1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Mathematics is considered by many people, institutions, and

employers of labour, among others, as very important. Mathematics is

considered indispensable because it has substantial use in all human

activities including school subjects such as in Introductory technology,

Biology, Chemistry, Physics including Agricultural science. Its unique

importance explains why the subject is given priority as a school subject.

Infact, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement (IEA) (2004) has also associated the learning of mathematics

with basic preparation for adult life. Also, mathematics is used for analysing

and communicating information and ideas to address a range of practical

tasks and real-life problems (Gray and Tall, 1999). Again, employers in the

engineering, construction, pharmaceutical, financial and retail sectors, have

all expressed their continuing need for people with appropriate mathematical

skills (Smith, 2005). This situation demands that every child should be

included in mathematics instruction right inside the classrooms (Sydney,

1995; Hill, 2001), at the secondary school level of education.

There is ample evidence to show that all over the world, majority of

Secondary School students’ performance in mathematics have been

variously reported by individuals and group of persons to be generally poor.

For instance, at the international scene, the situation reported by the

National Research Council in the late 1980s is of the view that students
 2
study of mathematics is getting worse worldwide especially with regard to

the enrolment and performance of minority groups in mathematics/science

courses (Ezeife, 2002). Locally, similar reports on students’ poor

performance on mathematics were noted (Chief Examiners’ report, 1993-

2000; Raimi, 2001; Igbo, 2004; Aguele, 2004). It is unfortunate that the

general performance of students in mathematics has been observed to be

poor (Agwagah, 2000; Ekele, 2002; Kurume, 2004). This situation cannot be

allowed to continue escalating without proper check. Several reasons

including (Usman and Harbor- Peters, 1998; Harbor- Peters, 2001; Ikeazota,

2002 and Igbo, 2004), have offered reasons for these consistent poor

performance in mathematics. Some noted that it was associated with poor

teaching of the subject (mathematics) by teachers. Specifically, accusing

fingers have been pointed at the way mathematics is taught in schools, and

the lack of relevance of mathematics content to the student’s real life

experiences (Ezeife. 2002). Some reported that students detest

mathematics, suggesting that the students are not working hard enough or

learning the subject seriously. For instance, the inability of students to

change to a thinking mode suitable for the particular problem, for example,

to alter between a numeric, graphic, or symbolic form of representing

mathematical ideas deterred them from solving a wide range of

mathematical problems (Tall, 2005).

Other researchers (Usman and Harbor- Peters, 1998; Unodiaku, 1998;

an Aguele, 2004) have also examined the incidence of errors as determinant

of students’ achievement in mathematics. Among these errors are the

 3
process errors committed by students while solving mathematical

problems. Teaches inability to diagnose these process errors among other

factors according to Harbor- Peters and Ugwu (1995); and Aguele ( 2004)

has contributed to the poor performance of students in both internal and

external examinations over the years. Therefore, if poor performance of the

students in mathematics is to be halted, these errors or weaknesses relating

to the process skills should be identified among JS 3 students for further

learning of mathematics in SS1 level. It becomes necessary, therefore to

investigate the students specific areas of weakness as indicated by the

process errors they committed. The mathematics readiness test (MATHRET)

indicates the frequency of these process errors, from which one can find out

the extent students entering the senior secondary school possess the

knowledge of the Js 3 mathematics curriculum contents in readiness for

senior secondary school mathematics work. This situation demands that a

mathematics readiness test ( MATHRET) need to be developed with which to

know whether the JS 3 students posses the background learning experiences

that can enable them cope with SS1 mathematics work. Okonkwo (1998)

developed and validated mathematics readiness test for JS 1 students. Also,

Obienyem (1998) identified mathematical readiness levels of JS1 entrants.

Both studies were centred on pupils of primary six intending to resume new

mathematics programme in JS1 level. This and the paucity of instrument for

determining the readiness level of JS 3 students intending to resume new

mathematics programme in SS1 level and remedying mathematics

deficiencies of Nigerian secondary school students and for the improvement

of the teaching and learning of the subject motivated this researcher to

 4
develop and validate a mathematics readiness test for senior secondary

school students.

Readiness is a condition, which reflects possession of particular

subject-matter knowledge, or adequate subject-matter sophistication, for

further or increasingly learning complex tasks (Ausubel, Navok and Harison,

1978). More still, the quality of education received, in other words is a

significant determinant of the pupils developmental readiness, as well as of

subject- matter readiness, for further learining ( Ausubel, et al, 1978). Lack

of readiness in a given task, therefore signals failure in such. Moreso, when

a pupil is prematurely exposed to a learning task before he is adequately

ready for it, he not only fails to learn the task in question (or learns it with

undue difficulty), but also learns on this experience to fear, dislike, and

avoid the task (Ausubel, et al, 1978). Thus, readiness becomes an essential

factor in any learning, which involves acquisition of sequential skills (Gagne,

1967; Zylber, 2000). Lack of prerequisite skills in a given task invariably

inhibits acquisition of subsequent related skills. This is particularly so with

Mathematics (Igbo, 2004) because of the nature of its structure (Piaget,

1979), the sequential procedure used in its instruction (Gagne, 1962; 1968)

and the hierarchical pattern of its organization (Igbo, 2004). Thus, effective

teaching and learning of Mathematics may achieve with reliable assessment

of readiness as based on diagnostic information (the process errors students

commit in solving mathematics problems). Readiness test has been defined

as test that determines the possession of prerequisite knowledge for further

learning task (Ausubel, et al, 1978). Diagnostic test has been defined as test
 5
that analyzes and locates specific strengths and weaknesses and

sometimes suggests causes (Burns, Roe and Ross, 1988). Achievement test

on the other hand, measures what students have learned (Annie and

Mildred, 1999), and so cannot determine students’ specific areas of strength

and weaknesses (process errors). It becomes necessary to investigate the

students’ specific areas of weaknesses as indicated by the process errors

they committed. Process skills are thought processes that are related to

cognitive development. They are commonly brought into use while

performing mathematical operations. The errors resulting from the violation

or wrong use of these skills are referred to as process errors (Payne and

Squibb, 1990). Harbor- peters and Ugwu (1995) classified these errors

which students commit in geometrical theorems as conceptual, logical, and

drawn/ construction, translation and applied errors. Other researchers have

also carried out investigation on the process errors students committed in

some other aspects of mathematics. Some of these include inequalities

(Isinenyi, 1990), longitude and latitude ( Ubagu, 1992), sequences and

series ( Usman and Harbor- Peters, 1998) and simultaneous linear equations

( Unodiaku, 1998).

Process errors which marred students’ readiness levels for senior

secondary school mathematics programme, according to Usman and Harbor-

Peters (1998), Aguele (2004) and Ezugwu (2006) could be influenced by the

sex and school location of the students. Hence, the need to investigate

whether the readiness level of the JS3 students is likely to be influenced by

the sex and school location of the students. Such investigation focused on
 6
whether Urban or rural, and the type of school attended considering

whether public or privately owned. Rural inhabitants work with people they

know well and are accustomed to relationships of great intimacy, whereas

Urban dwellers know each other in narrow segmented ways that have little

to do with family or friendship (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2003). For the

purpose of this study, schools located in places where the inhabitants of

such places are accustomed to relationships of great intimacy and work with

people they know well are classified as rural schools. Moreso, urban school

will be classified as schools located where the dwellers know each other in

narrow, segmented ways that have little to do with family or friendship. A

private school was defined as one rightly owned and cared for by an

individual, group of people, or public organizations such as higher

institutions, army, police or road safety. A public school was defined as one

owned and cared for by a government, normally through its agency charged

with the responsibility of administration and supervision of educational

system.

Statement of the problem

Research reports over the years have not only vindicated that senior

secondary school students perform poorly in mathematics but also indicated

that the process errors which students commit while solving mathematics

problems have contributed to students poor performance in mathematics.

These process errors (weaknesses) committed by students in solving

mathematics problems, constituted to their lack of readiness for further

mathematics learning.
 7
Some recent mathematics literature indicated that mathematics

readiness tests were developed and used to determine the readiness levels

of pupils advancing from primary six to Junior secondary school one (JSS1)

where they intend to resume a new mathematics programme. The literature

also suggested that readiness test should be developed and used to

determine the readiness levels of JS3 students intending to resume a new

mathematics programme in senior secondary school mathematics work. One

may therefore ask the following questions. To what extent can readiness test

on mathematics be developed and validated for senior secondary school

students? Would the instrument be sensitive to such variables like gender,

school type and location?

Purposes of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to develop and validate

Mathematics readiness test (MATHRET) for senior secondary school

students. Specifically, the study indented to achieve the following purpose:

1. To develop the instrument MATHRET

2. To determine the validity of the instrument.

3. To establish the reliability of the instrument

4. To find out the percentage of senior secondary school entrants that

are ‘ready’, ‘fairly ready’, or ‘not ready’, for the senior secondary

school mathematics learning.

5. To find out if mathematical readiness of the senior secondary class

one (SS1) students will vary on the basis of their sex.

 8
6. To find if school location ( Urban or rural) has influence on the

mathematical readiness of the entrants into senior secondary school

mathematics programme.

7. To find out the influence of school types ( private or public) (in

terms of the mean errors) on the mathematical readiness of SS1

entrants.

Scope of the study

The study covered junior secondary school students in Nsukka and

Obollo- Afor education zones. It was focused on junior secondary three (JS3)

students, because Obienyem (1998) and Okonkwo (1988), all suggested

that mathematics readiness test should be developed and used to determine

the readiness of senior secondary school entrants for senior secondary

school mathematics programme. The study also covered junior (JS3)

students’ mathematics curriculum. The scope of this study is such that the

junior secondary class three (JS3) students’ mathematical readiness was

investigated at the point of entry into senior secondary school (SS1)

mathematics programme. Therefore, the content areas covered by the study

are all the content areas that are covered by the National curriculum in

mathematics for junior secondary schools (JS3). The content areas covered

by the study are:

i. Number and numeration

ii. Algebraic processes

iii. Geometry and mensuration

 9
iv. Everyday statistics

The mathematics readiness test (MATHRET) was used to determine the

extent of mastery of the JS3 mathematics learning experiences, focusing on

the frequency of the process errors they committed.

Significance of the study

The study was considered significant along the following perspectives.

The consistent reports on poor performance of senior secondary school

students, and the dire need to improve upon that, and get the JS3 students

intending to gain entrance into the senior secondary school (SS1) level, it is

now necessary to provide a clear tool which could be used to asses the

readiness level of JS3 students at the point on entry into SS1. This situation

makes the development and use of the MATHRET quite necessary.

The MATHRET as a readiness test in secondary school mathematics will

help the teachers/ school administrators in placement of the students from

one level, JS3 to another, SS1 based on the frequency of the process errors

the students committed on the MARTHRET at the point of entry into senior

secondary one, will determine the depth of coverage or mastery of the junior

secondary school mathematics curriculum. In otherwords how ready they

were for junior secondary school mathematics work. By publishing MATHRET

as a booklet and disseminating same to junior secondary school

mathematics teachers as instrument, it will become accessible to teachers.

Teachers can then use it in determining the readiness levels of their students

for further learning of mathematics. The teachers and school administrators

can now carryout remedial instruction of the students found ‘not ready’.
 10
Identification of the weaknesses that affect the level of

mathematical readiness of entrants into senior secondary school

mathematics programme will enable mathematics teachers, educational

planners and mathematics educators take effective measures in harnessing

teaching and learning of senior secondary school mathematics. The teaching

and learning can be harnessed by promoting only the students identified as

being ‘ready’ or ‘fairly ready’ and then subjecting the students identified as

‘not ready’ to remedial instruction. The MATHRET remedial package aspect of

this work is very helpful in this direction (see Appendix: R).

Determination of mathematical readiness of junior secondary class

three (JS3) students at the point of admission into senior secondary school

mathematics programme will enable mathematics teachers embark on

comprehensive and effective instructional decisions in pursuance of senior

secondary school mathematics programme. Such effective instructional

decisions will be based on how ‘ready’, ‘fairly ready’ or ‘not ready’ the

students were.

Determination of mathematical readiness of senior secondary class one

at the point of entry into senior secondary school mathematics programme

will indicate their specific areas of strengths and weaknesses as well as the

nature of the weaknesses or deficiencies in junior secondary school

mathematics curriculum contents. Based on this information, teachers can

then stress more on those specific areas that students exhibit difficulties,

using various instructional strategies, especially during ‘entry behaviour’.

The MATHRET will serve as indicator of the quality of junior

secondary school mathematics curriculum contents that were taught and

 11
learnt. The diagnosis of the students learning experiences may help to

reveal how prepared the junior secondary school mathematics teachers are

in teaching junior secondary school mathematics. This gives room for

teachers to effectively use the MATHRET remedial package entrenched in

this work (see Appendix: R).

Educational administrators can organise seminars, workshops,

symposium, etc for junior secondary school mathematics teachers based on

mathematical concepts or skills that students exhibit difficulties or based on

identified process errors students committed in solving mathematical

problems. These seminars, workshops, etc for teachers is very important

because those concepts/ skills that students exhibit weaknesses implies that

their teachers are handicapped in teaching those aspects well. Such

workshops/ seminars if organised for teachers will increase the teaching

skills of the teachers. This will enhance the readiness level of the students as

teachers will tend to teach better.

Remedial programme can be organised by the educational/school

administrators for the deficient students based on the areas that students

exhibit weaknesses (areas students committed errors). Based on the

revealed areas of weaknesses one can prescribe possible remediation on the

specific area of their weaknesses.

Researchers can carry out research on more effective teaching

methods, instructional materials or strategies that can be applied in teaching

to address students’ areas of weaknesses in junior secondary school

mathematics. Emphasis should be laid on those skills that students commit

 12
more errors than other skills (i.e. Errors that occur more frequent than

others).

Curriculum workers can allot more weights in the curriculum where

students exhibit lack of readiness/deficiencies; indicate teaching aid to be

used. They should also include possible methods teachers can use in

teaching the topic or units that students show evidence of lack of mastery or

weaknesses.

Authors of junior secondary school mathematics textbooks can

now organise or entrench the skills or concepts sufficient enough to assist

students in understanding and mastery of the areas that they are deficient.

This will assist the students to be ‘ready’ or at least ‘fairly ready’ for the

senior secondary school mathematics work.

Research Questions

The following research questions will guide the study.

1. To what extent can validity of the MATHRET be determined?

2. To what extents can reliability of the MATHRET be determined?

3. What percentage of senior secondary school entrants are ready, fairly

ready or not ready (in terms of their mean frequency of errors on

the MATHRET for the senior secondary school mathematics learning?

4. To what extent do male and female students vary in terms of their

mean frequency of errors in their mathematical readiness test?

5. To what extent do students in urban and rural schools vary in terms of

their Respective mean frequency of errors committed on the

MATHRET?
 13
6. To what extent do school types influence the subjects’ mathematical

readiness (in terms of their mean frequency of errors committed on

the MATHRET) for senior secondary school mathematics programme?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses guided the study. The hypotheses were

tested at 5% level of significance.

1. Gender is not a significant factor in the means of errors committed by

male and female students that influences their degree of readiness for

senior secondary school mathematics, as determined by the mean

frequency of errors committed by male and female students.

2. Locations is not a significant factor that influences the degree of

readiness of SSI entrants for senior secondary school mathematics, as

measured by the mean frequency of errors committed by urban and

rural students.

3. School type is not a significant factor that influence the degree of

readiness of SSI entrants for senior secondary school mathematics as

measured by the mean frequency of errors committed by public and

private students.
 14
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review presented in this chapter is organized under the

following broad headings:

A. Theoretical Framework:

- Concept of Readiness

- Constructs of a Mathematics Readiness Test

- Purposes of Readiness Test

- Approaches Used in Developing Readiness Test

- Development of a Test that has Maximum Validity and Reliability.

- Diagnosis of a Mathematics Readiness Test.

- Interpretation of a Mathematics Readiness Test Scores.

B. Empirical Framework

- Studies on Readiness Testing Procedures.

- Sex, Location and Type of Junior Secondary School Attended and

Readiness for Mathematics.

C. Summary of Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

Mathematics and science educators, generally, have made tremendous

efforts, through research, to raise the attainment level in mathematics

education. One of such area has been determining the readiness levels of

students for further learning through diagnosis of students learning

experiences. One aspect of the diagnosis researchers focused their attention

seriously was on students’ weaknesses (errors) in mathematics which mares

their performance in the subject. This draws strength from Piaget’s theory
 15
for Child’s Conception of Number (1952). Piaget claims that

understanding class inclusion is an essential prerequisite for understanding

addition and subtraction. He further argued ( P.190) that children may

appear to understand the words “Two and six makes eight’, but will not

understand what this means until they understand how the set ‘eight’ can be

broken down into its subsets ‘two’ and ‘six’ and then reconstituted again. It

is by knowing whether the JS3 students have gained mastery of the

prerequisite skills in JS3 mathematics work (based on the process errors

they committed) with which they can understand the SS1 mathematics

work, that the mathematics readiness test for senior secondary school

students (SS1) can be sought for. This is the main thrust of this study.

Concept of Readiness

Readiness has been defined as a condition, which reflects possession

of a particular subject matter knowledge or adequate subject- matter

sophistication, for a particular learning task.

Without an adequate definition of readiness, it is difficult to determine

what academic programmes and supports are necessary to nurture and

enhance children’s readiness (Alkerrnon and Barneth, 2005). Piotrkowski

(2000) in Akerrnan and Barneth (2005) pointed out that at its broadest;

readiness is considered as social, political, organizational, educational and

personal resources that support children’s success in school entry. Ability to

attend selectively, show appropriate social responses and stay engaged in

academic tasks are all implicated as factors that contribute to and define

“school readiness (Rimm-kanfran, 2004). Ausubel, Navok and Hanisan

(1978) conceived of readiness as a condition, which reflects possession of

 16
particular subject-matter sophistication, for particular learning tasks. This

conception of readiness appears to suggest the enabling effect of this

“condition” in say learning situation. Brunner (1966) in Meisels (2002)

pointed out that the idea of “readiness” is a mischievous half-truth, largely

because it turns out that one “teaches” readiness or provides opportunities

for its nurture; one does not simply wait for it. He concluded that readiness,

in these terms, consists of mastery of those simple skills that permit one to

reach higher skills. This conception suggests necessity of “mastery” of skills

or knowledge say, in learning. When the mastery is not in the learner, the

level of what is learned (if any) is low. Similarly David and Flavell (1989)

emphasized “mastery” in their conception of readiness in learning. They

asserted that the problem of the child’s “readiness to learn’ can in fact be

reduced to the question of whether he has mastered all the steps in the

sequence that proceed and are prerequisite for the concept to be learned.

School Goal Team Report (2006) conceived of readiness as “condition or

state of the person that makes it possible for him to engage profitably in a

given activity”. The report also conceived of it as “preparedness to respond

or react”. These concepts of readiness suggest the enabling effect of this

“condition” or “state”, in, say, learning, which is indicative of its importance

in learning. Burns; Roe and Ross (1988) remarked readiness as the notion

that a person needs to be in a state of preparedness (ie not just ready and

wiling, but also intellectually and physically able), before he can learn new

knowledge or skills. Similarly, Meisels (2002) noted that waiting for children

to demonstrate their readiness by learning something spontaneously without

some intervention or preparation of the environment is, in his views,

 17
fruitless. Here, again, readiness is being looked at as “preparedness” to

learn? Similarly, Hind (1970) shared the view that readiness to learn has

mentally, emotional and physical components, when he looked at it as a

physiological condition, cognitive competences and basic knowledge which

results in certain actions to be carried out in preference to all others, also

appears to suggest the necessity of readiness for achievement. For when a

child is mentally and physically retarded he cannot participate gainfully in a

learning activity. Children’s physical development such as rate of growth,

health status such as ability to see and hear and physical abilities such as

ability to move around the environment, assisted or unassisted (School Goal

Team Report, 2006). In agreement with Burns, et al and Hinde’s conception

of readiness as having mental and physical components, Ferguson (2002)

remarked that children learning about numbers and how to perform

arithmetic processes, do not learn a new process properly until they have

developed the physical and cognitive competencies needed to understand it.

These conceptions of readiness suggest therefore that readiness is a state,

condition, mastery or preparedness of a person that enables him to profit

from learning activities and without which he may not likely achieve success.

However, the notion that a person needs to be in a “state of

preparedness” (Burns, et al, 1988) before he/she can learn new knowledge

or skills does not guarantee ultimate satisfactory conclusion in learning such

new knowledge or skills. This is associated with the fact that one might be

prepared to perform in an activity, but still fail to perform due to some

external stimuli which may pose as hindrance in the process, he will not

enjoy the activity. If for any reason, he is forced to enjoy the activity
 18
without readiness, it will lead to dissatisfaction or frustration. These

assertions suggest therefore, that although readiness is necessary in

learning, yet it is not a sufficient condition for learning to materialize.

The nature of readiness has been looked at from cognitive point of

view. Cognitive readiness refers to the adequacy of existing cognitive

procuring equipment or capacity at a given level of development for coping

with the demands of a specified cognitive learning task (Ausubel, 1978).

Similarly, early signs of cognitive ability and maturity have been shown to be

linked to children’s performance in school, and for this reason, this highly

intuitive approach to assessing readiness has been used as an indication that

a child is prepared for the school environment (Meisels, 1999). It appears to

admit that readiness has to do with ability to profit from practice or learning

experience. Furthermore, individuals manifest readiness when the outcomes

of his or her learning activity, in terms of increased knowledge or academic

achievement, are reasonably commensurate with the amount of effort and

practice involved. It has been suggested that readiness is not a simple

construct but has to do with a broad spectrum of experience judged

necessary for effective performance within some area or level (Johnson,

1976). Johnson’s conception of readiness suggests that readiness is not a

dichotomous construct, that can be either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.

Readiness is not an end in itself; it is the beginning of an active teaching and

learning engagement (Samuel, 2002). It is associated with acquisition of

adequate knowledge or skill for building subsequent ones. It appears to

suggest a gradation and has been looked at as a “degree” to which one has

acquired some prior knowledge essential for learning a new skill or acquiring
 19
new knowledge (Udegboka, 1987). In addition, it could be argued that if

performance at the next higher level is as a result of readiness, differential

performance at that higher level could be attributed to differential readiness,

assuming all things being equal. Downs and Parking (1958) considered

“readiness” as that interval a child find difficulty in understanding the

contents of instruction due to his young age, intellectual immaturity and

insufficient experience in the subject-matter and the period his mind can

now cope with the work. This conception of “readiness” suggests a stage of

a child’s development that may not permit him to participate gainfully in

learning. Similarly, Gibson (1972) noted that the term “readiness” is used

by educators to refer to a stage in development that must be reached before

a particular task can be accomplished. Downs and Parking (1958) and

Gibson (1972) conception of “readiness” suggests that the concept of

readiness discussed so far is a narrow one. And for more appropriate

discourse, the concept of maturational readiness should be examined to give

the concept of readiness a broad view.

Nwabuisi (1986) listed four components of readiness as having

cultural, the personal, the cognitive and the motivational components. For

the Nwabuisi’s conception of readiness as having cultural and cognitive

components tends to be integral aspect of relevant preparatory training

which school Goal Team Report conceived of readiness. Moreso, children

from various cultures and with various experiences will express their

competencies differently and should be expected to show different patterns

of development (School Goal Team Report (SGTR), (2006). It is to extent

that these cultural and experiences vary from culture to culture and from
 20
one individual to another that degree of readiness for any learning task

would differ across schools. Such differences in learning could be due to

their micro cultural differences as well as differences in cognitive approaches

to acquisition of knowledge or skills. Moreover, SGTR’s “personal”

component of readiness incorporates maturation and perhaps other

physiological dispositions that are considerable factors in profitable

engagement in any learning activity.

The concept of readiness as discussed seems to be unsatisfactory

without the idea of Mathematics readiness. Mathematics is a technical

subject that performance in it requires an acquisition of different

combinations of composite of skills or knowledge in different areas of the

subject, such as knowledge of numbers, shapes, and simple patterns (School

Goal Team Report, 2006). How, for example, can we classify some one who

has not acquired the necessary knowledge or skill of some aspects of

Mathematics but has mastered some aspects of it? Judging from Bruner’s

conception of readiness, Mathematics readiness may, therefore, be defined

as all encompassing personal factors capable of bringing about adequate

progress in Mathematics learning under a stipulated instructional conditions.

Such requirements for personal factors that can lead to adequate progress in

learning under a stipulated condition may vary from one aspect of

Mathematics learning to another. It is to that extent of variation in

requirements for personal factors for any given aspect of Mathematics, to

that extent does readiness for Mathematics depends on the aspect of

Mathematics chosen. Thus, readiness, as Nwabuisi (1986) perceived, is not

an absolutely bounded concept but has to do with degree. He asserted that a

 21
child may be ready for one kind of approach to Mathematics learning but

not to another. A child may as well be ready for one content areas or units

in a Mathematics curriculum but not for other content areas or units in same

Mathematics curriculum.

In summary, readiness is associated with a state or condition

necessary for one to tackle the next harder work successfully, but often such

conditions are inadequate for a learner to participate fruitfully in a given

learning task. However, it is considered to be associated with such factors

as motivation, preparatory achievement and maturity. It is to that extent

that a child’s state or condition is devoid of these factors, to that extent will

be child’s readiness fall short of the “absolute”. And since this is observable

in real learning situation than theory, readiness as a construct needs to be

defined in contextual terms. It then follows that an instrument to be used in

measuring readiness should more appropriately be evaluated in the context

of which factors of readiness it tends to measure (such factors as the

intellectual, the motivational, the physiological or combination of the factor).

Constructs of a Mathematics Readiness Test

Experience has shown that a person’s philosophical perspective about

the nature of Mathematics influences his choice of Mathematics contents and

learning of Mathematics. It is the choice of such content and approach to

Mathematics teaching that invariably determines what qualifies as

appropriate entry behaviour. This may be related to the statement that the

constructs involved in the assessment of Mathematics readiness are

dependent on the one’s perception of what Mathematics is and what

Mathematics learning should be able to achieve in the one’s life. For

 22
instance, Stein (1969) conceived Mathematics as completely a human

creation. Like Stein, Wilder (1974) saw Mathematics as a function of

cultural demands of the time as any of (man’s) other adaptive mechanisms.

To Hardy (1941) while arguing that as far as Mathematics learning is

concerned, he observed that our function is to discover or observe it, and

that the theorems which we prove and which we describe grandiloquent by

as our ‘creation’ are simply our notes of our observations.

In view of this conception of Mathematics, its learning should tend to

be restricted to the memorization of a set of algorithms, which then

becomes the standard solution of the problems with the child having little or

no understanding needed from the child. Thus, a test of readiness for a

subsequent topic in Mathematics would only need a demonstration of ability

to reproduce appropriate algorithms without bothering about ability to

reason or analyse them. This may be the reason why Lassa and Paling

(1983) remarked that people’s ideas of Mathematics depend a lot on their

experiences and knowledge of the subject. This suggests that there is no

spiritual or Devine intervention in acquiring knowledge of Mathematics. This

statement is in line with the most popular opinions which suggest that

Mathematics is a human creation whose major value lies in its usefulness as

a tool by which man obtains knowledge, analyse and address a range of

practical tasks and real-life problems (Dienes, 1972; Northern Ireland

Curriculum Council, 1990; Jennifer, 1993). To Lassa and Paling (1983),

Mathematics is a way of using information, knowledge or shapes and

measures and ability to calculate in thinking, through visualizing and using

relationships. Still continuing, Dienes (1972) opined that in Mathematics

 23
man tries to establish relationship between groups and relationship

between relationships themselves. By mere looking at this conception, it

appears simple, but comprehensive enough for most practical purposes. It

suggest the inclusion of such basic ideas like acquisition of information about

terms for, and meanings of, numbers, operations as well as other techniques

of processing information and applications of these in the secondary school

curriculum. It also suggests the need for Mathematics learning to include

development of ability to reason along these basic ideas.

Insofar readiness involves not only maturation and motivation, but

also some preparatory training (English and English, 1958), a Mathematics

readiness test for senior secondary school should assess achievement in

some aspects of Junior Secondary School Mathematics required as essential

foundation for senior secondary school Mathematics. In this direction,

Hierbert and Carpenter, (1982) have argued that a readiness test useful in

classroom settings should provide information on a child’s capabilities across

a range of concepts or skills and not just readiness to learn only one

concept. Thus, such achievement assessed by a Mathematics readiness test

should be broad based. Again, such a test should also provide information

concerning the individual’s capabilities in such reasoning as are needed for

further achievement in future learning. In other words, a Mathematics

readiness test should not only provide information concerning the child’s

past learning in Mathematics but also a valid prognosis about future

Mathematics learning.

In the concept of readiness, it is basically assumed that mastering of a

subordinate concept is prerequisite to further learning (Udegboka, 1987).

 24
This implies that factors that affect concept acquisition and achievement

would as well influence readiness. Preparatory achievement has been

identified as a condition for readiness (English and English, 1958). Several

studies have found significant relationships between verbal competence and

performance in Mathematics. For instance, Balow (1964) worked with a

sample of 368 sixth grade children in California and found a correlation of

.46 between their performance in Stanford Achievement Test – Arithmetic

Reasoning and Reading subscales. In a similar study, Muscio (1962) found a

correlation of .78 between scores of 2006 sixth grade California children in

the California Vocabulary Test and the Quantitative Reasoning subscale of

Mathematics and Functional Evaluation in Mathematics Test. Earlier on,

Murray (1949) had cited evidence that suggested that performance in a

geometry test, clearly dependent on spatial ability, is also closely related to

verbal ability of his subjects. Harrison (1944) strongly commented that

vocabulary is an important factor in solving Mathematics world problems and

as such should be taught during Mathematics lessons. One of Johnson’s

(1944) findings was that pupils given specific training in Mathematics

vocabulary made gains in problem-solving ability implies a confirmation of

Aansen’s comment. In another similar study conducted by Vander Linder

(1994) found superior achievement in both arithmetic concepts and word

problems by an experimental group of nine fifth grade classes over their

control counterparts even with initial matching on I. Q. and achievement

test scores in vocabulary, reading comprehension, arithmetic concepts and

arithmetic world problems abilities. The experimental group was taught a

 25
different list of eight quantitative terms each week for 20 to 24 weeks

before the final test was administered to the group.

Another study done by call and Wiggin (1973) using second year

Algebra students yielded similar results. An experimental group was taught

by Wiggin, an English language teacher with some training in teaching

reading but no training in teaching Mathematics Wiggin taught algebra,

stressing understanding of meaning of words in Mathematics symbols. The

control group was taught by call, a trained Mathematics teacher. The result

of the study revealed that the experimental group performed better in the

criterion test even when initial differences in reading and Mathematics test

scores were statistically controlled for.

Considering a lot of evidence of the influence of reading ability on

performance, not only in predominantly verbal aspects of Mathematics, but

also in relatively non-verbal aspects of geometry, a valid Mathematics

readiness test should incorporate a test of reading either as a separate

subscale or as an integral part of some other subscales. Suffice it to say

that test of readiness for senior secondary school Mathematics should

include at least some word problems as distinct from non-verbal ones.

Romberg (1969) made an attempt to deduce from Harrison’s review of

80 Piagetian studies. In it, Romberg noted that the findings were related to

Mathematics learning and instruction. Romberg was optimistic about the

relevance of much of Piaget’s work on human cognitive development should

have particular impact in Mathematics education because most of Piaget’s

observations have been on Mathematics tasks like geometry, logic, spatial

relations and so on. It has been noted that wholesale application of

 26
Piagetian tasks to Mathematics readiness testing has been flawed on the

basis of empirical evidence (see Bailey, 1974; Michaels, 1977). It need be

pointed out that their use as tests of readiness in those aspects of

Mathematics that necessarily call for logical reasoning might be promising as

Howlett’s (2001) investigation suggests. Since secondary school

Mathematics involves a lot of this type of situation, a readiness test for

senior secondary school Mathematics should be able to prognosticate a

child’s performance in logical reasoning tasks such as class inclusion, figure

synthesis and analysis.

In summary, a readiness test for senior secondary school Mathematics

should be able to measure achievement in number manipulation,

Mathematics concepts and ability to apply such concepts. And yet more, it

should be able to prognosticate performance in numerical and perceptual

reasoning tasks. Thus, a readiness test should be an embodiment of items

that test these constructs. MATHRET is a diagnostic instrument composed of

numerical and perceptual ability skills.

Purposes of Readiness Test

The primary purpose of test is to constitute an objective check on both

student academic progress as well as ultimate achievement so that if either

is deficient, suitable remedial measures may be instituted. Thus, a really

adequate evaluation programme not only assesses the extent to which

student achievement realized educational objectives but also attempts to

account for unsatisfactory achievement – irrespective of whether this inheres

in unsuitable instructional methods or materials, in competent teaching,

inadequate student morale or insufficient readiness and aptitude (Ausubel,

 27
1963). Apart from its monitoring purpose, data from evaluation can be

used to facilitate students learning. The purpose of this examination is to

obtain information to assist your academic adviser in making and informed

recommendation for your first Mathematics course at University of Vermont

(MRTR Form, 2006). Moreso, evaluation data can be used by Mathematics

teachers to formulate and clarify their expectations to students. It has been

shown that students distribute their study time and apportion their learning

effort in direct proportion to the predicted likelihood of various topics and

kinds of information being represented on the examination (Keislar, 1961).

It is evident, therefore that if teachers wish to influence learning outcomes

in particular ways by the kinds of testing devices they use, they must

formulate their objectives clearly, communicate these objectives explicitly to

students, and construct reliable and valid measuring instrument that test the

degree to which these objectives are realized. For if a test is to be useful, its

scores must be both reliable and valid (Atkinson and Atkinson, 1993).

Different types of tests such as assay or multiple-choice tests can be

used to assess individual students readiness. For instance, MDTP on-line

multiple-choice tests were designed to help individual students review their

readiness for some Mathematics courses and may be useful in preparing for

some Mathematical placement tests used by some California colleges and

Universities (UCSD, 2006). Here the purpose is to ascertain how well an

individual will profit from some subsequent course of training (Hildreth, in

Leslie, 1968). If the students possess adequate subject-matter background,

the tendency is that they will profit from the senior secondary school

Mathematics programme.
 28
Furthermore, examination itself is an essential learning experience,

in the sense that it forces students to review, consolidate, clarify, and

integrate subject-matter prior to testing. Feedback from test enables a

student to confirm, clarify and correct ideas, and identifies areas that need

further thought and study. Each on-line test includes a diagnostic scoring

report to help students identify strengths and weaknesses in some topic

areas (UCSD, 2006). Merely identifying the correct answers on a multiple-

choice test significantly increases retest scores a week later (Plow-man and

Stroud, 1992). This connective function of feedback is extremely important

since students often feel “certain” about incorrect answers (Ausubel, 1978).

