CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data collected for the study
titled: “Relationship between Laboratory Facilities, Students’ Engagement, and Academic
Achievement in Basic Science across Different School Types.”
The data were obtained through structured questionnaires administered to 300 students selected
from four schools (two public and two private) in Lagos Mainland. The sample was drawn using
stratified random sampling to ensure adequate representation of public and private schools. From
each of the four schools, 75 students were selected, giving a total of 300 respondents.
4.1 Presentation of Demographic Information of the Respondents
4.1.1 Gender Distribution of Respondents
Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Gender Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Male 140 46.7
Female 160 53.3
Total 300 100.0
Table 4.1 shows that out of the 300 respondents, 140 students (46.7%) were male, while 160
students (53.3%) were female. This indicates that female students formed a slight majority in the
study sample.
The near-equal representation of male and female respondents ensures gender balance in the study.
The slight predominance of female respondents suggests that findings on laboratory facilities,
engagement, and achievement reflect perspectives across genders, with no strong bias toward one
gender. This balance allows for comparative analysis between male and female students, thereby
increasing the validity of the study’s conclusions.
4.1.2 Class Distribution of Respondents
Table 4.2: Distribution of Respondents by Class
Class Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
JSS1 100 33.3
JSS2 100 33.3
JSS3 100 33.3
Total 300 100.0
The distribution in Table 4.2 shows that 100 respondents (33.3%) were from JSS1, 100 (33.3%)
were from JSS2, and another 100 (33.3%) were from JSS3.
The equal distribution of respondents across the three class levels ensures fair representation of
students at different stages of Junior Secondary education. This balance is particularly important
since Basic Science is taught progressively across JSS1–JSS3; thus, insights from all levels are
included. The distribution eliminates class-level bias and supports valid comparison of how
laboratory facilities and student engagement influence academic achievement across the classes.
4.1.3 Distribution of Respondents by School Type
Table 4.3: Distribution of Respondents by School Type
School Type Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Public 150 50.0
Private 150 50.0
Total 300 100.0
As shown in Table 4.3, 150 respondents (50.0%) attended public schools, while 150 (50.0%)
attended private schools.
The equal representation of public and private schools was intentional, achieved through stratified
random sampling. This distribution ensures that findings are not biased toward either type of
school and strengthens the comparability of results between public and private institutions. It also
makes the analysis relevant for understanding differences in laboratory facilities, engagement, and
academic achievement across school types.
4.2 ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4.2 Research Question One
The first research question investigated the extent to which laboratory facilities were available and
utilized in different school types. Seven items from Section B of the research instrument were
analyzed to provide insight into this question. These items included whether schools had well-
equipped laboratories, sufficiency of facilities to cater for all students, availability of chemicals
and reagents, extent of laboratory use mainly during examinations, the level of teachers’
improvisation in the absence of standard facilities, the adequacy of facilities, and the extent to
which access to laboratories influences students’ interest in Basic Science. Responses from all 300
students were collated and analyzed using descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation,
and comparisons were made between public and private schools.
Table 4.4: Availability and Utilization of Laboratory Facilities
Item Overall Overall Public Public Private Private
Item (shortened)
No. Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1 Well-equipped laboratory 3.30 0.95 3.00 1.03 3.60 0.80
Facilities sufficient for all
2 3.35 0.93 3.07 1.00 3.63 0.78
students
Chemicals and reagents
3 3.48 0.91 3.23 0.98 3.74 0.74
available
Item Overall Overall Public Public Private Private
Item (shortened)
No. Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Facilities used mainly
4 3.36 0.97 3.12 1.07 3.59 0.75
during exams
Teachers improvise when
5 3.83 0.84 3.51 0.87 4.15 0.76
needed
Facilities
6 3.31 0.91 2.95 0.99 3.66 0.74
outdated/inadequate
Access affects interest
7 4.10 0.71 3.73 0.78 4.48 0.71
positively
Grand Mean: Overall = 3.57; Public = 3.27; Private = 3.8
The results in Table 4.4 show that the respondents generally agreed that laboratory facilities were
available and utilized in their schools. The overall means of the items ranged from 3.30 to 4.10,
which is above the neutral point of 3.00 on the five-point Likert scale. The highest mean was
recorded for the item stating that access to laboratory facilities positively affects students’ interest
in Basic Science (mean = 4.10), followed by teachers’ improvisation when facilities are lacking
(mean = 3.83). This suggests that, while facilities are not always sufficient, teachers’ creativity in
improvisation plays a vital role in ensuring practical work continues. The lowest mean score was
observed in the item on sufficiency of facilities (mean = 3.30), showing that although facilities
exist, they are often inadequate in quantity.
