




































American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research  

Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

9 

 

 

Teachers’ Instructional Workload Management and Students’ Academic 

Performance in Public and Private Secondary Schools in Akoko North-

East Local Government, Ondo State, Nigeria 
 

 

Adeolu Joshua Ayeni, Ph.D 

Department of Educational Management 

Adekunle Ajasin University  

Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State  

Nigeria 

E-mail: ayeniadeolu@yahoo.com  

GSM No. +2348139654848 

 

Arinze Prince Amanekwe 

Department of Educational Management 

Adekunle Ajasin University 

 Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State 

Nigeria 

E-mail: arinzechukwuamanekwe@gmail.com  

GSM No. +2348071920901 

 

 

Received: November 16, 2018      Accepted: November 25, 2018             Online Published: December 2, 2018        

 

 

Abstract 

The study examined teachers’ workload and determined its implication on students’ academic performance in 

secondary schools in Akoko North East Local Government Area of Ondo State. Descriptive design of the survey 

type was adopted and a stratified random sampling was used to select 12 schools, which were 6 public and 6 private 

secondary schools, involving 132 participants who included 120 teachers and 12 principals. A self-constructed 

questionnaire titled “Teachers’ Workload and Student’s Academic Performance Questionnaire” (TWSAPQ), was 

administered. Five (5) hypotheses were tested using Pearson’s product moment correlation (PPMCC) and T-test at 

p<0.05 level of significance. The results showed that there was a negative correlation between teachers’ workload 

and students’ academic performance (r-cal= -0.420), and a disparity between teachers’ actual workload and 

workload policy standard (t-cal=27.219), also there was significant difference in teachers’ workload between public 

and private secondary schools (t-cal=2.364). The findings indicated that teachers’ workload is high in teaching 

activities (75.8%), data imputation (62.5%), and marking of students’ scripts (76.7%), .and impacted negatively on 

teachers’ instructional tasks performance and students’ academic performance. It is hereby recommended that the 

State Government and proprietors of private secondary schools should employ adequate number of qualified 

teachers to meet the workload standard for effective teaching, while learning facilities should be upgraded to 

enhance workload implementation and improve students’ academic performance in secondary schools. 

 

Keywords: Teacher’s workload, class size, teaching subjects, school policy, students’ performance 

 

1.  Introduction 

Public secondary schools are institutions established and funded by the government and administered by principals 

who are appointed by the government to superintend over teachers and students. On the other hand the private 

secondary schools are institutions established, funded and managed by the private sector (individuals and non-

governmental corporate organizations). Both the public and private secondary schools operate the same curricula for 

the purpose of training students for higher education and useful living in the society. The attainment of the set 

educational goals depends largely on effective and efficient management of teachers’ instructional workloads in 

secondary schools. 

mailto:ayeniadeolu@yahoo.com
mailto:arinzechukwuamanekwe@gmail.com


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

10 

 

 

Teachers’ instructional workload management is the process of allocating subjects, periods and other administrative 

duties on curriculum planning, implementation and reviews to teachers depending on their area of specializations, 

professional knowledge, skills and experiences which determine the quality of instructional tasks performance. This 

also has significant impact on the level of students’ academic performance and the overall achievement of 

educational objectives in the school system.  

Teachers’ instructional workload is expressed in terms of curriculum organization, lesson note preparation, learners’ 

engagement in curriculum instructions, continuous assessment and class management. Teachers’ instructional 

workload is directly measured by the total number of teachers that are available in the system against the number of 

students that are taught, the number of scripts that are marked, and other responsibilities considered worthwhile by 

the school principal that are regularly or occasionally assigned to teachers. The extent to which students have 

achieved educational goals in terms of academic performance depends largely on how well teachers carry out their 

instructional tasks. Teachers with moderate instructional workloads are said to be more effective and efficient than 

teachers with heavy workload in the secondary school system.  

Teachers’ instructional workload is faced with serious challenges which among others include shortage of teachers, 

lack of instructional materials, students’ over-enrolment, high number of teaching periods per week, lack of well-

equipped laboratories and large class size without instructional technology affect students’ academic performance in 

secondary schools. These challenges need to be professionally addressed by principals and other stakeholders in 

education. 

The school principal being an instructional leader occupies an important position in the management of teachers’ 

workloads. It is therefore expected that principals should consider variables such as teachers’ area of specializations, 

professional competence and class size, and the recommended teacher-student ratio which ranged between 35 and 

40 students per class (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2013). It is necessary therefore for the school principal to work 

out the most efficient method in assigning workloads that will enable the teachers put in their best towards achieving 

the desired output/ result.  

Effective management of teachers’ workload is necessary because teachers, first and foremost must be seen from the 

angle of humans who have emotions and can be stressed, depressed, agitated and get bored if overworked. Based on 

these reasons, Ukeje (1992) viewed excellent management as “knowing exactly what the manager want employees 

to do and seeing that they do it in the best cheapest way”. The problem in the way schools are managed lies in the 

non-adherence of government to its policy on teachers’ workloads which resulted in much work that create 

unnecessary burden for teachers within the stipulated period of working hours. This can undermine the attainment of 

educational objectives. 