Instructors teaching precalculus at Rowan University normally required their

students to take the precalculus Readiness Test to evaluate their pre-

calculus background and preparation for calculus (Rowan University

instructions, 2006). The purpose of a mastery test, on the other hand, is to

separate the pupils into two groups, those that have achieved at least as

high as a certain level and those who have not (Ahman and Glock, 1971).

In addition, test play significant motivating role in school learning. At least,

desire for academic success, fear of failure, an avoidance of guilt, to mention

a few, is legitimate motives in an academic setting. It is hardly likely that a

student will study regularly, systematically and conscientiously in the

absence of periodic examinations. Frequent quizzing markedly facilitates

classroom learning (Ausubel, 1978). Again, students have gained the

experience of being subject to external appraisal. Consequently, they have

learnt how to evaluate their own learning outcomes independently. Such

self-evaluation enhances school achievement (Duel, 1958, in Asubel, 1978).

 29
Readiness test is used to facilitate teaching. It is from readiness

test results that teachers obtain essential feedback regarding the

effectiveness of their instructional efforts. Such results reveal how

effectively teachers present and organize materials, how clearly they explain

ideas, how well they communicate with less sophisticated individuals, and

how efficacious particular instructional techniques or materials are.

Feedback from examinations identities areas requiring further explication,

clarification, and review, and is invaluable in the diagnosis of learning

difficulties both individual and group (Ausubel, 1968 in Ezeife, 2002). Just

like every other test feedback from it, indicates curriculum contents, which

students have mastered, and those areas that they lack prerequisite skills or

knowledge. For instance, in schools that have a formal first-grade program,

using basal textbooks early in the term, readiness tests help the teacher

screen out at the beginning of the term those pupils who would almost

certainly fail it they were to undertake the difficult work to come (Hildreth, in

Leslie, 1968). Similarly, ACT Mathematics Test measures what students

have learned in three years of high school Mathematics, including algebra 1,

geometry, algebra 2, and some trigonometry, and students’ proficiencies in

applying the knowledge and skills that they have acquired in the first two

years of high school science courses (Ferguson, 2002). MATHERET was

administered to the beginning SS1 students within their first or two weeks of

entrance into SS1 level. Students who exhibit mastery will be retained in

this level while students that indicate lack of prerequisite skills/knowledge

may be subjected to remedial programme or repeating the JS3 level. Apart

from the fact that MATHRET posses diagnostic potential (UCSD, 2006) as
 30
well as suitable for assessing individualized instruction or group of

students such as JS3 students, it assesses the readiness of JS3 students to

profit from senior secondary school Mathematics programme. In other

words it assesses whether the JS3 students are sophisticated in terms of

adequacy of subject-matter knowledge that will enable them profit from the

next higher level of schooling.

Usually, in most of the uses of readiness test, information is gathered

for the purpose of improving the nature of plans, decisions, and

adjustments. For instance, decision could be taken regarding an

adolescent’s vocational plans. In particular, the information provided by a

good readiness test is one helpful basis for making necessary adjustments in

the first-grade programme (Hildreth in Leslie, 1968). Moreso, the Readiness

Assessment is an instrument Ancilla college uses to determine the best

classes for you to take as you start your education there (Student Success

Centre, 2006). In view of grade placement, for instance, it is assumed that

students’ scores on achievement tests tell something about how well he will

do in one grade/level/class as compared with another. Specifically, we

might judge that a fifth grade pupils with grade equivalent scores in reading

and Mathematics at the 7.8 level. Using local norms would, in terms of

academic work, be more appropriately placed in the sixth grade, or even in

the seventh grade (Ausubel, 1963). Readiness assessment would place you

in classes that are neither too hard nor too easy for you (Student Success

Centre, 2006). That is to say that the JS3 students that will score a cut-off

point or more as will be suggested in this study will be classified “ready”

while students that will score below the cut-off point will be classified “not
 31
ready”. Ahman, et al, 1971) has said as much, that the purpose of a

mastery test is to separate the pupils into two groups, those who have

achieved at least as high as a certain level and those who have not. For

vocational decision it is assumed that measured aptitudes in some way are

related to success or satisfactions in an occupation. For instance, one might

want to infer that because a youngster has higher readiness test score on

verbal than non verbal, he would be more successful in a verbal than a non

verbal kind of occupation.

Readiness test results frequently remind schools of the large

differences among individuals who have been assumed to be at the same

level. Basically, information obtained from psychological testing has made

selection and classification of individuals possible. Specifically, achievement

tests are used not only for educational purposes but also in the selection of

applicants for industrial and government jobs (Anastesi, 1968). When

applicants for a job are considered, it is helpful to estimate which applicants

are most likely to perform well later on (Ingule; Ruthie, and Ndombuk,

1996). In this manner, readiness test is effectively employed as an adjunct

to skilful interviewing, so that test scores may be properly interpreted in the

light of other background information about the individual. Nevertheless,

readiness test constitutes an essential part of the total personnel program.

From the assembly-line operator or filing clerk to top management, there is

scarcely a type for job for which some kind of psychological test has not

proved helpful in such matters as hiring, job assignment, transfer,

promotion or termination (Anastesi, 1968). MATHRET can as much prove

helpful in such matters as determine the degree of students’ mastery of

 32
junior secondary school Mathematics curriculum contents, as they are

advancing into senior secondary school Mathematics programme. Such that

students that have adequate background knowledge in the junior secondary

school Mathematics programme can be promoted, and vice versa.

Furthermore, prior to World War 1, psychologist had begun to

recognize the need for tests of special aptitudes to supplement the global

intelligence tests. These special aptitude tests were developed particularly

for use in vocational counselling and in the selection and classification of

industrial and military personnel (Anastasi, 1968). Commenting on the

value of psychological tests in industry, Ruch (1948) pointed but that in

United States, civil service found in one study that 93 per cent of the

appointees selected by psychological tests were more efficient than average

employees selected by other means. Similarly, readiness test used for

admission to schools or programs or for educational diagnosis not only affect

individuals, but also assign value to the content being tested (ACES, 2006).

Moreso, readiness test is used to evaluate potential employees, to revise

curricula, to select applicants for college, to award scholarships, to place

students in homogeneous sections of courses (Goldman, et al, 1971).

MATHRET can as much be used to select JS3 students as they are advancing

into senior secondary school level. Again, psychological tests such as

MATHRET can be used to select or award scholarships to students who have

shown evidence of mastery of junior secondary school Mathematics

programme. Such students can then profit from senior secondary school

Mathematics programme, since they are ‘ready’ for the senior secondary

school Mathematics program.

 33
Apart from vocational counselling and selection of personnel for

industrial works, readiness test is as much used to assist in guidance

counselling, and the individualization of instruction. Systematic

measurement and evaluation of aptitude, achievement, motivation,

personality, attitudes, and interests are necessary for individualizing

instruction and for purposes of individualizing guidance and counselling

(Goldman, 1971). This suggests that readiness test can be used to defect

the aptitude levels of students as well as the adequate background

knowledge they previously acquired. The form of test results also vary from

pass/fail, to holistic judgments, to a complex series of numbers meant to

convey minute difference in behaviour (ACES, 2006). The test results thus

point up to schools the necessity of trying to individualize instruction within

the group and they provide an objective basis for starting differentiated

instruction (Trazler, Jacobs, Selover, and Townsend, 1973). Invariably, this

will assist the teacher in preparing teaching materials and methods to suit

the ability levels of the learners. And more importantly for individualized

instruction and guiding and counselling the students individually. We must

know the current aptitude levels of pupils and the current state of their

subject-matter knowledge before we can “prepare curriculum materials

appropriate to ability levels (and) adopt teaching methods to the learners

and the content to be learned” (Adkins, 1958). It is test result that can give

us such information. Based on the information we can, for instance,

determine grade placement, promotion and grouping of the learners.

Precisely, readiness test can be used to promote those that have

demonstrated adequate subject-matter knowledge as “ready” or group those

 34
students that lack mastery of a given subject-matter content together as

“not ready”. Those that are “ready can profit from the next higher level of

school, and so should be promoted, while those grouped “not ready’ need to

be subjected to further remedial program. In the absence of such

information, intelligent decisions cannot be made about grade placement,

grouping, the pacing of study, promotion, choice of courses, academic and

vocational goals, and remedial work (Goldman, 1971).

Ideally, the information provided by a good readiness test is one

helpful basis for making necessary adjustments in the first grade programme

(Hildreth in Leslie, 1968). The Test Readiness Review shall be used to

assess whether the contractor’s progress is adequate to meet the next

milestone (GPI, 2006). It is based on such information that adjustment can

be made probably by individualizing instruction or organising remedial

programmes to the deficient students.

In counselling, need for information has necessitated the use of

readiness test. Bordins (1955) clarification of counselling needs include

dependence, lack of information choice-Anxiety, and lack of assurance.

Quite frequently, especially with adolescents who come voluntarily for

counselling, lack of confidence in their ability to make decisions lead to an

attempt to become dependent on the counsellor. The dependence is noted

primarily to those instances in agencies and schools in which an individual

comes (or is sent) seeking help with a particular problem. The original

purposes of assessment were intellectual evaluation and diagnostic labelling

(Greenspoon and Gerten, 1986). Many schools apply batteries of tests on a

programmatic basis, giving the same battery of achievement, aptitude, and

 35
other tests to entire classes (Goldman, 1971). So, many candidates with

say, lack of assurance on whether he/she will succeed in a given programme

may be subjected to a readiness test. Information from the readiness test

result will determine whether the candidate should undertake the

programme or go back to acquire background knowledge of the subject

matter.

Psychological tests can be used in solving a wide range of practical

problems. For instance, examples may be drawn from studies on the nature

and extent of individual differences, the identification of psychological traits,

the measurement of group differences and the investigation of biological and

cultural factors associated with behavioural differences. For all such areas of

research –and for many others – the precise measurement of individual

differences made possible by well-constructed tests is an essential

prerequisite (Ausubel, 1968).

Furthermore, readiness test could be used to facilitate conversation.

This is more prevalent among counselees who find it difficult to begin

talking, more particularly when strong feelings or long-suppressed thoughts

are involved. In this kind of situation, Kirk (1961) suggested that tests such

as a sentence completion or the thematic Apperception may be especially

helpful. This suggests that if the counselee completes the sentence

correctly, he is ‘ready’ for the conversation; otherwise, he lacks the

necessary prerequisite that would enable him to profit from the

conversation. Moreso, councillors use testes to lay groundwork for late

counselling. In this case, high school and college counsellors spend a

considerable amount of time in “routine” interviews with students; included

 36
frequently in such interviews are reports of results of test taken at the

time of admission or at other group-testing occasions (ACES, 2006).

So far, the review suggests that readiness test can and need be used

for various purposes and in all aspects of human endeavour as found in

public and private sectors, especially in identifying students’ areas of

strengths and weaknesses in Mathematics.

Validity of a test.

Validity of a test has been defined as the degree to which a test

measures what it is supposed to measure (Georgetown, 2006). According to

this statement, a ruler may be a valid measuring device for length, but isn’t

very valid for measuring volume. A readiness test has been looked at as a

test, which should separate those who are capable of learning a particular

concept and those who are not (Hiebert and Carpenter, 1982). And in the

classroom situation, a readiness test can be useful only to the point that it is

relatively free from both type I and type II errors. Type I and type II errors

are respectively errors of classifying as ready a student that is actually not

ready and classifying as not ready one that is ready. To appraise these

assertions emphasis should be on “relatively”, because no test is error-free.

The basic concept in test theory states that the score obtained by any

individual on a test has two components, namely, his true score (the exact

measure of his ability) plus the error associated with his score on this

particular test (Walter and Nancy, 1971). Similarly, Guilford (1954) stated

that among the group of testees, all test scores are partly due to error

variance. The much that a test constructor can do is to minimize error

variance and not to eliminate its occurrence entirely. From theoretical point
 37
of view, one way of minimizing error variance is to maximize reliability

(Nunnally, 1981). However, maximizing the reliability of a test is necessary,

but it is not a sufficient condition to guarantee minimum error variance.

Georgetown (2006) upheld that validity is the extent to which a test actually

measures what it says it measures. Georgetown, further remarked that it is

perhaps more important that a test serves the purpose for which it is

designed. A readiness test such as MATHRET should therefore, be capable

of separating students into two distinct groups – those that have acquired

the prerequisite knowledge (ready) for the next higher tasks and those that

are lacking the prerequisite knowledge or skill. Otherwise referred to as ‘not

ready’. To the extent that a readiness test can do this, to that extent it is a

valid readiness test (Hiebert and Carpenter, 1982). Therefore, validity of a

test has to do with what a test measures and how well it does not (Anastesi,

1976). Thomdike and Hagen (1977), thus recommended that judgment of

test validity should be made in terms of some specific functions the test is

intended to serve and not to be made in general terms. This

recommendation suggests for instance, that a valid Mathematics readiness

test may not be valid as a general, aptitude test.

Test theory suggests that the concept of validity assumes that test

score variance can be broken into variance in some trait and error variance

(Guilford, 1954). Furthermore, true variance can be divided into two-

variance shared by other traits and variance peculiar to a particular test. In

view of this theory if two tests share a common factor, the implication is that

scores in them are Inter-correlated and that score in one test can be used to

predict a score in the other test. However, each test posses another factor,
 38
which is specific to it. How valid a test is depends on its purpose – for

example a ruler may be a valid measuring device for length, but isn’t very

valid for measuring volume (Georgetown, 2006). Therefore, each test scores

is a composite of different weights of scores in some common factors, the

error factor and unique factor (Guilford, 1954). Test validity may be defined

in terms of what a test score predicts or measures. Such test score is a

valid predictor of every other thing (except itself), which it significantly

correlates with. The basis of validity therefore is common factor variance.

Test reliability however is considered on the ground of true variance, which

is equal to the sum of specific factor variance, and common factor variance.

In view of this conception, validity may be looked at as the proportion of test

score variance which is common factor variance whereas reliability of a test

is proportion of test score variance which is explained by true variance.

Therefore, reliability sets the limit of validity (Guilford, 1954).

In literature, identification has been made of a number of approaches

applicable to the administration of validity in readiness testing. Each of

these approaches deals with an aspect of validity. One of such aspect of

validity is construct validity. Construct validity is the extent to which a test

actually measures what it claims to measure (Thomdike and Hagen, 1977)

or adequately measure the underlying construct (Ibecker, 2006), two tests

of reliabilities .81 and .89 said to measure alphabetizing ability have been

found to correlate .09 and .00, with a criterion of alphabetizing on the job

(Mosier, 1947). Criterion reliability was found to be .40. This reveal that

even though the two tests measured whatever they claim to measure

consistently, yet that construct was not alphabetizing ability. Therefore,

 39
they had no construct validity in the measurement of alphabetizing ability.

The reliability estimates of both tests were less than .90, probably due to

poor construction of the tests. For well constructed tests usually have a

reliability coefficient of r =. 90 or more (Atkinson and Atkinson, 1993). Also,

other authors have described approaches to construct validation (Guilford,

1954; Thomdike and Hagen, 1977; Beihler and Snowman, 1990; Ibecker,

2006). Criterion-related validity has been looked at as extent to which a

test can predict an individual’s behaviour in a specified situation (Guilford,

1954). Moreso, criterion-related validity refers to how strongly the scores

on the test are related to other behaviours (Ibecker, 2006). This is usually

empirically determined by correlating scores in the test scores in some

criterion, which should be a direct, and independent measure of what the

test is designed to predict (Anastesi, 1976). Another aspect of validity is

content validity. It is the extent to which a test adequately covers a

representative sample of some behaviour domain of interest. Its

assessment is usually rational and it is commonly used in evaluating

achievement tests (Anastesi, 1976).

Nunnally (1981) suggested that a readiness test could be validated

against any criterion it is designed to predict inasmuch as such criterion

have the qualities of relevance, unbiased, reliability and availability

demanded by Thorndike and Hagen (1977). Similarly, a test may be used to

predict future behaviour provided you want to predict, that is you need to

specify the criterion (Ibecker, 2006). This procedure can be achieved by

correlating the scores on the criterion with corresponding readiness test

scores. Predictive validity, that is ability to predict, is the crux of the matter
 40
in any measure of readiness as well as all other tasks designed for

selection and placement. Nunnally (1981) stressed that predictive validity is

determined exclusively by the degree of the two measures involved. In this

sense predictive validity is the degree to which a current measure (often

called predictor) is related to the variance of interest (the criterion), which is

not observed until sometimes in the future (Ingule; Ruthie; Ndambuki,

1996). Nunnally (1981) further remarked that it correlation is high no other

standards are needed. This suggests that although application of theory and

common sense in test construction are necessary in test construction, yet

empirical analysis is the final determinant of predictive validity.

There is a danger in validating a test on purely empirical

considerations. (Monsier and Ibecker, 2006) argued that there is danger in

validating a test on purely rational grounds. For a test can only be as valid

as the criterion against which it has been validated upon. A study aimed at

predicting success of research scientists in administrative positions was cited

by Travers (1951) in Hill (2001). The study revealed that families of skilled

craftsmen and research scientists from rural backgrounds tended to be more

successful administrators than their counterpart from large city backgrounds

and retail merchant families. Although the result of the study was empirical,

yet the result of the finding was not meaningful because it was discovered

that the judge that judged the success of the experimental groups have

interest to protect. With the use of such ratings as criterion for validating a

test would lead to perpetuating bias, because this would yield systematic

variance irrelevant to the construct of interest. The findings of the authors

Monsier (1947) and Travers (1951) in Hill (2001) suggests that validation by
 41
rationalization alone or empiricism alone is subject to committing of error.

The implication is that each of these approaches should be checked against

the other. Against the conception, if an item in a test acquitted

unreasonable scoring weight by the empirical approach, such item should be

dropped and used only after its validity must have been rationalized. This is

Guilford’s (1954) submission.

The findings of Travers (1951) in Hill (2001) calls for the need for good

design in empirical study. For a good design hardly introduce bias into one’s

findings. But poor design does. This point is worth mentioning especially in

a country such as Nigeria where her situation is such that continuous

assessment scores could be hypothesized as a relevant criterion measure for

validating a readiness test. By the true nature of continuous assessment,

which is systematic and comprehensive (Ipaye, 1982; Federal Ministry of

Education, Science and Technology, 1985; Adedibu, 1988; Odili, 1991), it

should produce a valid measure of student attainment of educational

objectives. Moreso, evidence of validity of continuous assessment have

been demonstrated in various studies (such as Okedora, 1980; Arowasegbe,

1990, Odili, 1991), which revealed significant positive correlations between

continuous assessment scores and end-of-course examination grades.

However, the studies (such as Ali and Akubue, 1988; Iwuala, 1988) have

found sufficient reason to disagree even the reliability (a prerequisite for

validity) of continuous assessment scores as found in the Nigerian school

system. No wonder then why the existence of disagreement among the

researchers. Critical study of the situation however shows design flaws in

some of the researchers that showed that continuous assessment scores are
 42
valid scores. For instance, Arowosegbe (1990) worked with a sample

drawn from Bendel state, computed Pearson product moment coefficients of

correlation between student’s continues assessment scores and their junior

school certificate examination scores. Anowosegbe used scores obtained in

English studies, Mathematics, social studies and integrated science whereas

the Odili study involved integrated science scores. The study revealed

significant result. At the end, they concluded that continuous assessment

scores had predictive validity.

However, in school system, continuous assessment forms 30 percent

of final certificate examination score (Implementation committee, National

Policy on Education, 1992, 1994), correlation of these two sets of scores is

left to Mathematical and logical necessity. Yet such ‘significant’ correlation

does not therefore necessarily account for the validity of continuous

assessment. It would attest to the validity of continuous assessment if the

studies had correlated continuous assessment scores with only the final

examination scores before they were combined with the continuous

assessment scores to provide the published result which the researchers had

used, provided of course, that the said examinations were themselves validly

measures achievement.

Okedera’s (1980) approach was not consistent with the above result.

For Okedera instead administered a teacher-made achievement test to 30

adult learners (10 female and 20 male) in an adult literacy class in Ibadan

two weeks before they sat for the final school leaving certificate

examination. The same test was administered to the same subjects a week

later. Correlation of test and retest scores were made with the final leaving
 43
certificate examination scores and the result was found significantly

positive. The researcher concluded that the result of the study was an

evidence of predictive validity of teacher-made tests and suggested that

primary school leaving examination could be abolished in favour of

continuous assessment. This design is flooded with flaws and constitutes a

serious blow to the validity of the conclusions.

One of such flaws is that using a small and sample that was not

randomly drawn and only 30 subjects selected from one classroom cannot

but threaten the external validity of the results (Campbell and Stanley, 1966

in Zuriel, 2004). Another flaw is that the two administrations of the test

were not more than two weeks before the certificate examination makes the

result difficult to be acceptable evidence of predictive validity. The main

concern with these and many other predictive measures is predictive

validity, because without it, they would be worthless (Allpsych Online,

2006). On this ground, this researcher argues that for practical significance,

the interval between administrations of predictor and criterion tests should

be at least a school year. This may suggest that school heads and

administrators may base their decisions on predictive test on students’

achievement for short periods just two weeks.

A study conducted by Okeke (1985) in which 1040 students that sat

for the west African School Certificate Examinations in Anambra State in

1981/82 and 1982/83) were used, tends to be a better designed study than

that of Okedera’s (1980). For the study correlated the scores of the

students during their school certificate mock examinations with the

corresponding scores in the substantive school certificate examination. The

 44
result of the study was inconclusive. Although little variation was noted

from one student to another, yet correlations markedly varied from school to

school. This may be an evidence of interschool differences in the degree of

validity (predictive) of mock school certificate examination scores and even

in teacher-made tests. The study failed to specify the intervals between the

mock examination and substantive school certificate examination as taken in

different schools sampled for the study. Again, this situation places some

doubts about the validity of continuous assessment scores, which depend

solely on quality of teacher-made tests.

However, teachers have idea of what could be done on continuous

assessment and so the prospects of continues assessment is within

expectation. For instance, evidence that teachers have an idea of what

could be done (see Harbour-Peters and Nworgu, 1990) and could do it

(Ipaye, 1982), have been provided. Nevertheless, a lot more need to be

done in this direction to realize the potentials of the continuous assessment.

As it stands now, in a developing country such as Nigeria, it appears too

early to use continuous assessment scores as criterion measure in validation

of a readiness test such as MATHRET.

MATHRET, like any other test, may also be validated against ratings

(Anastesi, 1976). One major problem associated with rating is that it is

prone to error. Kissane (1986) cited Endean and Cares who found that

teachers are poor predictors of mathematical aptitude. The findings also

revealed a discrepancy between teachers’ nominations of Mathematically

able year 8 Australian students and their achievement in the Mathematical

scale of the scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT-M) with some bright students
 45
(using SAT-M as criterion) overlooked. Still on teacher nomination,

Stanley 1976) reported that SAT-M scores obtained several years earlier

predicted year II students’ success in a difficult Mathematics competition

much better than teacher nominations. This reveals that ratings may not

yield the “relevance” test for valid criteria (Thorndike and Hagen, 1977).

Apart from failure to be relevance, they do fail the “freedom from bias” test

(Travers, 1951).

Some expert opinions insisted that it is not problem as such. That it is

needles to validate every test. For instance, Ebel (1979) has wondered why

empirical evidence is demanded of the validity of most tests. Ebel further

argued that in all validation studies, validity of some tests (especially

criterion) measure, used in the process ends up being only rational. In other

words, the rational of the tests depends only on “expert” judgement.

Nevertheless, it seems more reasonable if the same expert judgement used

in validating the criterion test initially to directly validate the test instead,

since the validity of a test cannot exceed that of its criterion measure

(Guilford, 1954). With the same expert judgment used in the first instance

in directly validating the test, the length of the validation process chain will

be reduced. This approach to validation may need not be taken to be wholly

rational owning to the fallibility of “expert” judgement does not however

hardly flaw Ebel’s argument. For if it does, the flaw would as well occur in

the criterion measure already considered to be “valid” initially. The

researcher is quite consistent with Ebel (1979) assertion on this point.

Earlier on Ebel (1961) disagreed on the correlating some criterion measure

with test scores as evidence of validity of a test. He gave three reasons.

 46
One, that situations encountered in Education and Psychology are

influenced by too many interacting variables that change in ways too fast for

any Mathematical model to be able to keep effective track of or give

satisfactory explanations to such Mathematical models like correlation,

require a certain degree of stability that cannot be guaranteed in any

empirical study in psychology or Education. Two, that validity is not

necessarily a quality of a test but depends on the use it was made use of.

This suggests that Ebel wish that the concern of validity should be on the

use a test is put and not on the test itself per say. Third, Ebel pointed out

that criterion measures do not exist for most tests but have to be made only

by the same process that the tests of interest are made by and therefore

should as well need first of all their own validation. Ebel therefore

recommended that expert judgment be used as evidence of content,

including construct, validity, except for such tests that its criteria are

obvious, easy and simple to measure. Validity evidence will continue to

gather, either enhancing or contradicting previous findings (ACES, 2006).

Although the point has been made that validity of a test is not a

principal basis of a quality of a test, it has to do on the use the test is put

into, one need to conclude that this nullifies the importance of empirically

determining the indices of validity. Regardless of the form a test takes, its

most important aspect is how the results are used and the way those results

impact individual persons and society as a whole (ACES, 2006). It also

needs to stress that the test user should have some idea of the degree of

confidence needed to have on the use of a test. Remember that validity is a

matter of degree, rather than all or none (ACES, 2006). This degree of
 47
confidence is given by a combination of sufficient standardization

information as well as a validity index associated with it. For one reason to

consider test scores when making academic decisions is that large-scale

tests are administered under standardized conditions (ACES, 2006). Lyman

(1986) insisted that any good test manual should be composed of these.

Moreso, Ebel’s (1961) claim that criterion measures for most tests do not

exist seems to be nullified by the fact that common variance is at issue in

validity (Guilford, 1954; Kerlinger, 1973). Insofar, no perfect criterion

measure exists (unless of course the test scores themselves), any trait

scores on which are significantly correlated with those on a given test is a

valid criterion (Nunnally, 1981). Really, if the correlation coefficient tends to

be higher and higher, then validity is considered better. More still,

correlations yields a test of the hypothesized relationship between criterion

scores and test. Yet, this does not constitute evidence that the test

measures the construct it is tagged as measuring (Kerlinger, 1973). Only

that it provides enough evidence that the tests measure the same construct

and the correlation coefficient provides a measure of the extent to which

they measure it as well as the degree of confidence one can have in using

one as predictor of the other. The construct, which the test actually

measures, can be inferred from an examination of the tasks that comprise

the tests (Ebel, 1961)

Furthermore, the construct a test measures is defined by the nature

and variety of tasks it expects subjects to perform (Ebel, 1961). If we have

a difficult time defining the construct, we are going to have an even more

difficult time measuring it (AlPsych Online, 2006). As a result, if what is to

 48
be measured is given in quantity form, the process of measurement, such

as found in physical sciences, what a test purports to measure coincides with

that which it actually measures. Consequently, the demand for empirical

evidence of validity is nullified. This situation only demands from the test

constructor to claim noting more than that his test measures testees’

competence in carrying out the type of tasks that make up his test. The

reason being that test scores constitute the best criterion we can get of what

a test is intended to measure (Ebel, 1979). One major problem here could

be that this approach may make it very difficult to compare tests. For

rationalized tests measuring the same construct may not share any common

variance after all (see Mosier, 1947), it is not certain that for any two given

tests can really measure similar or the same constructs, an assurance which

is required for tests classification. This therefore confirms Guilford’s (1954)

call for both empirical evidence and rational in test validation.

Ebel (1979) disagree with predictive studies common with selection

(like promotion, admission) tests pointing out that a great number of

unforeseen and unmeasured variables affect them so much that our best

predictions can only be imprecise and crude. Any disagreement with Ebel

(1979) could be in order, since what is obtainable in so many (including

achievement) testing is a prediction of anticipated “success” in a subsequent

“programme”. In order for a test to be a valid screening device for some

future behaviours, it must have predictive validity (AllPsych Online, 2006).

Therefore, worthy of recommendation is predictive studies that estimate

degree of confidence (or risk) in using such tests for such purposes than

such cases in which predictions are made without any knowledge of degree
 49
of confidence (or risk) involved. The researcher is of the opinion that

efforts on validation should continue to look for agreement between the

empirical approaches and the rational and provide test users the degree of

risk involved in using any test.

Reliability of a test.

Reliability is synonymous with the consistency of a test, survey,

observation, or other measuring device (AllPsych Online, 2006). The

concept of reliability assumes that whatever a test measures must be some

enduring trait among individuals (Guilford, 1954). Moreover, differences

among individuals with regard to possession or non-possession of such a

trait are true differences and constitute true variance among the individuals.

As a result, different “administrations” of the test should rank the individuals

in a consistent manner on the trait if the test is to be said to posses high

reliability. If fluctuations occur among individuals in a differential manner,

Guilford is of the opinion that different “administrations” would rank

individuals differently, leading to a tag of low reliability, for the test. Such

differential rate of change among the individuals constitutes error variance.

The reliability of a test reflects the extent to which this error variance has

been reduced (Nunnally, 1981). It is the proportion of test variance which

constitute true variance. In other words, the proportion of variance of scores

obtained in a test which is due to true difference (rather than random

difference) among the testees on the trait that the test measures.

Although reliability is necessary, but it is not sufficient guarantee that

a test is of high quality. It is only to the extent that test scores are reliable

that they can be useful for any purpose at all (Ebel, 1968). It is also to that
 50
extent that the test measures whatever it measures with precision.

Reliability is essential to both the testee and the test user. To the testee,

decision about him depends on the test scores. And to the test user who

should have an idea of the degree of confidence he should place on the

scores generated from the test as he makes his decision based on them

(Ebel, 1979).

Measurement of reliability is carried out in terms of a correlation

coefficient. In operational terms, Ebel (1979:275) defined test reliability

thus: the reliability coefficient of a group of examines is the coefficient of

correlation between that set of scores and another set of scores on

equivalent test obtained independently from the numbers of the same

group. Considering the definition, it could be deduced that reliability is not

an intrinsic property of a test per se but depends on the particular group of

examinees tested. For size of the reliability coefficient could be affected by

the level of ability of the testees and the range of their talents as well.

Reliability computed via coefficient alpha usually takes values from 0.00 to

1.00 indicating identical ordering between the test and the hypothetical

equivalent form coefficient alpha may also take values less than zero (WISC,

2006). In addition, being a correlation coefficient, the reliability coefficient

yields information on the degree to which relative rather than absolute

values of pairs of scores on each of the testees agree. According to Guilford

(1954) the standard approach to reliability aim at determining the extent to

which a test correlates with itself. In literature different approaches were

adopted in answering different questions. The procedure in each case

involved using deviations and correlation of two sets of scores from the
 51
same test and sample. Among such different approaches identified in

literature include test-retest (Anastesi, 1976; Ebel, 1979; Watson, et al

1991 in Ibecker, 2006; Aupsych Online, 2006), reader reliability (Ebel,

1951), alternative form (Thorndike and Hagen, 1977), split-half reliability

(Cronback, 1951; Horst, 1951, Guilford, 1954; Georgetown, 2006), Kuder –

Richardson (Ebel, 1979; Cronback, 1957; Horst, 1953; Guilford, 1965) and

analysis of variance (Hoyt, 1941; Guilford, 1954; Engelhart, 1972).

Choice of Coefficient of Reliability.

A reliability coefficient is often the statistic of choice in determining the

reliability of a test (AllPsych Online, 2006). Some practical considerations

determine which particular measure or measures of reliability a test

constructor should adopt. The alternative form approach to reliability

estimate yields the most reliable coefficient because of its sensitivity to all

forms of error variance (Thorndike and Hagen, 1977). However, it requires

using two parallel forms of the test that will test the same material and give

the same result (Georgetown, 2006). One major problem with this

alternative form approach is that constraints of money, time or even

administrative set-up of cooperating agencies might hamper the

development of two forms of a test. Obviously, two forms of a test imply a

much larger initial pool of items and demand more time for their trial on the

sampled subjects. Such demand of more time on the part of the subjects

might be too disruptive of the cooperating agencies’ programmes that they

may not tolerate such. As a result, observation from Thorndike and Hagen

implies that they might refuse permission for such a project. Such refusal is

equally applicable to alternative form or retest approach which demand two

 52
administrations of a test. Moreover, as Anastesi 1976) rightly noted,

development of truly parallel forms of a test is not an easy task. To

determine parallel forms reliability, a reliability coefficient is calculated on

the scores of the two measures taken by the same group of subjects

(AllPsych Online, 2006). Consequently, despite inherent weaknesses, which

resulted from their tendency to make certain error variance, the approaches

to reliability, estimate, which needs only one administration of a test, might

prove the only option left for some test constructors. Specifically, we may

define an index of reliability in terms of the proportion of true score

variability that is captured across subjects or respondents, relative to the

total observed variability (Statsoft, 2003). However, it leaves them bound,

as Anastesi (1976) has argued, to report whatever approach they use in

assessing the reliability of their instruments so as to enable users evaluate

such instruments more appropriately.

Evaluation of Reliability Coefficient.

A critical review of the evaluation of the reliability of a test, suggests,

in general, that the bigger the reliability coefficient of the test, the better the

test, that such direct comparison uses similar approaches in estimating

reliability. Adopting different approaches to estimate reliability, however,

Thondike and Hagen (1977) strongly opined that the coefficient that is

sensitive to more sources of error variance should be preferred. Other

considerations should also include the composition of the sample tested

(Anastesi, 1976). The idea being that the more heterogeneous a sample is

(ie. The wider the range of the talents of the testees), the higher the

coefficient of reliability emanating there from. This implies that a test is

 53
more likely to consistently rank a group comprised of a wide range of

classes in terms of Mathematics readiness that it would rank a group

consisting of only subjects that belong to the same class. And the ability

level of subjects used in the determination of the reliability of a test has also

been identified as a factor in determining a size of the reliability coefficient

(Ebel, 1979, Georgetown, 2006). If items of a test are not too difficult (ie.