When analyzed by school type, the data revealed that private school students consistently rated
their laboratory facilities higher (grand mean = 3.86) than public school students (grand mean =
3.27). This means that students in private schools experience relatively better-equipped
laboratories, greater availability of chemicals and reagents, and more consistent use of facilities
than those in public schools. In contrast, respondents from public schools highlighted inadequacies
in facilities, though they also affirmed that teachers frequently improvised to bridge these gaps.
Since the calculated grand mean of 3.57 is greater than the critical value of 3.00, the research
question which stated: “To what extent were laboratory facilities available and utilized in different
school types?” was therefore accepted and considered valid. This indicates that laboratory
facilities are indeed available and utilized to a moderate-to-high extent across the schools studied,
although private schools demonstrate stronger availability and utilization compared to public
schools.
4.3 Research Question Two
The second research question sought to determine the level of students’ engagement in Basic
Science practical activities across school types. Five items from Section C of the questionnaire
were analyzed. These items measured the frequency of students’ participation in laboratory
experiments, their involvement in group practicals, individual participation, regularity of science
club activities, and the extent to which teachers encouraged practical-based learning.
Table 4.5: Students’ Engagement in Basic Science Practical Activities
Item Overall Overall Public Public Private Private
Item (shortened)
No. Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Frequency of participation
1 3.21 0.97 2.92 1.01 3.50 0.83
in experiments
Group participation in
2 3.58 0.85 3.30 0.91 3.87 0.70
practicals
3 Individual participation 3.44 0.91 3.15 0.96 3.72 0.74
Participation in science
4 2.97 1.02 2.65 1.05 3.29 0.89
club activities
Teachers’ encouragement
5 3.75 0.80 3.45 0.85 4.05 0.72
of practicals
Grand Mean: Overall = 3.39; Public = 3.09; Private = 3.69
The results in Table 4.5 indicate that students are moderately engaged in Basic Science practical
activities, with mean scores ranging between 2.97 and 3.75. The highest rating was given to
teachers’ encouragement of practicals (mean = 3.75), reflecting the important role teachers play in
motivating students to participate actively. The lowest mean score was in participation in science
club activities (mean = 2.97), showing that extracurricular science-related engagement remains
relatively low.
Comparing across school types, students in private schools reported significantly higher
engagement levels (grand mean = 3.69) compared to their counterparts in public schools (grand
mean = 3.09). This difference highlights the gap in the frequency and quality of practical activities
carried out between the two school categories.
Since the overall grand mean of 3.39 is greater than the critical value of 3.00, the research question
which stated: “What is the level of students’ engagement in Basic Science practical activities
across school types?” was therefore accepted and considered valid. This means students are
engaged at a moderate-to-high level, though private school students benefit from stronger
engagement opportunities.
4.4 Research Question Three
The third research question examined the relationship between the availability of laboratory
facilities and students’ academic achievement in Basic Science. To answer this, responses on
laboratory facilities were correlated with students’ academic achievement scores using Pearson
Product Moment Correlation (PPMC).
Since the calculated significance value (p = 0.000) is less than the 0.05 level of significance, the
research question which stated: “What is the relationship between the availability of laboratory
facilities and students’ academic achievement in Basic Science?” was therefore accepted and
considered valid. This finding confirms that laboratory facilities are a critical determinant of
students’ performance in Basic Science.
