Background of the Study
There is an increasing concern towards the academic performance of students in recent years. One reason for this has been the general cry-out about the fallen standard of education in Nigeria. Sanusi (1993) identified that, inadequate equipment and tools supplied by the Federal Government are part of the problems responsible for students’ poor performance. He further posits that poor installation and obsolete equipment could also affect performance in exams. Fagbemi (1999) attributed this phenomenon to many reasons among which could be poor policies formulated by the government, teachers inadequacies, and ineffectiveness, unwillingness of the student to linear and poor funding.
Technical Drawing is a subject offered in the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination as contained in the National Policy on Education (2004).
Technical Drawing has been defined by many authors based on some key concepts. Awojobi (1976), defines Technical Drawing as a shorthand language which describes by means of drawing and as
precisely as possible, whatever has been manufactured or is intended for manufacture". Parkinson (1978) defined Technical Drawing as a graphic language. It is the means of communication used by draughtsmen, designers, engineers, e.t.c. to convey their ideas to the production personnel.
Tafida (1997) posits that Technical Drawing is the backbone of engineering courses. However from the above definitions, it is clear that the importance of Technical Drawing in engineering and technology cannot be over emphasized. This therefore advocates for an improved performance in Technical Drawing. Olaitan (1999), defined the term performance as an indication of the impact of group activities done on the achievement of intended learning outcome. The oxford advanced learners dictionary (2002), defines performance as "how well or badly for do something". However, in relation to the programme or curriculum, it is the observed impact of the programme on achieving its set objectives and goals.
Okereke (1999) posit that, the quality of an education is properly defined by the Performance of its students and graduates. This in practice is measured by input and output. Therefore, achieving intended learning outcomes can some times be blamed on both teachers and students; this can be substantiated by Tafida (1997), who opined that effective teaching and learning of Technical Drawing generally depends on the attitude exhibited by both teachers and the students taught.
Mean while, records available indicates student's poor performance on Technical Drawing as approved in Academic Board Meetings of Federal Colleges of Education (Technical) Bichi and Gusati In Federal Follege of Education (Technical) Bichi, records showed that there is 62.50% of poor performance in Technical Drawing and 37.50% of good performance rate on 2004/2005 academic session. In 2005/06 academic session, there is 60.75% of poor performance on Technical/Engineering Drawing and 39.25% of quality performance rate. Moreover, there is higher rate of poor performance in Technical Drawing in 2006/2007 academic session in Federal Follege of Education (Technical) Bichi where there is about 60 o of poor performance and 40% of good performance rate. In the same vein, records available in Federal Follege of Education (Technical) Gusau indicates poor performance on Technical Drawing, where it shows that there is 83.43% of poor performance rate and 16.67% of quality performance rate in 2005/2006 academic session, and 72% of poor performance rate and 28% of good performance rate in 2006/2007 academic session.