Appropriate) for the ability of the subjects, the test, it has been argued, is

likely to rank them consistently thereby yielding high reliability (Guilford,

1954; Statsoft, 2003). For those that the test is too difficult for, their scores

in the test are likely to be influenced by guess work and would lead to high

error variance and consequently yield low reliability. And for those the test

is too easy for, discrimination would not be effective, resulting also in low

reliability. It appears therefore, that a test would be best administered on

subjects it is designed for and this group should be reported for appropriate

utilization of the test by the consumer (Lyman, 1986). The higher the

correlation coefficient, the better the reliability (Burger, 1997).

So far, the review has shown the need for considering validity and

reliability in measurement process. Moreso, the review has vindicated that

for a test to be useful, it has to be valid and reliable. Again, various

approaches to the calculation of the validity and reliability of a test have

been looked into. And more interestingly what meaning to make of the

result of each of these approaches examined. It appears that development

of any useful test such as mathematics readiness test (MATHRET) requires

that a high validity and reliability should be built into its development.
 54
Evaluation.

Considering the review of various approaches to item analysis in test

development, it becomes necessary to evaluate the results. Various

approaches to determining item validity appear to result in tests of about the

same levels of reliability (Ely, 1951). As similarity is noted in item selection

using different indices, one may rightly suggest that a test constructor need

to choose those indices that call for least amount of labour. In consideration

of this, then Ferguson’s (1942) method and the analysis of variance need to

be over looked. Consequently, Phi, rank tends to be preferred instead.

Guilford (1954) suggested that point biserial should be applied in a situation

where only the coefficient is to be calculated. Guilford’s recommendations

are quite in order especially in a situation where validation of a test, such as

readiness test demands an external criterion. However, Englehart (1965)

pointed out that for an achievement whereby the criterion is usually interval

(i.e. Total score) discrimination index D would be the best option considering

its simplicity and comparable efficiency. Discrimination index (D) of the

MATHRET was, therefore determined (see Appendix: G).

Development of a Test that has Maximum Validity and Reliability.

In developing a test such as MATHRET, the traditional thing is to start

with blue print. A test blue print has been described as a two dimensional

table of specification outlining the content and behavioural objectives to be

sampled as well as the respective numbers of items to do the job

(Ebegbulem, 1982; Ohuche and Akeju, 1988; STI, 2006). From this

definition, it suggests that blueprint enhances validity and reliability of a

test. Selection techniques as well as item analysis adopted in developing a

 55
test also help to achieve better validity and reliability of a test. If the

sample is not representative of the population demographically, selection

bias is introduced (Georgetown, 2006). In this discourse, it will be assumed

that a test blueprint, selection technique and item analysis exist.

Item analysis is built into test development so as to maximize the

reliability and validity of the test. Anastesi (1976) noted that a high validity

as well as a desired distribution of final test scores can be built into a test

when developing it. This suggests that assumptions of different indices need

to be beard in the mind of test maker. To Lemka and Wiersma (1976) most

approaches to item analysis are more suitable for tests and therefore, are

unsuitable for speeded tests. The contention being that speeded tests yield

item difficulty indices whose values depend on the position of an item on the

test than its intrinsic quality (Guilford, 1954). In addition, Wersma’s (1949)

finding revealed that the size of an item –total correlation coefficient in a

speeded test is dependent on the position of the item. All in all, these

results suggest that item analysis of a speeded test would lead to unreliable

indices of reliability as well as validity.

Allen and Yen (1979) have suggested that an item pool of at least a

range of one and a half to three times the number of items expected to

compose the final form of the test is required in initiating item analysis.

Similar observation was made by Lemike and Wiersma (1976) who

recommended that an item pool of at least double the expected final length

of a test is necessary in initiating item analysis. To pre-test the final form of

the test, Allen and Yen though recommended a minimum of 50 subjects,

they as well expressed their preference for “several hundred” testees

 56
representative of the population with which the final form of the test is to

be administered to. To Nunnally (1981), a suggestion of at least 300

examinees are required for pre testing and that number in any case should

not be five times or more of the number of items. Guilford (1954) cited

Conrad who recommended three preliminary test administrations. Conrad

insisted that the test constructor himself using 100 subjects, so as to

uncover gross defects in the proposed test, need undertake first

administration. 400 subjects were suggested for second administration for

purposes of item analysis, and finally a third administration involving the

final form of the test would be administered for purposes of determining the

test reliability. The standards set by these authors appear quite stringent

and are unlikely to be the minimum for good results. In view of this,

Guilford (1954) remarked that Conrad’s assertion is “representing good

workmanship in test construction”, yet it need not be swallowed whole and

entire, arguing that the amount of and kind of pre testing required for a test

would differ from one situation to another.

In item analysis process, test constructors usually use extreme groups

in estimating item difficulty and validity indices for the whole sample from

these sub-sample results Mehrens and Lehmann, 1993; (Ipaye 1982;). In

the process of analysis, the distribution is splinted into different points,

which enabled the use of upper and lower 50, 33, 27, or 25 percents.

Guilford (1954) noted that the more extreme these groups are the sharper is

the discrimination between them and the less likely that a chance reversal

would occur in a different sample. Such a situation however, may lead to

increase standard error of difference between the proportions passing an

 57
item in both groups. It becomes essential then to determine an optimum

point of split that would minimize standard error and yet maximize

discrimination. Under normal distribution, Lemke and Wiersma (1976)

pointed out that this optimum point is attained with the upper and lower

27%. However, for flatter than normal distributions, the optimum point of

split results from the use of extreme 33% (Ureton, 1957). It seems that the

27% rule might be quite robust. This is because some studies (eg Ely,

1951); Kuang; 1952) have compared reliabilities of tests developed from

item analysis using tail proportions that ranged from 10% to 50%. No

consistent significant difference was found. This implies that any suitable

tail proportion might serve as well as any other. In such situation therefore,

the test constructor should aim at a normal distribution of total scores in his

final test construction.

Anastesi (1976) pointed out that a skewed distribution of test scores

could be normalized by adjusting the proportion of items of appropriate

difficulty. Positive skewness occurs when there is insufficiency of easy items

to ensure discrimination at the lower end of the range of scores. On the

other hand, negative skewness results from injection of more difficult items

to effect discrimination at the upper end of the range. From the foregoing, it

appears that level of difficulty of test items determines the range of scores.

Brogden (1996), working with a number of hypothetical free response tests,

found that level of difficulty of items also affects test validity. He also found

that if all items are of equal difficulty, maximum validity is obtained when

the level of difficulty is .50. In addition, he found that increasing the range

of item difficulty decreases test validity provided that the tetrachonic item
 58
Inter-corelations are not more than .40 and the number of items in the

test does not exceed 150. Gulliksen (1945) had earlier confirmed that

reliability of a test increases as mean test item difficulty approaches .50, as

dispersion of item difficulty decreases and as average item inter correlation

increases. The results of these two studies therefore suggest that similar

conditions govern the maximization of both validity and reliability.

In Brodgen’s (1996) work, he assumed that the free response test

items he worked with had tetrachonic intercorrelation that had only one

common factor which he considered to be the criterion. He then defined the

correlation between test score and criterion or common factor as “validity”.

Broden’s work was further carried out by Lord (1952) to multiple-choice

tests where, unlike in free response tests, guessing is a factor. In working

with hypothetical tests whose scores were adjusted for guessing so as to

retain the assumption of only one factor accounting for tetrachonic inter

correlation and make his findings comparable with Boraden’s, Lord found

that reliability and “validity” are maximized by minimizing variability of item

difficulty somewhat easier than half-way between a chance percentage

correct answer. He crowned his conclusion by asserting that as multiple

choice items become more difficult, chance of guessing increases and

reliability decreases. To Guilford (1954) under ordinary conditions (ie. When

tetrachonic item intercorrelations range between .10 and .30) the optimal

level for two-choice items is an uncorrected difficulty level of .85, for three-

choice items, .77 while it is .74 and .69 for four and five-choice items

respectively. In another submission, Cronback and Warrington (1952)

opined that multiple choice tests discriminate best when items are at a level
 59
easier than median difficulty after correction for chance. One would then

wonder how use of such easy items could yield optimal discrimination when

Anastesi (1976) has suggested that use of easier items reduces the

discrimination power of a test for the most able testees. In view of

Cronback and Warrington’s work suggest that the effect of such reduction for

the most able testees can only be serious when item inter-correlation is very

high.

Several studies have demonstrated that reliability of a multiple-choice

test can be increased by increasing the number of alternatives. For

instance, Denney and Remmers (1940), Remmers and Ewart (1941),

Remmers and House (1941) and Georgetown (2006) have demonstrated

that the increase in item –total correlation can be predicted using the

spearman – Brown prophecy formula by substituting ratio of alternative

responses for ratio of test lengths. The authors found it true for two to five

alternatives using a vocabulary test, an arithmetic test, an attitude inventory

and third grade arithmetic test. However, when seven alternatives were

used, the formula seems to over predict the correlation. The situation in

these studies was that the alternative distracters added to the items were as

attractive as the original ones.

In some other studies not as much increase in item-total correlation

following increase in number of alternatives as was found by the above

studies were noted. Plumlee (1952) studied the less in item-total biserial

correlation due to chance in five-choice tests as compared with completion

tests of parallel content. She found that the mean biserial coefficient for

completion tests were actually .08 greater than for the multiple-choice forms
 60
instead of .13, which a prediction formula would suggest. Thus,

considering for conditions one may conclude that correlation for chance

would probably overcorrect. The contradiction in these findings seems to

occur from the levels of difficulty of items used in composing the tests for

the studies. It seems that with relatively easy multiple-choice items, need

for guesswork is largely reduced and so reliability is increased. Bryan, Burke

and Stewart (1952)’s findings appear to corroborate this assertion. The

study was designed to investigate the effect of correcting or not correcting

total score or item mean for chance on the size of item-total biserial

coefficient in several achievement tests. The researchers found that

correction of total score only, did not change the average item-test

correlation. But these coefficients were somewhat lower in the more difficult

tests than in their easier counterparts. However, correlation of item

proportions (without or with correction of total score) consistently increased

the average item validity indices. The correlation of MATHRET scores using

Test-retest method yielded a high coefficient of correlation of 0.96 (see

Appendix: D).

Diagnosis of a Mathematics Readiness Test.

Concept of diagnostic Testing.

Diagnostic test has been looked at from different perspectives. Some

authors looked at it from educational point of view while some insisted that

it is entirely a medical term. For instance, teachers may use the sensory

tests for screening, but diagnosis and treatment would require a medical or

other type of specialist (Annie and Mildred, 1999). But, California

Mathematics Diagnostic Testing project offered web-based Mathematics

 61
Analysis Readiness Test which is a diagnostic test of topics needed for

success in a precalculus course (Math. Arizona, 2007). The Math. Arizona

(2007) further revealed that this multiple-choice test is designed to be taken

without a calculator to obtain a more reliable indication of readiness for a

precalculus course. MATHRET is an essay test equally designed to be taken

by students of beginning SS1 without calculator so that they can show their

workings fully, thereby exhibiting their areas of mastery and weakness in

solving the JS3 Mathematics curriculum contents.

Furthermore, diagnostic test has been defined as a test used to

diagnose, analyze or identify specific areas of weakness and strength; to

determine the nature of weaknesses or deficiencies; diagnostic achievement

tests are used to measure skills (Glossary, 2007). That is to say that

MATHRET as a measuring instrument, can be used to identify JS3 students’

areas of strengths and weaknesses as they are intending to resume

Mathematics programme in SS1 level. Similarly, Glossary (2007) defined

diagnostic test as a test intended to locate learning difficulties or patterns of

error. Glossary (2007) further revealed that such tests yield measures of

specific knowledge, skills, or abilities underlying achievement within a broad

subject, and thus, provide a basis for remedial instruction. MATHRET was

designed to measure specific knowledge, skills, or abilities with which one

can locate specific learning difficulties of students’ works. Based on identified

specific learning difficulties of students or patterns of errors they committed,

one can use the cut-off point of 29 frequency of errors or below it and 30

frequency of errors or above it, as suggested in this study, to determine who

 62
is “read” or “not read” respectively and make recommendations for

remedial instruction.

Purposes of diagnostic Testing.

Kraw Parker (2007) while commenting on diagnostic testing for

Mathematics students, pointed out that the need to assess the current

Mathematical ability of students on entry to any course is self-evident. It

was further revealed (Kraw Parker,2007) that the variety of different

examinations, assorted Mathematical backgrounds, (including access and

mature students), will reinforce these demands in order to help students

achieve a common core of Mathematical skills. Harling (1991) noted that the

national assessment system provides teachers and others with the means of

identifying the need for further diagnostic assessments for particular pupils

where appropriate to help their educational development. In support of

Harling (1991) for further diagnostic assessment of deficient students, Annie

and Mildred (1999) advocated for learning style inventories. The use of

learning style inventory is advocated by those who subscribe to the trait-

treatment or the Aptitude by Treatment Interaction (ATI). The two authors

further hinted that ATI and Trait-treatment concepts of learning are referred

to as diagnostic-prescriptive approaches to teaching. It is hoped that when

the diagnosis of the students learning abilities is investigated via the analysis

of their error patterns, there would be clear indication of those that are

“ready” and those that are “not ready” for senior secondary school

Mathematics learning. The MATHRET was developed by the researcher

himself to be used purposely to identify specific areas of students’ strengths

and weaknesses.
 63
Diagnostic information concerning a student lacking readiness is a

determinant of whether the treat/problem of the student can be treated in

the presence or absence of the student and how such problem/treat can be

treated by recommendation. In counselling, for instance, Goldman (1971)

noted that precounceling diagnostic information is intended to help the

counselor (with or without the client’s collaboration) to decide whether the

client’s needs are within the purview of his services. The treat being those

prerequisite skills the students have not been able to master which made

them to be deficient or resulted to lack of readiness for senior secondary

school Mathematics learning. In determination of who is “ready” or “not

ready”, the MATHRET was administered to a sample of 300 beginning SS1

students inform of group test and scores obtained were used in the diagnosis

of the students’ learning abilities. In this regard, Annie and Mildred noted

that for diagnosis, the primary types of data needed are samples of

students’ work and scores on group tests.

In summary, diagnosis is associated with identification of students’

areas of strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses emanated from the

errors students committed in solving the MATHRET items. Readiness of an

entrant into SS1 level was determined by the cut-off point of 29 frequency

of errors the student committed relative to a total of 59 frequency of errors.

The literature review revealed that diagnosis is a factor that determines

readiness and that primary data needed for diagnosis are samples of

students’ work and scores on group tests as applicable to MATHRET scores

obtained from a sample of 300 beginning SS1 students.

 64
Interpretation of Mathematics Readiness Test Score.

The major concern in all testing procedure is what meaning to attach

to a given test score. For assignment of a score is not an end but a means

to an end in testing (Schofield, 1973). From the test, one get an idea about

the trait of interest as manifested in the testee through the test. In

literature, two major approaches to interpretation of test scores are

identifiable (Popham and Husek, 1969; Ebel, 1962; Engelhart, 1972). One

approach is concerned with measuring a given score against an apparently

absolute standard. In this regard, Lyman (1986) noted that this “absolute”

standard is the maximum obtainable score in the test. Other scores of the

testees failed to play any role in determining the score of any given testee.

Following this approach, a standard (criterion) is set ahead of time so as to

determine what constitutes an acceptable level of performance. A testee’s

score is thus supposed to be an index of level of acquisition or possession of

“content” which the test is designed to measure and is evaluated against the

predetermined standard. Lyman (1986) has however, strongly maintained

that this standard is not absolute so to say. For a testee’s score is

dependent on how easy or difficult the test items are to the testee, even for

a given content area. Again, Ebel (1962) was of the opinion that the

standard set in this criterion – referenced approach to interpretation of test

scores is wholly determined by expectations of the group and not by some

true absolute. Criterion –referenced interpretation of scores is mainly

utilized in achievement testing where mastery of content is at issue

(Engechart, 1972). And use of percentage correct scores is an example

(Lyman 1986).
 65
The other second approach to interpretation of scores compares

each testee’s score with the performance of others in the group. In this

case, one’s score does not depend on how difficult the test is but on how the

group performs (Engelhart, 1972). The group whose scores are used as the

reference is the normative group and their average performance is the

norm. Norm-referenced testing is mainly associated with standardized tests

(Lyman, 1980).

In readiness testing the aim is to differentiate testees on a continuum

representing readiness (see Guilford, 1954). Readiness has been defined as

preparedness to engage profitably in some activity (Burks, 1968). It need to

be remarked that there are situations during which it becomes important to

define a point on the continuum of readiness beyond which the degree of

preparedness qualifies one for designation as “ready” and below which one

is considered “not ready”. At this point a readiness test constructor is

confronted, as part of the problem of giving meaning to scores, with the

problem which all selection test constructors must face: determination of a

cut-off score.

Ebel (1979) identified several approaches that can be used in

determination of cut-off scores which could as well be applied to readiness

testing. One of such approaches has to do with a determination of what

constitutes the point at which performance starts to take place, that is to

say, the minimum essentials of competence to qualify one for being “ready”.

Tasks could be developed to test such considerable competence point. From

theoretical point of view, Ebel (1979) insisted that the ideal cut-off score

here should be 100 percent. The problem that appear to exist here is that

such considerable competence point might not be easy to identify, because it

may be possibly a debatable issue among experts. Therefore, items to be

 66
used in testing them may be difficult to produce. Again, examinee

performance may not be typical. Therefore, scores generated using such

test cannot have perfect reliability. This, therefore, calls for need to have

lower-than-perfect cut-off scores and tasks broad enough to include

essential fundamentals.

Attempts at meeting this situation have resulted in test constructors

arbitrarily fixing cut-off scores without presenting rationales for their choice

(Ebel, 1979). However, the rational demanded has been provided by Ebel

(1979) himself in his attempt to determine the cut-off score. Ebel (1979)

contended that in a well constructed test, no testee should score less than

the expected chance score and that no best testees should score near the

maximum possible score. In this regard, he defined an ideal mean score as

midway between the chance score and the maximum score and the cut-off

score as midway between the ideal mean and the expected chance scores.

One could argue that most tests are not ideal, being either easier or

more difficult than even the constructor wanted to make it. And that

readiness has been looked at as possessing a cultural component suggesting

its dependence on the group (Bruner, 1964). It then follows that a purely

criterion –referenced approach to interpretation of readiness test scores may

not be appropriate. However, this may be different from the issue. For

having a cultural component only suggests that level of readiness may vary

from “culture” to “culture” and not that prerequisite skills for any topic in

Mathematics remain the same every where irrespective of the fact that it

may exist in one classroom but not in another. To determine what should be

the cut-off score for readiness is particular should thus, not be a “cultural”
 67
matter. It suggests therefore that a criterion – referenced approach to

determination of cut-off score is quite in order in readiness testing. Thus,

although an ideal test may not exist, if a test becomes easy or difficult (to a

particular group) because the skills it tests are mastered by most or few in

the population of interest, the skewness of the distribution should not be the

worry of the test constructor. In other words, if there is evidence to show

that the distribution of scores for a representative sample of the population

is similar to what is obtainable in the population, Ebel’s (1979) suggested

approach should be accepted. However, if the distribution as obtained in

such a representative sample can be hypothesized to differ from what

obtains in the population, Ebel’s approach should be regarded inappropriate.

An approach to interpretation of selection test scores which is wholly

norm-referenced, such as a readiness test score, is also found in literature

(e.g Allen and Allen, 1979; Cronback and Warrington, 1952). The approach

consists of a stipulation of some predetermined proportion that should be

selected. This proportion is based on say funds available in the school or

some other considerations in the system. In adopting this approach, the

cut-off scores is got from a frequency distribution of scores at the score

above which the predetermined proportion of testees falls. One major

problem that could be perceived here is that it is possible that many of those

that fall within the group that “qualifies” may not really posses the

competence of interest. In other words they may not possess the

prerequisite Mathematical and reasoning skills that make for true readiness

for a given Mathematics programme. It is also possible that this problem

could manifest in another approach designed for distributions whose

 68
skewnes extremely differ from what is believed to obtain in the

population, it appears that the problem, is more with the instrument and not

with the true distribution of the trait in the population. It may not be in

order if either the wholly criterion-referenced or the wholly norm-referenced

approach is used to determine a cut-off score in this situation. For Ebel

(1979), he recommended approach that can be adapted to readiness testing

for situations whereby a test is either easier or more difficult than there is

reason to believe obtains in the population. In this particular case, an “idea”

standard is combined with a group related standard to find out the cut-off

score so suggested:

i. The determination of the average of the actual mean and the ideal

mean;

ii. The determination of the average of the lowest score obtained and

the expected chance score;

iii. Fixing the cut off score midway between those two averages.

The advantage of this approach is that it is combining the ideal with the

actual to arrive at a practicable and sensible standard. An approach similar

to this combines a criterion score with the need to satisfy certain situational

considerations. According to Ebel (1979) this approach fixes a cut-off score

subject to the selection of a stipulated maximum and minimum number or

proportion of the testees. If number less than this minimum meet the cut-

off standard, a new cut-off score is defined midway between the former cut-

off and minimum score got by the proportion initially stipulated. If the initial

cut-off score is got by more than the maximum number stipulated, the cut-
 69
off score is increased to a position midway between the initial cut-off and

the minimum score got by the stipulated maximum proportion.

The several of these approaches so far discussed seem to provide for a

variety of situations that users of Mathematics readiness tests could gainfully

lay their hands on. Therefore, every user has options to consider so as to

select an approach that can appropriately satisfy his need. It is worth

pointing out that this decision is ultimately a rational decision. It is also

rational to accommodate the advice of Guilford (1954) to subject it to

empirical test so as to assess the validity of forcing readiness (a continuous

variable) into a dichotomy at the particular cut-off score point finally

decided. If such validity (i.e. Correlation with a criterion measure) is found

to be low, that particular cut-off score may not be an appropriate point of

discrimination between those that are “ready” and those that are “not

ready”.

Apart from using a readiness test for selection purpose which forces a

continuous variable (readiness) into a dichotomy of “ready” and “not ready”

testees, there is as well the possible use of a readiness test for counselling

purpose. This, like in all standardized tests, compares the testee with a

reference (normative) group of testees to find out now a testee measures

with among other testees in the test. This approach “defines” a testee’s

degree of readiness relative to that of his other members of a sample of the

population. It uses derived scores like T-scores, Z-scores, percentiles and

stanines (Lyman, 1986). Within a school’s system of programmes, such

scores could aid classification and placement as well.

 70
In summary, in consideration of predetermined score, a testee’s

score in a readiness test may be interpreted. Theoretically, this score is not

affected by other testees’ scores. It has however been shown to depend on

how easy or difficult the test may be. Moreso it has been suggested that

even the determination of what criterion score to use as point of acceptance

is clearly done in view of expected performances within the group. Another

approach to interpretation of a test scores is in line with consideration of

overall performance within some reference group. In using readiness fest for

the purpose of selection, the need more often arises for a cut-off score that

separates those regarded “ready” for a given set of activities from those “not

ready” for such activities. With or without reference to the overall

performance of the groups, cut-off scores could be fixed such as MATHRET in

which from 55% and above of the maximum frequency of errors is regarded

as “not ready” and vice versa. What is left for the test user is to determine

for himself which approach or cut-off best fits his particular situation. More

so, he may further test the validity of his choice empirically. And for

counselling purpose, like all other psychological purposes, a readiness test

score is interpreted with reference to the performance of a usually defined

(normative) group, just as MATHRET score is used to determine which

group (male/female; urban/rural; public/private, schools), is more ‘ready’

or ‘fairly ready’ than the other and vice versa.

Empirical Framework:

On readiness Testing

A good number of published Mathematics readiness tests focused on

kindergarten and primary school levels. Also, a good number of published

 71
studies on readiness testing were carried out on kindergarten and primary

schools. However, the basic principle concerning all readiness testing are

the same no matter the stratum of the school system one might be

interested in. The review in this section will therefore be primarily

concerned with literature on Mathematics readiness tests and procedures of

such tests with strict restriction to a particular stratum of the school system.

Studies on Readiness Testing Procedures.

In literature, several approaches to readiness testing are identified. A

lot early Mathematics readiness tests centred on performance on Piagetian

tasks. Piagent has articulated some stages in cognitive development with

characteristic intellectual operations possible during each stage (See

Helgard, Atkinson and Atkinson, 1975; Hill, 2001). Although differences

have been found in the average ages at which children become able to

perform the tasks associated with stages, depending on intelligence, cultural

and social-economic factors, the order of progression appears the same for

all children (Duruji, 1975; Hilgard, Atkinson and Atkinson, 1975 and Hill

2001). Incidentally, one approach to Mathematics readiness testing involves

correlating performance on some Mathematics tasks with performance on

some concrete Piagetian tasks. Freyberg (1966) adopted this approach in

his studies. In it, he administered tests of conservation of quantity and

weight, numeric correspondence, spatial relations, classification and causal

relations on a sample of 151 children aged between 5yeras 9 months and 7

years 10 months. Later, he administered a 120 items arithmetic

computation and 25-item word problem test on the sample subjects. He

then correlated the scores on arithmetic computation and word problems

 72
with the sum of scores on the Piagetian tasks, which yielded correlation

coefficients of .52 and .57 respectively. His conclusion was that Piagetian

tasks were good predictors of performance in Mathematics and hence good

Mathematics readiness tests. Another finding by Dimitrovsky and Almy

(1975) confirmed this report. The two researchers found a high correlation

between conservation ability of kindergarten children and their arithmetic

achievement scores obtained at the end of first grade (ie. Primary one).

Some authors opined that training could influence performance on

some Piagetian tasks (Bruner, 1964; Gibson, 1972; Ann, Bill, and Wilber

Dulton, 1996). In an attempt to further the investigation, Bearison (1975)

designed a study to compare such performances due to training with those

affected spontaneously due to maturation. In the study, Bearison conducted

a longitudinal study using some children over a four-year period. When the

children were on kindergarten stage, some of them were identified as

capable of conserving liquid quantity. They were regarded as natural

conservers. Some of the other no conservers were trained so that they can

conserve liquid quantity while the others was left on their own. Then

comparison of the third grade arithmetic achievement scores of the three

groups of children was made. One of the findings Bearison made revealed

that early natural or spontaneous conservers performed significantly better

than the trained conservers in the arithmetic achievement test. Significant

difference was not found between performance of the trained conservers and

their later conserving peers. The finding suggests that there is relationship

between early spontaneous conservation and arithmetic achievement.

However, there is lack of explanation of what factor that is responsible for

 73
their relationship. For since Hilgard, Atkinson and Atkinson (1975) have

noted that intelligence is a factor in the age at which conservation is

acquired, it is quite plausible that general intelligence rather than some

particular Mathematical ability might be the factor that accounted for such

relationship found by Bearison. At this juncture, Bearison’s finding can only

be regarded as inconclusive until a study is designed to control for

intelligence as well as any other likely confounding variable.

Furthermore, in the process of correlating a general measure of

concrete operation with achievement, in Mathematics readiness testing, a

significant correlation still fails to provide information concerning the nature

of such relationship which is important for possible manipulation of variables

in teaching as well as in research. For a teacher or researcher would, in

addition to discovering the existence of a relationship between a

Mathematics concept and a Piagetian task, is required to identify which

Mathematical concepts are related to which reasoning abilities, so as to plan

a programme aimed at a particular result.

Another approach to Mathematics readiness testing requires

correlating specific measures of logical reasoning and Mathematics

achievement. Among such measures of logical reasoning is conservation of

number. This approach is noted in results of some research conducted, such

as that of Steffe (1970), which vindicated the existence of a significant

relationship between performance in number conservation and first grade

children’s addition skills. Inview of this approach, such relationship is looked

at as evidence that those who fail the logical reasoning test are not likely to

perform well in, say, first grade Mathematics. On the other hand, Michael
 74
(1977) and Broody (1979) have found that young children acquire the

ideas of addition and subtraction before they conserve numbers. These

findings suggest that although number conservers are likely to do well in

addition and subtraction, yet some children that have not acquired number

conservation could still add and subtract accurately. Similar finding was

reported by Pennington, Wallach and Wallach (1980). They found that

although number conservers performed significantly better than their

counterpart who are no conserving on some arithmetic tasks, a good

number of no conservers performed successfully on most problems on

computation. Thus, results of these studies suggest that use of number

conservation task as tests of Mathematics readiness would invariably yield a

substantial number of false rejects, an error that Hiebert and Carpenter

(1982) insisted a readiness test should be relatively free from.

In another approach to Mathematics readiness testing, performance in

class inclusion was used as measure of logical reasoning. Evidence of such

use of performance in class inclusion was noted in studies such as one done

by Howlett (1974) in which he reported that first grade children’s class

inclusion performance correlated significantly with their scores on a missing

addend test. Earlier study by Dodwell (1962) contradicted this finding, since

Dodwell (1962) did not find any clearly defined relationship between class

inclusion and fundamental number concepts in his sample composed of 5 to

8 year old children. Looking at these apparently contradicting findings in

perspective one might conclude that the correlation as found by Howlett

might not have resulted from logical reasoning on the part of the children as

such reasoning involving numbers cannot precede acquisition of the basic

 75
concept of a number. As a result, with the use of Piapetian task as a

Mathematics readiness test will lead to Type II error as the number

conservation approach has been shown to do.

From literature review by Hierbert and Carpenter (1982), the authors

reported that some studies had sought to establish a sequence in which

conservation and a variety of standard measurement concepts were

acquired. The authors remarked that while some studies suggested that

ability to conserve preceded a grasp of the inverse relationship between unit

size and number of units a given quantity measured, some others found that

acquisition of some measurement skills precede the appearance of

conservation. On the issue of assessment of pupils for a variety of

measurement tasks in elementary school arithmetic, the authors Hiebert and

Carpenter (1982) also revealed that transitive reasoning takes were often

used. However, in contradicting the expectations that transitive reasoning

ability should develop before a child could perform a number of

measurement tasks, Bailey (1974) has earlier reported that children gained

proficiency in a variety of standard measurement skills before they passed

the transitivity test.

These studies revealed that the apparent relationship between

Piagetian task performance and achievement in Mathematics is not general.

In other words not all Pragetian tasks are necessary in learning concepts in

Mathematics. The global correlation studies noted could possibly emanate

from a variety of relationships between Mathematical tasks and specific

Piagetian tasks. Interpretation of such global correlations is therefore not a

simple affair. This provides further justification for the remand for indices of
 76
correlation that can define the nature of the relationship between specific

measures of achievement scores and Piagetian tasks in Mathematics.

In Hiebert and Carpenter’s (1982) review of literature, it could be

deduced that different Mathematical tasks need different levels or types of

logical reasoning ability. Tasks like calculations or routine number

manipulation, or straightforward application of memorized algorithms,

require simple skills and could be handled without necessarily acquiring

Piagetian abilities. However, many children depend on their ability in

conservation, class inclusion and transitivity, in solving problems that lack

standard approaches for solving them and for which invariably need logical

thought. The last types of problems tend to involve a combination of or

more techniques.

Case (1978) review some studies in which it was revealed that the real

developmental constraint which children have in learning Mathematics in

school is their inability to deal with more than one aspect of a problem

simultaneously. Children can therefore solve more complex Mathematical

problems than their level of cognitive development on a Piagetian scale

might suggest if such problems are capable of being segmented and solved

in a sequence of an aspect at a time. It is at this juncture that one can

possibly perceive where lies the resolution of the apparent contradiction

between Bruner’s (1964) findings and proposition and Piagetian theory of

cognitive developmental stages. Bruner’s contention was that any child

irrespective of his age could be taught to perform any cognitive task no

matter its complexity provided such task could be broken into bits he can

solve. In demonstrating this postulate, Bruner successfully taught some

 77
third grade children to solve quadratic equation using some wooden

blocks. It then follows that insofar each piece of a problem can be handled

independently of the others and not as integrated with other parts of the

problem, any limitation of the hypothesis will not rose severe problem.

Several techniques, skills and algorithms in Mathematics posses this

characteristic. This information processing analysis explains why Piapetian

abilities are often not a factor responsible for some children’s performances

in Mathematics even when such abilities are logical prerequisites. It needs

to be pointed out, however, that not all problems on Mathematics can be

handled in such mechanical reutinized approach. Some call for integrative

manner of solving them. For instance, tasks such as finding a missing

addend and those requiring the use of inverse relation between the use of

inverse relation between unit size and number of units are among such tasks

and this is more reason why they correlate highly with Piagetian tasks (see

Howlett, 1974; Hierbert and Carpenter, 1982; Hill, 2006).

It is pertinent to remark that the high incidence of error emanating

from the use of Piagetian tasks for measuring Mathematics readiness in

children acquisition of prerequisite skills is not a flaw in the validity of

Piaget’s theory of stages of cognitive development. It is possible that

misapplication of the theory might be responsible for such errors. This is so

because Piaget (1964) in Hill (2001) himself has distinguished between

physical knowledge and logical reasoning abilities like conservation and

transitivity are critical for acquiring logical Mathematical knowledge but not

physical knowledge. A kind of physical knowledge is algorithmic skills and

 78
can be used by children to solve certain kinds of Mathematics problems

without acquiring conservation and other logical reasoning abilities.

In summary, Piagetian tasks should prove quite valid in assessing

readiness to perform logical Mathematical tasks but may not be good tests

of readiness to perform mechanical Mathematical assignments.

Evidence from literature revealed that approach to Mathematics

readiness testing involves a correlation of performance on a simple sample

of work in an appropriate area of Mathematics with subsequent scores in the

area of Mathematics of interest Zylber (2000); Zuriel and Galinka (1999)

and Zuriel (2002) have carried out prognosis tests on this approach. In the

children’s conceptual and perceptual Analogies Modifiability (CCPAM) version

(Zuriel and Galinka , 1999; Zuriel, 2002) simple materials in CCPAM are

provided for the subjects to learn and a test on the material follows

immediately. The overall scores from this test are correlated with the scores

of “Didactic Assessment of Mathematics for preschool children”, a readiness

test developed for this study (Zulber, 2000) are as evidence of validity.

Another approach to Mathematics readiness testing was reported by

Anastesi (1976). This involves a correlation of a combination of prerequisite

arithmetic and other skills with later performance in Mathematics. In

Anastesi (1976)’s work, some of the test subscales contain materials similar

to numerical subtests of some general aptitude tests. Thorndike and Hagen

(1977) noted that the authors of tests using these approaches have offered

evidence that suggest that, for example, a mathematics readiness test

provides a better prediction of achievement in Mathematics than a numerical

and other Mathematics related subscales of a general aptitude test.

 79
In summary, it has been noted that a number of approaches were

used in Mathematics readiness testing. Empirical evidence suggested that

some of these approaches were valid but some were not. The empirical

support exists for the use of Piagetian tasks only as measures of readiness

for aspects of Mathematics that require logical reasoning in order to solve it.