4.5 Research Question Four
The fourth research question explored how students’ engagement in practical activities influences
their academic achievement in Basic Science. Data on students’ engagement were correlated with
their academic achievement using Pearson Product Moment Correlation.
Since the calculated significance value (p = 0.000) is less than the 0.05 level of significance, the
research question which stated: “How does students’ engagement influence their academic
achievement in Basic Science?” was therefore accepted and considered valid. This demonstrates
that student engagement is a powerful predictor of learning outcomes, and emphasizes the
importance of integrating practical activities in the Basic Science curriculum.
4.4 Analysis of Hypotheses
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis (H₀₁): There is no significant difference in the availability and utilization of laboratory
facilities across different school types.
Table 4.8: Independent t-test Analysis of Availability and Utilization of Laboratory Facilities
Across School Types
School Type N Mean SD df t-calculated t-critical (0.05) Sig. (p) Decision
Public 150 3.12 0.88 298 4.85 1.96 0.000 Reject H₀
Private 150 3.62 0.79
From Table 4.8, the calculated t-value (t = 4.85) is greater than the critical t-value (t = 1.96) at
0.05 level of significance. Also, the p-value (0.000) is less than 0.05.
Hence, since the calculated value is larger than the critical value, the null hypothesis one which
stated that “There is no significant difference in the availability and utilization of laboratory
facilities across different school types” was therefore rejected.
Therefore, the inference was drawn by the alternate hypothesis which stated that “There is a
significant difference in the availability and utilization of laboratory facilities across different
school types.” The result implies that students in private schools had greater access to well-
equipped and functional laboratory facilities compared to their counterparts in public schools. This
significant difference confirms disparities in infrastructure provision between the two school types.
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis (H₀₂): There is no significant difference in the level of students’ engagement in Basic
Science practical activities across school types.
To test this hypothesis, responses from Section C of the questionnaire (items 1–7) on students’
engagement were analyzed using independent sample t-test.
Table 4.9: Independent t-test Analysis of Students’ Engagement Across School Types
School Type N Mean SD df t-calculated t-critical (0.05) Sig. (p) Decision
Public 150 3.05 0.91 298 3.97 1.96 0.000 Reject H₀
School Type N Mean SD df t-calculated t-critical (0.05) Sig. (p) Decision
Private 150 3.63 0.82
From Table 4.9, the calculated t-value (t = 3.97) is greater than the critical t-value (t = 1.96) at
0.05 significance level. The p-value (0.000) is also less than 0.05.
Hence, since the calculated value is larger than the critical value, the null hypothesis two which
stated that “There is no significant difference in the level of students’ engagement in Basic Science
practical activities across school types” was therefore rejected.
Therefore, the inference was drawn by the alternate hypothesis which stated that “There is a
significant difference in the level of students’ engagement in Basic Science practical activities
across school types.” This shows that students in private schools demonstrated higher engagement
levels in Basic Science practicals compared to those in public schools, reflecting better
opportunities and encouragement in practical-based learning.
Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis (H₀₃): There is no significant relationship between the availability of laboratory
facilities and students’ academic achievement in Basic Science.
Hence, since the calculated value is larger than the critical value, the null hypothesis three which
stated that “There is no significant relationship between the availability of laboratory facilities
and students’ academic achievement in Basic Science” was therefore rejected.
Therefore, the inference was drawn by the alternate hypothesis which stated that “There is a
significant relationship between the availability of laboratory facilities and students’ academic
achievement in Basic Science.” This implies that schools with adequate and functional laboratory
facilities recorded better performance in Basic Science, confirming that facilities directly
contribute to learning outcomes.
4.4 Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study provided empirical evidence on the relationship between laboratory
facilities, students’ engagement, and academic achievement in Basic Science across different
school types in Lagos Mainland. The discussion is presented in relation to the research questions,
hypotheses, and existing literature.
