Factors Affecting the Achievement of Students in Economic Subject
Siti Hadijah Che Mat1*, Wan Roshidah Fadzim2, Mohd SaifoulZamzuri Noor3, Munzarina AhmadSamidi4
*1Department of Economics and Agribusiness, School of Economics, Finance and Banking,
Universiti Utara Malaysia
2,3,4Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: There are various factors influencing a student’s academic achievement at any level, either primary, secondary or tertiary. These factors include attitudes, learning techniques, general interest in the subject matter, factors related to teacher, family or friends, previous achievements, teaching and learning environment and facilities, infrastructure, and teaching methods. This article explores factors affecting the achievement of student of a course offered in the economic program of universitiutaramalaysia. For this article, a total of 220 students who registered for macroeconomics course at universitiutaramalaysia were randomly selected to be the study sample. of the 220 responses, only 211 were analysed because some questionnaire forms was returned with incomplete information. these students consist of second, third and fourth year students. The study found that among the items in the lecturer preparation factor which came with high mean scores is the item "lecturer shows dedication in teaching". There is no denying that teaching and learning methods incorporating the latest technology and trends are desirable but the study shows that teaching using longstanding approach like using whiteboards is still preferable among students and gives the highest mean value of 7.44, which is a high level score. In terms of learning techniques, the study found that students are not consistent between the goals to achieve excellence with the appropriate effort taken by them. although they want to achieve high excellence in this subject but their efforts and actions are not inclined to that desire.
Keywords:Student; Teaching methods; Academic Achievement, Universiti Utara Malaysia
1. Introduction
Macroeconomics is one of the core courses that has to be taken and passed by every students majoring in economics at Universiti Utara Malaysia. There are also students from other programs taking the subject as an elective. Principle of Economics is the prerequisite for the course.
Based on exam results observed from previous semesters, it is found that student’s achievement in macroeconomic subjects has been unsatisfactory. A significant number of students taking this subject were unable to obtain high marks and some have to take this subject repeatedly because of repeated failure. This situation was not only a concern to students who have not taken the subject but to the instructors as well. The question is how can this situation happen? What factors that influence student achievement in the course? To address this question, a study was conducted among students who have taken macroeconomics at Universiti Utara Malaysia to determine what factors influence their achievement.
2. Review of Literature
There are many factors that have been discussed by previous researchers that affect student achievement in a particular course. Among them are the factors of student gender, the number of hours spent in part time jobs, students' initial knowledge of the subject and several other factors.
There are past studies that show the existence of a relationship between mathematical skills and the ability to interpret graphs with achievement in economics courses. A study conducted by Cohn and Chon (2000) found that skills in mathematics and the ability to interpret graphs are very important for students to understand economics courses because graphical analysis is essential to illustrate economic theories and concepts. Reid (1983) found that gender factors and experience of taking economics courses in high school were insignificant to the grades obtained by students in economic principles class at university level. However, Orban Kara (2009) who used logit application found that gender variables were significant on student achievement in the subject of economic principles.
Brasfield, Harrison and Mc. Coy (1993), considered several factors in their study which include gender, number of study hour, previous experience of taking economics courses in high school, average student overall score (CGPA) and business mathematics courses. The findings show that the CGPA and previous experience in taking economics courses are positive and significant towards the grades obtained by students in microeconomic and macroeconomic classes. While business mathematics course factor is only significant to macroeconomic
courses but not to microeconomic courses. Milkman, Mc.Coy and Brasfiled (1997) also found the number of hours allocated by students as part-time workers and the number of hours spent for revising the course is insignificant and do not affect the grades obtained by students in principles of economics course.
Kara, Bagheri and Tolin (2009) used observational methods to study the students behavior in economic Principles course at the University of North Dakota and the University of West Chester. The findings of their study show that gender, the number of hours allocated by students as part-time workers and the number of class absence are significant to the grades obtained by students in economic principles. Whereas the number of hours spent to review this course, interest or focus in the subject and the use of diagram or graphs are insignificant to the grades obtained by students in Economics Principles.
Shahrun Nizam and Normala (2014) studied the factors that influence student achievement in the subject Basic Economics at SPM level. A total of 2,035 Basic Economics students from 115 schools around Johor were selected as the study sample. In this study the value of frequency, percentage and mean were calculated to determine the central tendency of the influence of a particular factor on student achievement. While the correlation test is used to determine the relationship between each factor and the students achievement in the subject. The results of the study show that six of the eight factors studied, namely the factors of interest, attitude, past achievement, family, school environment and peer, have influence in student achievement in Basic Economics subject.