A lot of other Mathematical problems have been found to be solvable by use

of relatively simple applications of algorithmic skills rather than applying

complex logical reasoning. Testing procedures involved simple work

samples of Mathematical tasks and combinations of prerequisite

Mathematics readiness testing.

On Mathematics Readiness Tests

A good number of readiness tests reviewed in this section is directly

related to Mathematics. Some other readiness tests such as reading and

language readiness tests have as well been included to highlight some

strengths and weaknesses that could be educative to test constructors while

constructing other readiness tests.

Didactic Assessment of Mathematics for Preschool Children (DAMPC)

This is a Mathematics readiness test developed by Zuber (2000) and

reported by Zuriel (2004) to examine the preschool children’s Mathematics

knowledge level. The test included an open, coded questionnaire for the

quantitative assessment of Mathematics knowledge, precise intervention

guidelines for the teacher, various learning aids, and a coding key. It is

composed of 314 items administered to a sample of 100 kindergarten

children selected from both public and religious kindergartens, average age
 80
of 70.97 months and SD = 4.72. The 314 items were divided into four

sub-tests: namely ‘serial meaning’, ‘quantitative meaning’, ‘conservation and

correspondence’, leading to four possible scores for each item. For

independent work, the child receives 3 points, for performance after verbal

intervention, 2 points, for performance after intervention utilizing learning

aids, 1 point, and 0 is given if the child cannot answer the question. The

child’s Mathematical readiness score is the sum of points received for the

314 items. There was lack of information concerning method of sampling,

the validity and reliability estimates of the subtests and the teachers’ ratings

of the instrument. Lack of information on these aspects leaves the

researcher with no confidence on the use of the Mathematics assessment for

preschool children.

R-B Number Readiness Test

This is a readiness test developed by Dorathy A. Roberts designed to

be used with children of 4 to 6 years. Johnson (1976) pointed out that the

R-B Number Readiness Test was designed to measure concepts of counting,

ordinality, cardinality, one-to-one correspondence, vocabulary (shorter,

longest, more than, most, order, etc), writing of simple numerals,

recognition of shapes and patterns involving shapes, recognition and

matching of numerals. The test is made up of 20 pictorial items and must

be administered orally to groups of not more than eight children at a time,

preferably administering it using an assistant to help less mature children in

turning pages, following directions, and so on. The test yielded raw scores,

which were used in ranking children, or identifying children in need of

additional readiness activities prior to formal Mathematics instruction.

 81
According to Johnson (1976) there was no evidence of reliability

and validity of this test. It becomes difficult, therefore, to evaluate this test.

Even it is difficult to se how sores yielded by the test can be used to identify

those in need of additional readiness activities. This is so because no

evidence of standard whatsoever has been shown against which possible

comparisons might be made.

Arithmetic Concept Individual Test (ACIT )

This test was developed by three authors namely, G. Melnick, S.

Freeband and B. Lehrer. The ACIT is designed for use on individual primary

and intermediate level educable mentally retarded children to assess their

arithmetic readiness skills (Melnick and Freedland, 1972). The test is based

on Piagetian concepts and according to the authors, on research on the

relations between Piagetian concepts and arithmetic achievement. Moreso,

the test attempts to assess how testees tackle quantitative relation and so

enhance insight into why particular children do not progress in arithmetic

skills. It covers concepts like spatial relation, classification, class inclusion,

differentiation of length and number concepts, conservation of number,

spatial relations and one-to-one correspondence.

30 educable mentally retarded children of mean chronological age 10.4

years, mental age 6.8 years and 1.Q. 66.3 were used in establishing the

validity of the ACIT. There was no evidence of reliability of the ACIT. It was

reported that Pearson Product-moments intercorrelation among the

subscales of the test range from low through moderate to high (between

seriation and conservation of number), thus suggesting that the subscales

are heterogeneous. It validity was measured against the arithmetic concept

 82
Screaming Test (Melnick, Mischio and Lehrer, 1971). Moreso, it was

reported that correlations between the subscales of the ACIT and the

criterion were generally moderate and significant. Seriation appears to be

the best predictor of arithmetic skill performance with both correlating .70.

Mental age and I.Q. follow in that order and correlate .68 and .50

respectively. Moreover, class inclusion was reported to be significantly

related to both mental age and I.Q. at .40 and .40.

Problems such as lack of information concerning method of sample

composition and small size of the validation sample and reliability of the

ACIT make it difficult to assess the degree of stability of performances on

the test and generalizability of results. However, it could be argued that

since validity sets a floor on reliability as test theory suggests (Guilford,

1954) and reported validity figures are generally moderate, perhaps

reliability might not be too low. Even at that, the ACIT can only be used

with caution until sufficient information on its psychometric properties for

more confident decision on it is available.

ZIP Test

There is also a Mathematics readiness part in the Mathematics section

of the ZIP test (Scott, Jr, 1970) designed for use with migrant children aged

between 6 and 12 years. The test is capable of assessing a child’s

proficiency in a sequence of behaviourally defined reading and Mathematics

skills, for the purpose of placement. The Mathematics section of the ZIP

yielded concurrent validity of .94, validated using independent judgments of

experienced migrant teachers against ZIP Mathematics test scores for 69

 83
students. Test-retest reliability was established for the Mathematics

subtest using 125 students, which yielded .93.

Furthermore, on the ZIP test, there is no available sufficient

information regarding any rational assessment of the Mathematics readiness

part of the ZIP test. No information was reported on reliability and validity

of the readiness part, except only for the whole Mathematics subtest.

Moreover, the use of teachers’ ratings as criterion for validation of the

subtest is suspect, because studies such as Stanley’s (1976) and Kissane’s

(1986) suggest that the validity of the approach is low. Again, there was no

report on the rather reliability in the ZIP test to enhance proper assessment

of the ratings.

Arithmetic Concept Screening Test (ACST)

The authors, G. Melnick, G. Hischio, Z. Berstein and B. Lehrer

developed this test and described it as a diagnostic test. The test was

designed for placement and evaluation of educable mentally retarded

children with regard to arithmetic skills. Mathematics readiness part was

noted to be contained in that test. Moreso, the authors maintained that the

test was equally designed to control for extraneous factors which cause

educable mentally retarded children to fail (e.g. irrelevant stimuli, abstract

test stimuli and responses and lack of intermediary reinforcement). It

consist of 123 items divided into 5 subtests reflecting 6 levels of ability

(Melnick, Mischio and Lehrer, 1971). The subtests were administered

separately. The test covered some concepts which include one-to-one

correspondence, form and size discrimination, rational counting, more and

less, virtual clustering, before and after and identification of symbols. The
 84
test also covered reversibility of addends, money concepts, rule of

likeness, ordinal numbers, addition and subtraction facts, multiplication and

division readiness, multiplication and division, number sequence.

79 educable mentally retarded students with mean chronological age

of 9 years 3 months and standard deviation of 1.4 years were used in

validating the test, mean mental age of 6 years 5 months with standard

deviation of 1.0 year and mean I.Q. of 66.9 with standard deviation of 7.6.

it was reported that items within each of the 5 subtests yielded Kuder-

Richardson estimate of .74, .82, ..90, .89, and .95. Moreso, it was reported

that content validity was estimated from various sources and is also

indicated by the high number of correlations between scores at various

levels confirming the hierarchical nature of the abilities upon which the tests

were based. Again, it was reported that independent item analysis for the

different subjects yield relatively low standard errors of measurement

(ranging from 1.56 to 1.98) and relatively high mean discrimination indices

(ranging from .37 to .67). More still, the authors reported that except for

one mixed factor, varimax rotation factor analysis for each subtest yielded

factors corresponding to the concepts at each level, and the absence of

factors corresponding to two concepts tested by only single items. It was

also reported that intercorrelation of ACST scale scores with mental age and

I.Q are generally significant and in the moderate range.

The concern of the researcher in this test is in its readiness aspect.

Reports on its validity suggest that this part might have a measure of

constant validity as revealed by the result of the factor analysis. However,

Thorndike and Hagen (1977) have warned that factorial validity need to be
 85
checked against an external criterion. It can be argued that it is difficult

to assess its validity as a readiness test, since no such correlations have

been reported on multiplication and division readiness part of the ACST.

Unless for the small size and lack of information on method of composition

of the validation sample, the validity and reliability figures reported would

suggest that if the test is relevant to a user’s particular needs, it might be a

useful one.

Preschool Language Scale

Johnson (1976) reported that this test was designed for children

whose ages fall between 2 and 9 years but with emphasis on 41/2 to 6 years

bracket. The test was designed purposely to assess school readiness of

integrated auditory and visual perceptual modalities (i.e. ability to integrate

hearing and sight). The author noted that it has five sections namely:

vitual-vocal integration (involving a chain response requiring visual-auditory-

vocal association, discrimination and memory; vocabulary; Auditory

Response (basically, ability to follow direction or instruction); integrated

auditory among (aimed at assessing auditory memory) and discriminative

visual auditory memory).

It was reported that scores of 2500 kindergarten children used in this

test correlated .77 with scores in an unspecified language test. The

correlation was found significant at the .001 level of significant. It was also

reported that Pearson product-moment correlation of scores on this test with

those scores on Standford-Binet intelligence Test computed using a random

sample of 57 students selected from the testing population is .78, also found

significant at .001 levels. And yet more, this test is reported to have a
 86
formula for predicting mental age correctly to within 20 I.Q. points in

98.6% of cases.

There is no evidence of reliability concerning this test. Although its

validity as a measure of whatever the Stanford –Binet Intelligence Test

measures is sizeable, the reported correlation coefficient of .77 with a

language test cannot be interpreted without more information concerning

the nature of the language test

Academic Readiness Scale (ARS);

This test, developed by Burks (1968) designed for use in kindergarten

and first grade. ARS is a 14-item, 5-point rating scale designed to sample

the child’s function in memory, motor, attention, perceptual motor,

persistence, vocabulary, word recognition, interest in curriculum, Humour,

social, and emotional aspects of behaviour. The rating of the scale was

performed by the teacher.

110 kindergarten children, rated twice by their teachers on an interval

of 10 days between ratings, were used to validate the scale. The test-retest

reliability estimates for the different categories yields a range from .64 to

.83. Academic Readiness scale scores got at the beginning of the session

were correlated with end of year scores on the Stanford Achievement Test

reading subtest. Correlation coefficient between all the categories of the

ARS and the word recognition and reading comprehension sections of the

Stanford Achievement Test reading subtest were positive and significant,

most at .01 level (Burk, 1968). It was reported that nine out of the fourteen

items showed significant difference between two schools. One of the schools

possesses higher socio-economic status and the other of lower socio-

 87
economic status. Factors analysis was reported to have been used in the

analysis of the ARS in which 4 factors namely Academic skills; motor-

concentration; perceptual-motor and social-emotional.

Furthermore, validity coefficients of the ARS were reported to have

been found significant, but their values are not known and the best

interpretation of the situation can only be the existence of common factors

between the correlated measures. Specific figures were not reported. This if

reported would have enhanced evaluation of the instrument. Again, with

fourteen items used in measuring about twelve functions in this instrument,

it would appear that most of the functions would be measured by single

items only. This situation will end up yielding very unreliable measures. This,

even the reported moderately high reliability indices for categories within

this instrument might not be quite reliable. Thus, if one should use this

instrument at all or with any reliable degree of confidence, there it need to

first of all cross validate the instrument.

Horst-Reversal Test (HRT)

This is a reading readiness test (Johnson, 1976), designed for 5 to 6

year olds. The validity of the test was established and provided in the form

of correlations between Horst Reversal Test (HRT) scores obtained on first

grade children at the beginning of the school session and Wide Range

Achievement Test (WRAT) scores and teachers’ ratings at the end of the

session. ART scores correlated .69 with WRAT scores and .66 with teachers’

ratings. WRAT scores correlated .84 with teachers’ ratings. One factor only

(ie reversal) was measured by the test in the process of learning to read.

However, this single factor is a very important one according to Johnson

 88
(1976) who also hinted that HRT is mostly used in batteries with tests of

other aspects of reading ability.

There was no report concerning the size of validation sample. Moreso,

no report was given on the reliability of this test. Thus, it is difficult to

evaluate the validity figures’ with confidence. Considering its face validity,

the validity figures appear reasonable and teacher ratings used also appear

consistent with WRAT scores in view of the size of their correlation. There

was lack of information on the reliability estimate of the WRAT scores.

However, lack of information on reliability of WRAT scores makes its uneasy

to evaluate the high correlation with teacher’s ratings with confidence.

(Johnson-Kenney) J-K Screening Test

the authors, Rosalie C. Johnson and Rose Kenney for use in education

process. The test consisted of 10 subtests that sample a variety of

perceptual-motor and cognitive skills. The test was designed to enhance

detection of early learning difficulties in children aged between 5 years 6

months and 6 years 6 months because tasks on the test are those most

children in the age bracket can solve easily. Clearly, the test is an academic

readiness test for first grade students.

Validated on 171 first grade children sampled from 4 elementary

schools in Marin country in California, USA, the J-K Screening Test scores

obtained at the beginning of the school year were correlated with teachers’

dichotomous subjective ratings on the students at the end of the session.

The ratings were based on academic performance and made as either

satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Correlation coefficient of .66 was obtained

 89
using Pearson Product-movements and found significant at .001 level

using 375 first graders in San Fransisco using identical procedure as the first

in a cross validation study. Using the same data, a biserial coefficient was

computed which yielded identical result, .65, also found significant at .001

level. Another report by Seitz, Johnson and Kenney (1973) remarked athat

a second correlation of .65, significant at .001 level was obtained on a

random sample of 375 first graders in San Francisco applying similar

procedure as the first in a cross validation study. On the same data, a

biserial coefficient computed give identical result, .65,also found significant

at .001 level. Communalities and Kuder-Richardson formula 20 used in

obtaining the coefficient of the reliabilities of the subtest which yielded

values ranging .16 to .99 with a median of .68 were also reported.

The use of Pearson-moment correlation is not appropriate in a

situation involving dichotomized variable (see Hilgard, Atkinson and

Atkinson, 1975; Downie and Heath, 1974). The computation of biserial

coefficient on San Francisco sample is therefore, the only recommendable

index of validity reported on this test. It appears sizeable by mere looking

at its face value. However insofar no information on the validity of the

teachers’ ratings, interpretation of the reported validity coefficient of J-K

Screening Test whose criterion measure the ratings were, cannot be given

with confidence except when more information are available. More still,

some reported subtest reliabilities are very low. Obviously scores from such

subscales are capable of large fluctuations in subsequent testing. The

information would have been more appropriate assuming that multiple

correlation between different subscales of the test and the criterion

 90
measures had been reported instead of the use of global test scores only.

This approach would have defined the nature of relationship between test

and criterion scores, and possible fluctuations among them which apparently

have counter-balanced themselves to produce identical values across

samples.

Literature reviewed in this section was on different approaches to

Mathematics readiness testing in which case empirical evidence was used in

appraising their appropriateness. In this regard, two criteria were adopted,

as standard, for usefulness of a readiness test enunciated by Hiebert and

Carpenter (1982) viz: it should provide information on a child’s capabilities

across a range of concepts or skills instead of just a readiness to learn a

single concept and should be free from both type 1 and type II errors.

Appraisal was also done on some readiness tests for usefulness on the basis

of validation and other psychometric information reported on them. So far,

it appears that most of them lack sufficient information for a reliable

appraisal of their usefulness, quite unlike MATHRET in which its reliability

and validity estimates have been established.

Sex, Location and Type of Junior Secondary School Attended and

Readiness for Mathematics.
In literature, not much of information was found directly linking

students’ sex, location and type of junior secondary school attended and

their level of readiness for senior secondary school Mathematics. However,

evidence from some studies can be found with implications for such

relationship. This section will be concerned with review studies whose

findings have implications for possible relationship between these variables

 91
and level of Mathematics readiness. It has been noted earlier that

readiness comprises achievement aspect and a reasoning aspect. It

suggests that variables that relate to achievement and ability to reason,

which is relevant to Mathematics might be related to Mathematics readiness

as well.

In Mathematics achievement studies, one major evidence therein is

sex difference. For instance, Mitchelmore (1973) carried out a longitudinal

study involving secondary school students in Ghana purposely to investigate

the possible effect of sex on performance in modern Mathematics. Earlier,

he had noted an inverse relationship existing between age and achievement

in Mathematics. In the process, he composed a sample of older boys and

younger girls and still found in the study; boys performing significantly

higher than girls at all class levels.

Hilton and Berglund (1974), in another longitudinal study, studied

1849 subjects over a period of four years to find out the possible trend in

the relationship of sex to performance in Mathematics. The authors used

two tests: the Mathematics subscales of the sequential Test of Educational

Process (STEP) and the School and College Ability Test (SCAT). In STEP,

there was no significant sex difference found in grade 5 but males score

significantly higher in all subsequent grades. In SCAT, sex difference

appears to increase with age, being statistically greatest in grade II. In non-

academic group, subjects (females) scored higher in grade 5 but in grade II

males scored higher. Such apparent superiority of females over their male

counterpart in this particular grade might not be the first or only report on

female superiority in Mathematics test over their male counterpart. For

 92
Barrick (1980) used 360 randomly selected subjects on whom

Fennemashema and Sandman Tests were administered. It was reported

that females were consistently achieving higher scores than their male

counterpart. However, none of the reported differences were found

statistically significant. In these findings that appear to be apparently

conflicting, it tends to be different to explain whether this was possibly

caused by “experimental errors” or situational differences that might have

introduced confounding variables that contaminated the results. For most

studies vindicated that sex differences in Mathematics achievement favour

males against their female counterpart. Even in their own study using 360

fifth form subjects, Obioma and Ahuche (1980) found boys superior to girls

in Mathematics achievement. However, an apparently converse study that

investigated deficiency in Mathematics among form 3 students of 126

secondary schools in the four former eastern states of Nigeria namely

Anambra, Imo, Rivers and Cross Rivers found that girls were more deficient

in Mathematics than boys (Obioma, 1985). This suggests that males are

superior in Mathematics achievements. This finding is similar to that of Hill

(1980). Using a random sample of 186 male and 186 male and 182 female

subjects, Hill administered competency test in reading, Mathematics, and

writing. After analysis of the Mathematics score, the analysis revealed that

sex is a significant Predictor at P<0.01 of Mathematics achievement with

mean performance of male subjects being greater than that of the female

subjects.

With regard to studies on Mathematics reasoning, there is evidence to

suggest the existence of sex differences. For instance, Kostick (1994) did a
 93
study on a reasoning test. In the study, 900 subjects were assessed on

their ability to use information and principles in inductions. It was found

that male subjects performed significantly higher than their female

counterpart even after adjustments were made for previous knowledge,

personality traits, practice effects, and knowledge of pertinent principles

(Kostick, 1994). In another study conducted by Sommer (1958) using a

sample comprising 156 hospital patients, 95 students of elementary

psychology classes and 76 student psychiatric nurses to investigate whether

there was possible sex effect in ability to orally recall old orally given

information on quantitative material. The result showed that male subjects

recalled significantly more than the female subjects. However, Onibokun

(1979) contradicted this finding, since he reported that there was no

significant difference between the male and female subjects’ Mathematical

abilities. Onibokun administered the Hecarthy scale of children Abilities

(HSCA) using a random sample of Nigerian children. It is possible that this

is the source of his contradictory finding, because American test might not

have been a valid test of the Nigerian children’s ability.

So far, the review suggests that sex might not be a factor responsible

for Mathematics achievement and quantitative reasoning. This might

probably be a similar case with Mathematics readiness. Few contradictory

findings reported might suggest some yet-to-be-investigated phenomena,

which might be interacting with sex to produce such different result in

different situations

In literature, it was noted that location is a variable that has effect on

Mathematics achievement. Although Mitchelmore (1973) found significant

 94
difference (P < 0.001) among subjects from different locations, Obioma

and Ohuche (1980) found no significant location different in their subject

performance in Mathematics. The researcher is in support of Mitchelnore’s

finding when considering that different schools are differently equipped with

resources both material and administrative which can be brought into the

teaching/learning situation and affect it differently. Moreso, Obioma (1985)

found significant location different among his subjects in Mathematics.

Similarly, Unodiaku (1998) has also found significant location difference in

his subjects’ level of errors committed in Mathematics. This suggests also a

location effect in achievement and perhaps Mathematics readiness.

Apparent non-contradiction in findings of these studies seems to imply or

interaction effects or uncontrolled situational differences that call for

investigation.

Not much could be deduced from literature on issue of possible

influence of type of school attended (in the content of public or privately

owned) by subjects on their achievement in, or readiness for, Mathematics.

However, considering the difference in commitment obvious between public

and private sectors of the national economy, probably due to difference in

levels of effective supervision or other motivation, one could expect that

educational enterprise might experience such difference too. It follows that

one could as well expect that products of such different Junior secondary

schools types should move into senior secondary school with significantly

different levels of readiness.

In summary, it seems that there is enough evidence notable in

literature concerning influence of sex and location on Mathematics

 95
achievement and Mathematical reasoning and hence, possibly, on

Mathematics readiness. Still, contradictory results of some other published

studies might be concerned with other situational differences. More still,

while no evidence was found in the literature on possible influence of type of

school attended on Mathematics readiness, it is within expectation that some

form of relationship might exist between these variables. There is need for

empirical evidence to clarify this notion.

Summary of Literature Review.

Readiness is condition, or state or preparedness or mastery, which

reflects possession pf prerequisite knowledge of a particular subject-matter

with which to tackle the next harder work successfully. The review revealed

that readiness test can be used for various purposes in public and private

sectors of human endeavor. The review highlighted a number of approaches

used by researchers in readiness testing. It could be deduced from the

review that development of any useful test requires that a high validity and

reliability should be built into its development. Literature revealed that

readiness can be determined from any of the two aspect of diagnosis (i.e.

weaknesses or strength). The weakness of the students on mathematics

learning is the process errors they committed in solving mathematics

problems. The literature revealed that most of the mathematics readiness

tests studied were on pupils advancing from one primary school level to

another primary school level. Also studies were carried out on pupils

advancing from primary school (primary six) to junior secondary school class

one (JS1). No study was conducted for students advancing from junior

secondary (JS3) to senior secondary (SS1) level.

 96
CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is presents the following : research design, area of the

study, population of the study, sample and sampling technique,

development and content validation of the instrument (MATHRET),

instrument (MATHRET) for data collection, administration of the instrument,

scoring of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, and method of

data analysis. Each of these sub-sections is described below.

Design of the study:

The study adopted survey research design. The instrument was used

to survey JS3 students’ readiness for senior secondary school mathematics

work with which the influence of gender, school type and location can be

established. This is considered adequate as it enabled the researcher obtain

necessary data from large sample of students, through the administration of

common test to all those students included in the sample (Obienyem, 1998).

This design was successfully applied by Ozouche (1993) in an investigation

into difficult areas of ordinary level mathematics for the secondary schools.

Moreso, this design was successfully applied by Obienyem (1998) in an

identification of mathematics readiness level in junior secondary school class

one students in Anambra State.

Area of the Study

The area of this study is Enugu state. This study was carried out in

Nsukka and bollo-Afor education zones. The two education zones (Nsukka

and Obollo-Afor) were randomly sampled (using simple random sampling

 97
method) out of six education zones in the area (Enugu State), namely

Udi, Awgu, Obollo-Afor, Enugu, Agbani and Nsukka.

Nsukka urban has four (4) boys schools, three (3) girls schools,

eighteen (18) mixed and six (6) private schools. Rural locality has three (3)

boys schools, three girls schools (3), thirteen (13) mixed schools and eight

(8) private schools.

Urban schools in Obollo-Afor zone consists of two (2) boys, two (2)

girls, seven (7) mixed schools and five (5) private schools. Rural schools in

Obollo-Afor have two (2) boys, three (3) girls, nine (9) mixed schools and

nine (9) private schools. These gave a total of sixty-nine (69) public and

privately owned schools (Ministry of Education, Enugu, 2007/08; Post

Primary Schools Management Board (PPSMB), Enugu, 2007/08) (see

Appendix : B).

Population of the Study

The population of this study is 54031. This figure comprised all the

newly admitted senior secondary class one students in 69 public and private

secondary schools in the two education zones (Nsukka and Obollo-Afor)

sampled from the six education zones in Enugu State. Specially, the total

students’ population of Nsukka zone is 31905 with males numbering 13731

and females numbering 18174. The Total students’ population of Obollo-Afor

zone is 22126. Out of this figure (22126), the male students numbered 9850

whereas females numbered 12276 (Ministry of Education, Enugu, 2009/08;

PPSMB, Enugu 2007/08).

 98
Sample and Sampling Technique

A sample of 300 students was used for the study. The choice of this

figure (300) was based on the fact that the instrument (MATHRET) was

composed of thirty (30) essay questions. Each of the students’ scripts needs

to be thoroughly scrutinized and marked step- by –step. With this process

one can identify all the skills that students missed or failed (process errors)

or got correctly. Obviously, with this marking procedure on 30 essay

questions for such large number (300 students’ scripts), it is quite tedious,

painstaking and may take more time than required to accomplish the study

if attempt is made to increase this sample size. This study adopted multi-

stage sampling technique.

The first stage was based on simple random sampling technique

(balloting without replacement) in which two education zones (Nsukka and

Obollo-Afor) were sampled out of six education zones namely, Enugu,

Nsukka, Udi, Agbani, Awgu and Obollo-Afor. The next stage involved the use

of simple random sampling technique (balloting without replacement) in

selecting school type (in terms of whether public or private school). This

resulted to 102 school types sampled. The next stage involved using

proportionate sampling technique to sample 19 schools from the 102 school

types. The next stage involved using the same proportionate sampling

technique to sample 17 intact classes. The last stage involved using simple

random sampling technique to sample the required number of students per

class. In this case, for instance, in a boys’ school with 20 boys in a class, in

which the researcher intend to select 7 students, the researcher simply cut

out 20 pieces of paper with equal size. He wrote ‘yes’ on seven pieces and
 99
‘No’ on the remaining thirteen pieces, and rumple the pieces of paper. He

then put the pieces of paper in a bag and shuffle them. The researcher then

requested the students to pick just once (without replacement). Those that

picked the 7 ‘yes’ will be the effective sample from this class.

In the case of mixed school (class) (boys and girls), each class was

grouped into boys and girls similar technique was applied in selecting the

number of boys and girls required in mixed class. This sample random

sampling technique was adopted in the 17 intact classes which resulted to

148 boys and 152 girls. These figures ( 148 and 152) brought the effective

number of sampled subjects to 300 students used for the study.

The Mathematics Readiness Test: Approaches used in Development

and Content Validation of MATHRET (First Version).

The first part of the test development involved the researcher

analyzing junior secondary class three (JS3) mathematics section of the

National Curriculum for junior secondary schools Volume 1, Science, Federal

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 1985), which outlines

objectives (see Appendix :A and F). Specifications should begin with an

outline of the objectives of the course as well as of the subject matter to be

covered (Anastesi, 1968). With your objectives in hand, it may be useful to

create a test blueprint that specifies your outcome and the types of items

you plan to use to assess those outcomes (STI, 2006). In the national

curriculum, no weights were attached to the content areas. In view of this,

two JS3 Mathematics teachers each holding degree in Mathematics

education with at least six years post qualification mathematics teaching

experience and two lecturers, one in mathematics education and the other in
 100
measurement and evaluation where requested to independently suggest

weights that they consider appropriate for the different sections of the JS3

mathematics Curriculum. The judges were to consider the activities/

materials required in each content area of the curriculum as determinant of

the percentage weights to be assigned to each content area. The percentage

weights the judges assigned to the different sections as indicated in table I

below, where A represents the researcher and B, C the two teachers, D and

E the two lecturers.

Table 1: The mean values of percentage weights assigned to different

content areas of JS3 mathematics curriculum by 5 ‘Judges’.

Content Area Judge’s Weight (%)

A B C D E Mean (X) % weight

Number and Numeration 19 16 20 17 18 18 30%

Algebraic Processes 11 7 6 7 8 7.8 13%

Geometry and Mensuration 20 17 18 19 18 18.4 30%

Everyday statistics 18 15 16 14 19 16.4 27%

Total 60.6 100%

The mean weights in the respective content areas were summed which

resulted to 60.6. Therefore, the proportion 18:60.6 expressed in percentage

gave 30% Number and Numeration. More so, the proportion of 7.8:60.6

expressed in percentage gave 13% for Algebraic processes. Again, the

proportion of 18.4:60.6 expressed in percentage gave 30% for Geometry

and Mensuration. Finally, the proportion 16.4:60.6 expressed in percentage

 101
gave 27%. It is useful for persons who are designing their first test to

construct a table of specifications (Hopkins and Antes, 1978) in order to

increase their chances of identifying an item pool that will represent their

domain of interest (Golden, Sawicki, and Franzen (1990) in Goldestein

(1992)). The researcher therefore developed a test blueprint (Table 2) for

the mathematics readiness Test (MATHRET) employing the mean values of

the weights assigned to each content area by the “Judges” as the weight of

the corresponding content area of the test blueprint (see table 2 below).

National policy on Education Implementation Committee’s (2000)

guidelines aims at achieving the objective of ensuring the acquisition of the

appropriate levels of literacy, numeracy and manipulative skills needed for

laying a solid foundation for life-long learning. These guidelines suggest that

at the senior secondary school level, most attention should be directed to

the higher levels of behavioral objectives (i.e. Application to synthesis),

lower levels of the behavioral objectives (knowledge, comprehension) to the

junior secondary school level. Considering the development of the MATHRET

therefore a classification broader than that of Bloom; Krathwohl; and Masia

(1956) Taxonomy was used in conjunction with Ohuche and Akeju (1988).

In Bloom et al’s Taxonomy, K represents knowledge category, UCP is a

combination of comprehension and application while DM combines Analysis,

Synthesis and Evaluation. Ohuche and Akeju’s classification were knowledge

(K); understanding and use of concepts and process (UCP); and Decision

Making (DM).
 102
Table 2: A Blueprint of the MATHRET for trial testing

Content No of Items

K UCP DM Total

Number and Numeration 30% 7 4 - 11

Algebraic Processes 13% 3 2 - 5

Geometry and Mensuration 30% 2 6 3 11

Everyday statistics 27% 3 4 2 9

Total 36

The six teachers A,B,C,D,E and all possessing equal qualification as

well as Mathematics teaching experience along side two lecturers, one in

mathematics Education and the other in measurement and Evaluation were

requested to rate the blueprint independently on a five-point-scale based on:

1. Coverage of the cognitive domain adopting the classification

scheme done by Ohuche and Akeju (1988);

2. Coverage of the JS3 mathematics Curriculum contents.

The rating scale was organized as follows:

1. for grossly inadequate coverage

2. for poor coverage

3. for fair coverage

4. for good coverage

5. for very good coverage

 103
Table 3: Teachers’ Ratings of the MATHRET Blueprint on a 5- point

scale.

A B C D E F G H Mean (x)

Coverage of cognitive domain 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4.8

Coverage of curriculum content 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

The mean ratings for the coverage of JS3 mathematics curriculum

content was 5, and the mean ratings for the coverage of the cognitive

domain was 4.8. The mean ratings of 5 and 4.8 suggested a high degree of

agreement among the ratters. It also suggested that the coverage of both

behavioral domains and content as shown in the blueprint was adequate.

Subsequently, a pool of 36 essay items covering all the content areas in the

table 2 was produced. The 36 items on the blueprint were used to produce

the Mathematics Readiness Test (MATHRET) for trial testing and item

analysis. Such analysis may be facilitated by item difficulty index, which

represents the percentage of a given group that fails an item (WISC, 2006).

Or based on percentage of persons who answer it correctly (Anastesi, 1968).

Items are measured so as to discard those ones that are of unsuitable

difficulty. The difficulty levels of the items and the discrimination index of

the items were used to establish the item difficulty (ID) and discrimination

index (DI) of the MATHRET (see Appendix: G).

The validity of the item pool was measured using discrimination index

D as demanded by Engelhart 1972 (see Appendix: P). In selecting items to

compose the final form of the MATHRET, three criteria were adopted, in line

with literature.
 104
i. In case more items qualified than were specified in the blueprint,

priority should be given to those with indices near .50 (Guilford, 1954).

ii. Item D must not be less than .20 (Lenike and Wiersma, 1976).

iii. Item validity index P, should range between .25 and .75 (see Allen and

Yen, 1979), where P stands for proportion of the students that pass each

item (see Appendix : P).The 36 items were made up of four content areas

namely, Number and Numeration, Algebraic processes, Geometry and

Mensuration and Everyday statistics. The developed items were Pilot tested

so as to carry out the analysis of the items.

Pilot Testing of the First Version of MATHRET

The Mathematics Readiness Test (MATHRET) was field tried out so as

to establish the reliability of the instrument and its subscales. The MATHRET

was administered to all the 80 students of three secondary schools randomly

sampled from Enugu Education Zone of Enugu State, during their first week

in 2007/2008, session. The mean (x) and standard deviation of the

distribution of their scores on the MATHRET are 67.14 and 4.64 respectively

(see Appendix: S). The four content areas of the MATHRET were used to

compose three subscales namely, number manipulation (NUMAP),

Computational skills (COMPUS) and Mathematical concepts (MACOPS). The

NUMAP has 8 items, COMPUS 17 items and MACOPS 11 items. Kuder

Richardson (KR20) method was used to determine the internal consistency

reliability estimate of subscales (NUMAP, COMPUS and MACOP). The

reliability estimates of NUMAP, COMPUS and MACOPS are .91, .88 and .81

respectively (see Appendix: S).

 105

After the trial testing and item analysis, six (6) items out of thirty-six

(36) items used in the pilot testing were found to be bad. The 6 items were

therefore discarded, retaining 30 items. The developed instrument

(MATHRET) is composed of 30 items. These 30 items were therefore used in

the second version of the MATHRET (i.e. for data collection).

The Second Version of the MATHRET

The second version of the study consisted of using the developed

instrument (MATHRET) for data collection. In this regard, the reliability and

validity of the MATHRET was established using sampled subjects different

from the sample used in the first version.