The Nigerian national policy on education stipulated that “no education system can rise above the quality of its 

teachers” thus implying the important role played by teachers in facilitating teaching and learning, and determining 

the quality of education service delivery. However, every poor performance of students is usually blamed on the 

teachers by the management while teachers also complained of excessive workload. This perhaps has been caused 

by the ever-increasing students’ population and expansion of subjects in the curriculum, which placed more 

responsibilities on teachers and over-stretched them beyond their manpower carrying capacity thus resulting in 

overbearing workloads. 

This study is significant as it will reveal the current state of teachers’ instructional tasks performance and 

implication on students’ academic performances. This study would indicate a warning signal for the educational 

planners, school administrators, human resource managers, and providers of education services to take a holistic 

view and diagnostic analysis of teachers’ workloads in order to strengthen the teaching staff capacity, provide 

adequate instructional resources and implementing reasonable workload policy to minimize stress and improve 

teachers’ instructional tasks performance and students’ academic performance in secondary schools. 

2. Theoretical Framework on Teachers’ Workload  

The management of teachers’ instructional workload is an important aspect of school management that can make or 

mar the attainment of the educational goals. Instructional workload distribution is expected to be guided by the 

arousal theory that considered the basic energetic state of an organism (Razmjou, 1996). As the school management 

mobilizes and regulates the human stress response with moderate level of arousal (often used synonymously with 

stress) results in optimal performance, whereas too little arousal or too much arousal will degrade performance 

(Staal, 2004). 

3.The Concept of Workload 

Ksenia (2012) described workload as tasks performed in the working environment exceeding personal capabilities 

and resulting in threats, and the reactions of nervousness, anxiety, frustration, pressing, or annoyance. Such reactions 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

11 

 

 

would change the physical and mental conditions of a normal person as well as the behaviour in carrying out the 

assigned tasks in an organization. 

Marina (2012) considered workload as role overload/personal work extended from single item to multiple duties, 

and the risk of overload resulted in emotional exhaustion of employees, delaying work, low team spirit, and not 

obeying rules, which could have negative impact on the overall organization performance. 

4. Determinants of Teachers’ Instructional Workload  

The various ways of measuring teachers’ workload among others include class size, subject areas, condition of 

service, school policy, teaching staff strength and teachers’ abilities. These factors are explained in the conceptual 

framework below. 

 
Figure 1. Conceptual framework on workload determinants 

Source: Researchers’ illustration 

4.3.1. Class size and composition 

Class size as one of the sub-variables of school quality exerted significant influence on teachers’ instructional 

workload in terms of lesson planning, teaching, assessment of students’ academic performance and classroom 

management (Wosyanju, 2005; Osim, 2009). Class workload could lead to burnout if not properly managed; 

consequently leading to the failure in the completion of academic curriculum and poor academic performance of 

students. Large class size that is not supported with technology poses serious challenge to the teaching-learning 

process as teachers sometimes have real difficulty in dealing with students on individual bases.  

The Nigerian National Policy on Education (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2013) stipulated that a class size in 

secondary schools should have a ratio of 1:40. Regrettably, classes   are   very large especially in urban schools in 

Nigeria that teachers often find it difficult to recognize their students by names and teachers have limited spaces for 

instructional tasks performance in congested classes. This situation limits teacher-learners interaction, learner-

learner interaction, and impedes academic, psychological, guidance or counseling services for students on individual 

bases where necessary.  

Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) in their studies revealed a correlation between class size and the quality of 

teaching and learning among schools in Australia. However, earlier study conducted in Australia in 1984 and 1994, 

revealed that workload increased as a result of longer working hours, teaching more students and having more 

professional, pastoral and administrative duties to perform (Easthorpe & Easthorpe, 2000). 

4.3.2. Subject Area 

 

WORKING 

CONDITIONS 

TEACHING STAFF 

STRENGTH 

ABILITY/ 

COMPETENCE 

 

SUBJECT AREA 

 

SCHOOL POLICY 

CLASS SIZE AND 

COMPOSITION 

Workload 

Determinants 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

12 

 

 

Core courses in the secondary schools such as Mathematics, English, and subjects in the Sciences which require 

high level cognition and/or effort to comprehend and interpret are also causing increase in teachers’ workloads. 

According to findings by Mbugua, Kibet, Muthaa & Nkonke (2012), 66.7% of Mathematics teachers teach between 

16 to 30 lessons, while 27.8% teach more than 30 lessons in a week. This indicates that 27.8% of mathematics 

teachers are overloaded. In order to help students, teachers go extra length in the preparation of lessons and most 

times organize remedial and after-school lessons for students who could not catch up with the formal class 

instruction. 

4.3.3. Conditions of Work or Service 

Certain factors inherent in the way the work is organized constitute sources of restraints that require additional 

actions and coping strategies, which in turn have consequences for both the individuals and their effectiveness at 

work. Every institution has certain rules and regulations which need to be followed by the employees. Relating the 

incidence of excessive workloads to private schools, Sultana, Bano & Shafa, (2012) observed that there are very 

strict rules in private schools. They posited that some of these rules relate to teachers’ punctuality, collection of fees, 

extra lessons, developing lesson plans and partaking in some other unidentifiable tasks that are termed as 

unnecessary by the school management and teachers. Sometimes teachers could not follow these rules and the 

principals reprimanded them.   