In addition, Bransfield et al., (1992) found that students who took Management Mathematics courses before taking economics courses scored better results compared to those who did not take the course. In addition, good results in mathematics subjects at the high school level are important indicators of students’ success in college economics courses (Anderson et al., 1994). The result is consistent with Von Allmen (1996) who found that one-grade differences in mathematics contributes to more than twice the chance for students to get one-grade A in microeconomic subjects. However, Milkman et al., (1995) found that math skills had a greater influence on microeconomic courses than macroeconomics.
3. Study Methods and Data
The study sample consists of students who are in their second until fourth year of study and have taken macroeconomics subject. The questionnnaire includes questions related to the students demographic information as well as questions related to the teaching and learning system, teaching facilities, learning techniques, lecturers, family and peers. A total of 220 students were randomly selected to answer the questionnaire, but only 211 responses were analyzed because of incomplete information.
Interpretation Of Scores
The scale used for each question is a 9-point Likert-type scale. The scores obtained are divided into 5 categories as follows:
Table 1. Score Range
Score Range Category
1.0-2.6 Very Low
2.7-4.3 Low
4.4-6.0 Moderate
6.1-7.7 High
7.8-9.0 Very High
4. Findings of the Study
From the total of the 211 respondents interviewed, 132 (62.6%) were female and the remaining (37.4%) were male. The majority were Muslim (71.1 %), while 20.9 percent were Buddhist and the rest were Hindu and other religions. Most of the respondents entered university after completing their STPM/STAM (46%) or Matriculation/Foundation and Diploma (45%). Most of the interviewees (90%) who took this course were students from the Economic Program, this is plausible since the subject is one of the core subjects for students majoring in economics. However, there are students from other programs who also take this subject as elective.
In general, most students believe that macroeconomics is a difficult subject causing many to fail and have to repeat. The findings of this study show that 3.8 percent of the respondents repeats the subject twice and 2.8 percent repeats more than twice. Looking at the final grade achievement for this course, the percentage of students who obtained A +, A and A-, is lower at 35.5 percent compared to students who obtained grades B +, B and B- which is 50.2 percent.
Table 2.Respondents’ Profile
Respondents’ Background Frequency Percentage
Gender Female 132 62.6 Male 79 37.4 Total 211 100.0 Religion Islam 150 71.1 Buddha 44 20.9 Hindu 10 4.7 Others 7 3.3 Total 211 100.0 Race Malay 148 70.1 Chinese 48 22.7 Indian 11 5.2 Others 4 1.9 Total 211 100.0
Last School Attended Urban 115 54.5
Rural 96 45.5
Total 211 100.0
Last school Type High Performance (HP) 18 8.5
Regular Daily School 143 67.8
Cluster 31 14.7 HP Daily School 19 9.0 Total 211 100.0 Qualification STPM/STAM 97 46.0 Matriculation/Foundation 95 45.0 Diploma 19 9.0 Total 211 100.0
Study Program Economics 190 90.0
Finance 3 1.4
Banking 1 .5
Agribusiness 14 6.6
Others(Specify) 3 1.4
Total 211 100.0
Study Semester Semester 5 133 63.0
Semester 3 6 2.8
Semester 6 5 2.4
Semester 4 3 1.4
Semester 7 and higher 64 30.3
Total 211 100.0
Macroeconomics Last Grade A+ 9 4.3
A 41 19.4 B- 10 4.7 A- 25 11.8 C+ 26 12.3 B+ 59 28.0 C and below 4 1.9 Total 211 100.0
Has Part-Time Jobs Yes 14 6.6
No 197 93.4
Total 211 100.0
Factors affecting students’ achievement
The next analysis is the students’ assessment of several factors that influence their achievement especially in macroeconomic subjects. Among the factors discussed are lecturers’ preparedness, teaching and learning system, teaching methods, learning techniques and student attitude. Each assessment was analyzed separately. Items for all questions are based on a and 9-point Likert scale. The scale to measure students' views is attributed to a score of 1-point, namely for the statement "strongly disagree with the stated item" and then a score of 9 point for the statement "strongly agree with the stated item". All the questionnaire items passed the test of reliability and validity at the pilot study stage before being distributed to the respondents. The analysis also showed that Cronbach's Apha reliability value was greater than 0.8 (Ahmad Mahzan Ayob, 2010; Fauzi et.al, 2015). This means that all items in this survey are reliable and can be used for further analysis. Table 3 shows the items relating to students' views on the preparation of lecturers who teach macroeconomic subject together with the mean value and standard deviations for each item. Overall, the mean of the students' views on lecturer preparedness was 6.99. The lecturer's preparation item getting the highest score from the students was "Lecturers show their enthusiasm when teaching" with a mean score of 7.22 and the lowest score went to "Lecturers always monitor my performance" with a mean score of 6.58. Even so, the mean score is still at the high level category.