Table 4: A Blueprint of the second Version of MATHRET for JS3 students

Content Number of items

K UCP DM Total

Number and Numeration 20% 3 3 - 6

Algebraic processes 16.7% 2 3 - 5

Geometry and Mensuration 33.3% 3 5 2 10

Everyday statistics 30% 2 5 2 9

Total 30

The MATHRET blueprint (Table 4 above) was subjected to twelve

experts for rating. Nine of them are mathematics teachers M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T

and U, all possessing equal qualification and Mathematics teaching

experience along side three lecturers, (V,W and X). One in mathematics
 106
Education and the other two in measurement and Evaluation were

requested to rate the blueprint independently on a five-point-scale based on:

1. Coverage of the cognitive domain adopting the classification scheme

done by Ohuche and Akeju (1988);

2. Coverage of the JS3 mathematics Curriculum contents.

The rating scale was organized as follows:

1. for grossly inadequate coverage

2. for poor coverage

3. for fair coverage

4. for good coverage

5. for very good coverage

The results of the rating of the second version of the MATHRET by twelve

experts are displayed in table 5 below:

Table 5: Teachers’ Ratings of the second version of MATHRET Blueprint on a

5- point scale.

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Mean (x)

Coverage of cognitive 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9

Coverage of curriculum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
content

The mean ratings for the coverage of the cognitive domain of the second

version of the MATHRET blueprint was 4.9, and the mean ratings of the

coverage of the curriculum content was 5. The mean ratings of 4.9 and 5

indicated a high degree of agreement among the raters. It also shows that

the coverage of both behavioural domains and content of JS3 mathematics

curriculum as shown in the blueprint table 4 below was adequate.

 107
Consequently, the MATHRET was subjected to pilot testing in te second

version of the study.

Pilot Testing of second version of MATHRET

The Mathematics readiness test (MATHRET) was field – tried out so as

to establish the reliability estimates of the MATHRET (see Appendix: E).

Sample gets a pre – test to establish a baseline of behavior (Georgetown,

2006). Moreso, the pilot testing was aimed at identifying problems that

could be expressed during the main study with a view to finding out practical

solutions to such problems. For instance, the researcher may, find that some

questions were either too hard or too easy, or variably interpretable by the

testees (Ali, 2006). And they pre- test the items to identify those which are

too difficult or too easy or which fail to discriminate clearly between high and

low achievers (Leslie, 1968).

The MATHRET was administrated to all the 110 JS3 students of four

secondary schools randomly selected from Udi Education Zone of Enugu

state, during their second week 2007/2008 session. Data obtained from the

pilot testing was used to provide the item analysis data of the instrument.

The item discriminating index of the MATHRET was found to range from .44

to .74 with a mean of .61 (see Appendix: H). All the 30 items of the

MATHRET were then qualified for retention and were retained.

The MATHRET is a 30- item essay group test and is made up of four

content areas namely, Number and Numeration, Algebraic processes,

Geometry and Mensuration and Ev eryday statistics. These four content

areas were used to compose three subscales namely Number manipulation

 108
(NUMAP),computational skills (COMPUS), and mathematical concepts

(MACOPS). The NUMAP has 6 items, COMPUS 15 items, and MACOPS has 9

items. Kuder Richardson (KR20) method was used in establishing the internal

consistency reliability estimates of NUMAP, COMPUS and MACOPS. Their

reliability estimates are 0.91, 0.90, and 0.97 respectively (see Appendix :D).

Note that a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered “acceptable”

in most social science research situations (UCCLA, 2006). The three

subscales are described hereunder.

Number Manipulation (NUMAP)

This tests ability to add, subtract, divide, multiply, evaluate powers of

numbers. All the items are numerical and involve both positive and negative

numbers. Considering the nature of this subscale, all items in this section

fall within the knowledge and understanding categories corresponding to the

knowledge and comprehension categories of the cognitive domain of the

taxonomy of the educational objectives (Blooms, et al, 1956).

Computational Skills (COMPUS)

This subscale tests ability to simplify, evaluate Mathematical

expressions involving one or two variables, calculate from a given quality or

data.

Mathematical Concepts (MACOPS)

Items here are intended to measure knowledge and understanding of

Mathematical ideas as well as terms, notations and figure series. The

mathematical ideas included here are only those ones considered

prerequisite for understanding the initial Mathematics concepts taught in the

senior secondary school curriculum. They are concepts usually assumed by

 109
SSI Mathematics teachers in lessons that introduce the major segments

of the curriculum. Knowledge and understanding in the context of this

section correspond to the knowledge and comprehension categories of the

cognitive domain of the Taxonomy of educational objectives of Bloom, et al

(1956) or the UCP and K categories of Ohuche and Akeju (1988)

classification.

Instrument for data collection

The instrument for data collection for this study was a Mathematics

Readiness Test (MATHRET) developed by the researcher. The instrument

was composed of thirty (30) essay test items that were designed to elicit the

necessary analyzable data from the students (see Appendix: C).

Administration of the instrument

The researcher administered the MATHRET to a sample of 300

students in Nsukka and Obollo-Afor education zones of Enugu state.

Scoring of the Instrument

Each omission or failure of a skill is counted as having committed

an error. The total frequency of errors committed by each student was later

transformed into percentage. This approach for interpreting the readiness

levels of the students was concerned with measuring a given score against

an apparently absolute standard. In this regard, Lyman (1986) noted that

this ‘absolute’ standard is the maximum obtainable score in the test. The

criteria for assessment in achievement test in secondary school education

system is that a student scoring from 0% to 39% is classified as ‘fail’. If he

 110
scores from 40% to 54%, he will be classified as ‘pass’, and if he scores

from 55% and above, he will be classified as having obtained credit level.

The above criteria was adopted in this work but in reverse order. The above

interval of scores was reversed, such that mathematical readiness of a

student was determined by the cut-off points of frequencies of errors

ranging from 55% and more of the maximum obtainable frequencies of erros

(17700) (see Appendix: E) was classified as not ready (fail). If his errors

frequencies rangers from 40% to 55% he was classified as ‘fairly ready’

(weak pass), and if his error frequency ranges from 0% to 39% he was

classified as ‘ready’ (pass).

Reliability of the instrument

The researcher used Kuder Richardson (KR20) method to establish the

reliability of the MATHRET. In this case, the instrument was administered to

110 SS1 entrants of 2007/08 session in Udi education Zone within their first

two weeks in first term. The data collected with the instrument during trial

testing were used to find the internal consistency of the instrument. The

reliability estimate of .91 was obtained as the internal consistency of the

items (see Appendix: D).The results of reliability estimates of the MATHRET

subscales, namely NUMAP, MACOPS and COMPUS were .91, .97 and .90

respectively (see Appendix: E).

Method of Data Analysis

The data obtain with the instrument (MATHRET) were analyzed using

the following statistical tools.

a) Kuder Richardson (KR20)

 111
b) Percentage

c) The t- test statistics was used to test the significance of the difference

of means of errors between:

i. Male and female students;

ii. Urban and rural students; and

iii. Public and Private Secondary School Students.

 112
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

This chapter deals with data presentation and analysis in accordance

with the research questions and hypothesis posed in the study.

Research Question one.

To what extent can validity of the MATHRET be determined?

The validity of the MATHRET was established using content validation.

The content validity was established from the high degree of agreement

among the raters. They were requested to asses the weights independently

given to different content areas of JS3 mathematics curriculum, assessment

of adequacy of the MATHRET table of specification and assessment of its

adherence to the final result of the blue print. The mean ratings of the raters

on 5- point scale was 5 and 4.8 for the coverage of JS3 mathematics

curriculum content and the coverage of the cognitive domain respectively.

(see Table 6 below).

Table 6: Teachers’ Ratings of the second version of MATHRET Blueprint on a

5- point scale.

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Mean (x)

Coverage of cognitive 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9

Coverage of curriculum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
content

Research Question two

To what extent can the reliability of the MATHRET be determined?

The collected answer scripts of the 110 students during the trial

testing were used to find the internal consistency of the instrument.

 113
Kuder Richardson (KR20) procedure which is a modified version of Kuder-

Richarson formula (KR20) was used in testing the internal consistency of the

items used in the trial testing. The reliability coefficient of .91 was obtained

as the internal consistency of the items (see Appendix: D).

Research Question three

What percentage of senior secondary school entrants are ‘ready’,

‘fairly ready’ or ‘not ready’ (in terms of their mean error scores on the

MATHRET) for the senior secondary school mathematics learning?

Table 7: Contingency table showing the percentage of 300 senior secondary

school entrants that are ‘ready’, ‘fairly ready’, and ‘not ready’ for senior

secondary school mathematics.

Total frequency of errors committed by students out of the

17700 maximum frequency of errors. 14508

Total frequency of errors committed by students classified

as ‘ready’. 863
Total frequency of errors committed by students classified
as ‘fairly ready’. 1267

Total frequency of errors committed by students classified

as ‘not ready’. 12378

Total number of students that committed 39% and below of

17700 frequency of errors (‘ready’) 38

Total number of students that committed between 40% and

54% inclusive (‘fairly ready’) 47
Total number of students that committed from 55% and 215
above 17700 frequency of errors (‘not ready’).
Percentage ‘ready’ 12.67%
Percentage ‘fairly ready’ 15.67%

Percentage ‘not ready’ 71.66%

(See Appendix: J and L).

 114
From data of table 7, it can be seen that:

i. students classified ‘not ready’ recorded more frequency of errors

(12378) than their counterpart students classified ‘ready’ or

‘fairly ready’ in which 863 and 1267 frequencies of errors

respectively were found to be committed.

ii. Not up to one- third (i.e. 38+47=85) of the total number of

students (300) used for the study were found ‘ready’ for the

senior secondary school mathematics programme. In other

words the total percentage (i.e. 12.67%+ 15.67%= 28.34%) of

the 300 students used for the study were found ‘ready’ and

‘fairly ready’ against 71.66 percent found ‘not ready’ an

indication of lack of readiness of JS3 students for senior

secondary school mathematics programme.

Research Question four

To what extent do male and female students vary in terms of their

scores in the mathematics readiness test?

Table 8: Contingency table showing mean error difference, committed by

male and female students as measured by MATHRET.

 115
S/N Error category Total freq. of errors Total freq. of errors
committed by male committed by female
students students
A Compreh. skills
1 A 198 271
2 B 209 269
3 C 202 263
4 D 213 402
5 E 235 311
6 F 225 312
B Process
7 G 294 333
8 H 307 345
9 I 170 465
10 J 305 504
11 K 230 298
12 L 241 291
13 M 246 273
14 N 228 392
15 O 231 272
16 P 253 359
17 Q 248 331
18 R 230 278
19 S 275 291
20 T 235 255
21 U 299 319
C Transform. skill
22 V 430 128
Carelessness skill
23 W 248 211
E Encoding skill
24 X 368 547
25 Y 549 442
Grand total of
freq. of errors 6668 -
committed by
males
Total freq. of -
errors committed 7840
by females
Total number of 148 -
male students
Total number of - 152
female students
Mean errors 45.05 51.58
Mean error differ. 6.53
(see Appendix : J and O).
 116

From the table 6 above, the researcher found that:

i. The mean errors committed by male students was 45.05;

ii. The mean errors committed by female students was 51.58;

iii. The mean error difference was 6.53 in favour of the male students;

iv. The males were more ‘ready’ than their female counterpart for senior

secondary school mathematics learning.

Research Question five.

To what extent do students in Urban and rural schools vary in terms of

their respective mean errors committed on the MATHRRET?

Table 7: contingency table showing mean error difference committed by

Urban and rural students as measured by MATHRET.

. means of errors made by Difference

Urban and Rural students. in means
of errors
Urban Rural

Total frequency of errors committed 6395 8113

by students

Total number of students 144 156

Mean Errors committed on the 44.41 52.01

MATHRET

7.60

(See Appendix: M for raw scores per candidate).

From data of table 7 above, it can be seen that:

i. The mean of the errors committed by the urban students was 44.41

with a total of 6395 frequency of errors;

 117
ii. The mean of the errors committed by the rural students was 52.01

with a total of 8113 frequency of errors;

iii. The difference in means of errors committed by the Urban and rural

students was 7.60 in favour of the Urban students;

iv. The urban students were found to be more ‘ready’/‘fairly ready’ than

their rural counterpart for senior secondary school mathematics learning.

Research Question six

To what extent do private and pubic secondary school students vary

(in terms of their means of errors made on the MATHRET)?

Table 10: contingency table showing difference in means of errors

committed by students from private and public secondary schools

as measured by MATHRET.

. means of errors made by Difference

Urban and Rural students. in means
of errors
Public Private

Total frequency of errors made by 8964 5544

public and private students

Total number of students 186 114

Means of errors committed by 49.55 46.42

the students on the MATHRET

3.13

From data of table 10 above, it could be deduced that;

 118
i. Students attending schools in privately owned secondary schools

committed more errors than their counterpart students schooling in public

schools.

ii. The mean difference of 6.09 was found to be committed in favor of

students schooling in public secondary schools.

iii. Students of publicly owned secondary schools appeared to be more

‘ready’/‘fairly ready’ than students of privately owned secondary schools.

Hypothesis one:

There is no significant difference in the means of errors committed by

male and female students that influence their degree of readiness for senior

secondary school mathematics as measured by MATHRET.

Table 11: t-table for difference in mean errors made by male and female

SS1 entrants as measured by MATHRET.

Sex No. Mean S.D. Difference t-cal. t-critical Decision

between
means
Male 148 45.05 14.98 6.53 3.07 1.645 Reject H0
Female 152 51.58 9.59
(See Appendix: L)

From the student’s distribution shown in table 9, df (v) = 284,  = 0.05, and

the t- critical Value is 1.645. The t-calculated value (3.07) is greater than

t-critical value (1.645), the hypothesis was therefore, rejected. This implies

that there is a significant difference in the means of errors scores made by

male and female SSI entrants as measured by MATHRET (scores). This

significant difference suggests that sex is a significant factor that influences

readiness in senior secondary school mathematics programme. The table

 119
revealed that female students committed more errors than their male

counterpart, meaning that males are more ‘ready’ for senior secondary

school mathematics programme compared with their female counterpart.

Hypothesis Two

There is no significant difference in the means of errors made by urban

and rural SSI entrants that influence their degree of readiness for senior

secondary school mathematics as measured by MATHRET (scores).

Table 12: t-table for difference in means of errors made by urban and rural

SSI entrants as measured by MATHRET (scores).

Location No. Mean S.D. Difference t-cal. t-critical Decision

(x) between
means
Urban 144 44.41 13.09 Reject Ho.
Rural 156 52.01 11.47 7.60 26.48 1.645

(See Appendix: M)

From the student’s t-distribution table with  = 0.05 and df (v) = 284,

the t-critical value is 1.645. The t-calculated value (26.48) is greater than t-

critical value (1.645). The hypothesis was therefore rejected. This means

that there is a significant difference in the means of errors made by urban

and rural SSI entrants as measured by MATHRET. This significant difference

in the means of errors committed by urban and rural students suggests that

location is a significant factor that influences the degree of readiness of JS3

students advancing from junior secondary school level (JS3) to senior

secondary school level (SSI) where they intend to receive higher

mathematics learning.
 120

Hypothesis Three

There is no significant difference in the means of errors made by public

and private senior secondary class one entrants that influence their degree

of readiness for senior secondary school mathematics as measured by

MATHRET.

Table 13: t-table for difference in means of errors made by public and

private senior secondary class one entrants as measured by MATHRET.

School type No. Mean S.D. Difference t-cal. t-critical Decision

(x) between
means
Public 186 49.55 10.53
Private 114 46.42 16.22 3.13 1.83 1.645 Reject Ho.

(see Appendix: N)

From the student’s t distribution table with  = 0.05 and df (v) = 284, the

t- critical value is 1.645. The t-calculated value (1.83) is greater than the

t-critical value (1.645). The hypothesis was therefore rejected. This means

that there is a significant difference in the means of errors made by public

and private senior secondary school class one (SS1) entrants as measured

by MATHRET. This significant difference in the means of errors committed

by public and private students suggests that school type is a significant

factor that influences the degree of readiness of junior secondary school

class three (JSS3) students intending to resume a new mathematics

programme in SS1 level.

 121

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

SUGGESTIONS AND SUMMARY.

This chapter presents the following: discussion of results, conclusions

drawn from the findings, educational implications of the study,

recommendations, suggestions for further studies and summary of the work.

Discussion of results

The results of this study are discussed around the findings in both the

research questions and the hypotheses.

Readiness of Beginning SS1 Students as Measured by MATHERT.

The total frequency of errors committed by the students was 14508.

Out of this figure (14508), 863 and 1267 frequency of errors were actually

found to be committed by the students classified as ‘ready’ and ‘fairly ready’,

respectively, while 12378 frequency of errors was found to be actually

committed by the students classified as ‘not ready’. The total number of

students that committed 39% and below of the maximum obtainable

frequency of errors (17700) otherwise referred to as those that were ‘ready’

was 38 students out of the total sample size of 300 students used for the

study. Moreso, the number of students that committed between 40% and

54% inclusive otherwise referred to as ‘fairly ready’ were 47 students while

the students that committed 55% and above of the maximum obtainable

frequency of errors (17700) were 215 out of a total number of 300 subjects

used for the study. The percentage found to be ready was 12.67 percent.

The percentage found to be ‘fairly ready’ was 15.67% while the percentage
 122
‘not ready’ was 71.66% percent. It was found that students committed

the highest frequency of errors on the skill y with a record of 549

frequencies of errors, followed by the skill j with error frequency of 809. it

was discovered that the least frequency of errors occurred on w with 459

frequency of errors (See Appendix: J and O). This result suggests that the

percentages of students found to be ‘ready’ and ‘fairly ready’ against those

‘not ready’ were not encouraging. Only 12.67% and 15.67 percent of the

sampled subjects found to be ‘ready’ and ‘fairly ready’ respectively, for

senior secondary school mathematics programme suggesting that generally

the junior secondary school students lacked evidence of readiness for senior

secondary school mathematics learning. In the literature, it was noted that

general poor performance in mathematics was related to conceptual and

procedural errors (Kalu, 1990; Onugwu, 1991), which students committed in

solving mathematical problems. Invariably, this situation may mare JS3

students’ readiness for senior secondary school mathematics learning. This

lack of readiness for senior secondary school mathematics learning may be

attributed to different error categories (comprehension, transformation

process, encoding and carelessness) students commit in their mathematics

work (Onugwu, 1991; Unodiaku, 1998). The result also, suggested that the

students were most deficient in ability to write down the answers correctly

(or with the appropriate signs, where necessary in which they committed

989 frequencies of errors. The next skill that the students were found most

deficient was inability to divide numbers in which they recorded 809

frequencies of errors. That means students have not mastered writing down

answers correctly (or with the appropriate signs, where necessary), and
 123
using number to divide number, thereby exhibiting procedural error as

noted by Onugwu (1991).

The above findings may be associated with the quality and quantity of

mathematics taught and learned at the junior secondary school level. Senior

secondary class one students (SS1) was dependent upon previous junior

secondary school mathematics experiences acquired and lack of this, is an

indication of unpreparedness for senior secondary school mathematics

programme. Mathematical unpreparedness of secondary school students at

the point of admission may be related to the inability of most teachers to

integrate manipulative into their lessons; this makes lessons boring,

uninteresting and mathematical concepts learnt in disconnected and

distorted manner (Ibeaja and Nworgu, 1992; Obienyem, 1998). This

mathematical unpreparedness appears to be more prevalent among students

attending private secondary schools compared with their counterpart

students in the public secondary schools. Students in the private schools

committed more errors than their counterpart students schooling in the

public schools with mean error difference of 3.13 in favour of public schools.

The mean frequencies of errors committed by the students in the public

schools was 49.55 while the mean frequencies of errors committed by the

students in the private schools was 46.42. Obviously, JS3 students in the

public schools appear to be more ready than their counterpart students in

the privately owned secondary schools. This disparity in readiness of the

private and public junior secondary school students (JS3) for senior

secondary school mathematics work reveals that public secondary school

students received more quantity and quality of mathematics instruction at

 124
the junior secondary school (JS3) level than their counterpart students

in the private secondary schools.

The MATHRET frequencies of errors committed by the students

revealed that the beginning SS1 students were generally ‘not ready’ for

senior secondary school mathematics programme due to a notable poor

performance in the MATHRET. The issue of errors students commit in

mathematics as deterrent to their lack of readiness for senior secondary

school mathematics programme is inconclusive. There is therefore need for

further investigation to clarify this notion.

Gender Factor in the SSI Mathematical Readiness as Measured by

MATHRET (scores)

This study sought to investigate how far the male and female students

vary in terms of their scores in their mathematical readiness. More

observation of the sex mean errors displayed in table 6 suggests interesting

results. The mean error difference of 6.53 was in favour of the male

students. The results of the hypotheses on sex related influence on the

occurrence of errors between male and female students was found to be

significant (see appendix: P).

Gender was found to be a significant factor of variance in the errors

students committed in solving MATHRET items at P = 0.05. The males

committed more errors than females in the following skills: v, w, and y. (see

appendix J for what the abilities, v, w, and y represents). It is therefore

obvious that:

i. Female students acquired more of the ability to translate word

problems into numeric form than their male counterpart;

 125
ii. Female students acquired more ability to write down values or

expression which they have mastery always, than the male

students;

iii. Female students gained more ability to write down the answers

correctly (or with the appropriate signs, where necessary) than the

male students;

iv. However, the male students appeared to be more ‘ready’ than their

female counterpart, in terms of mastery of the abilities represented

by a to u (see appendix: J for what the abilities a-u represents).

This shows that male students were more ready than their female

counterpart in mastery of most of the skills while the females were more

ready than the males in mastery of few other skills.

Furthermore, male students from public secondary schools appeared

to be more ready than their male counterpart students from privately owned

secondary schools for senior secondary school mathematics learning,

because male students attending schools in private secondary schools

recorded more mean (x) errors (46.42) than their male counterpart from

public schools who recorded 49.55 mean errors with difference in mean

errors of 3.13. However, students from private schools showed evidence of

being more ready for senior secondary school mathematics than their

counterpart students from public schools, since students from public schools

committed more mean (x) errors of 49.55 than female students from private

schools that committed mean (x) errors of 46.42 with mean error difference

of 3.13 (see Appendix: N). This observed difference was found significant
 126
(t = 1.83, p = 0.05 and 284 degrees of freedom (see Appendix: N). the

observed difference in readiness levels of public and private students could

be adducible to the fact that more qualified mathematics teachers are more

gainfully employed and better paid by federal or state government in public

schools than can be paid in private schools by proprietors of private schools,

thereby rubbing the private school students of being taught by qualified

mathematics teachers. Moreso, mathematics teaching aid are made readily

available to public schools by government but none to private schools,

thereby making the public schools to have an edge over their private

counterpart schools. There is need to seek for possible solution to bridge the

gap to enhance better teaching and learning of mathematics especially

among the privately owned secondary schools springing up here and there

without moderation by government. The observed mean error difference of

3.13 in favour of the privately owned secondary schools need further enquiry

since students in public schools were more privileged or accessible to maths

teaching facilities and human resources than their counterpart students in

the privately owned secondary schools.

The observed gender related differences in the readiness of the male

and female students in terms of the errors they committed in solving

MATHRET items seem to some extent to compare favourably with earlier

postulates and research findings. In addition to sex differences in general

and specific learning abilities there are also differences in cognitive style

(Biehler and Snowman, 1999). Isinenyi (1990), Ubagu (1992) and Unodiaku

(1998), all reported that male students achieve more on problem-solving

(computation) than girls as is the case in this study in which girls committed
 127
more computational (process) errors than boys. In other words males

are more ready than females in computation or process. This finding

contradicts previous finding of Obienyem (1998) who reported that there

was no differential influence of sex on mean mathematical readiness scores,

the entire students were not mathematically ready for JS3 mathematics

programme at the point of admission, hence, that performance in

mathematics by the findings was not influenced by the students’ sex.

Obienyem (1998)’s reporting of no differential influence of sex contradicts

previous reports on influences of sex on students’ achievement in

mathematics (Isinenyi, 1990; Biehler and Snawman, 1990; Ubagu, 1992;

and Unodiaku, 1998).

The gender factor in the SSI entrants mathematical readiness levels as

measured by the MATHRET appears to be inconclusive. There is therefore

need for further enquiry to clarify this issue.

 128
Location Factor in the SSI entrants Mathematical Readiness as

Measured by MATHRET (scores).

This study sought to investigate whether some or all the errors

identified are peculiar to students in urban located schools or rural areas.

The urban students showed more deficient in the skills represented by p, s,

v, w, x and y than their rural counterpart (see Appendix: O). In other words

the rural students are more ready than the urban students in terms of

mastery of these skills.

However, the urban students showed more mastery (readiness) than

rural students’ in the rest of other skills represented by a to O, q, r, t and u

(see appendix: O). It was observed that students in public schools located in

the rural areas committed more errors than students from public schools

located in the urban areas. These observed differences could be the reason

why subjects’ location and type of junior secondary school attended (in

terms of public or private) were found to be significantly influencing

readiness for senior secondary school mathematics at alpha level of 0.05.

These findings are consistent with psychologists’ observation. Psychologists,

Sawrey and Telford (1958) observed that quite rightly, that the intelligence

of the children varies directly with the environment in which they are raised.

The authors believed that children raised in superior, average, or inferior

environments tend to show superior, average, or inferior intelligence

respectively. It is obvious, they have argued, that environment is what

determines intelligence. Perhaps, these psychologists’ viewpoint could

account for differences in readiness levels between urban and rural students.
 129
Such apparent variation in mastery of the skills between urban and

rurally located schools is in line with different axioms. One of such axioms is

that children’s intelligence varies directly with the environment in which they

are raised; that environment is what determines intelligence. Another axiom

holds that localities with different socio-cultural economic and physical

circumstances present differential learning experiences and stimulations to

the learner. When environment is grossly deficient in motivation,

automatically the development of learner trained in it is correspondingly

retarded (Unodiaku, 1998). A child’s intelligence is an interplay of his talent

and experience, the later being mainly culturally determined Hunt (1961) in

Unodiaku (1998). Nwagu (1990) pointed out that the resources available,

the sub-cultural and the geo-physical conditions differ somehow from rural

to urban settings in particular.

In consideration of the above axioms, the findings in this study on the

influence of school location as a factor on the mathematical readiness of the

beginning SSI students are within expectation. The school location was

found to be significantly influencing the readiness of JS 3 students intending

to resume mathematics programme in senior secondary school level. The

findings in this study are quite consistent with the findings of Isinenyi

(1990), Akukwe (1990), Ubagu (1992) and Odo (1990). All reported that

students from rural localities committed more errors than their counterpart

from urban schools. In other words, students from the urban located schools

are more ready than their counterpart students attending schools in the

rurally located schools.

 130
A possible explanation for such differences in readiness levels

between urban and rural students with urban students being more

mathematically ready than their rural counterpart could be associated with

agricultural occupation with which the rural families and inhabitants are

naturally preoccupied. Majority of parents, guardians and other classes of

rural inhabitants are peasant illiterate farmers and petty traders who cannot

offer any academic guidance to their children and wards attending schools.

Apart from the fact that lack of educational background hinders them from

assisting their children or wards educationally, lack of basic educational

settings in their homes appears to be the major contributing factor

responsible to their children’s and wards’ lack of readiness for senior

secondary school mathematics programme. This is a contradistinction to

what is obtainable educationally in urban areas. In urban areas almost all

the inhabitants are composed of literate wards and parents, who have

minilibraries, TV sets, chalkboards and radio at their homes. These home

equipment or gargets supplements what the urban students receives from

school, thereby enabling them to have an edge over their counterpart from

the rurally located schools in terms of readiness abilities for senior secondary

school mathematics learning.

Another possible reason for the significant difference due to location is

that extra-mural and evening classes are usually made compulsory in urban

areas by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA). Moreso, most parents in

urban localities pay part-time teachers for the purpose of coming to teach

their children and wards in the evenings. But in the rural areas the illiterate

parents and guardians vehemently kick against implementation of evening

 131
and extramural lessons. In the rural areas the parents of the rural

students never showed concern for their wards or children’s poor attendance

to school or lateness to school. The success of extra-mural lessons, evening

lessons, regular attendance to school and punctuality to school are adducible

to the literate status of the parents and guardians in the urban areas. These

differences in the home background of the children tends to give plausible

explanation for the significant differences in the mean error scores

committed or variance in the readiness levels of urban and rural students

(see table 7 Appendix: M).

Finally, the significant mean difference due to school location could be

viewed from the fact that schools located in urban areas are usually better

endowed with available resources (equipped libraries, qualified mathematics

teachers, funds, among others) for improving the quality and quantity of

teaching and learning in urban schools. The worst of all, almost all the

school equipment (e.g. sports, laboratory, guidance and counselling (G&C),

Dramatic art, school plant/generator, building materials, and so on) supplied

free of charge to school by government, that of the rural schools were

vandalized and carted away by thieves. This situation worsens the

backwardness of the rural students from educational pursuit. The above

explanations are merely hypothetical and require further enquiry.

Conclusions.

The conclusions of this study are entirely based on the investigated

problems. The results of data analysis itemized as follows revealed that:

i. Twenty-eight point thirty-three percent (28.33%) of the students

were found to be ready for senior secondary school mathematics

 132
programme while the remaining seventy-one point sixty-seven

percent (71.67%) were found ‘not ready’ for the senior secondary

school mathematics learning.

ii. The males were more ‘ready’ than their female counterpart for

senior secondary school mathematics learning with a mean error

difference of 6.53 in favour of the males.

iii. Gender was a significant factor in readiness of male and female SSI

entrants for senior secondary school mathematics learning as

measured by MATHRET (scores). This factor was found significant at

p<0.05.

iv. The school location was a significant factor influencing readiness of

SSI entrants as measured by MATHRET (scores). This location

factor was found significant at P<0.05

v. The interaction effects of gender and type of junior secondary

school attended (in terms of whether public or private) were found

to be significantly influencing readiness of JS3 students intending to

resume new mathematics programme in SSI level with students

from public schools appearing more ready than students from

private secondary schools for senior secondary school mathematics

learning.

vi. The interaction effects of location and type of junior secondary

school attended were found to be significant factors that influence

mathematics readiness of beginning SSI students. The interaction

effects were found significant at p<0.05 with urban students being

 133
more ready than their rural counterpart for senior secondary

school mathematics programme.

Hence MATHRET of acceptable degree of validity could be used to

determine the readiness level of SSI entrants intending to resume

mathematics learning.

Educational implications of the findings.

In could be implied from the study that:

1. Since the MATHRET was found to have an acceptable index of internal

consistency reliability, MATHRET could be used to determine the

readiness level of JS3 students intending to resume mathematics

programme at senior secondary school level.

2. The MATHRET was also found to have an acceptable reliability and

validity indices and therefore useful for the evaluation of mathematics.

These implies that the MATHRET could be used by teachers to determine

the readiness level of students advancing from one level to another, say

from JSI to JS2; JS2 to JS3, and so on.

3. The MATHRET possesses their diagnostic potentials. It has implications

on the development of positive attitudes towards mathematics . This will

culminate in increased students’ performance.

4. Male and female students used in the study show convincingly unequal

readiness level as measured by the MATHRET, with males being more

ready than their female counterpart. The implication is that the use of

MATHRET has gender bias. The implication of this is that the issue of
 134
5. males performing better than females earlier reported in literature

appears to be persistent especially as it concerns evaluating them in

science subjects and mathematics in particular. In teaching female

students mathematics, caution need to be taken by paying attention to

every detail of necessary skills, algorithms and principles embedded in

the topic to enhance mastery of the skills, and so on.

6. Variations in the readiness levels of urban and rural students were

noted to exist and found significant in the study. The implication is that

location factor in students performance earlier reported is still at work,

implying the need for enhanced mathematics teaching methods or

strategies or facilities to be employed in teaching students located in the

rural areas to get them ready for senior secondary school mathematics

learning.

7. Students from private and public schools performed significantly

different, with students from public schools being more ready than

students from private schools for senior secondary school mathematics

instruction. The implication is that if the MATHRET is continued to be

used for assessing them, the students from public schools will appear to

be continually more ready than students from private schools.

8. This work supplies resource materials to institutions who may want to

use readiness test in teaching and evaluation.

9. Entry behaviour was recommended to be used in teaching mathematics,

to determine the prerequisite knowledge a student has before

introducing a new related topic. This study provides such materials for

teachers to avail themselves of teaching and evaluating mathematics.

 135
Recommendations.

The recommendations were also made based on identified area of

students’ weaknesses followed by recommendations on what teachers should

do over the errors committed by students.

1. As this Readiness Test (MATHRET) has passed through the process of

validation and reliability and also found to be capable of identifying

students’ areas of strengths and weaknesses, with which the students

could be classified as ‘ready’, ‘fairly ready’ or ‘not read’, it is therefore

recommended to the teachers to adopt and adapt for use in

mathematics instructions and evaluation.

2. As the mathematics Readiness Test (MATHRET) has been found quite

innovative for the teaching and evaluation of mathematics, teachers

are encouraged to use MATHRET in their teaching and evaluation.

3. As the MATHRET has been successfully used to determine the

readiness levels of JS3 students intending to resume new mathematics

programme in senior secondary class one level, examination agencies

should introduce mathematics readiness test into the evaluation of

mathematics.

4. The study has also vindicated that the use of the MATHRET enhances

students’ performance in mathematics, by being able to separate

those ‘ready’ and ‘fairly ready’ against those ‘not ready’, therefore,
 136
need to be entrenched in the Junior secondary school mathematics

curriculum for teaching and evaluation.

5. Mathematics textbook authors and other test developers may use this

MATHRET as a guide for developing future tests.

Suggestion for further Studies

The following themes have been suggested for further researcher:-

1. Since mathematics readiness test has been successfully developed for

JS 3 students intending to resume programme in senior secondary

school class one, mathematics readiness should therefore be

developed for other students intending to resume mathematics

programme in other levels.

2. Readiness Test should be developed and validated in other subjects.

3. More tasks on the JS 3 National curriculum content areas used on

mathematics should also be developed and validated for use in junior

secondary school mathematics instruction and evaluation.

4. As this mathematics readiness test was validated at Nsukka and

Obollo-Afor education zones, it should equally be validated at other

education zones in Enugu State.

5. As this MATHRET was validated at Enugu state, it should also be

validated at other states.

 137
6. This MATHRET was developed according to three approaches as

stipulated by Goldstein (1992). Readiness tests should also be

developed according to other test developers.