4.3.4. School Policy 

Teaching according to section 7.2.3(a) of the Nigerian Teachers’ Service Manual (1990) is twenty-four hour service. 

A teacher in the school system is therefore on call twenty four hours a day. The ‘b’ part of it stated further that the 

teaching load for a post-primary school teacher shall be between the range of 15 and 25 periods per week or such 

minimum as the Ministry of Education or the School Board may from time to time prescribed. The provisions of the 

workload policy determines the extent of work that would be assigned to any worker, also, if workload policy 

statement is not followed to letter, it could amount to principal assigning additional tasks to teachers. In a survey on 

workload pressure in 2010 by New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, nearly 50% of teachers reported an 

increase of workload arising from the national standards (New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, 2010). 

Effective workload management in the educational system requires the ability of the school principal in applying the 

following variables: equity, transparency, prioritize activities, appropriate work-life balance, prompt response to 

short term changes in staff resources and work demands, consistency in staff resource allocation to teaching 

programmes and course review, and measured data which can be used for the purposes of recognition, reward and 

promotion of teachers. 

4.3.5. Teaching Staff Strength 

Teachers’ workload continues to increase in the face of emergent demand for education by all and sundry. The 

equilibrium which is based on students-teaching staff strength ratio is required in the supply of teaching manpower.  

The distribution of workload by the principal is dependent on the available manpower. Where this is small, the 

workload will be high per teacher and some work will be left undone. This is responsible for variation (small, 

moderate, high) in teachers’ workload. Teachers’ productivity is directly related to the workload assigned to them. 

When the number of teachers is inadequate, there is excess workload. 

4.3.6. Abilities 

Vroom (1964) stated that ability is an individual’ capability to complete tasks and it is a stable trait. Halim, Diane, 

Catherine, and Shrout (2012) mentioned that work performance is the combination of mental and physical capability 

of an individual to complete a task, Francoise and Winterton (2005) explained that ability is competence that 

touches on knowledge and skills. They explained ability as involving four dimensions, namely, cognitive, 

functional, social and meta. The level of knowledge is explained by the cognitive competence, level of skill by 

functional competence, social competence explains the behaviour and attitude of individual workers, while meta 

competence is related to ability to acquire these competencies through the individual’s own knowledge.  

5. Teachers’ Workload and Students’ Academic Performance 
Academic performance of a student can be regarded as the observable and measurable behaviour of a student in 

terms of scores obtained from a teacher-made test, terminal examinations and external examinations such as the 

West African Senior School Certificate Examinations (WASSCE), National Examinations Council (NECO) and so 

on. 

Teachers’ workload has direct impact on students’ academic achievement. However, overworked teachers are less 

likely to bring the energy, insights and resilience, positive and caring relationships that effective teaching requires in 

the classroom (Grenata, 2014). These prevailing conditions would definitely show a negative influence on the 

instructional quality in schools, which may translate into poor attitudes and values, and low academic performance 

of students in secondary schools. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

13 

 

 

Ayeni and Afolabi (2012), stated that the teacher’s role in the instructional process is sine qua non, the teacher is 

expected to provide essential inputs like adequate planning of lesson notes, effective delivery of lessons, proper 

monitoring and evaluation of students’ performance, providing regular feed-back  on students’ performance, 

improvisation of instructional materials, adequate keeping of records and appropriate discipline of students to 

produce and enhance expected learning achievement in secondary schools, all of which forms part of teachers’ 

workloads on a daily basis. However, the poor condition of learning infrastructure and lack of instructional materials 

impede effective teaching-learning process.  

Poor academic performance of students in Nigeria has been further linked to poor teachers’ performance in terms of 

accomplishing the teaching tasks, negative attitude to work and poor teaching habits (Ofoegbu 2004).  

 

6. Statement of the problem 

Teachers’ instructional workloads determine to a great extent the level of students’ academic performance and the 

quality of education. However, there is a general public outcry over the deteriorating level of quality of education as 

reflected in the low level of students’ academic performance in WASSCE which is often below 50% in Nigeria.  

The perceived inequality in workload distribution has the potential to create feelings among teachers who have 

excess workloads that they are being treated unfairly. This could be partly attributed to non compliance with 

workload policy resulting in overstretching the available teaching staff strength in varying dimensions; almost all 

official time is devoted to the classroom instruction. In reality; such feelings impede and lower the standard of 

instructional tasks performances and students’ academic achievement.  

The craziness for profit-making over standard among many private investors in education with their erroneous 

orientation of “the more students’ population, the more money realized” with little consideration for instructional 

technology and adequate number of teachers impede the quality education. The identified gaps portend serious 

danger for the education system and perhaps been responsible for the inadequacies in teachers’ instructional tasks 

performance and low academic performance of students in Nigerian secondary schools. 

This study therefore sets out to investigate the criteria used by principals in allocating instructional workloads to 

teachers and examine its adequacy or otherwise, with a view to determining the implication on teachers’ 

instructional tasks performance and students’ academic performance in secondary schools, using Akoko North East 

Local Government Area of Ondo State, Nigeria as a case study. 