Table 3. Lecturer Preparation Items Lecturer’s Preparation
Mean Standard
Deviation
Lecturer are always ready for lectures 7.20 1.457
Lecturers are able to raise interest for this course 6.72 1.616
Lecturers show their enthusiasm when teaching 7.22 1.454
Lecturers explain the class objectives clearly 6.97 1.445
Lecturers demonstrate professional attitude 7.08 1.686
Lecturers are willing to accept me in their office even outside of consultation time
7.17 1.507
Lecturers have appealing personality 7.01 1.566
Lecturers always monitor my performance 6.58 1.799
The consultation with the lecturer satisfied me 6.95 1.514
Average Amount 6.99
Cronbach's Alpha .942
Table 4 shows the mean (average) score for each item related to students’ view of the teaching and learning system. Overall, it was found that the mean of students’ view towards the teaching and learning system is in the high level category of 6.58. All items indicate a mean scores rangingfrom 5.90 to 6.91. This shows that the students' satisfaction towards the teaching and learning system of the instructors was at moderate and high levels. Item by item analysis revealed that students perceived the course content to be too much and burdensomewith the lowest mean score of 5.90 which is in the medium level category.
Some students perceived that the content of the course is too burdensome, this item gives the lowest mean score of 5.90 in the medium level category. This is probably related to the fact that they have a packed semester full of new courses with packed syllabus that have to be covered in short period of time. Furthermore, the medium of instruction of this course, which is English, may have some effect on their level of understanding. This is clearly reflected in the score value of 5.95 which is also in the medium level category.
Table 4. Items in the Teaching and Learning System Teaching and Learning System
Mean Standard
Deviation
The content of this course is easy to understand 6.48 1.768
Tutorials help me understand this course 6.88 1.657
Classroom instruction focuses on examinations 6.63 1.638
The assignments are relevant to the course content 6.90 1.551
The content is clear, organized and suitable with the course level 6.91 1.391 The content helped me achieve the objectives of the course 6.91 1.416 The content of this course is too much and burdensome for me 5.90 1.846
Teaching in Malay help me understand this subject 6.65 2.040
Teaching in English made it difficult for me to understand this subject 5.95 2.293
Average Amount 6.58
Cronbach's Alpha .856
The findings related to teaching method in summarized in Table 5. It shows that students prefer traditional teaching methods using blackboard or whiteboard. According to the students, when instructors use the whiteboard, especially when drawing diagrams and graphs, they get better understanding since the drawing is done with explanation. For example as the instructor draws diagram or curves, it will be together with explanation on the steps involved in the drawing as well as description on the movements or transition of the curves and important factors that cause the movement. Thus, students' understanding and acceptance of a diagram and the description would be different when it is drawn in front of the class compared to simply describing a readily drawn diagram from presentation slides or textbooks. What the students want is for the lecturer to sketch it one by one and step by step while giving an explanation. This situation suggests the existence of contradiction between preference for more traditional method of teaching and learning with the need to take full advantage of technology in education. This contradiction further suggests that online teaching might affect student performance in macroeconomics subject, since the content of the subject requires students to have skills in drawing and explaining diagrams. While teaching using technologies such as Microsoft powerpoint, Bites and Powtoon do not apply the skill of making curve sketches.
Table 5.Teaching Methods Items Teaching Methods
Mean
Standard Deviation Lecturers use instructional materials well in the form of slides or
power points
7.17 1.520
Computer facilities, LCD projectors and classroom displays are in good condition
6.94 1.401
Teaching lessons using whiteboard writing method is effective for this subject.
7.31 1.385
Teaching lessons using LCD projector is effective for this subject 6.61 1.707
Classroom condition is appropriate for learning 7.04 1.320
Online teaching method is effective for this subject 5.82 1.880
I like the whiteboard teaching method 7.44 1.345
I like the teaching method using LCD projector 6.49 1.640
I like the online teaching method 5.67 2.032
Average Amount 6.72
Cronbach's Alpha .866
Students are found to have high morale and motivation for excellence but lacking in terms of effective learning techniques. This is suggested by the low effective learning score summarized in Table 6. Although students score high on the item “I always strive for excellence”, their performance and actions are not in line
with their claim. Low scores are shown on some key items like "I often ask questions if I do not understand", "I always make preparation before class", "I always look for reference materials in the library", "I review lessons every day" and "I have a group discussion for this subject. " Basically, these items indicate that students do not have the right learning techniques appropriate to their level of study at the university which requires them to be more active in pursuing knowledge.