Summary of the work

Mathematics is indispensable in the life of every school child; in our

everyday life, and for science and technological breakthrough. Ample

evidence revealed that majority of the senior secondary school students’

performance in mathematics has been generally poor. The curriculum

planners hierarchically organized mathematics to follow a sequential order so

that the learning of one aspect becomes a prerequisite for the learning of the

next harder one. The curriculum planners recommended the use of entry

behaviour’ in teaching mathematics so as to enable the teacher know

whether the learner has acquired the necessary prerequisite

skills/experience/ knowledge that can enable him profit from the present

instruction he intends to present. This is to say that the teacher intends to

find out if the child is ‘ready’ for the new instruction considering whether he

has background experience before undertaking a new instruction. Readiness

level of the learner therefore becomes a factor that determines the teacher’s

instruction of the new topic or otherwise. Readiness levels of the students

were determined through diagnosis of the students’ learning experiences

and recommendations on what teachers should do concerning the errors

committed by the students. Mathematics readiness tests were developed

and used to determine the readiness of primary six pupils intending to

resume new mathematics learning in JS1. The researchers have suggested

 138
that mathematics readiness test be developed and used to determine

the readiness levels of JS3 students intending to resume new mathematics

programme in SS1. Unfortunately, no readiness test has been developed for

prospective senior secondary school entrants. This has been complicated by

the fact that secondary school teachers find it difficult to diagnose their

students’ learning experiences in mathematics tasks, so as to determine

their area of weakness (process errors) that mares their enhancement in

learning mathematics.

The following research questions guided the study:

1. To what extent can validity of the MATHRET be determined?

2. To what extent can the reliability of the MATHRET be determined?

3. What percentage of senior secondary school entrants are ‘ready’,

‘fairly ready’ or ‘not ready’ (in terms of scores on the MATHRET) for the

senior secondary school mathematics learning?

4. To what extent do male and female students vary in terms of their mean

errors committed on the mathematical readiness test?

5. To what extent do students in Urban and rural schools vary in terms of

their respective mean errors committed on the MATHRET?

6. To what extent do school types influence the subjects’ mathematical

readiness (in terms of their mean errors committed on the MATHRET) for

senior secondary school mathematics programme?

 139
The following hypotheses were tested at 5% level of significance.

1. Gender is not a significant factor that influences the degree of

readiness for senior secondary school mathematics as determined by the

mean errors committed by male and female students.

2. Location is not a significant factor that influences the degree of

readiness for senior secondary school mathematics as measured by the

mean errors committed by urban and rural students.

3. The interaction effects of gender and type of junior secondary school

attended (in terms of whether public or private) are not significant factors

influencing readiness for senior secondary school mathematics.

4. The interaction effects of location (urban or rural) with type of junior

secondary school attended (private or public) are not significant factors

influencing readiness for senior secondary school mathematics programme.

Literature was reviewed under two broad headings; theoretical and

empirical. It was observed that Readiness test has been very efficacious in

various ways but unfortunately none was developed for senior secondary

school mathematics programme.

A descriptive survey study was designed and executed in Nsukka and

Obollo-Afor education zones in Enugu State. The population was 54031

senior secondary school class one entrants.

 140
Nineteen schools were purposively sampled from the two education

zones to give a sample size of 300.

The instrument used was the MATHRET. Thirty essay items were developed

and given to validators. Based on the results of the validators, the instrument was

administered to the 300 sampled subjects. Kuder Richardson formula (KR20) was

adopted in establishing the reliability of the MATHRET.

The findings of the study.

1. A 30- item essay mathematics readiness test was developed by the

researcher.

2. A reliability coefficient of 0.91 was obtained for the test through pilot testing.

3. The mean ratings of the MATHRET blueprint on a 5-point scale on coverage

of cognitive domain and coverage of curriculum content were 4.8 and 5

respectively. The validity of the MATHRET was established using content

validation.

4. Only 12.67 and 15.67 represent, 38 and 47 percent of the 300 subjects used

for the study were found ‘ready’ and ‘fairly’ ready’ respectively for senior

secondary school mathematics programme.

5. Mean error difference of 6.53 was found to exist between male and female

(in favour of males) students’ readiness levels as measured by MTHRET

(scores).

6. The urban students were found to be more ready for senior secondary

school mathematics teaching/learning than their rural counterpart, as

 141
measured by MATHRET, with mean error difference of 7.60 in

favour of the urban students.

7. The mean error difference between public and private SS 1 entrants as

measured by MATHRET was found to be 3.93 in favour of public

secondary school students.

8. The mean error difference between male and female SSI entrants as

measured by MATHRET (scores) was found significant at p<0.05.

9. The mean error difference between urban and rural beginning SS1

students as measured by MATHRET (scores) was found significant at

p<0.05).
 142
10. REFERENCES

ACES Report (2006). ACES Validity Handbook: What is Test Validity? http: ii www.
Collegboard. Com/highered/apr/aces. Handbook/test valid. Htm/.

Ackerrnan, D. J and Barnett, W. S. (2006). Policy Report prepared for Kindergarten:

What Does “Readiness” Mean? www. Nieer or/resources/ policy reports/report 5.
pdf.

Adedibu, A. A. (1988) Continuous Assessment in 6-3-3-4 System of Education. In AKpa,

G.O. and Udoh, S. U. (eds). Toward Implementing the 6-3-3-4 System of Education
in Nigeria. Jos: Techsource Electronic Press.

Adkins, D. C (1998). Measurement in Relation to the Educational Process. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 18,221-240.

Aguele, L.I. (2004). Remediation of Process Errors Committed by Senior Secondary

School Students in Sequences and Series. Unpublished Ph.D. Theris, UNN.

Agwagah, U.N.V. (2000). Teaching Number Bases in Junior Secondary School,

Board, Abacus, Journal of Mathematics Association of Nigeria, 26 (1)/

Ahman J. S. and Glock, M. D. (1971). Evaluating Pupils’ Growth: Principles of test and
Measurements. Boston: Allyn and Bacon inc.

Akukwe, A. C. (1990). School Location and School type as factors in Secondary School
Mathematics Achievement in Imo State. Unpublished M.ED Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ali, A. and Akubue, A. (1988). An Evaluation of Secondary School Teachers’

Performance on Continuous Assessment Practices. In G. O. Akpa and S. U.
Udoh (eds). Towards Implementing the 6-3-3-4 system of Education in
Nigeria. Jos: Techsource Electronic Press.

All Psych Online (2006). Research Methods Validity and Reliability in Allpsych
Online. http: //allpsych. Com/research methods /validity reliability. html.

Almy, M. C. (2006). Young Children’s Thinking. New York: Teachers College,

Columbia University press.

Amoke, A;.O. and Ezike, R. O. (1989) Teaching of Difficult Concepts in senior

Secondary Schools: Longitude and Latitude. In Ohuche, R. and Ali, A. (Eds),
Teaching Senior Secondary School Mathematics Creatively. Onitsha, Nigeria:
Summer publishers.

Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological Testing (3rd ed.). Psychological Testing (4 th ed.) New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
 143
Ann, A.C.; Bill, V.; Wilbur, D.M. and Dutton, L. (2006). Mathematics Children Use and
Understand. Napa, California: Rattle Ok Publishers.

Annie W. Ward and Mildred Murray-Ward (1999). Assessment in the Classroom. New
York Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Arowosegbe, J. O. (1990). The Continuous Assessment Scores as a Predictor of

Academic Achievement in Junior Secondary Certificate Examination in Ondo State.
Unpublished M. ED Project. Nsukka: University of Nigeria.

Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E; Bem, D. J. and Nolen-Hoeksema, S.

(1993). Introduction to Psychology (11th ed.).New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers Inc.

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning .New York:

Grune and Stratton.

Aususbel, D. P. (1968(b)). Symbolization and Symbolic Thought: Response to

Turth, Child Development, 30, 997-1001.

Ausubel, D. P; Navok, T. and Hanisan, B. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive

View. (2 nd Ed), New York: Werbel and Peck.

Bailey, T. G. (1994). Linear Measurement in Elementary School. Arithmetic

Teacher, 21, 520-526.

Balow, I. H. (1994). Reading and Computation Ability as Determinants of Problem

Solving. Arithmetic Teacher, 11, 18 -22.

Baroody, A. J. (1979). The Relationships among the development of counting, number

Conservation and basic arithmetic abilities Dissertation Abstracts International, 39,
6640A - 6641A.

Barrack, S.W. (1980). Achievement in and Attitude Toward High School Mathematics
with Respect to Sex and socio-economic Status. Dissertation Abstract
International, 41 (5), 1812A.

Bearison, D.J. (1975). Induced Versus Spontaneous Attainment of Concrete Operations

and Their Relationship to School Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 576-580.

Bloom, B.S, Krathwohl, D. R. and Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational

objectives. Handbook: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman Inc.

Bolvin, J. O. (1968). Programmed Instruction in the Schools: An Application of

Programming Principles in individually prescribed instruction. In P.C. Lange (ed),
 144
Programmed Instruction: Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National society for the
study of Education, PP. 217-254. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bordin, E.S. (2000). Psychological Counselling. New York: Appleton Century – Crofts.

Brodgen, H.E. (1996). Variation in Test Validity with Variation in the Distribution of
Item Difficulties, Number of Items and Degree of Their Inter Correlation.
Psychometrika. 11, 197-214.

Bruner, J.S. (1964). Some Theorems in Instruction Illustrated with Reference to

Mathematics. In E.R. Hilgard (ed). Theories of Learning and Instruction (PP306-
335. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.

Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Bryan, M.M.; Burke, P.J.; and Stewart, W. (1999). Correlation for Guessing in Scoring of
Pre-tests: Effect Upon Item Difficulty and Item Validity Indices. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 12,45-56.

Burks, H.F. (1968. Manual of Burks’ Behaviour Rating Scales. Huntington Beach,
California: Arden Press.

Burns, P.C.; Roe, B.D.; and Ross, E.P. (1988). Teaching Reading in today’s elementary
schools, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin company. Boston; New Jersey press .
Call, R. J. and Wiggin, W.A (1966). Reading and Mathematics. Mathematics Teacher,
54, 149-157.
Campbell, D.P. and Stanley, R.N. (1966). Revision of the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank. Personnel and Guidance Journal44,744-749.

Case, R. (2000). A Developmentally Based Theory and Technology of Instruction.

Review of Educational Research48,439-463

David, E. and Flavell, J.H. (1989). Studies in Cognitive Development: Studies in Honour
of Jean Piagent. New York; Oxford University Press, London.
Denney, H.R. and Remmers, A.H. (2000). Reliability of Multiple-choice Measuring
Instruments as a Function of the Spearman-Brown
Prophecy Formula 11. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 699-704.

Derogates, I.R. (1992). SCL-90-R: Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual – 11.
Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Dienes, Z.P. (2002). Some reflections on learning Mathematics. In W. E. Lamon (Ed).
Learning and nature of Mathematics (pp 51-67). Chicago: Science Research
Association Inc.

Dodwell, P.C. (1998). Relation Between the Understanding of the Logic of Class and of
Cardinal Number in Children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 16, 152-160.
 145
Downs, L. W. and Parking, D. (1958). The Teaching of Arithmetic in Tropical
Primary Schools. London: Oxford University Press.
Downie, N.M. and Heath, R.W. (1974). Basic Statistical Methods. 4th edition. New York:
Harper and Row publishers.
Duel, H.J. (1998). Effect of Periodic Self-Evaluation on Student Achievement Journal of
Educational Psychology, 49, 197-199.
Ebegbulem, C.E. (1982). Constructing Tests for Continuous Assessment. Lagos.
Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Ltd.

Ebel, R.L. (1961). Writing the Test item. Educational Measurement, Washington, D.C.
American Council on Education, 185-249.
Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content Standard Test Scores. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 22,15-25.

Ebel, R. L. (1967). The Relation of Item Discrimination to Test Reliability. Journal of

Educational Measurement, 4,125-128.
Ebel, R.L. (1968). The Value of Internal Consistency in Classroom Examinations.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 71-73.

Ebel, R.L. (1979). Essentials of Educational Measurement. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffts,
N.J., Prentice-Hall inc.
Ekele, J. (2002). Development and Standardization of Quadratic Aptitude Test for Upper
Primary School Pupils. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ely, J.H. (2001). Studies in Item Analysis 2: Effects of Various Methods Upon Test
Reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 154-203.

Engelhart, M.D. (1972). Methods of Educational Research, Chicago: Rand Mc Nally and
company.

English, H.B. and English, A.C. (1958): A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological

and Psychoanalytical Terms. London: Longmans.

Ezeife, A.N. (2002). Interactions of Culture and Mathematics in an Aboriginal

classroomhttp://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v3n3/ Ezeife/paper.pdf.

Ezugwu, G.G. (2006). Development and Validation of An Instrument for Students

Appraisal of Teaching Effectiveness in Colleges of Education unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, UNN.
Fan, C.T. (2000). Item Analysis Table. Princeton N.J.: Educational Testing Services.
 146
Federal Ministry of Education (F.M.E), Science and Technology (1985). National
Curriculum for Junior Secondary Schools. Vol. 1: Science, Ibadan: Heinemann
Educational Books (Nigeria) Limited.
Ferguson, R. L. (2002). ACT Mathematics Test. www.university of
California.edu/regents/regment/may 02/30act.pdf.

Freybery, P.S. (1966) Cognitive Development in Piagetian Terms in Relation to School

Attainment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57,164-187.
Gagne, R.M. (1967). Instruction and the Conditions of Learning. In L. Siegel (Ed.),
Instruction: Some Contemporary Viewpoints. San Francisca: Chadler Press.

Gagne, R.M. (1962). The Acquisition of Knowledge. Psychological Review, 69 (4), 355-
365.
Gagne, R.M. (1968). Learning Hierarchies. Educational Psychology, 6 (1), 3-6.

Georgetown (2006). Research Methods and Statistics Resources. Department of

Psychology. Georgetown University.
http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/Psychology/research methods/research
chand design/validity and reliability. htm.

Gibson, J. T. (1972). Educational Psychology, (2 nd ed.), Engelwoods clifts, N.J.: Prentics-

Hall Inc.
Glossary (2007).www.wrightslaw.com/links/glossary.assessment.htm.

Goldman, L. (1971). Using Tests in Counselling. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Good year
Publishing Company Inc.
Goldstein, G. (1992). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (2nd ed.). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Gray, E. M. and Tall, D.D. (1999). Duality, Ambiguity, and Flexibility. A “proceptual”
view of simple arithmetic Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 25,
116-146.
Greenspoon, J. and Gerten, C.D. (1986). A New Look at Psychological Testing:
Psychological Testing from the Standpoint of a Behaviourist. American
Psychologist, 22, 843-853.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). The Phi Coefficient and Chi Square as Indices of Item Validity.
Psychometrika, 6,11-19.

Guilford, J.P. (1965). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and education, 4 th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Harison, C.W. (1944). Factors Associated with Successful Achievement in Problem
Solving in Sixth Grade Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Research. 38, 111-118.
 147
Harbor Peters, V.F. And Ugwu, P.N. (1995). Process Errors committed by Students
in some Geometric Theories. Nigeria Research in Education 7, 141-152

Harling, P. (1991). 100s of Ideas for Primary Maths: A Cross-Curricular approach.

Hodder and Stoughtor, London.

Hawlett, K.D. (2001). A Study of the Relationship Between Piagetian Class Inclusion
Tasks and the Ability of First Grade Children to do Missing Added Computation
and Verbal Problems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34,6259A – 6260A.
Hiebert, J. and Carpenter, T.P. (1982). Piagetian Tasks as Readiness Measures in
Mathematics instruction, a Critical Review. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,
13, 329-345.

Hildreth, G. E. (1941). The Difficulty Reduction Tendency in Perception and Problem

Solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 305-313. in Leslie, W. and
Barnette, Jr. (1968). Readings in Psychological Test and Measurements. Ontario:
The Dorsey Press.

Hilgard, E. R., Atkinson, R. C.; and Atkinson, R.L. (2005). Introduction to Psychology,
(6th ed). New York: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.

Hill, M. (1980). Variables Predicting Student Achievement in State Mandated

Competence Test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (5), 2015A.

Hill, B. (2001). The Importance of Mathematics in Early Childhood Education. Saint

Martin’s College, Lindsey Petersen, USA: Saint Martin’s college press.

Hinde, R.A. (1970). Animal Behaviour. A Synthesis of ethology and comparative

Psychology. New York, and London. In Encylopendia of Psychology, Vol. 3, Phas
to z, London: Serch Press.

Hllins, E.R. (1996). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hilton, J.C. and Berglund, G. W. (1998). Sex Differences in Mathematics – a

Longitudinal Study. The Journal of Education, XVIII (z), 295-304.

House, J.M. and Remmers, H. H. (1941). Reliability of Multiple Choice Measuring

Instruments as a Function of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula, IV. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 32,372-376.

Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC, (2005)). The Wider Mathematics

Community. In Smith, A. (2005). Making Mathematics Count. Mathematically
Correct <http.// Mathematically correct.com>.
Ibeaja, V. F. A. and Nworgu, B. G. (1992). Mode of task presentation and Pupils
performance on Mathematical task involving addition and subtraction. abacus, 12,
18.
 148
Ibecker, T. J. (2006). Reliability and Validity, Part II-Validity.
http://web.uccs.edu/Ibecker/Psy590/relval-11.htm.

IEA (1978). IEA = International Association for the evaluation of Educational

Achievement.
Igbo, J. N. (2004). Effect of Peer Tutoring II on the Mathematics Achievement of
Learning-Disabled children. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Ikeazota, N.N. (2002). Identification and Remediation of Senior Secondary School
Students’ Process Errors in Quadratic Equations. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Implementation Committee, National Policy on Education (1992). Guideline on Uniform

Standards for the Junior Secondary School Certificate Examinations (Revised).
Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education.
Implementation Committee, National Policy on Education. Some Questions and Answers
on Continuous Assessment. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education.
Ingule, F.O.; Ruthie, C.R and Ndambuka, P.W. (1996). Introduction to Educational
Psychology. Educational Publishers, Nairobi-Kampala: East African.
Ipaye, T. (1982). Continuous Assessment in Schools. Ilorin: University of Ilorin Press.
Isinenyi, M. M. (1990). Common Errors Committed by Junior Secondary School
Students in solving Problems involving inequality. Unpublished M.ED thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Iwuala, U. H. (1988). An Investigation of the Current Continuous Assessment Practices
in Anambra State Secondary Schools Unpublished M.ED. Project. University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Johnson, H.C. (2000). The Effect of Instruction in Mathematical Vocabulary Upon
Problem Solving in Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Research, 38, 97-110.

Johnson, A. P. (1976). Notes on a Suggested Index of Item Validity: the U-L Index.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 499-504.

Johnson, O.C. (2004). Tests and Measurement in Child Development: Handbook II, Vol.
1. San Francisco: Jersey. Bass, Inc.

Johnson, D.D.( 2005). Teaching Children to Read. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Kalu, J. M. (1990). A Diagnostic Study of SS3 Students’ Conceptual Difficulties in Field

Physics. Unpublished M.ED Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Keislar, E.R. (1997). Shaping of a Learning Set in Reading. Paper Presented at the
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Atlantic City.
 149
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioural Research, (2nd ed). New York.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kersh, B.Y. (1967). Engineering Instructional Sequence for the Mathematics Classroom.
In J. M. Scandura (ed). Research in Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C.:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Kirk, S.A. (2003). Educating the Retarded child. Boston: Houghton Mifflin press.

Kissane, B.V. (1996). Selection of Mathematically Talented Students. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 17(3), 221-241.

Kooker, E.W. and Williams, C.S. (1959). College Students’ Ability to Evaluate their
Performance on Objective Tests. Journal of Educational Research, 53, 69-72.

Kostick, M.N. (1994). A Study of Transfer: Sex Differences in the Reasoning Process.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 45 (8), 449-458.

Kuang, H.P. (2002). A Critical Evaluation of Relative Efficiency of Three Techniques in

Item Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 248-266.
Kuder, G.F. and Richardson, M.W. (1937). The Theory of Estimation of Test Reliability.
Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.

Kurume, M.S.C. (2004). Effects of Ethnomathematics Approach on Students

Achievement and Interest in Geometry and Mensuration, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Lassa, P.N. and Paling, D. (2003). Teaching Mathematics in Nigerian Primary Schools.
Ibadan: University Press Limited.
Lemke, E. and Wiersma, W. (1976). Principles of Psychological Measurement. Chicago:
R and Nc Nally College Publishing Company.

Leslie, W. and Barnette, Jr. (1968). Readings in Psychological Test and Measurements.
Ontario: The Dorsey Press.

Lord, F.M. (1998). The Relation of the Reliability of Multiple-Choice Tests to the
Distribution of Item Difficulties. Psychometrika, 7, 181-194.

Lyman, H.B. (1986). Test Scores and What they Mean. (4th ed). Englewood Clifts,
N.J: Printice-Hall press.

Kraw, H. (2007).http://math.Arizona.edu / ̴ krawczyk/intro.html>

Mc Nemar, Q. (1962). Psychological Statistics, (3rd ed). New York: Wiley.

Mehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, D. (1993). Standardized Tests in Education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
 150
Meisels, S.J. (2002). Assessing Readiness. In Pianta, R.C. (Coxm, eds). The transition to
Kindergarten: Research, Policy, training, and Practice Baltmore: The MD press
Limited.

Melnick, G. and Freedland, S. (2002). Arithmetic Concept Individual Test. Curriculum

Research and Development Centre in Mental Retardation. New York: Yeshiva
University press Limited.

Melnick, G; Mischio, G.; and Lehrer, B. (2004). Arithmetic Concept Screening Test
Manual. Curriculum Research and Development Centre in Mental Retardation.
New YorkYeshiva University press Limited.

Michael, E.R. (2000). Acquisition Order of Number Conservation and Arithmetic Logic
of Addition and Subtraction. Dissertation Abstract International. 37,4116B-4117B.

Michael, W.B.; Hertzka, A.F.; and Perry, N.C. (1953). Errors in Estimates of Item
Difficulty Obtained from Use of Extreme Groups on a Criterion Variable.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 499-504.

Mitchelmore, M.C. (1973). Performance in a Modern Mathematics Curriculum. West

African Journal of Education, XVII (2), 295-304.
Monsier, C.I. (1987). A Critical Examination of Face Validity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 7, 191-205.
Murray, J.E. (1999). An analysis of Geometric Ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 40, 118-124.
Muscio, R.D. (1962). Factors Related to Quantitative Understanding in the Sixth Grade.
Arithmetic Teacher, 9, 258-262.
Nevo, B. (1985). Face Validity Revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 289-
293.
New Encyclopaedia Britanica (1995). Encyclopaedia Britanic Inc., 15th Edition, vol. ID,
London, p. 243.

Nie, N.H.; Hull, C.H; Jenkins, J.G.; Stein Brenner, K; and Bent, D.H. (1975). Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, (2 nd ed). New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C. (1981). Psychometric Theory. New Delhi, Tata: Mc Graw-Hill Publishing
Company, Ltd.
Nwabuise E.M. (1986). Factors Affecting the Learning Process. In V.O.C. Nwachukwu
(es). Educational Psychology. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nig.) Ltd.
Nwachukwu, V.C. (1997). Transfer of Learning. In V.O.C. Nwachukwu (ed.)
Educational Psychology. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nig.) Ltd.
 151
Nworgu, B.G. (1990). Evaluating the Effects of Resource Material Types Relative to
Students Cognitive Achievement, Relation and Interest in Integrated Science.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Obienyem, C. (1998). Identification of Mathematics readiness Level of Junior Secondary

School Class one Students in Anambra State. Unpublished M.ED. Thesis, University
of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Obioma, C.O. and Ohuche, R.O. (1980). Sex and Environment as Factors in Secondary
School Mathematics Achievement. Paper Presented at the 1980. Annual Conference
of Mathematics Association of Nigeria held at Bayero University, Kano, August 9-
14.

Odili, J.N. (1991). Relationship Between Continuous Assessment Cumulative Scores and
Junior school Certificate Examination Results in Integrated Science in Selected
LGAS of Bendel State. Unpublished M.ED Project: University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Odo, I. O. (2000). Gender and School Location as factors of Students’ difficulty in

Secondary School geometry. Unpublished M.ED Thesis, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.

Ohuche, R. O. (1990). Explore Mathematics with your Children. Onitsha: Summer

Education Publishers Limited.

Ohuche R.O. and Akeju, S.A. (1988). Measurement and Evaluation in Education.
Onitsha: Africana –Feb Publishers Limited.

Okedera, J.T. (1980). Teacher-Made Tests as a Predictor of Academic Achievement in

the Experimental Adult-Literacy Classes in Ibadan, Nigeria the Counsellor, 3 (1 82),
41-56.

Okeke, F.N. (1985). Students’ Mock WASC/GCE Scores in Science Subjects as

Predictors of Their Achievement in WASC/GCE O’level in Anambra State
Unpublished M.ED Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Onibokun, O. M. (1979). Sex Differences in Quantitative and Other Attitude Cures.

ABACUS, 14; 52-58.

Okonkwo, S.C. (1998). Development and Validation of Mathematics Readiness test for
Junior Secondary School Students. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, UNN.

Onugwu, J.I. (1991). Identification of Kinds of Errors Secondary School Students Make
in Solving Problems in Mathematics. Unpublished M.ED Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ozouche, C. N. (1993). Difficult areas of ordinary level Mathematics for the Secondary
Schools. Unpublished M.ED Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
 152
Payne, S.J. And Squibb, H.R. (19990). Algebra and Rules and cognitive Accounts of
Errors. Cognitive science, 14, 445-481.

Pennington, B.F., Wallach, I. and Wallah, M.A.(1980). Non Conservers’ Use and
Understanding of Number and Arithmetic Genetic Psychology Monographs, 101,
231-243.

Piaget, J. (1952) in martin Hughes (1989). Children and Number: Difficulties in learning
Mathematics. Britain: T.J. press (Padstow) limited.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

12, 176-186.

Piaget, J. (1979). Concept of Structure, in Scientific Thought, Some Underlying Concepts,

Methods and Procedures. Paris: Hague Mouton/UNESCO.

Piotrkowski, E. (2000: 540), in Akernan, D.J. and Barnett, W.S. (2006).

www.nieerorg/resources/policy reports/reports 5. pdf.

Plowman, L. and Stroud, J.B. (1992). The Effect of Informing Pupils of The Correctness
of Their Responses to Objective Test Questions. Journal of Educational Research,
36, 16-20.

Plumlee, L.B. (2000). The Effect of Difficulty and Chance Success on Item-Test
Correlation and on Test Reliability Psychometrika, 17, 69-86.

Popham, W.J. and Husek, T.R. (1969). Implications of Criterion-Referenced

Measurement, PP. 1-9, in Journal of Educational Measurement. Vol. 6, Number 1.

Raimi, A. (2001). Excerpts from Poor Performance Review. University of Rochester,

Washington. http://www.Mathematically Correct. Com/mspap.tm

Rawan University Instructions (2006). Instructions for Students-Precalculus Readiness

Testing. http://www.rawan.edu/mars/depts/math/readiness test/instructions% 20
for % 20 students…

Remmers, H.H. and Ewart, E. (2001). Reliability of Multiple Choice Measuring

Instruments as a Function of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula III, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 32, 61-66.

Romberg, T.A. (2006). Current Research in Mathematics Education. Review of

Educational Research, 39,473-491.

Ross, C.C. and Henry, L.K. (1939). The Relation Between Frequency of Testing and
Progress in Learning Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 604-
611.

Samuel, J.M. (2002). Readiness to Learn. In www.Gera.org/Library/reports/inquiry -3.

 153
Sawrey, J. M. and Telford, C. W. (1958). Educational Psychology. Allyn and Bacon. Inc.
Boston, P. 243.

School Goal Team Report (2006). MC’s School Readiness Definition.

www.fpg.unc.edu/school rediness/definition.htm.

Scott, Jr. N.C. (1990). ZIP Test: a Quick Locator Test for Migrant Children Journal of
Educational Measurement, 7, 49-50.

STAN (1974). Journal STAN vol. 12, Number 4, 49-52.

Stanley, J.C. (2000). Test, Better Finder of Great Mathematics Talent Than Teachers are
American Psychologist, 31 (4), 313 -314.

Stard, A. (1991). On the Duel Nature of Mathematical Conceptions: Reflections on

Processes and Objects and Different Sides of the same Coin. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 22,1-36.

Statsoft, L. D. (2003). Reliability and Item analysis. http://www.

Statsoft.com/textbook/streliab.htm.

Steffe, J. P. (1970). Differential Performance of First Grade Children when Solving

Arithmetic Addition Problems. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1,
144-161.

Stevin, S.K. (1969). Mathematics, The Man-made Univese. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Company.

STI, Annual Report (2006). Selecting Test Items.

http://www.edtech:vt.edu/edtech/id/assess/items.html.

Student Success Centre (2006). Readiness Assessment (Placement Test) Information

http://www.ancilla.edu/studentssucess/successfag.htm.

Smith, B. O. (1938). Logical Aspects of Educational Measurement. New York: Columbia

University Press.
Smith, M. R. (2005). Making Mathematics Count. The Report of Professor Advian
Smith’s Inquiry into Post 14 Mathematics Education: Mathematics for the Citizen,
Uk.

SPSS Inc.(2000). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Personal Computer (spsspc)
version 3.0, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Sydney, S.L. (1995). En-chanting, Facinating, Useful Number. Teaching Children

Mathematics, 1, 486-491.
 154
Tall, D. D. (2005). The Special Position of Mathematics. In the Report of Adrian
Smith’s Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education: Mathematics for the Citizen,
U.K.
Thorndike, R. L. and Hgen, E. P. (1977). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology
and education, (4th ed). New York: John Wisley and Sons.
Travers, R.M.W. (1951). Rational Hypotheses in the Construction of Tests. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 11,128-137.

Traler, D., Jacobs, V.L. Selover, M.O., and Townsend, T.J. (1973). Cognition and
instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ubagu, M.K. (1992). Process Errors Committed by Students in Solving Mathematics

Problems on Longitude and Latitude. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
UCCLA (2006). Reliability and Validity. www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/fag/alpha.html-24k.

UCSD (2006). Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project. The California State

University/University of California. http.//mdtp.ucsd.edu/onlineTests.Shtml.

Udegboka, K.O. (1987). Principles, Theories and Practice of Education. Onitsha a:

Etukokwu Publishers Ltd.

University of Vermont (MRTR Form, 2006). Mathematics Readiness Test Registration

Form. http://www.emba.Uvm.edu1-burgmeie/mrt:php3.

Unodiaku, S. S. (1998). Analysis of Errors Committed by SSI Students in Solving Word

and Symbolic Problems on Simultaneous Linear Equations. Unpublished M.ED.
Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Usman, K.O. And Harbor-peters, V.F.A. 91998). PROCESS Errors committed by senior
secondary school students in mathematics. Journal or science, technology and
mathematics Education

Vande Linder, L. F. (1994). Does the Study of quantitative Vocabulary Improve Problem
Solving? Elementary School Journal, 65, 143-152.

West African Examinations Council (2000). Chief Examiner’s Report. Lagos: West
African Examinations council.

Walter, D. and Nancy, H. (1971). Topics in Measurement: Reliability and Validity. Mc

Graw-Hill Inc., USA.

Warrigton, W.G. and Cromback, L. J. (1952). Efficiency of Multiple-Choice Tests as a

Functions of Spread of Item Difficulties. Psychometrika, 17,127-296.
 155
Watson, C.G, Juba, M.P., Manifold, V.; Kucala, T. and Anderson, P.E.D. (1991).
The PTSD Interview: Rationale, Description, Reliability , and Construct Validity of
a DSM -111 Based Technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 179-188.

Wesma, A.G. (1949). Effect of Speed on Item Test Correlation Coefficients. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 9, 51-57.

Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wilder, R.L. (2001). Evolution of Mathematical Concepts. London: Transworld

Rublishers Ltd.

WISC (2006). Summary of Test Statistics: What do Those Numbers Mean? http://testing.
Wisc.edu/what Do Those numbers Mean. htm.

Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay Versus Multiple-choice Type Classroom Exams: The

Student’s Perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 352-358.

Zylber, D. (2000). Didactic Assessment of Mathematics for Preschool Children. In

Zulber, D. (2004). The Link Between Preschool Mathematical Knowledge and the
Changing Cognitive Ability of Analogical Thinking. Master’s Degree Thesis,
School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

Zuriel, P. (2002). Children’s Conceptual and Perceptual Analogies Modifiability Test

(Second Part). In Zulber (2004). The Link between Preschool Mathematical
knowledge and the changing cognitive ability of analogical thinking. Master’s
Thesis, school of Education, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.

Zuriel, P. and Galinka (1999). Children’s Conceptual and Perceptual Analogies

Modifiability Test (first part). In Zylber (2004). The Link between preschool
Mathematical knowledge and the changing Cognitive ability of Analogical
Thinking. Master’s degree Thesis, School of Education, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan
University.
 156
APPENDIX: A
National Curriculum for Junior Secondary Schools Vol. 1 Science.
Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 1985.
YEAR 3
Topic Objectives Content Activities/Materials remarks
A: Number 1. Students will be Binary counting Producing and using simple Students are not
and able to apply binary system. The punched punch cards. Collecting required to
Numeration. numbers as a two- card data on simply-made cards make their own
way classification I = yes, O = no (3 or 4) holes only). punch cards.
system using punch intersection Library reading and other
cards. presented as ‘yes’ activities requiring the use
yes’. Complement of ‘punch tape’ (Telex).
presented as ‘no’. Students could code their
names in binary and write it
on strips of paper (to serve
as tapes).

2. Students will have The interpretation of Translation between

gained competence in word problems into numbers and words
applying the basic numerical Eg. (2+7) – 3
operations to expressions and 9
common and decimal equations using Is the same as;
fractions in word brackets and
problems. fractions. ‘one ninth of the difference
between the sum of 2 and 7
and the number 3’ ; ‘from
the product of 10 and 7
subtract 24 and then divide
the result by 3 is the same
as
(10 x 7) -24
3
 157

Topic Objectives Content Activities/Materials remarks

3. Students will be The concept of Preparation of speed time Compound
able to solve inverse proportion. and distance tables. Use of interest should
problems involving Study of applications ready reckoners. Other be considered
inverse proportion. such as speeds, practical problems on on yearly basis
productivity, inverse proportion. with the use of
consumption, and Preparation and use of formula.
reciprocal, reciprocal table. Compound
compound interest. interest.

4. students will be able Non-rational Trial and error approach to

to: numbers. square roots. Experiments
(i) Identify non- with circles to obtain. By
rational numbers, C
and graphs. The constant
D
(ii) determine, the .i.e.л
approximate value of
some non-rational Some historical approaches
numbers. e.g Archimedes
approximation of Л
applying Pythagoras
Theorem to the diagonals of
a unit square.