7. Research Questions 
i. What are teachers’ perceptions on workload allocation in secondary schools? 

ii. What are the factors influencing teachers’ workload in secondary schools?  

iii. Are teachers’ actual workloads consistent with workload policy standard? 

iv. What types of class size exist in secondary schools? 

v. How are workloads distributed to teachers in secondary schools? 

vi. What is the difference between public and private teachers’ workloads in secondary   

schools? 

vii. What are teachers’ perceptions of tasks performance in secondary schools? 

viii. What intervention strategies are provided to improve teachers’ workload? 

8. Research Hypotheses 

i. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ workload and students’ academic   

      performance in secondary schools in Akoko North East Local Government Area of Ondo  

      state, Nigeria. 

ii. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ workload distribution and workload  

      implementation in secondary schools. 

iii. There is no significant relationship between class size and teachers’ workload in   

      secondary schools in Akoko North East Local Government. 

iv. There is no significant difference between actual teachers’ workload and workload    

      standard in secondary schools . 

v. There is no significant difference between teachers’ workload in public and  

      private secondary schools in Akoko North East Local Government. 

9.  Research Method 

The study adopted the descriptive design of the survey type. The researcher used stratified random sampling to 

select 12 secondary schools (6 public and 6 private) which represented about 40% of the entire secondary schools in 

Akoko North-East Local Government Area. A total of 120 respondents were randomly selected, with a random 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

14 

 

 

selection of 10 teachers in each of the 12 schools that were sampled for the study. The principals of the 12 schools 

were purposively selected. 

Data was collected using self-developed questionnaire titled: “Teachers’ Workload and Students’ Academic 

Performance Questionnaire (TWSAPQ).  A 5- point Likert scale was adopted to elicit information from the 

respondents, using Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Fairly Agree (FA), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD) 

with the value of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The questionnaire was divided into sections A-H which included a 

profoma which was used to collect data on students’ academic performance. The questionnaire was validated both in 

face and content by experts in the Department of Educational management, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-

Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria. The test-retest method was used to determine the suitability of the research instrument 

while Cronbach’s alpha was used in determining the internal consistency of the research instrument, which yielded a 

coefficient of r = 0.84. 

The research instrument was administered on principals and teachers in the selected schools by the researchers. In a 

bid to achieve a 100% rate of return of questionnaires, the researchers waited while respondents filled the 

questionnaires, also phone contacts of those who could not fill the questionnaires at the spot were collected and 

appointments for the collection of the completed questionnaires were made. Descriptive statistics (Frequency counts, 

percentage and multiple bar charts) were employed to present responses on the research questions, while Pearson 

Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) and T-test were used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. 

10. Results 

The results and discussions of data analyses are presented in two parts based on the research questions and 

hypotheses that were formulated for the study. Data collected on research questions were analyzed using frequency 

count and percentage, while hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance using Pearson Product Moment 

Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC), and T-test statistics. The results are presented in tables 1 – 13. 

Research Question 1. What are teachers’ perceptions on their workload allocation? 

 

Table 1, Teachers’ perceptions on workload allocation in secondary schools 

S/N Items SA A FA D SD TOTAL 

1 Your workload as a teacher is 

very high 
Freq. 55 

(47.5) 

34 

(28.3) 

18 

(15.0) 

7 

(5.8) 

4 

(3.3) 

120 

(100) 
% 

2 You often carry over undone 

tasks to the next day 
Freq.  23 

(19.2) 

31 

(25.8) 

23 

(19.2) 

27 

(22.5) 

16 

(13.3) 

120 

(100) 

% 

3 You do some of your official 

work at home 
Freq.  46 

(38.3) 

63 

(52.5) 

4 

(3.3) 

3 

(2.5) 

4 

(3.3) 

120 

(100) % 

4 Duties are always delegated to 

you in particular 
Freq. 31 

(25.8) 

46 

(38.3) 

18 

(15.0) 

13 

(10.8) 

12 

(10.0) 

120 

(100) 

% 

5 Your administrative duties 

affect the quality of your 

instruction 

Freq. 21 

(17.5) 

15 

(12.5) 

21 

(16.7) 

40 

(33.3) 

24 

(20.0) 

120 

(100) 

% 

Source: Field survey 

The analysis of data in table 1 and figure 1 on teachers’ workloads revealed that the percentage points recorded for 

strongly agree (17.5 - 47.5%) and agree (12.5 – 52.5%) were greater than the percentages recorded in fairly agree 

(3.3 - 19.2%), disagree (2.5 – 33.3%) and strongly disagree (3.3% - 20%). These indicated that most of the teachers’ 

workloads were very high as reflected in percentage points of strongly agree and agree responses combined in items 

1, 3 and 4.  

Research Question 2. What are the factors influencing teachers’ workload in secondary schools? 