The result of research question one showed that laboratory facilities were moderately available
and utilized across the schools surveyed. However, private schools had significantly better-
equipped and more functional laboratories compared to public schools. This finding corroborates
the assertion of Adeyemo (2010) and Ezeudu & Ezinwanne (2013), who emphasized that the
adequacy of laboratory resources directly enhances teaching effectiveness and students’ learning
outcomes. The observed disparities between public and private schools are consistent with the
findings of Oni (2014), who reported that public schools in Nigeria often face infrastructural
challenges due to underfunding and poor maintenance, while private schools invest more heavily
in physical and instructional resources to attract parents and improve student performance. Thus,
this study confirms that inequities in resource provision persist across school types, with private
schools enjoying more favorable conditions.
The findings from research question two revealed that students’ engagement in Basic Science
practical activities was moderate overall, with students in private schools reporting higher
engagement than their public school peers. This outcome aligns with the work of Udo & Udoh
(2011), who found that students’ participation in laboratory-based activities significantly enhances
their interest in science learning. Similarly, Obeka (2010) argued that meaningful engagement in
science practicals fosters problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and retention of concepts. The
relatively lower engagement reported among public school students may be explained by
inadequate laboratory facilities, overcrowded classrooms, and fewer opportunities for
individualized learning, as highlighted by Yusuf & Afolabi (2010). Teachers’ encouragement was
identified as a critical factor influencing student participation, a finding consistent with Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory, which stresses the importance of teacher scaffolding in facilitating active
engagement and deeper learning.
With respect to research question three, the study revealed a significant positive relationship
between the availability of laboratory facilities and students’ academic achievement in Basic
Science. This result confirms earlier reports by Oladejo, Olosunde, Ojebisi, and Isola (2011), who
established that students exposed to adequate laboratory resources performed better in science
subjects compared to those taught without laboratory exposure. Likewise, Ayodele & Abiodun
(2018) highlighted that science achievement is largely determined by the presence of well-
equipped laboratories that enable hands-on experimentation. The strong positive correlation
observed in this study further validates Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, which
emphasizes that learners construct knowledge better through active interaction with their
environment, including physical materials such as laboratory apparatus.
Similarly, research question four established a significant positive relationship between students’
engagement in practical activities and their academic achievement in Basic Science. This is in
agreement with the findings of Akinbobola (2010), who demonstrated that active participation in
laboratory work enhances students’ mastery of scientific concepts and promotes higher
achievement. In addition, Okebukola (2005) asserted that science learning becomes more
meaningful and permanent when students are actively involved in practical experiences rather than
passively receiving theoretical instruction. The positive link between engagement and achievement
found in this study also resonates with the constructivist perspective, which posits that learners
achieve deeper understanding when they are actively engaged in constructing knowledge rather
than passively listening to lectures.
The hypotheses testing further reinforced these findings. The rejection of the first and second null
hypotheses revealed that significant differences exist between public and private schools in terms
of laboratory facilities and students’ engagement. These findings echo the results of Adeyemi
(2014), who observed systematic disparities in science education outcomes between public and
private schools in Nigeria due to resource gaps. The rejection of the third null hypothesis also
confirmed that both laboratory facilities and students’ engagement are significant predictors of
academic achievement in Basic Science. This agrees with Ezeudu & Obi (2014), who found that
inadequate laboratory facilities and low engagement levels in practicals were key contributors to
the poor performance of students in external examinations such as the Junior Secondary School
Certificate Examination (JSSCE).
In conclusion, the findings of this study highlight the central role of laboratory facilities and student
engagement in shaping academic achievement in Basic Science. While private schools continue to
show an advantage in both areas, the results underscore the urgent need for policymakers and
education stakeholders to strengthen laboratory infrastructure and enhance teaching
methodologies in public schools. Such interventions are necessary to bridge the performance gap
across school types and to ensure that all students, irrespective of their school type, have equitable
access to quality science education.