5. Students will be Decimal places and Interpretation of data such This should be
able to use significant figures. as population. Rounding off related to the
approximation Problems in in multiplication and pupils work in
measurement. mensuration addition to a reasonable Science and
involving volume. degree of accuracy. Geography.
Area of land. Calculation using standard Relate
Distances. Consumer form. Eg. calculation
arithmetic. Games (1.36 x 10-5) x (2.43 x 100). using standard
and athletics timing. form the use of
Etc. a calculation
machine.
 158

Topic Objectives Content Activities/Materials remarks

B Algebraic 1. Students will be Factorization of Working problems on Note its use for
Process able to factorize expressions of the factorization with rapid
algebraic form a2-b2. 3a-eb-3b numerical examples. calculations.
expressions. +ac, a2 = 2ab +b 2.

2. Students will be Solution of equations Solve a variety of simple

able to solve simple involving fractions, equations involving
equations involving i.e fractions with practical
fractions. 1 3 applications to word
 problems.
a b a 3
3. Students will be Graphical treatment Construct table of values The intersection
able to solve of simultaneous and use table to draw two of the two lines
simultaneous linear linear equations. linear graphs using the is the solution
equations in two same axes. of the two linear
variables. equations.
(i) Graphically, and When the two
(ii) By calculation. lines are paralle,
there is no
simultaneous
solution.

4. Students will be Simultaneous linear

able to solve equations of the form Solution of simultaneous Encourage
problems involving x+3y= 5 equations by standard checking of
variation. 2x+y=7 methods. Application to accuracy of
word problems. answers by
direct variation: substitution.
y= kx inverse
variation: = k/x Solve a variety of problems The students
partial variation: like, eg. should see these
y= kx + c (i) If 1 packet of sugar as examples of
joint variation: costs x kobo. What relationship
kc will be the cost of between two
y= 20 packets? variables.
x (ii) Speed, time
problems.

5. Students will be Change of subject of Exercise involving change

able to change the formula. of formula.
subject of a formula.
Eg. If 2x = y =d.
Expresses x in terms of y
and d.
 159

Topic Objectives Content Activities/Materials remarks

C: Geometry 1. Students will Views, plans and Use models of solids to Note its use for rapid
and be able to draw sketches of cube, identify and draw their calculations.
Measuration views and plans cone, cuboid. plans and views.
of common Cyclinder, sphere. Freehand sketches of
solids. objects from different
angles should also be
included.

2. Students will be Similar shapes: Compare angles and Note that:

able to identify triangles, sides of similar figures 1. in similar figures
similar figure. rectangles, by measurement, sliding (i) corresponding
squares, cubes and rotation or tracing. angles are equal,
cuboids. Identify corresponding (ii) ratio of
Enlargements and sides and angles. corresponding
scales factor. Examples like the sides is a
pinhole camera could constant.
serve as illustration. 2. all squares are similar
and all cubes are similar.

3. Students will be Find the ratio of

able to compare Use of the scale corresponding sides,
lengths. factor to calculate areas and volumes as
Careas and lengths. Areas and appropriate.
volumes of volume in practical Practical examples
similar figures. problems. leading to calculation of
length, areas and
volumes of similar
objects.
4. Students will be
able to The sine, cosine Determine the values of
determine the and tangent of an sine, Cosine and tangent
sine, cosine and acute angle. Use of of acute angles from
tangent of an similar right ratios of appropriate
acute angle. angled triangles. sides. Application to
finding distance and
lengths in practical It should be possible:
problems. Solve the problems
without using logarithm
5. Students will be Areas of triangles. Use example arising tables.
able to solve Parallelograms, from physical or Note that lengths may be
further problems trapeziums and technical situations and calculated using
on areas. circles. other everyday trigonometric ratios.
problems. E.g.
concentric circles.
Figures related to
metalwork or woodwork.
 160
Road signs, roofing,
tiling.
 161

Topic Objectives Content Activities/Materials remarks

6. Students will be Bisection of a line Bisection of line segments
able to perform segment. Bisection and angles using compasses
constructions, using a of an angle. and a straight edge.
pair of compasses Construction of Checking accuracy of
and a ruler. angels of size 90o, construction by
60o, 45o, 30 o. copying measurement of paper
a given angle. folding. Applications to
constructing triangles and
related figure.

D: Everyday 1. Students should Revision of earlier Students should suggest It should be

Statistics have consolidated work and further and investigate further possible to do
their knowledge of examples. relevant situations all examples
statistical Mean, median. Mode statistically, students should without using
presentations and and range. be led to deduce that: assumed mean
concepts. 1. the arithmetic sum and grouped
of the deviation from data.
the means is

2. The product of the

mean and the
number of items is
equal to the total
sum of the items.
Students should also
consider distributions with
the same mean and
different ranges, and
distributions with the same
range but different means.
The position of the mode
relative to the extreme
values should also be
considered. Consider
possible explanations for its
position.
 162
APPENDIX; B

Distribution of Sampled Subjects

Strata Edu. School No of 20% Name Student population 30% Total drawn
Zone Type school of of the of the
type the Sch. student
Sch. Male Female Total population
type Male Female Total
Pub. Priv. Pub. Priv.

Nsukka Boys - - 1 A 401 - 401 12 12 - 12

Obollo 4
Boys - 2 1 B 401 - 341 10 10 - 10
Nsukka Girls - 3 - 1 C - 370 370 11 - 11 11
Obollo 2 1
Urban Girls - D - 341 340 10 - 10 10

Nsukka - 3 P 271 200 471 14 8 6 14

mixed - 18 275 202 477 15 7 8 15
E
Nsukka 7 - 1 F 250 340 590 17 7 10 17
Obollo - 6 1 G 200 537 737 22 6 16 22
- mixed - 5 1 H 401 270 671 20 12 8 20

nsukka Boys - 3 - 1 I 251 201 452 13 7 6 13

Obollo boys - 2 - 1 J 401 - 401 12 12 - 12

Nsukka Girls - 3 - 1 K 351 - 351 10 10 - 10

Obollo girls - 3 - 1 L - 402 402 12 - 12 12

M - 353 353 10 - 10 10
Rural Nsukka 13 - 2 N 202 272 474 14 6 8 14
mixed -

Obllo 1 O 201 302 503 15 6 9 15

Nsukka 9 8 1 Q 303 250 553 15 9 7 15
Obollo - - 9 1 R 640 504 1144 34 19 15 34
mixed S 538 553 1091 33 17 16 33

69 28 19 148 152 300

 163
APPENDIX: C

Mathematics Readiness Test (MATHRET) Second Version

Time: 11/2hr.
Instructions Class: SS1

Your are not allowed to write on the question paper. You shall return the
question paper along with your answer script. Write your name, sex (i.e male or
female), school and class very clearly on your answer script. Show clearly the
processes you use in solving the following questions. Answer all the questions. Do
not start answering the questions until you are told to start.
1. Write down the translation of the following statement into numerical.
Subtract the sum of nineteen and three from the product of nineteen and
three and divide the result by seven.
2. Find one-sixth of the difference between the sum of sixteen and eleven
and the number three.
3. Write down the value of x, if 0.0000218 = 2.18 ×10x
4. Write down the approximate value of 0.046487 to two significant figures.
5. Multiply 1.12 by 0.11 and leave your answer in standard form.
6. A quantity of food took 40 students 15 days to consume. How many days
will it take 25 students to consume the same quantity of food?
7. Write down the factors of x2 – y2.
2
 3
8. Solve for x: x 12
x 1

9. Use calculation method to solve the simultaneous linear equations.

x– 3y = 10
2x – y = 15
10. Y varies inversely as the square-root of x. if x = 100 when y = 8, write
down the equation connecting x and y.
5t
11. Make t the subject of the formula: R =
3
 164

12. Use the plans drawn in (a) and (b) below to sketch cuboid and cone
respectively.

__________________
(Complete the cuboid)
(a)

(Plan)

(b)

Drawn Drawn
(Side view) (Top view)

(Note: complete the plan of the cone and drawn its side and top views in the
spaces provided).

13. Identify figures that are similar, giving two reasons.

80 0 400 600
0 0 80 0 Fig. 4
60 40 O
Fig. (2) 50
Fig. (1)
40O 60o
30o
Fig. (3) Fig. 5

14. How many lines of symmetry does the figure drawn below have?
 165

15. Calculate the value of x in the diagram below.

A
x
10cm

30O
C B

16. Using the diagram drawn below, find the side marked y.
y

60O
16cm

17. Calculate the angle marked  in the diagram below.

6 8
18. Write down four major steps in copying <ABC shown below.

19. Identify the angle constructed in the diagram above.

20. Two similar rectangles have a pair of corresponding sides in the ratio 3 :
7. If 270 cm2 is the area of the first rectangle, find the area of the second
rectangle.
21. Two similar cuboids have heights 6cm and 3cm. If the volume of the
second cuboid is 1800cm3 calculate the volume of the first cuboid.
22. Calculate the volume of a cone whose height is 4.2cm and diameter of
the base is 5cm (Take Л = 22/7).
23. Find the value of n if the mean of the scores 9, 10, 7, 1, 3, 9 and 0 is 8.
 166
24. Calculate the median of the following set of scores.
2.5, 4.5, 3.1, 2, 4.2, 2.5, 3.9, 4.3.

The following are the examination marks scored by 15 students. Use the
information to answer questions 25 and 26.
5, 8, 0, 4, 5, 7, 8, 5, 11, 4, 7, 0, 4, 5, 7.
25. Calculate the modal mark.
26. Find the range of the distribution.
27. A bag contains 35 ripped and 25 unripe ones. Calculate the probability of
selecting unripe fruits.
28. In a class of 21 girls and 42 boys, what is the probability of selecting a
girl as prefect of the class?
29. The figure drawn below shows the family spending in a day.
Rice

Potato
Meat
Beans

Yam

Which food item is the least expensive?

30. The figure shown below represents the population of students in junior
section of a school.
JS II
JS I
130O
JS III

Which section has greatest number of students?

 167

APPENDIX: D
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY ESTIMATE OF THE MATHRET

Item Pass Fail p q pq

1 73 37 .6636 .3364 .2232
2 80 30 .7273 .2727 .1983
3 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
4 75 35 .6818 .3182 .2169
5 82 28 .7455 .2545 .1897
6 74 36 .6727 .3273 .2202
7 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063
8 81 29 .7364 .2636 .1941
9 77 33 .7 .3 .21
10 75 35 .6818 .3182 .2169
11 83 27 .7545 .2455 .1852
12 85 25 .7727 .2273 .1756
13 69 41 .6273 .3727 .2338
14 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
15 72 38 .6545 .3455 .2261
16 92 18 .8364 .1636 .1368
17 90 20 .8182 .1818 .1487
18 94 16 .8545 .1455 .1243
19 91 19 .8273 .1727 .1429
20 93 17 .8455 .1545 .1306
21 89 21 .8090 .191 .1545
22 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063
23 80 30 .7273 .2727 .1983
24 69 41 .6273 .3727 .2338
25 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
26 77 33 .7 .3 .21
27 79 31 .7182 2818 .2024
28 81 29 .7364 .2636 .1941
29 74 36 .6727 .3273 .2202
30 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063

n = 30; s2 = 46.92; x = 80.2, s = 6. 85  pq =

5.8127

Reliability of MATHRET for Jss 3 students using

 168
KR – 20 = k 1   2  , when n = number of subjects, k = number of items,
 pq 

k  1 
SD 
P = proportion of the nominees that pass each item and
Q = (1-p) = proportion of the nominees who do not pass each item.
S2 = Variance of the total test scores.
Here, N = 110, k = 30, x = 80.2, s = 6.85, S2 = 46.92
30  5.8127 
KR - 20 = 1  
29  46.92 

= (1.034) (1-0.1239)
= (1.034) (0.8761)
= 0.91

APPENDIX: E
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY ESTIMATES OF THE MATHRET
SUBSCALE 1: NUMAP

Item Pass Fail p q pq

1 92 18 .8364 .1636 .1368
2 90 20 .8182 .1818 .1487
3 94 16 .8545 .1455 .1243
4 91 19 .8273 .1727 .1429
5 93 17 .8455 .1545 .1306
6 89 21 .8090 .191 .1545

K= 6, s2 = 3.5, x = 91.5,  pq =
.8378
6  .8378 
KR- 20 = 1  
5 3.5 

= 1.2 (1-0.2394)
= 1.2 (0.7606)
= 0.91
 169

SUBSCALE 2: CAMPUS
Item Pass Fail p q pq
1 73 37 .6636 .3364 .2232
2 80 30 .7273 .2727 .1983
3 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
4 75 35 .6818 .3182 .2169
5 82 28 .7455 .2545 .1897
6 74 36 .6727 .3273 .2202
7 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063
8 81 29 .7364 .2636 .1941
9 77 33 .7 .3 .21
10 75 35 .6818 .3182 .2169
11 83 27 .7545 .2455 .1852
12 85 25 .7727 .2273 .1756
13 69 41 .6273 .3727 .1756
14 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
15 72 38 .6545 .3455 [
.2261
 pq  3.1011

K = 15, x = 77.47, s2 = 19.84

15  3.1011 
KR- R20 = 1  
14  19.84 
15
= 1  .1563
14
= 1.071 (0.8437)
= 0.90
 170

SUBSCALE 3: MACOPS

Item Pass Fail p q pq

1 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063
2 80 30 .7227 .2727 .1983
3 69 41 .6273 .3727 .2338
4 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
5 77 33 .7 .3 .21
6 79 31 .7182 .2818 .2024
7 81 29 .7364 .2636 .1941
8 74 36 .6727 .3273 .2202
9 78 32 .7091 .2909 .2063
 pq =
1.8738
k=9, x = 78.55, s = 3.66, s2 = 13.40
9  1.8738 
KR- 20 = 1  
8 13.40 

= 1.125 (1-6.1398)
= 1.125 (0.8602)
= 0.97
 171
APPENDIX: F
Outline of content/objective tested and item analysis data on the second
version of mathematics readiness test (MATHRET)
Item Content/objective tested D P Obj.
No
Number and Numeration
1 Interpretation of word problems into numerical expressions .74 .66 K
2 Writing down word problems into numerical expression .7 .72 Ucp
3 Approximation in measurement; calculation using standard .64 .71 K
form
4 Approximation in measurement and signification figures. .66 .68 K
5 Calculation using standard from. .17 .74 Ucp
6 Solving problems involving inverse proportion. .73 .67 Ucp
Algebraic processes
7 Factorization of algebraic expressions. .17 .7 K
8 Simple equations involving fractions .68 .74 Ucp
9 Using calculation method to solve problems on simultaneous .73 .7 Ucp
linear equations in two variables.
10 Knowledge of variation. .16 .68 K
11 Change of subject of a formula. .68 .75 Ucp
Geometry and mensuration
12 Drawing views and plans of common solids. .61 .77 Ucp
13 Identification of similar figures. .66 .63 K
14 Identification of similar shapes. .63 .72 Ucp
15 Calculation of lengths of triangles. .62 .65 Ucp
16 Length of right-angled triangles. .68 .84 Ucp
17 Angle associated with right-angled triangle .68 .82 Ucp
18 Knowledge of construction. .71 .85 K
19 Idea of construction. .73 .83 K
20 Comparison of estimates involving areas of similar figures. .62 .81. Ucp
21 Comparison of estimates involving volumes of similar firgues. .68 .81 Dm
22 Calculation of volume of solid figues .67 .71 Dm
Everyday Statistics
23 Concept of mean. .73 .73 Ucp
24 Concept of median. .62 .63 Ucp
25 Concept of mode. .66 .72 Ucp
26 Idea of range. .72 .7 Ucp
27 Concept of probability. .61 .72 Dm
28 Idea of probability. .66 .74 Dm
29 Knowledge of pie-chart. .18 .87 K
30 Concept of pie-chart. .69 .71 Ucp
172
 173

NR
P= (100),
NT

where p = percentage of pupils who answer the test item correctly.

NR = number of pupils who answer the test item correctly.
Nt = total number of pupils who attempt to answer the test item.
Ru  R l
Discriminating index (D) = ,
N
where Ru = the number of upper achievers that scored the item correctly, Rl = the
number lower achievers who scored the item correctly, N = the number in the
group.
 174
APPENDIX: G
Analysis of MATHRET Items. Class: ss1
Computation of the item Difficulty (ID) and Discriminating index (DI)
Of the first version of the MATHRET.
S/N ID DI RMK
1 .19 .13 X
2 .57 .6 √
3 .61 .74 √
4 .59 .7 √
5 .68 .64 √
6 .74 .66 √
7 .12 .17 X
8 .61 .73 √
9 .69 .71 √ NR
P= (100), where p = percentage
10 .73 .68 √ NT
11 .59 .73 √
12 .4 .21 X of pupils who answer the test item
13 .62 .6. √ correctly. NR = number of pupils who
14 .66 .63 √ answer the test item correctly.
15 .78 .61 √
16 .59 .66 √ Nt = total number of pupils who attempt to
17 .36 .42 X answer the test item.
18 .58 .68 √
Discriminating index (D) =
19 .57 .68 √
20 .68 .71 √ RU  R L
, where Ru = the number of
21 .58 .73 √ N
22 .56 .62 √ upper achievers that scored the item
23 .62 .68 √
correctly, RL = the number lower
24 .71 .53 √
25 .19 .26 X achievers who scored the item
26 .49 .67 √ correctly, N = the number in the group.
27 .61 .73 √
28 .54 .62 √
29 .72 .66 √
30 .15 .29 X
31 .59 .72 √
32 .71 .61 √
33 .69 .58 √
34 .58 .66 √
 175
35 .68 .69 √
36 .67 .62 √
Key: √ = good item, x = bad item.
 176

APPENDIX: H
Analysis of MATHRET Items. Class: ss1
Computation of the item Difficulty (ID) and Discriminating index (DI)
of the first version of the MATHRET.
S/N ID DI RMK
1 .68 .62 √
2 .56 .5 √
3 .59 .72 √
4 .55 .61 √
5 .64 .62 √
6 .71 .63 √
7 .61 .55 √
8 .59 .7 √
9 .65 .72 √
10 .71 .65 √
11 .58 .74 √
12 .51 .6 √
13 .6 .55 √
14 .62 .6 √
15 .71 .59 √
16 .52 .63 √
17 .47 .44 √ Ru  Rl
Item difficulty (ID) = and
18 .59 .69 √ 2N
19 .54 .65 √ Ru  Rl
20 .64 .68 √ Discriminating index (DI) = , where
N
21 .57 .71 √
22 .55 .6 √ Ru = the number of upper achievers that scored
23 .6 .67 √ the item correctly, RL = the number
24 .7 .5 √ Lower achievers who scored the item correctly,
25 .58 .44 √
26 .49 .56 √ N = the number in the group.
27 .6 .72 √
28 .52 .63 √
29 .47 .5 √
30 .51 .6 √
Key: √ = good item.
 177

APPENDIX: I
Names of schools sampled for the study.
1. St. Theresa’s College, Nsukka devoted by
A
2. Boys’ Secondary school, Orba denoted by
B
3. St. Cyorian’s Girls’ Secondary School, Nsukka denoted by
C
4. Girls’ Secondary School, Obolo-Afor denoted by
D
5. Model Secondary School, Nsukka denoted by
E
6. Community Secondary School, Obimo denoted by
F
7. Community Secondary School, Obolo-Afor denoted by
G
8. Onward International School, Nsukka denoted by
H
9. Oxford Secondary School, Obolo-Afor denoted by
I
10. Boys’ Secondary School, Aku denoted by
J
11. Boys’ Secondary School, Ibagwa-Aka denoted by
K
12. Girls’ Secondary School, Aku denoted by
L
13. Girls’ Secondary School, Imiliki denoted by
M
 178
14. Community Secondary School, Ohebe-dim denoted by
N
15. Community Secondary School, Ede-Oballa denoted by
P
16. Community Secondary School, Umunko denoted by
O
17. Community Secondary School, Amala denoted by
Q
18. In-land Secondary School, Opi denoted by
R
19. Model Secondary School, Orba denoted by
S
 179
APPENDIX: J
Mathematics Readiness Test (MATHRET) skills.
A. Comprehending Skills:-
a) Ability to understand the concept of inverse proportion.
b) Ability to identify similar figures
c) Ability to identify lines of symmetry
d) Ability to understand the procedure of construction/bisection of angle
e) Ability to understand when to use formula appropriately
f) Ability to identify the quantity of objects from figure drawn.
B. process skill:
g) Ability to add numbers
h) Ability to multiply
i) Ability to subtract numbers
j) Ability to divide numbers
k) Ability to write numbers in standard form.
l) Ability to approximate numbers to a given significant figures.
m) Ability to factorize algebraic expression
n) Ability to multiply expression
o) Ability to add expressions.
p) Ability to sketch solid objects
q) Ability to find unknown side of a right-angled triangle.
r) Ability to find unknown angle of a right-angled triangle
s) Ability to compare areas/volumes of similar figures.
t) Ability to compare angles in a figure drawn.
u) Ability to balance equation.
C. Transformation skill:
(v) Ability to translate word problem into numeric
 180
D. Carelessness skill:
(w) Ability to write down values or expressions which one has mastery always.
E. encoding skill:
(x) Ability to draw accurately or write down the values in the diagrams
accordingly.
(y) Ability to write down the answers correctly (or with the appropriate signs,
where necessary).
The Mathematics Readiness Test Process Skills, the Number of points
allocated to each level of Skill and the Maximum frequency of the points
(Errors Committed by individual students.
Comprehending skill --- 6 points
Transformation skill --- 1 point
Process skill --- 15 points
Carelessness skill --- 1 point
Encoding skill --- 2 points
Total --- 25 points
Maximum frequency of the 25 points (Errors) per script of a student
= 59 (see marking scheme: appendix: k)
Maximum frequency of the Errors for the 300 students
= 59 × 300 = 17700.
 181

APPENDIX: K
Solution (MATHRET)
1.
 19  319  3 
 
 7 
MI Transf (v)
57  22
= M1 process (h)
7
M1 process (g)
35
= M1 process (j)
7
=5 M1 process (j)
A1 Encod (y) 6 marks

16  11  3
2. M1 Transf. (v)
6
23  3
= M1 process (g)
6
24
= M1 process (j)
6
= M1 process (j)
= 4 A1 Encod (y) 5 marks

3. 0.0000218 = 2.18 x 10-5

-5 x
 2.18 × 10 = 2. 18 × 10 M1 process (k)
 x = 15 A1 Encod. (y) 2marks
4. 0.046 M1 process (L)
A1 Encod (y) 2marks
112 11 1232
5.   = 0. M1 process (h)
100 100 10000
M1 process (j)
 182

= 1.232 × 10-1 M1 process (k)

A1 Econd 4marks

40 students = 15 days;
25 students = ?

40 15
6.  = 24 days. M1 process (h); M1 compr
25 1
A1 Encod. (y) 3 marks

7. (x – y) (x – y) M1 process (m)
A1 Ecode (y) 2 marks

8. L.C.M. of x -12 and x – 1 is (x – 12) (x – 1)

2 3
 x  12  x  1   x  12  x  1 
1 x  12 1 x 1

= 2(x-1) = 3(x-12)
2x – 2 = 3x – 36 M1 process (n)
2x – 3x = 2 – 36 M1 process (u)
x = 34 A1 Econd (y) 3 marks

9. x – 3y = 10 ………………… equ(1)
2x – y = 15………………… equ (2)
(1) x1 x – 3y = 10 …………………equ (3) M1 process (n)
(2) x 3 6x – 3y = 45 ………………….equ (4) M1 process (n)
(4) – (3) 5 x = 35 M1 process (i) M1 process (0)
35
x= = 7 M1 process (j)
5
Subtract 7 for x in equ (1) to get
 183
7 – 3y = 10
- 3y = 10-7 M1 process (u)
- 3y = 3
3
y= = -1 M1 process (j)
3
A1 Encod. (y) 8 marks

1 k
10. ya  where k is a constant.
x x,

k k
8= 8
100 10

 k = 80 M1 process (u)
80
y  A1 Encod. (y) 2 marks
x

5t
11. R2 = (by taking square-root of both sides)
3
2
 3R = 5t M1 process (u)

3R 2
t= A1 Encod. (y) 2 marks
5
12. (a)
(b)

Top view is a
M1 process (p) Circle without
A1 Encod. (x) centre
Side view is M1 Process (p)
M1 process (p) a rectangle A1 Encod. (x)
A1 Encod. (x) M1 Process (p)
A1 Encod. (x)
8 marks
13. Figure (1 and (2) are similar triangles because their;
(i) Corresponding angles are equal; M1 Compr (b)
 184
(ii) Corresponding sides are equal. A1 Encod (y) 2
marks
 185
14. 1
2
3 5 lines of Symmetry
4 M1 Compr (c) 1 mark
5
15. Sin 300
Sin 300 = 10 M1 process (n)
10
x= M1 process (q)
Sin 30

10
= M1 process (j)
1
2
x = 20cm A1 Encod (y) 4 marks

y
16. Cos 600 =
16
y = 16 Cos 600 M1 process (n)
= 16 × ½ M1 process (q)
M1 process (h)
= 8cm A1 Encod (y) 4 marks

6
17. Tan θ =
8
= 0.75 M1 process (j)
θ = tan-1 (0.75) M1 process (r)
θ = 370 A1 Enod (y). 3 marks

18. (i) Draw BC M1 Compr (d)

(ii) With B as center describe an arc to cut at C and B M1 compr
(d)
(iii) With the same radius put the point at C and cut again at B M1
compr (d)
 186
(iv) Join AB A1 Encod (y) 4 marks

19. Angle 450 A1 Encod (y) 1

mark
 187
2
3 7 49
20. :    1: M1 process (j)
3 3 9

M1 process (h)
49 270
 x M1 process (j)
9 1
M1 process (h)
= 1470cm2 A1 Encod (y) 5 marks

6
21. The scale factor is 6:3 = : 1 M1
3
process (j)
=2:1
3
 Vol. of the first cuboid = (2) Vol. of the second cuboid
= 8 × 1800 M1 process (h)
= M1 process (s)
= 14400cm3 A1 Encod (y) 4marks

1 m -2
22. Volume of cone = h M1
3
compr (e)
2
1 22 5 4.2 d 5
=      ( radius( r )   ) M1 process (s)
3 7 2 1 2 2

1 22 25 4.2
= x x x M1 process (h)
3 7 4 1
= 27.5cm3 A1 Encod (y) 4 marks

9  10  7 n  1  3  9  0
23. =8
7
22  7 n
 = 8 M1 process (g)
7
22+ 7n = 8 x 7
 188
7n = 56 – 22 M1 process (h)
7n = 34 M1 process (i)
34
n= M1 process (g)
7
= 4.86 A1 Encod.(y) 5 marks

24. 2, 2.5, 2.5, 5.1, 3.9, 4.2,

4.3, 4.5
3.1  3.9
Marks Tally Frequency  Median 
2
0 11 2
4 111 3 7
= M1 process (g)
5 1111 4 2
7 111 3 M1 process (j)
8 11 2
11 1 1 = 3.5 A1 Encod (y) 3
marks
25.

From the above table,

5 is the score that has the highest frequency 4.
 The modal mark is 5 A1 Encod (y) 1 mark
26. The rnage of the distribution is 11-
0 = 11.
M1 process (i), M1 compr (e), A1 Encod (y) 3 marks

27. Total number of fruits in the bag = 35 + 25 = 60 M1 process (g)

A1 Encod (y)
 189
25 5
Prob. of selection unriped fruits =  M1 process (j)
60 12
A1 Encod (y) 4 marks
28. Total of students = 21 + 42 = 63
21 1
Prob. of selecting a girl =  M1 process (g)
63 3
M1 process (j)
M1 Encod (y) 3 marks

29. Potato
Rice
Meat
Beans Yam

From the above figure, meat is the least expensive M1 Compr (f)
A1 Encod (y) 2 marks

30. JS II
JS I

130O
JS III

From the above figure, JS II = 900

JS III = 1300
0 0 0 0
 JS I = 360 - 130 - 90 = 140 M1 process (j)
M1 process (t)
 JSI has the greatest number of students A1 Encod. (y0 3 marks
 190
N.B: a, b, c, d, ………y represents the Mathematics Readiness Test
(MATHRET) Skills. (see Appendix .j) M1 and A1 are the marks/points allotted to
the skills accordingly. Total frequency of marks/errors = 59.
 191
APPENDIX: L

Standard deviation of ram scores (x and y) of errors committed by 148 male

and 152 female students respectively, as measured by MATHRET.
S/N Male Female x2 y2

(x) Key (y) Key

1 58 X 58 X 3364 3364

2 58 X 23  3354 784

3 58 X 56 X 3481 3136
4 29  58 X 841 3136

5 56 X 29  3136 841
6 56 X 59 X 2916 3136
7 56 X 23  3481 784
8 56 X 59 X 3481 3249
9 28  59 X 784 3481
10 58 X 28  3136 784
11 59 X 59 X 3481 3136
12 58 X 59 X 3364 3136
13 28  23  784 784
14 59 X 59 X 3481 3136
15 58 X 57 X 3364 3249
16 56 X 22  3136 784
17 59 X 57 X 3025 3249
18 23  56 X 784 3136

19 59 X 56 X 3481 3136
20 28 √ 23  784 784
21 57 x 59 X 3249 3481
22 28  57 X 784 2704
 192
23 22  57 X 784 3136
24 58 X 58 X 3364 3364
25 28  59 X 784 3025
26 58 X 58 X 3364 3364
27 57 X 59 X 3249 3481
28 56 X 58 X 3136 3364
29 29  57 X 841 3249
30 58 X 57 X 3364 3249
31 56 X 59 X 2809 3481
32 23  58 X 676 3136
33 22  55 X 729 3025
34 59 X 59 X 3025 3481
35 56 X 58 X 3025 3364
36 28  56 X 784 3136
37 56 X 29  3136 841
38 29  58 X 841 3364
39 57 X 59 X 3249 3481
40 59 X 28  3249 784
3481
41 57 X 23  3249 729
42 57 X 58 X 3249 3364
43 56 X 29  3236 841
44 58 X 59 X 3364 3481
45 56 X 58 X 3136 3364
46 58 X 59 X 3364 3025
47 59 X 58 X 3481 3364
48 58 X 22  3364 784
49 59 X 59 X 3481 3025
 193
50 56 X 58 X 3136 3364
51 58 X 23  3364 729
52 52 X 59 X 2704 3481
53 23  56 X 784 2704
54 57 X 58 X 3136 3364
55 59 X 53 X 3025 2809
56 59 X 54 X 2809 2916
57 59 X 59 X 3481 3481
58 58 X 56 X 3249 2916
59 28  59 X 784 3481
60 56 X 57 X 3136 3249
61 28  58 X 784 3364
62 22  58 X 841 3025
63 58 X 22  3364 784
64 29  59 X 841 3136
65 58 X 56 X 3025 3136
66 23  57 X 676 3249
67 22  58 X 841 3364
68 57 X 23  3249 784
69 56 X 58 X 3136 3364
70 59 X 29 X 3025 841
71 23 .R 59 X 729 3481
72 56 X 59 X 3136 3481
73 22  28  729 784
74 28  59 X 784 3481
75 58 X 57 X 3364 3249
76 59 X 27  2916 729
77 57 X 59 X 3249 3136
 194
78 23  58 X 784 3025
79 28  58 X 784 3364
80 23  58 X 676 3136
81 58 X 58 X 2809 3364
82 29  59 X 841 3481
83 59 X 23  2704 625
84 56 X 23  2809 676
85 27  58 X 729 3364
86 34 X 59 X 900 3481
87 23  58 X 676 3364
88 27  57 X 729 3249
89 22  56 X 676 3136
90 55 X 59 X 3481 3481
91 58 X 28  3025 784
92 56 X 23  3136 729
93 59 X 59 X 2601 3481
94 59 X 29  3481 841
95 58 X 58 X 3364 3364
96 28  57 X 784 3249
97 22  59 X 729 3481
98 23  56 X 729 3136
99 59 X 59 X 3136 3481
100 28  58 X 784 3364
101 29  59 X 841 3481
102 23  56 X 784 3481
103 29  59 X 841 3481
104 28  58 X 784 3364
 195
105 59 X 59 X 3481 3481
106 58 X 29  3025 841
107 59 X 59 X 3481 3481
108 28  59 X 784 3025
109 58 X 59 X 3364 3481
110 59 X 58 X 2916 3364
111 22  55 X 484 3025

112 23  58 X 676 3364

113 59 X 58 X 3249 3364

114 29  53 X 841 2809

115 29  58 X 841 3364

116 23  58 X 784 3364

117 28  56 X 784 3136

118 26  58 X 676 3364

119 22  58 X 676 3364

120 24  59 X 576 3025

121 28  23  784 729

122 28  58 X 784 3364

123 55 X 59 X 3025 3481

124 28  58 X 784 3364

125 49 X 59 X 1936 3481

126 48 X 48 X 3364 3364
127 55 X 57 X 3025 3249
128 28  57 X 784 3249

129 49 X 59 X 2025 3481

130 58 X 55 X 3364 3025
131 52 X 28  2704 784
 196
132 58 X 56 X 3364 3136
133 58 X 23  3025 784

134 56 X 56 X 3136 3136

135 35 X 58 X 900 3364
136 27  28  729 784

137 23  59 X 676 3481

138 59 X 58 X 3481 3364

139 58 x 59 X 3364 3136
140 56 x 57 X 3136 3025
141 54 X 57 X 3481 3249
142 57 X 55 X 3249 3025
143 58 X 56 X 3364 3136
144 55 X 58 X 2401 3364
145 25  59 X 841 3136

146 57 x 59 X 3249 3364

147 59 x 23  3481 676

148 51 X 56 X 2916 3136

149 59 X 3481
150 58 X 3364
151 56 X 3136
152 57 X 3249

Key Total errors committed by male students = 6668

 = ready Total errors committed by female students = 7840
 fairly ready (f.R) Total number of students ‘fairly ready’ = 47
x = not ready Total number of students ‘ready’ = 38
Total number of students ‘not ready’ = 215
38 100
Percentage of students ‘ready’ =  = 12.67%
300 1
 197
47 100
Percentage of students ‘fairly ready’  =15.67%
300 1
215 100
Percentage of students ‘not ready’  = 71.66%
300 1
2
 x  6669;  x = 333571; N = 148; X1 = 45.05
Standard Deviation (S.D.) of Errors scores (x) made by male students.
S.D =
 x2   x  333571  6668 
 2   2  2752.56  2660.50  224.36  14.98
N  N  148  148 
S12 = 224.40
 198

Standard Deviation (S.D) of errors scores (y) made by female students.