 

Table 2. Factors influencing teachers’ workload in secondary schools 

S/N Items  SA A 

 

FA D  SD  Total 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

15 

 

 

1 You set goals for yourself and 

achieve them 

Freq. 56 

(46.7) 

58 

(48.3) 

2 

(1.7) 

1 

(0.8) 

3 

(2.5) 

120 

(100) % 

2 Parents usually hold you 

accountable for the performance 

of their wards 

Freq. 27 

(22.5) 

49 

(40.8) 

19 

(15.8) 

17 

(14.2) 

8 

(6.7) 

120 

(100) 
% 

3 Protocols and bureaucracies 

makes tasks burdensome 

Freq.  24 

(20.0) 

34 

(28.3) 

29 

(24.2) 

25 

(20.8) 

8 

(6.7) 

120 

(100) % 

4 Frequent supervision makes tasks 

more demanding 

Freq. 31 

(25.8) 

62 

(51.7) 

7 

(5.8) 

17 

(14.2) 

3 

(2.5) 

120 

(100) % 

5 The new curriculum influenced 

your workload 

Freq. 38 

(31.7) 

58 

(48.3) 

10 

(8.3) 

11 

(9.2) 

3 

(2.5) 

120 

(100) % 

6 Frequent changes in school 

policies influence your workload 

Freq. 50 

(41.7) 

46 

(38.3) 

8 

(6.7) 

10 

(8.3) 

6 

(5.0) 

120 

(100) 
% 

Source: Field survey 

The analysis of data in table 2 on factors influencing teachers’ workloads revealed the following percentage points 

strongly agree (20.0 – 46.7%), agree (28.3 – 51.7%), fairly agree (1.7 - 24.2%), disagree (0.8 – 20.8%) and strongly 

disagree (2.5 - 6.7%). These indicated that most of the teachers worked under strict supervision as reflected in 

percentage points of strongly agreed (25.8%) and agreed (51.7%) in item 4, while changes in school policy had 

serious implications on teachers’ workload as indicated in strongly agreed (41.7%) and agreed (38.3%) in item 6. 

Research Question 3. Are teachers’ actual workloads consistent with National workload standard? 

 

Table 3. Analysis of Teachers’ Workload Standard 

No. of Period AllocatedPer 

week. 

No. of teachers involved. 

 

% Remarks 

1-5  4 3.33 Low 

6-10  10 12.0 Low 

11-15  16 13.3 Low 

16-20  25 20.8 Moderate 

21-25 44 36.67 Moderate 

26-30 11 9.16 Outrageous 

31-35 3 2.5 Outrageous  

36-40 5 6.0 Outrageous  

41-45 2 1.66 Outrageous 

Total  120 100%  

Source: Field survey 

The analysis of data in table 3 on National workload standard revealed that teachers’ workload are not 

evenly distributed while 25.0% of teachers have their workload below the specified standard of 15-25 periods per 

week. This implied that there is no absolute compliance with the expected workload standard in secondary schools. 

Research question 4. What type of class size exists in secondary schools? 

 

Table 4. Class size and teachers’ workload 

S/N Items   SA A FA D SD Total  

1 High level of infrastructure 

means fewer work to do 

Freq. 43 

(35.8) 

44 

(36.7) 

5 

(4.2) 

11 

(9.2) 

17 

(14.2) 

120 

(100) 
% 

2 Having large classes increases Freq. 65 34 8 7 6 120 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

16 

 

 

your work demands % (54.2) (28.3) (6.7) (5.8) (5.0) (100) 

3 Inaccessibility and proximity 

to school learning facilities 

influence your work intensity 

Freq. 55 

(45.8) 

45 

(37.5) 

11 

(9.2) 

7 

(5.8) 

2 

(1.7) 

120 

(100) 

% 

4 The school needs more 

learning infrastructure to 

improve teacher workload 

Freq. 75 

(62.5) 

33 

(27.5) 

4 

(3.3) 

5 

(4.2) 

3 

(2.5) 

120 

(100) 

% 

5 You devote more time on 

larger classes than smaller 

classes 

Freq. 55 

(45.8) 

31 

(25.8) 

7 

(5.8) 

10 

(8.3) 

17 

(14.2) 

120 

(100) 
% 

Source: Field survey 

 

The analysis of data in table 4 on class size and teachers’ workload revealed that the work demands of most teachers 

increased as they taught large classes as revealed in strongly agreed (54.2%) and agreed (28.3%) in item 2. Large 

classes take more instructional time than smaller classes as revealed in strongly agreed (45.8%) and agreed (25.8%) 

in item 5.  

 

Research Question 5. How are workloads distributed to teachers? 

 

Table 5. Principals’ responses on workload distribution to teachers. 

S/N Items  YES NO Total 

1 

There is no general teacher workload policy standards 

Freq.  6 

(50.0) 

6 

(50.0) 

12 

(100) % 

2 

Male teachers are assigned more tasks than female teachers 

Freq.  7 

(58.3) 

5  

(41.7)  

12 

(100) % 

3 

The salary that a teacher receives determine the workload 

Freq.  6 

(50.0) 

6 

(50.0)  

12 

(100) % 

4 

You consider teacher experience in assigning duties 

Freq.  8 

(66.7) 

4 

(33.3)  

12 

(100) % 

5 

Age factor is considered in workload distribution 

Freq.  7 

(58.3) 

5  

(41.7)  

12 

(100) % 

Source: Field survey 

The analysis of data on table 5 revealed that 50% of principals have awareness of workload policy. 58.3% male 

teachers were assigned more tasks in most of the schools. 66.7% teachers’ years of experience determined workload 

allocation in most schools. 

Research Question 6. What is the difference between public and private school teachers’ workload? 

 

Table 6. Teachers’ workload distribution in private and public secondary schools 

Type of school Number of periods taught in a 

week 

Number of teachers 

involved. 