Table 6.Learning Techniques Items Learning TechniqueMeanStandard Deviation
I always strive for excellence 7.14 1.199
I always take notes during lectures 6.55 1.356
I like learning in groups 6.15 1.773
I am able to manage my study time well 6.21 1.508
I often ask questions if I do not understand 5.95 1.655
I always make preparations before class 5.76 1.628
I always look for reference materials in the library 5.43 1.817
I review lessons every day 5.29 1.734
I have a group discussion for this subject 5.69 1.782
I like to find reference materials online 6.74 1.255
I like to study alone 6.24 1.923
English competency helped me on this subject 6.30 1.797
Overall I understand clearly the graphs and diagram found in this subject
6.32 1.724
Average Amount 6.14
Cronbach's Alpha .843
As shown in Table 7, item number 11 in the student’s attitude is related to learning technique items shown in Table 6. The results of the 11th item, "I worked hard to get the best grade" showed that the score was 7.10 which is at higher range. This means that students claimed that they work hard to get the best grade in macroeconomic subjects, but their attitudes do not reflect the correct actions. Items such as class attendance, focus during lectures, and do not care about the grades, each shows lower score.
Table 7. Items Related to Students’ attitude Students’ Attitude
Mean Standard Deviation
I care if I don’t get good grade 5.88 2.216
I feel bad for not getting a job done 6.71 2.146
I am a hard worker 5.04 2.027
I am very focus during lectures 6.00 2.020
I don't like being alone 5.55 2.123
I don't like to postpone work/assignments on this subject 6.11 2.124
I like to do revision 6.04 2.072
I pay close attention during lectures 6.32 1.807
I like macroeconomics subject 6.36 1.962
I've never missed class for this subject 5.96 2.044
I have worked hard to get the best grade 7.10 1.535
Average Amount 6.10
Cronbach's Alpha .714
5. Conclusion
Teaching and learning approaches are consistently changing along with the advancemnet in technology. While the latest methods and approaches, including the ‘‘online learning” method, seemed to be more contemporary, this study suggests that traditional teaching methods are more preferable to students. The traditional method in this study specifically refers to ‘board and chalk’ approach. When instructors use white boards, they can explain each step in the drawing of diagrams and the calculations in solving problems using mathematics. The step by step explanation is lacking when instructors, during online or face to face class, use pre-drawn graphs and diagrams from textbooks and presentation slides. This study also suggests that in terms of learning techniques, students are inconsistent between the desire to achieve excellence, with the appropriate
action taken by them. Naturally they want to achieve excellence in these subjects but their efforts and actions are not inclined to that desire. This may be because they do not understand the proper and effective methods of learning. Apart from that,four items in the family factor, friends and institutions also contribute to student achievement or performance.
6. Acknowledgement
The authors of this paper would like to express deepest gratitude to Universiti Utara Malaysia for providing research funding (SO Code: 13460).
References
1. Anderson, G. et al. (1994) The Determinants of Success in University Introductory Economics Courses. Journal of Economic Education, 25, 99-119.
2. Brasfield, D. et al. (1992) The Effect of University Math on Student Performance in Principles of Economics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(4), 240-247.
3. Brasfield, D., D. Harrison, J. McCoy, and M. Milkman. (1996). Why have some schools not experienced a decrease in the percentage of students majoring in economics? Journal of Economic Education 27 (Fall): 362-70.
4. Cohn and Chon.(2000), Improved Knowledge of Mathematics and Enrollment in a Principles of Economics Course: Is there a Link? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(2), 195-203.
5. James W. Marlin, J. (1991). State-Mandated Economic Education, Teacher Attitudes, and Student Learning. The Journal of Economic Education, 5-14.
6. Orban Kara, F. B. (2009). Factors Affecting Students' Grades In Principles of Economics. American Journal of Business Education, 25-34.
7. Milkman, M., McCoy, J., Brasfield, D., & Mitchell, M. (1995) Some Additional Evidence on the Effect of University Math on Student Performance in Principles of Economics. Journal of Research and Development in Education. 28(4), 220-229.
8. Reid, R. (1983). A Note on the Performance as a Factor Affecting Student Performance in Principles of Economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 18-22.
9. Shahrun Nizam dan Normala (2014) Faktor kelemahan pelajar dalam mata pelajaran ekonomi asas di peringkat SPM di sekolah-sekolah terpilih di negeri Johor. e-Proceeding of the World Conference on Integration of Knowledge (WCIK 2014), 15 - 16 September 2014, Bandung, Indonesia. (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-9-4).
10. Von Allmen, P. (1996). The Effect of Quantitative Prerequisites on Performance in Intermediate Microeconomics.Journal of Education for Business 72: 18-22.
