

8.3%

5%

5%

1.7%

3.3
%

6.7
%

3.3
%

25%

8.3
%

31.7
%

8.3%

8.3
%

3.3
%

0%

3.3
%

11.7
%

5%

26.7
%

10%

28.3
%

5%

6.7
%

3.3
%

Table 58

5) Other factor.
No. Ques.

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Somewhat
disagree

High
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGPA

2%

6%

9%

0%

30%

19%

I am happy
with the
facilities
and
learning
77 | P a g e

Agree

Strongly
agree

High Low
CGP CGP
A
A

Hig
h
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

43%

16%

6%

69%

conditions
provided.
Parents and
family
always
provides
the social
support.
I find my
peers are
helpful

0%

0%

2%

0%

2%

19%

45%

13%

50%

69%

0%

0%

0%

0%

23%

19%

47%

50%

30%

31%

Table 59

78 | P a g e

6) Linkage between student and faculty

No. Ques.

I found that the

collaborative
program held by
faculty and UiTM
beneficial for my
academic
performance.
The institution
provides good
a. Financial
support
b. Psychological
support
When organize
student activity,
faculty encourages
networking
between students
and faculty or
industry.

YES
High
CGP
A

Low
CGPA

High
CGP
A

Low
CGP
A

88.6
%

93.75
%

11.4
%

6.25
%

84%

87.5
%

16%

12.5
%

86.4
%

87.5
%

13.6
%

12.5
%

93.2
%

100%

6.8%

0%

Table 60

79 | P a g e

NO

Questionnaire:

THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENT TOWARDS ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE.

PART A: PERSONAL BACKGROUND

1- Gender :

Male

Fem
ale

2- Age

19-22

3- Program /Part
4- Current CGPA

23-25

26-above

:
:

Less

2.00-

2.51-

3.01-

3.51-

than

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

2.00

80 | P a g e

PART B: ENVIRONMENT FACTORS THAT EFFECT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCES

5-strongly agree

No
.
1

1)

4-agree 3-somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

Students Personal factor

I look forward to attending classes.

I actively participate in the discussion,

answering
exercises and
clarifying things I did not understand.
I want to get good grades on tests,
quizzes, assignments and projects.
I get frustrated when the discussion is
interrupted or
the lecturer is absent.

5-strongly agree

No
.
1
2
3
4
5

1-

I make myself prepared for the subject.

2-disagree

4-agree 3-somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

2) Personality traits of lecturer

Has good relationship with students and
lecturers.
Has an appealing personality with good
sense of humor.
Is open to suggestions and opinions and
its worthy of praise.
Shows smartness, confidence and
firmness in making decision.
Imposes proper discipline.

81 | P a g e

2-disagree

1-

No
.
1
2
3

3) Teaching Skills of lecturer

4
5

Able to engage student learning.

2
3

4)

Management of institution

2
3

The faculty addresses students issues

and concerns.
The faculty look reasonary steps to
identify students issues.
The faculty promotes close relationship
between staff and students.

5-strongly agree

No
.
1

Lecturers content knowledge is up to

date.
Posses mastery of the subject matter.
Uses various teaching techniques and
strategies in presenting the lessons.
Can effectively and clearly plan lessons.

No
.
1

4-agree 3-somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

5) Other factors
I am happy with the facilities and learning
conditions provided.
Parents and family always provides the
social support.
I find my peers are helpful

82 | P a g e

2-disagree

1-

No
1

6) Linkage between student and

faculty
I found that the collaborative
program held by faculty and
UiTM beneficial for my
academic performance.
The institution provides good
a. Financial support
b. Psychological support

When organize student activity,

faculty encourages networking
between students and faculty or
industry.

83 | P a g e

Yes

No

REFERENCES

Abrami, P. C., Perry, R. P., & Leventhal, L. (1982). The relationship between
student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 111.
Ali, H. O. Factors Affecting Students Academic Performance in
Mathematical Sciences Department in Tertiary Institutions in Nigeria.
Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived
service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian
universities: development of HiEduQual. Journal of Modelling in
Management, 11(2).
Bilodeau, C., & Meissner, J. (2016). The Effects of a Combined Academic
and Personal Counselling Initiative for Post-Secondary Student Retention.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 0829573516644554.
Chukwuemeka, O. (2013). Environmental Influence on Academic
Performance of Secondary School Students in Port Harcourt Local
Government Area of Rivers State. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 4(12), 34-38.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement.
Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1.
Egunsola, A. O. (2014). Influence of home environment on academic
performance of secondary school students in Agricultural Science in
Adamawa State Nigeria. Journal of Research and Method in Education,
4(4), 46-53.
Fraser, W. J., & Killen, R. (2003). Factors influencing academic success or
failure of first-year and senior university students: do education students
and lecturers perceive things differently?. South African Journal of
Education, 23(4), 254-263.
Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2013). Teaching Methods and Students Academic
Performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Invention, 2(9), 29-35

84 | P a g e

Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Lecturers approaches to teaching and

their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. In Teacher thinking,
beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 219-239).
Mingle, J., & Adams, D. (2015). Social Media Network Participation and
Academic Performance In Senior High Schools in Ghana.
Mlambo, V. (2012). An analysis of some factors affecting student academic
performance in an introductory biochemistry course at the University of
the West Indies. The Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(2).
Moscoso, R. Y. (2000). The effects of school characteristics on student
academic performance (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University).
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom
context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher
evaluation. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 11(1), 57-67.
Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. C. (2008). Do Teaching Practices
Influence Student Achievement?. University of Munich.
Springer Ne Howard, N. M. (2004). PEER INFLUENCE IN RELATION TO
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOCIALIZATION AMONG ADOLESCENTS: A
LITERATURE REVIEW (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Stout).

85 | P a g e