Average workload 

Public 1145 60 19 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

17 

 

 

Private 1253 60 21 

Source: Field survey 

Data analysis on table 6 showed that teachers in private schools have a higher workload compared to teachers in 

public schools on a weekly basis. Teachers in public secondary schools have an average of 19 periods per week 

while teachers in the private secondary schools have an average of 21 periods per week. On a general note, 

workloads of private school teachers are higher than public school teachers. 

 

 

 

Research Question 7. What are teachers’ perceptions of tasks performance in secondary schools? 

 

Table 7. Teachers’ perception on tasks performance in secondary schools 

S/N Items  NECESSARY 

% 

UNNECESSARY 

% 

TIRING 

% 

TIME CONSUMING 

% 

1 Teaching activities 22 

(5.8) 

2 

(1.6) 

2 

(1.6) 

94 

(75.8) 

2 Recording, inputting 

data analysis  

11 

(6.5) 

1 

(0.8) 

36 

(26.7) 

75 

(62.5) 

3 Marking of students 

scripts 

13 

(18.3) 

 

(16.7) 

92 

(76.7) 

6 

(5.0) 

4 Administration and 

supports 

106 

(88.3) 

4.8 4.0 2.5 

5 Staff meetings 102 

(82.3) 

3 

(2.4) 

3 

(2.4) 

5 

(9.6) 

6 Reporting on student 

progress 

107 

(86.3) 

5 

(4.0) 

2 

(3.2) 

2 

(3.2) 

7 Curriculum review 

initiative 

103 

(83.1) 

9 

(7.3) 

2 

(3.2) 

2 

(3.2) 

8 Improvisation of 

instructional materials 

96 

(77.4) 

5 

(4.0) 

1 

(2.4) 

9 

(12.9) 

 

9 Co-curricular 

activities 

89 

(71.8) 

6 

(6.5) 

8 

(9.2) 

2 

(3.2) 

10 Feedback to parents 

and home contact 

87 

(70.2) 

19 

(15.3) 

6 

(7.2) 

4.0 

11 Disciplinary works 97 

(78.2) 

17 

(13.7) 

2 

(2.4) 

2 

(2.4) 

12 Supervising 

lunch/break times 

69 

(55.6) 

36 

(29.0) 

6 

(5.6) 

8 

(6.5) 

13 Guard duties 79 

(63.1) 

27 

(21.8) 

9 

(8.1) 

4 

(3.2) 

14 Assembly function 98 

(79.0) 

16 

(12.9) 

3 

(2.4) 

3 

(2.4) 

15 Completing 

incidence/ad-hoc 

report 

83 

(66.9) 

22 

(17.7) 

7 

(6.2) 

6 

(4.8) 

16 Pre-term briefings 88 

(71.0) 

19 

(15.3) 

6 

(4.8) 

7 

(5.6) 

17 Invigilation of 

external examinations 

82 

(66.1) 

28 

(22.6) 

2 

(1.6) 

5 

(6.4) 

18 Collection of 

fees/dues 

38 

(30.6) 

79 

(63.7) 

2 

(1.6) 

1 

(0.8) 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

18 

 

 

Source: Field survey 

 

Result of data analysis on table 7 revealed critical areas of teachers’ overload with the following percentage points: 

Teaching considered to be time consuming (75.8%), data imputation is time consuming (62.5%), and marking of 

students’ scripts is tiring (76.7%). 

 

 
Figure 1. Component Bar chart on teachers’ perception on tasks performance. 

 

Research Question 8. What intervention strategies are provided in tackling teachers’ excess workload? 

 

Table 8. Intervention Strategies for tackling teachers’ excess workload 

S/N Items ADEQUATE 

% 

INADEQUATE 

% 

1 Modifying marking requirements. 93(75.0) 27 (21.8) 

2 Reduction of administrative duties. 84 (67.7) 36 (29.0) 

3 Employing teachers to fill vacant positions. 91 (73.4) 29 (22.6) 

4 Hiring part-time teachers. 59 (46.8) 61 (49.2) 

5 Improving teamwork among teachers and across departments. 95 (76.6) 25 (20.2) 

6 Clarification of goals by school heads. 101 (81.5) 19 (15.5) 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

19 

 

 

7 Reviewing remuneration packages. 67 (54.0) 53 (42.7) 

8 Encouraging parent involvement and support services. 93 (75.0) 27 (21.8) 

9 Improvement of information technology systems. 84 (67.7) 36 (29.0) 

Source: Field survey 

The analysis of data in table 8 revealed that modification of marking requirements were adequate (75.0%), reduction 

of administrative duties were adequate (67.7%), team work across staff and departments was adequate (76.6%), 

clarification of school goals by school heads reduced teachers’ workload (81.5%). Parental involvement reduced 

teachers’ workload (75.0%) and improvement in information technology systems enhanced teachers’ workload 

(67.7%). 

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ workload and students’ academic performance 

in secondary schools. 