2
 y = 7840 ; y = 418389; N = 152; Y1 = 51.58
2
Y 2   X  418389  7840  92.06
S.D. =     2  2752 .56  26660 .50 
N  N  152  152  N
= 9.59
S22 = 91. 97
 199
APPENDIX: M
Standard deviation of raw scores (x and y) of errors committed by urban and
rural students respectively, as measured by MATHRET.

S/N Urban Rural x2 y2 S/N Urban Rural x2 y2

(x) (y) (x) (y)
1 49 55 2401 3025 40 54 50 2916 2500
2 55 52 2025 2704 41 55 53 3025 2809
3 28 51 784 2601 42 53 48 2809 2304
4 47 57 2209 3249 43 46 53 2116 2809
5 41 58 1681 3364 44 29 50 841 2500
6 56 59 3131 3481 45 48 57 2304 3249
7 49 56 2401 3136 46 47 55 2209 3025
8 29 55 841 3025 47 53 51 2809 2601
9 47 54 2209 2916 48 49 59 2401 3481
10 29 53 841 2809 49 55 49 3025 2401
11 51 50 2601 2500 50 28 46 784 2116
12 56 54 3136 2916 51 49 58 2401 3364
13 37 55 1369 3025 52 28 59 784 3481
14 48 52 2304 2704 53 29 56 841 3136
15 50 51 2500 2601 54 47 57 2209 3249
16 53 52 2809 2704 55 48 53 2304 2809
17 55 50 3025 2500 56 34 48 1156 2304
18 27 54 729 2916 57 56 56 3136 3136
19 54 49 2916 2401 58 41 54 1681 2916
20 26 58 676 3364 59 27 57 729 3249
21 55 56 3025 3136 60 42 41 1764 1681
22 43 53 1849 2809 61 23 34 529 1156
23 52 56 2704 3136 62 59 50 3481 2500
24 53 54 2809 2916 63 54 47 2916 2209
25 55 52 3025 2704 64 52 49 2704 2401
26 49 56 2401 3136 65 54 51 2916 2601
27 37 59 1369 3481 66 51 53 2601 2809
28 49 52 2401 2704 67 29 28 841 784
29 41 48 1681 2304 68 50 43 2500 1849
30 43 44 1849 1936 69 43 49 1849 2401
31 53 55 2809 3025 70 28 55 784 3025
32 40 50 1600 2500 71 59 50 3481 2500
33 53 53 2809 2809 72 47 56 2209 3136
34 55 51 3025 2601 73 51 51 2601 2601
35 28 48 784 2304 74 23 42 529 1764
36 49 56 2401 3136 75 54 51 2916 2601
 200
37 40 59 1600 3481 76 28 59 784 3481
 201
38 52 47 2704 2209 77 59 54 3481 2916
39 51 54 2601 2916 78 55 43 3025 1849
79 43 38 1849 1444 119 57 54 3249 2916
80 42 55 1764 3025 120 23 54 529 2916
81 49 51 2401 2601 121 59 56 3481 3136
82 47 46 2209 2116 122 48 53 2304 2809
83 48 56 2304 3136 123 50 52 2500 2704
84 47 28 2209 784 124 52 58 2704 3364
85 51 52 2601 2704 125 43 50 1849 2500
86 53 54 2809 2916 126 51 43 2601 1849
87 29 38 841 144 127 26 46 676 2116
88 59 30 3481 900 128 22 59 484 3481
89 28 46 784 2116 129 42 56 1764
90 55 52 3025 2704 130 39 53 1521
91 50 38 2500 1444 131 28 56 784
92 49 46 2401 2116 132 37 55 1369
93 52 49 2704 2401 133 22 59 484
94 29 33 2401 1089 134 41 54 1681
95 42 59 1764 3481 135 27 59 729
96 58 52 3364 2704 136 33 53 1089
97 27 46 729 2116 137 50 55 2500
98 46 51 2116 2601 138 43 51 1849
99 49 58 2401 3364 139 28 55 784
100 56 50 3136 2500 140 27 59 729
101 53 54 2809 2916 141 36 58 1296
102 41 54 1681 2916 142 28 53 784
103 49 47 2401 2209 143 45 54 2916
104 53 42 2809 1764 144 58 55 3025
105 57 43 3249 1849 145 55 3025
106 56 56 3136 3136 146 59 3481
107 48 51 2304 2601 147 57 3249
108 53 49 2809 2401 148 59 3481
109 42 58 1764 3364 149 58 3364
110 53 56 2809 3136 150 53 2809
111 40 51 1600 2601 151 59 3236
112 28 53 784 2809 152 56 3136
113 28 52 784 2704 153 59 3481
114 57 59 3249 3481 154 58 3364
115 37 48 1369 2304 155 59 3481
116 49 57 2401 3249 156 58 3364
117 55 52 3025 2709
118 50 50 2500 2500
202
 203
Total errors committed by urban students = 6395
Total errors committed by rural students = 8113
Standard deviation (S.D) of errors scores (x) made by urban students.
2
N2 = 144;  x 2 = 6395; x 2 = 308672; x = 44.41

2 2 2
 x2   x2  308672  6395 
S.D. =       2143.56 - 1972.22
N2  N2  144  144 

S2 = 13.09
S22 = 171.35
Standard deviation (S.D) of errors scores (x1) made by rural students.
2
N1 = 156;  x 1 = 8113; x1 = 442496; x1 = 52.01
2 2 2
 x1   x1  442496  8113 
S.D. =      
N1  N1  156  156 

= 2836.51  2705.04 = 11.47

= S1 = 11.47
= S12 = 131.56
x1 x 2 52.01  44.41 37.6 37.6
 t cal     = 26. 48
s1
2
s22 131.56 171.35 0.84  1.19 1.42
 
n1 n2 156 144
 204
APPENDIX: N
Standard deviation of raw scores (x and y) of errors committed by public and
private students respectively, as measured by MATHRET.
S/N Public Private x2 y2 S/N Public Private x2 y2
(x) (y) (x) (y)
1 58 59 3364 3481 38 52 58 2704 3364
2 59 27 3481 729 39 56 59 3136 3481
3 28 56 784 3136 40 27 59 729 3481
4 54 59 2916 3481 41 58 28 3364 784
5 58 29 3364 841 42 28 59 784 3481
6 28 58 784 3364 43 58 59 3364 3481
7 59 26 3481 676 44 27 58 729 3364
8 58 59 3364 3481 45 56 28 3136 784
9 28 58 784 3364 46 28 59 784 3481
10 29 27 841 729 47 58 58 3364 3364
11 28 58 784 3364 48 53 27 2809 729
12 58 59 3364 3481 49 29 59 841 3481
13 29 26 841 676 50 28 57 784 3249
14 28 59 784 3481 51 55 59 3025 3481
15 28 59 784 3481 52 57 58 3249 3364
16 57 58 3249 3364 53 53 59 2809 3481
17 58 27 3364 729 54 28 58 784 3364
18 29 59 841 3481 55 54 59 2916 3481
19 28 58 784 3364 56 53 27 2809 729
20 29 59 841 3481 57 29 59 841 3481
21 28 56 784 3136 58 28 57 784 3249
22 58 25 3364 625 59 54 26 2916 676
23 54 59 2916 3481 60 59 59 3481 3481
24 55 59 3025 3421 61 54 57 2916 3249
25 59 59 3481 3481 62 53 28 2809 784
26 28 58 784 3364 63 59 58 3481 3364
27 58 29 3364 841 64 29 59 841 3249
28 28 59 784 3481 65 28 59 784 3481
29 52 57 2704 3249 66 27 59 729 3481
30 51 28 2601 784 67 29 58 841 3364
31 28 59 784 3481 68 55 59 3025 3481
32 27 59 729 3481 69 28 29 784 841
33 58 28 3364 784 70 27 59 729 3481
34 28 59 784 3481 71 29 29 841 841
35 29 29 841 841 72 55 58 3025 3364
36 52 58 2704 3364 73 28 57 784 3249
37 58 59 3364 3481 74 54 59 2916 3481
 205
75 52 57 2704 3249 116 28 784
76 29 58 841 3364 117 59 3481
77 28 59 784 3481 118 52 2704
78 54 57 2916 3249 119 28 784
79 28 58 784 3364 120 29 841
80 52 59 784 3381 121 51 2601
81 28 58 784 3364 122 58 3364
82 59 59 3481 3481 123 52 2704
83 56 58 3136 3364 124 59 3481
84 58 29 3364 841 125 28 784
85 28 58 784 3364 126 29 841
86 52 59 2704 3481 127 28 784
87 58 59 3364 3481 128 50 2500
88 27 57 729 3249 129 59 3481
89 57 57 3249 3249 130 28 784
90 52 58 2704 3364 131 54 2916
91 58 57 3364 3249 132 59 3481
92 29 29 841 841 133 28 784
93 54 59 2916 3481 134 52 2704
94 27 58 729 3364 135 27 728
95 28 28 784 784 136 55 3025
96 59 58 3481 3364 137 51 2601
97 58 28 3364 784 138 50 2500
98 56 57 3136 3249 139 52 2704
99 55 58 3025 3364 140 51 2601
100 29 55 841 3025 141 53 2809
101 26 28 3136 784 142 55 3025
102 57 54 3249 2916 143 54 2916
103 53 59 2809 3481 144 57 3249
104 55 28 3025 784 145 28 784
105 29 57 841 3249 146 54 2916
106 28 55 784 3025 147 58 3364
107 54 58 2916 3364 148 59 3481
108 53 56 2809 3136 149 58 3364
109 54 50 2916 250 150 58 3364
110 53 2809 151 57 3249
111 51 2601 152 59 3481
112 28 784 153 28 784
113 59 3481 154 59 3481
114 58 3364 155 58 3364
115 29 841 156 53 2809
 206
157 57 3249
158 59 3481
159 54 2916
160 58 3364
161 54 2916
162 58 3364
163 58 3364
164 58 3364
165 54 2916
166 53 2809
167 54 2916
168 53 2809
169 54 2916
170 56 3136
171 54 2916
172 57 3249
173 55 3025
174 57 3249
175 25 625
176 52 2704
177 57 3249
178 58 3364
179 53 2809
180 58 3364
181 54 2916
182 58 3364
183 52 2704
184 58 3364
185 55 3025
186 52 2704
187 57 3249
188 54 2916
189 55 3025
190 57 3249
191 57 3249

 x = 8964,  x 2 = 452640,  y 5544,  y 2 = 299594

Number of x = 186 Number of y = 144
Mean (x) = 49.55 Mean (y) = 46.42
Standard deviation (S.D or errors made by students in Public schools.
 207
2 2 2

S.D. = x x
   452640  8964 
   2433.55  2322.62
N  N  186  1'86 
 

= 110.93 = 10.53, S21 = 110.93

Standard deviation (S.D) of errors made by students in Private schools.
2 2 2

S.D. = Y 
 Y 
  
299594  5544 
   2628.02  2365.03  262.99  16.22
N  N  114  114 
 

S22 = 262.99

x1 x 2 49.55  46.42 3.13 3.13 3.13

 t cal      = 1.83
S1
2
S
2
110.93 262.99 0.60  2.31 2.91 1.17
 2 
n2 n2 186 114

Total frequency of errors committed by students from public schools = 8964.

Number of students from public schools = 186 . Mean (x) = 49.55.
Total frequency of errors committed by students from private schools = 5544.
Number of students from private schools = 114. Mean (y) = 46.42
 208
APPENDIX: O

TOTAL FREQUENCY OF ERRORS COMMITTED ON MATHRET SKILLS.

SEX LOCATION SCHOOL TYPE
Errors Skills to Total freq. Freq. of freq. of Freq. of Freq. of Freq. of Freq. of
Category be Of errors errors errors urban errors errors errors
mastered committed males female students rural private public
on the committed committed committed students students students
skills committed committed committed
A Comprehending skills
A 469 198 271 187 282 190 353
B 478 209 269 213 265 217 335
C 465 202 263 218 247 204 333
D 615 213 402 237 378 245 352
E 546 235 311 226 320 242 386
F 537 225 312 236 301 241 378
B Process skill
G 627 294 333 283 344 294 415
H 652 307 345 300 352 289 445
I 635 170 465 193 442 210 449
J 809 305 504 328 481 337 554
K 528 230 298 247 281 238 372
L 532 241 291 228 304 236 378
M 519 246 273 244 275 232 369
n 620 228 392 231 389 241 461
o 503 231 272 220 283 221 356
p 612 253 359 364 248 373 321
q 579 248 331 241 338 251 410
r 509 321 278 239 270 243 348
s 566 275 291 286 280 289 359
t 490 235 255 243 247 248 324
u 618 299 319 285 333 251 394
C Transformation Skills
v 558 430 128 397 161 388 170
D Carelessness Skill
w 459 248 211 232 227 239 220
E Encoding Skill
x 593 368 547 345 248 315 242
y 989 547 442 521 468 547 442
5292 9216
 209
APPENDIX: P
Outline of content/objective tested and item analysis data on the first version
of Mathematics readiness test (MATHRET).
Item Content/objective tested D P Obj
No
Number and Numeration
1 Interpretation of word problems into numerical expressions .71 .64 K
2 Interpretation of word problems into numerical expression .11 .16 K
3 Write down word problems into numerical expression .7 .72 Ucp
4 Write down value of an expression in numerical term. .18 .15 K
5 Approximation in measurement; calculation using standard form. .64 .71 K
6 Approximation in measurement; and significant figures. .66 .68 K
7 Calculation using standard form. .17 .74 Ucp
8 Solving problems involving inverse proportion .73 .67 Ucp
Algebraic processes
9 Factorization of algebraic expressions. .17 .7 K
10 Simple equations involving fractions .68 .74 Ucp
11 Factorization of algebraic expressions. .17 .19 Ucp
12 Using calculation method to solve problems on simultaneous .73 .7 Ucp
linear equations in two variables.
13 Knowledge of variation .16 .68 K
14 Change of subject of a formular .68 .75 Ucp
Geometry and mensuration
15 Drawing views and plans of common solids. .61 .77 Ucp
16 Identification of similar figures. .66 .63 K
17 Identification of similar shapes. .63 .72 Ucp
18 Calculation length of triangles .62 .65 Ucp
19 Length of right-angled triangles .68 .84 Ucp
20 Angle associated with right-angled triangle .68 .82 Ucp
21 Knowledge of construction. .71 .85 K
22 Idea of construction. .73 .83 K
23 Comparison of estimates involving areas of similar figures. .62 .85. Ucp
24 Comparison of estimates involving volumes of similar figures. .68 .81 DM
25 Calculation of volume of similar figures .67 .71 DM
 210

Everyday Statistics
26 Concept of mean. .73 .73 Ucp
27 Idea of mean. .21 .19 Ucp
28 Concept of median. .62 .63 Ucp
29 Concept of mode. .66 .72 Ucp
30 Idea of range. .72 .7 Ucp
31 Concept of probability. .61 .72 DM
32 Idea of probability. .66 .74 DM
33 Knowledge of pie-chart. .18 .67 K
34 Concept of pie-chart. .69 .71 Ucp
35 Idea of mode .2 .24 Ucp
36 Concept probability .18 .22 DM
NR
P= (100), where p= percentage of pupils who answer the test item correctely.
NT
NR = number of pupils who answer the test item correctly.
NT = total number of pupils who attempt to answer the test item.
RU  R L
Discriminating index (D) = , where Ru = the number upper achievers that
N
scored the item correctly, RL = the number lower achievers who scored the item
correctly, N = the number in the group.
 211

APPENDIX: S
Internal Consistency Reliability Estimate of the MATHRET on first version.
Item Pass Fail p q pq
1 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
2 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
3 71 9 .8875 .1125 .0998
4 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
5 60 20 .75 .25 .1875
6 72 8 .9 .1 .09
7 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185
8 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
9 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
10 74 6 .925 .075 .0694
11 66 14 .825 .175 .1443
12 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185
13 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
14 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
15 60 20 .75 .25 .1875
16 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
17 67 13 .8385 .1625 .1362
18 58 22 .8625 .1375 .1185
19 74 6 .925 .075 .0694
20 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
21 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
22 71 9 .8875 .1125 .0998
23 72 8 .9 .1 .09
24 64 16 8 .2 .16
25 70 10 875 .125 .1093
26 59 21 .7375 .2625 .1936
27 61 19 .7625 .2375 .1881
28 58 22 .8625 .1375 .1185
29 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
30 66 14 .825 .175 .1443
31 70 10 .875. .125 .1093
32 60 20 8125 .1875 .1523
33 71 9 .8875 .1125 .0998
34 74 6 .925 .075 .0694
35 67 13 .8385 .1625 .1362
36 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
4.6251
K= 36, X = 67.14, S.D. = 4.64, S2 = 21.55,  pq = 4.6251
 212
Subscale 1: NUMAP

Item Pass Fail p q pq

1 68 12 .85 .15 .1295
2 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
3 63 17 .7875 .2125 .1673
4 67 13 .8385 .1625 .1362
5 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
6 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185
7 66 14 .825 .175 .1443
8 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523

K = 8, X = 66.63, S= 2.23, S2 = 5.41,  pq = 1.1077

8  1.1077 
KR – 20 = 1  
7 5.41 
8
= 1  0.2048  = 8 0.795 = (1.14) (0.79) = 0.9063 = 0.91
7 7

Subscale 2: CAMPUS

Item Pass Fail p q Pq

1 72 8 .9 .1 .09
2 64 16 .8 .2 .16
3 66 14 .825 .175 .1443
4 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
5 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
6 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
7 65 15 .8125 .1875 .1523
8 67 13 .8385 .1625 .1362
9 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
10 60 20 .75 .25 .1875
11 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185
12 70 10 .875 .125 .1093
13 71 9 .8875 .1125 .0998
14 68 12 .85 .15 .1275
15 59 21 .7375 .2625 .1936
16 66 14 .825 .175 .1443

17 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185

2
K = 17, X = 67.18, S= .593, S = 12.90,  pq = 2.2554
 213

17  2.2554 
KR – 20 = 1  
16  12.90 
17
= 1  01748  = 1.0625 (0.8252 = 0.88
16

Subscale 3: MACOBS
Item Pass Fail p q pq
1 70 10 0.875 .125 .1094
2 69 11 .8625 .1375 .1185
3 63 18 .7878 .2125 .1673
4 68 15 .85 .15 .1275
5 68 10 .85 .15 .1275
6 65 16 .8125 .1875 .1523
7 70 13 .875 .125 .1093
8 64 14 0.8 .2 .16
9 67 13 .8385 .1625 .1362
10 66 14 .825 .175 .1443
11 68 12 .785 .125 .1093

K = 11, x = 67.09, S = 2.34, S2 = 5.4,  pq = 1.4616

11  1.4616 
KR - 20 = 1  
10  5.49 

= 1.1 (1- 0.2662)

= 1.1 (1-0.7338)
= 0.81
 214
APPENDIX: T
MATHEMATICS Readiness Test (MATHRET) First Version.

Time: 1 ½ hr.
Instructions Class: SS 1
You are not allowed to write on the question paper. You shall return the
question paper along with your answer script. Write your name, sex (i.e male or
female), school and class very clearly on your answer script. Show clearly the
processes you use in solving the following questions. Answer all the questions. Do
not start answering the questions until you are told to start.
1. Write down the translation of the following statement into numerical.
Subtract the sum of nineteen and three from the product of nineteen and
three and divide the result by seven.
2. Write down the product of three multiplied by one-fifth and two.
3. Find one-sixth of the difference between the sum of sixteen and eleven and
the number three.
4. Write down the value of x, if 2.1x = 5.8 x 10.
5. Write down the value of x, if 0.0000218 = 2.18 x 10x
6. Write down the approximate value of 0.046487 to two significant figures.
7. Multiply 1.12 by 0.11 and leave your answer in standard form.
8. A quantity of food took 40 students 15 days to consume. How many days
will it take 25 students to consume the same quantity of food?
9. Write down the factors of x2 – y2.
2 3
10. Solve for x: 
x  12 x  1
11. Write down the factors of x2 + y2.
12. Use calculation method to solve the simultaneous linear equations.
x- 3y =10
2x –y = 15
 215

13. y varies inversely as the square-root of x. If x = 100 when y = 8, write down

the equation connecting x and y.
5t
14. Make t the subject of the formula R =
3
15. Use the plans drawn in (a) and (b) below to sketch cuboid and cone
respectively.

(a) __________________
(Plan (Complete the cuboid)

(b) Draw Draw

(Side view) (Top view)

(Note: complete the plan of the cone and draw its side and top views in the
spaces provided).
16. Identify figures that are similar, giving two reasons.

80 0 40 0 60 0
600 400 80 0
Fig. (4)
Fig. (2) 50O
Fig. (1) 60o
40O 30o
Fig. (5)
Fig. (3)
 216

17. How many lines of symmetry does the figure drawn below have?

18. Calculate the value of x in the diagram below.

A
X
10cm

30O
C B

19. Using the diagram drawn below, find the side marked y.

60O
16cm
20. Calculate the angle marked θ in the diagram below.

6 8

21. Write down four major steps in copying <ABC shown below.

B C

22. Identity the angle constructed in the diagram above.

 217

23. Two similar rectangles have a pair of corresponding sides in the ratio 3 : 7.
If 270 cm2 is the area of the first rectangle, find the area of the second
rectangle.
24. Two similar cuboids have heights 6cm and 3cm. If the volume of the second
cuboid is 180cm2 calculate the volume of the first cuboid.
25. Calculate the volume of a cone whose height is 4.2cm and diameter of the
base is 5cm (Take Л = 22/7) .
26. Find the value of n if the mean of the scores 9, 10, 7, 1,3, 9, and 0 is 8.
27. Find n if the mean of the scores 7, 0, 3, n, 4, 10 and 5 is 6.
28. Calculate the median of the following set of scores.
2.5, 4.5, 3.1 2, 4.2, 2.5, 3.9, 4.3.
The following are the examination marks scored by 15 students. Use the
information to answer questions 29 and 30.
5, 8, 0, 4, 5, 7, 8, 5, 11, 4, 7, 0, 4, 5, 7.
29. Calculate the modal mark.
30. Find the range of the distribution.
31. A bag contains 35 ripped fruits and 25 unripe ones. Calculate the probability
of selecting unripe fruits.
32. In a class of 21 girls and 42 boys, what is the probability of selecting a girl
as perfect of the class?
33. The figure drawn below shows the family
Rice

spending in a day.
Potato
Which food item is the least expensive?
Meat
Beans

Yam
 218

34. The figure shown below represents the population of students in

junior section of a school.
JS I JS II
Which section has greatest number of students?
130O
JS III

35. Calculate the mode of these scores

7, 1, 0, 7, 5, 2, 0, 9, 12.
36. In a class of 10 boys and 15 girls, what is the probability of selecting a boy
of 15 years of age?
 219
Appendix: R
Recommendation on what teachers should do over the errors students committed.
1. As the study showed that the error of inability of the student to write down
the answers correctly (or with the appropriate signs, where necessary)
ranked highest (989 frequency of errors) among the 25 skills, teacher are
encouraged to draw the attention of the student in teaching process to write
answers with the appropriate units or signs. For instance, if area, with m2 (i.e
square meter). Again, if volume was calculated in litres, the answer should
be in unit L3 (read as cubic litres). Moreso, if an angle was measured as 28
degrees; it should be designated as 28o and not 28. Teacher should
emphasize to the student that positive and negative numbers are not the same
because of the negative sign. For instance, -5 is not the same as 5. Therefore,
if an answer to a question is -5, writing down only 5 implies entirely
different number thereby committing this error. All these illustrations were
noted in the students’ script.
2. The next to the highest frequency of errors student committed was inability
to divide numbers in which 809 frequencies of errors was recorded by the
students. To remedy further occurrence of such error among student(s) who
may fall victim of this error, teachers should draw the attention of the
students to know that:
a. 2 divide all number whose last digit is even number or zero;
b. 5 divide all number whose last digit is 5 or zero.

3. The third highest frequency of error students committed occurred in inability

of the students to multiply numbers in which they committed 652
frequencies of errors. Teachers should draw the attention of the students to
learn by heart the multiplication table from 2 times up to 12 times as
prerequisite for proper learning of mathematics involving multiplication of
numbers.
 220
4. Students seriously demonstrated their inability to subtract numbers as
well as being unable to add numbers. This lack of prerequisite knowledge/
skill in subtraction and addition of numbers requires that before teachers
engage the students in the learning process, the students’ attention should be
drawn to the prerequisite knowledge of the arithmetic method of “carrying”
and “addend” before introducing harder secondary school Mathematics
problems as found that inability of the students to subtract numbers
constituted a total of errors of 635 frequencies of errors while their inability
to add number yielded a total of 627 frequencies of errors.
5. The students showed evidence of lack of ability to multiply expression in
which they committed 620 frequencies of errors. Teachers should inform the
student that in multiplying expression, constants should be used to multiply
constants while letters should be used to multiply letters. For instance, 2r 
4n = (2 4)  (r  n) = 8rn. Also, 3t  5t = (3  5)  (t  t) = 15  t2 = 15t2. in
balancing equation, whatever is done to one side of the equation should be
applicable to the other side. For instance, to find the value of x in the
equation 5x = 10, divide both side by the coefficient of x (i.e 5). The value
of x therefore becomes 2. (i.e x = 2). In most of the students’ script it was
observed that students that failed these two aspects were mixing numbers
and letters in multiplication as well as dividing one side of equation and
leaving the other side undivided with the same number.
6. The students demonstrated inability to understand procedure of
construction/bisection of angle by recording a total of 615 frequencies of
errors and inability to sketch solid objects in which they recorded 612
frequencies of errors. In remediation, teacher should draw the attention of
the students on using ruler to draw straight line(s), marking the required
measurement on the line segment drawn (say 8cm, or 5cm, as may be
required), the use of a pair of compasses to draw an arc(s), drawing another
line segment to cut previous line segment drawn (as case may be). Teachers
should lead the students by using a pair of compasses bisecting line or angle
 221
and not protractor. Teachers should emphasize that in all constructions/
bisection of angles all arcs required in the process must be clearly shown
(see Appendix: C items 18 and 19). From the script of the students that
committed these two errors, there was no evidence of the use of a pair of
compasses as no arcs was shown. In some students’ scripts the angle was
bisected accurately but no arc was showing, implying that such students
must have used protractor to divide the angle and this step is no longer
construction. It is wrong procedure in construction.

Furthermore, teacher should build into the students those prerequisite skills that
could enable them sketch solid objects. Such as knowledge of terms like plan,
edges, top view, side view, front view, parallel projection, proportional drawing,
and orthogonal projection (See Appendix: K item 12). If teachers built these terms
into the students, future student(s) who may commit the error of inability to sketch
solid object will tend to avoid it, thereby enhancing the students’ readiness for
senior secondary Mathematics learning.
7. Students have shown inability to draw accurately or write down the values in
the diagrams accordingly by recording a total of 593 frequencies of errors
and inability to find unknown side of a right- angled triangle with 579
frequencies of errors committed on this. In remediation of these errors, it is
suggested that: teachers should teach the student that to gain the knowledge
of similarity of triangles lies on the equality of their corresponding (1)
angles and (2) sides. In the case of say pie- chart, as in terms 29 and 30 of
the MARKET, the knowledge of the size of spaces pie item in a pie- chart
determines which item is larger (in size or quantity) than the other.
Similarity, the size of angles in a pie- chart determines which sector is larger
than the other. All these information should be inculcated in the students,
and with these, another student(s) who could fall victim of this error will
avoid it due to mastery of the skill. Teachers should introduce the idea of
SOHCAHTOA in teaching the students how to find unknown side of the
 222
right- angled triangle with one unknown side, one side given and no
included angle, where,

Opposite Adjacent
SOH  Sin   ; CAH  Co sin e 
Hypothenus Hypothenus

Opposite
TOA  Tangent  
Adjacent

When students master the use of this idea/principle, student who could have failed
problem(s) on this aspect will take correction. This step will increase the volume of
Mathematical readiness level of JS 3 student aspiring to resume Mathematics
learning at senior secondary one level.

8. Student showed lack of ability to compare areas/ volumes of similar figure

with a record of 566 frequency of errors, as well as inability to translate
word problem into numeric in which the committed a total of 558 frequency
of errors. Teachers should teach the student to gain knowledge of ratio or
proportion as prerequisite or entry behaviour in comparing areas or volume
of similar figures. The attention of student should also be drawn to the
principal of scale factor (See Appendix; k, items 20 and 21). Translation of
word problem into numeric requires that student(s) should have gained
knowledge of looking for cue words in a given word problem. Teachers
should teach students to look for cue words in any given word problem. For
instance, in Appendix: C item 1, we have: subtract the sum of nineteen. Here
the cue words are ‘subtracted’ and ‘sum’ then teach students these cue
words. Subtraction is arithmetic word meaning difference between two
numbers, while sum means addition. Inculcating these into the students will
pave way for any student who will fall victim of these handicap in readiness
abilities among JS3 students.
9. Students showed that they lacked the ability to understand when to use
formula by recording a total of 546 frequencies of errors, and inability to
 223
identify the quantity of objects from figure drawn in which they
committed a total of 537 frequencies of errors. Teachers should let the
students to understand the components of a formula before applying it in
solving problem. For instance, the formula for the volume of a cone is
1 2
3
1
r h, which is made up of one- third ( /3), area of the circular base r 2 ,  
and height (h) of the cone (see Appendix: K item 22. Similarly, the formula
for finding the range of a distribution (say scores or marks) is ‘the highest
score minus the least score’ (see Appendix: K item 26). When these
remediation are considered, adapted and adopted in teaching JS3 students
Mathematics, the frequency of these errors that may occur among future
student(s) will be eliminated or reduced drastically leading to enhanced
readiness level of those who might have fallen victim of these errors.
10. Results showed that the total frequency of errors committed by students due
to their inability to approximate numbers to a given significant figures was
found to be 532; inability of the students to write numbers i8n standard form
yielded 528 frequency of errors. Teachers should draw the attention of
students on two basic issues in approximation of numbers. First, if you are
approximating three or four, etc… digit numbers to two significant figures,
and the third digit is 4 or less than 4, record it as zero. But if the digit is more
than 4 (i.e 5, 6, ----, 9), consider the digit as 1 and add it (I.e. 1) to the next
digit before this digit in question. More so zero, immediately after a decimal
point is not regarded as being significant, and therefore should not be
counted among the number of digits required. For instance, the approximate
values of 4378, 3547, 0.02657 to 2 significant figures are 4400, 3500 and
0.027 respectively. Mores so, based on these prerequisite information
students can solve the MATHRET item 0.046487 = 0.046. Teachers should
lead the students to use the standard form method in calculation. Thud when
a number is written as a product of the nature A x 10n, where A is a number
1 and 10 such that 1< A < 10 and n is an integer; the number is regarded as
 224
being written in standard form. It should be emphasized to the students
that n could be positive or negative number (see Appendix: K item 3). Based
on these points, the frequency of errors student commit on these aspects will
be remedied and future students who may fall victim of these errors will tend
to take correction by mastering these skills discussed above.
11. Remediation of students’ inability to: (a) factorize algebraic expression and
(b) find unknown angle of a right- angled triangle. The frequency of errors
student committed on the (a) and (b) above were 519 and 509 respectively.
Teachers should first of all teach the students to know the concept of factor.
That a factor is a number, which divides another number without remainder.
From the MARTHRET the factors (x – y) and (x + y) of the expression x2 –
y2 are those expressions that can divide x2 –y2 without remainder (See
Appendix: K item 7). Using long division method a teacher can use one of
the factors, say x + y to divide x2-y2 to get the other factor, x – y. and vice
versa. Teachers should use SOHCAHTOA in teaching the students how to
find unknown angle of a right- angled triangle (See Appendix: K item 17).
Students should be acquainted with SOHCAHTOA and how to use the
Opp
formula such that TOA stands for Tan   . So considering the
Adj

MATHRET item 17, in finding the unknown angle of a right- angled triangle
when two sides (involving opposite and hypotenuse) were given. The ability
to use logarithm tables and or calculator should be taught as prerequisite
required to know that 37o = tan -1 (0.75) (See Appendix: K item 17).
12. Students demonstrated inability to (a) add expression with 503 frequency of
errors; and (b) inability to compare angles in a figure should be acquainted
with rudiments/ skills such as minus minus gives minus (i.e. - - = -, always).
Also minus minus minus gives either minus(-) or plus (+) = - - - = + or –
Examples, -4 -3 = -7; -4- (-3) = -4+3 = -1. but -5 – (-8) = -5 + 8 = 3. based
on these prerequisite knowledge /skills, students can then solve expressions
such item 9 in the MATHRET. In solving item 9, students can easily see that
 225
equation (4) minus equation (3) is -3y – (-3y) gives – 3y + 3y = 0; and
6x – x gives 5x. Also 45 – 10 gives 35 (See Appendix: K item 9). Students
should be informed that;

a. Angle formed by two perpendicular lines gives 90o; (B) the sum of
angles at a point gives 360o; (c) The sum of angles on a straight line is
180o. Considering MATHRET item 30 (see Appendix: K) students
aught to know that since JS II was indicated with 90o; JS III with 130o,
then JS I should be 360o – 130o – 90o = 140o. They should therefore
compare the three angles that make up the angles at a point 360
degrees i.e. 90o, 130o and 140o. They will realize that 140o is the
greatest angle and it represents JS I section. JS I section therefore has
the greatest number of students (See Appendix: K item 30)

13. Inability to (a0 understand the concept of inverse proportion, and (b) identify
similar figures were among the areas that students committed less frequency
of errors, with 469 and 478 frequency of errors respectively. Although
students demonstrated evidence of mastery on these errors among the
students that committed it, and among students who may fall victim of these
errors. Teachers should introduce illustrative examples in explaining the
concept of inverse proportion. For instance, teacher may introduce the idea
that if a plot of land takes 2 men 5 days to cultivate, that the same plot of
land will take more men less days to cultivate. That means instead of more
men more days the inverse refers to more men less days. Teachers should
introduce the idea of lines of symmetry for different solid objects before
teaching students similarity of solid figures such as ‘similar triangles as
found among the MATHRET items. For the similar triangles in the
MATHRET, the two major consideration for their similarity are (1) the
corresponding sides must be equal; and (2) the corresponding angles must be
equal too (See Appendix: K item 13).
 226
14. The last two skills students showed evidence of mastery were on
(1) Ability to identify lines of symmetry, with a record of 465 frequency of
errors, and especially on (2) ability to write down values or expressions which
one has mastery always with a record of 459 frequencies of errors. Although
students demonstrated evidence of mastery of these two skills in their scripts,
yet there is need that teachers state generally that line of symmetry divides a
solid object into identical parts.