 

Table 9.  Relationship between teachers’ workload and students’ academic performance 

Variables N Mean  SD r-cal r-crit P<0.05 

Teachers’ 

workload 

120 20.3700 7.82724  

 

-0.420 

 

 

0.256 

 

 

0.000 Students’ 

academic 

performance 

120 60.7600 12.11320 

P<0.05 

Results of data analyzed on table 9 shows a negative correlation between teachers’ workload and students’ academic 

performance (r-cal=-0.420< r-crit=0.256) at df 118 at p<0.05 alpha level. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is 

no significant relationship between teachers’ workload and students’ academic performance is accepted.  

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between workload distribution and workload implementation in 

secondary schools. 

 

Table 10. Relationship between workload distribution and level of workload implementation 

Variables  N Mean  SD r-cal r-crit P<0.05 

Workload 

distribution 

120 27.0583 9.37662  

0.211 

 

0.11 

 

0.021 

Workload 

implementation 

120 12.8667 4.01872 

P<0.05 

The result on table 10 showed that the calculated r-value (0.211) is greater than r-critical value (0.11) at p<0.05 is 

significant. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. This implied 

that there is significant relationship between teachers' distribution and workload implementation. 

Hypothesis 3. There is no significant relationship between class size and teachers’ workload in secondary schools. 

 

Table 11.  Relationship between class size and teachers’ workload in secondary schools 

Variables N Mean  SD Df r-cal r-crit P<0.05 

Teacher 

workload 

120 27.0583 9.37662  

 

118 

 

 

0.096 

 

 

0.139 

 

 

0.296 Class size 

infrastructure 

120 9.6417 3.96581 

P<0.05 

The result on table 11 showed that the calculated r-value (0.096) is less than r-critical value (0.139) at p<0.05 is not 

significant. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted while the alternate hypothesis (Ha) is rejected. This implied 

that there is no significant relationship between teachers' workload and class size.  

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

20 

 

 

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between teachers’actual workload and workload standard in 

secondary schools. 

 

Table 12.  Test of difference between teachers’ actual workload and workload standard  

Variables  N Mean SD Df t-cal t-crit P<0.05 

Teacher 

actual 

workload 

120 20.1261 7.66519  

 

 

118 

 

 

 

27.219 

 

 

 

2.052 

 

 

 

.000 Workload 

standard 

120 1.0000 .00000 

P<0.05 

The result on table 12 indicated that there was a significant difference (t-cal= 27.219> t-crit= 2.052) at 118 degree of 

freedom and at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho2) is rejected while the alternate hypothesis 

(Ha) is accepted. This implied that there is significant difference between teacher actual workload and workload 

standard.  

Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between teachers’ workload in public and private secondary 

schools. 

 

Table 13. Test of difference between teachers’ workload in public and private schools 

 Type of 

school 

N Mean  SD t-cal t-crit P<0.05 

Workload  Public 60 25.3833 8.72381 2.364 1.964 0.20 

 Private 60 29.2931 9.24332 

P<0.05 

Results of data analyzed on table 13 above showed a significant difference in teachers’ workload between private 

and public secondary schools (t-cal=2.264>t-tab=1.96) at 118 degree of freedom and at 0.05 level of significance. 

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the workload of teachers between public and private 

secondary schools is rejected, while the alternate hypothesis is accepted.  

 

11. Discussion of Findings 

The result of data analysis on hypothesis one showed a negative correlation between teachers’ workload and 

students’ academic performance (r-cal= -0.420). This implied that teachers’ workloads have increased beyond their 

capacity and students’ academic performance is relatively low. The excess workload overstretched teachers’ 

instructional tasks and account for the low academic performance of students due to the inadequacies inherent in 

teachers workload.. This finding agrees with those of Naylor and Malcolmson (2001) who reported that teachers had 

to adjust their teaching methods to enable them cope with the pressure of the workload. The finding from this study 

also agrees with the findings of Nwikina and Nwanekezi (2010) that in the federal capital territory (Abuja), teachers’ 

high workload hindered students’ academic performance but when workload was reduced, students’ performance 

improved.  

 The study by Olaoye (2012) on the relationship between teachers’ workload and students’ academic performance 

indicated a negative coefficient of r= -0.235. The contrast was attributed to teachers’ inability to cover the school 

syllabus and improper teaching due to the myriad of responsibilities assigned to teachers. The implication is that 

students who repeat a class create additional tasks for teachers.  

The result of data analysis on hypothesis two revealed a relationship between workload distribution and the level of 

workload implementation (r-cal=0.211). The ineffective implementation of teachers’ workload affects instructional 

task performance. Also, supervisory pressure, large class size and unstable workload distribution policy increase 

teachers’ workloads.  

Accountability to parents and school administrators increased workload pressure for many teachers. The demand for 

in-depth reports by parents and other authorities are very intense and stressful for teachers. The analysis of data in 

table 7 indicated that 75.8% of teachers perceived teaching as time consuming, while keeping of students’ data is 

highly demanding (86.3%), and marking of scripts also seen to be a demanding task (76.7%). This finding 

corroborated the finding by Kolawole (1982) that a negative relationship exists between the class size and students’ 

academic performance. Teachers’ workload becomes much more acute when class sizes are too large. This result 

further agrees with the findings of Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) which showed a correlation between class 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

21 

 

 

size and the quality of teaching and learning among schools in Australia. Again, findings of this study agree with 

Asiyai and Ajudeonu (2010) who reported that large class size has a lot of negative effects on teaching and learning 

quality in public secondary schools in Delta State, Nigeria. This has perhaps been responsible for the cases of 

examination malpractices, violence and barbaric characters among students in secondary schools.  

On the issue of teachers’ workload standards, there is a gap. Teachers’actual workload in the area of study was 

significantly different from the workload standards. This is corroborated by the findings of Nwikina and Nwanekezi 

(2010) who found that the disparity in workload standards inhibited the academic performance of junior secondary 

schools (JSS) students in the federal capital territory, Abuja, Nigeria.  

The result of data analysis also revealed that workload policy is not strictly adhered to. Some teachers are allocated 

less than the minimum teaching periods while others have more than the maximum. In the area of study, teachers 

taught 20 periods per week on the average which is considered moderate as indicated on table 3. However, there are 

teachers who taught 40 periods weekly, such teachers take more than one subjects, which requires additional 

planning of lesson notes, improvisation of instructional materials and marking of students’ scripts. Unequal 

distribution of workload is a function of insufficient teaching staff strength (TSS), especially in core subject area 

like Mathematics, English Language and some science subjects like Biology, Physics as well as newly introduced 

subjects like Animal Husbandry and Civic Education. This is evident in table 7 on teachers’ perception of teaching 

as time consuming (75.8%), data imputation also felt to be time consuming (62.5%), and marking of students’ 

scripts seen to be stressful (76.7%). 

The reason why the workload of private school teachers outnumbered that of public school is centered on the 

unavailability of capital or funds in providing necessary human and other learning resource (teachers, classrooms, 

and equipment). This often results in over-utilization of available resources in order to make profit at all cost. The 

quality of education is jeopardized; hence a higher workload in private schools is expected as found in this study.  

Most often than not, a private school teacher teaches about four school subjects and handles about six classes 

coupled with some  administrative duties. With this in perspective, the academic performance of private schools is 

also doubtful because the excess workloads impede quality service delivery.  

12. Conclusion 

The issue of teachers’ workload is hinged on the increasing demand for education and the inadequate number of 

teachers to carry the excess workload. It has been established through empirical findings that teachers’ workload is 

an indicator in measuring teachers’ instructional performance and students’ academic performance. It is evident in 

the study that teachers are overwhelmed with excessive workload as school managers usually combine classes 

thereby having class size of over 60 as against 40 students per class, which negates the national teacher workload 

standards. This has perhaps been responsible for the poor implementation of curriculum and low academic 

performance of students in secondary schools.  

13. Recommendations 

Based on the findings of the researcher, the following recommendations were made. 

i. The government and other proprietors should employ adequate number of qualified teachers to improve the 

quality of teaching-learning process in secondary schools. 

ii. Principals should review workload distribution on a periodic basis to ensure equitable distribution of tasks 

to teachers and shed off unnecessary duties from teachers’ workload. 

iii. Teachers who teach core subjects such as Mathematics and English Language or perhaps any subject that 

has a few number of teaching staff should be relieved of administrative tasks. In addition, the coverage of 

topics may be shared among the available teachers in related subjects so that no teacher is overloaded 

unnecessarily. 

iv. Government and other proprietors should provide adequate learning facilities and maximize the use of 

information and communication technology in large classes to reduce teachers’ workload. 

v. Data entry clerks should be employed in secondary schools that will be responsible in inputting data and 

analyzing terminal scores in order to shed off burden on teachers. 

vi. Operators of private schools should consider the carrying capacity of their schools in making decisions on 

increasing enrolments hence, they should be quality conscious. 

References 

Asiyai, R. I. & Ajudeonu, H. (2010). Effects of school population and class size on the academic performance of 

secondary school students in Delta state, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Educational Administration and 

Planning, 1(10), 221- 231.  



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

22 

 

 

Ayeni, A. J. & Afolabi, E.R.I. (2012). Teachers’ instructional task performance and quality assurance of students’ 

learning outcome in Nigerian secondary school, International journal of research studies in educational 

technology, 1(1)2243-7738. 

Easthope, C. & Easthope, G. (2000) intensification, extension and complexity of teachers' workload. British Journal 

of Sociology of Education, 21, 1, 43-58. 

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013). National policy on education. Lagos: National Educational Research and 

Development Council.  

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1990). Nigeria teachers’ service manual. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education..  

Françoise, D. & Winterton, J. (2005). What Is Competence? Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27-

46. DOI: 10.1080/1367886042000338227 

Goodrum, G., Hackling, B. & Rennie, S. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in 

Australian school. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affair, Common Wealth of 

Australia.  

Grenata, (2014). Teacher stress and disengagement impacts on students’ performance, Education world. Retrieved 

June 7 2015, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/teacher-stress-impacts-student- 

performance.shtml 

Halim, L. M., Diane, R., Catherine, T. & Shrout, P. E. (2012). Rigidity in Gender-Typed Behaviors in Early 

Childhood: A Longitudinal Study of Ethnic Minority Children. Child Development, 0(40), 1-16.  

Kolawole, S. K. (1982). Impact of class size on student’s achievement in secondary schools in Ibadan. Unpublished 

M.Ed. Thesis, University of Ibadan.  

Ksenia, Z. (2012). Taking the strain: The impact of musculoskeletal disorders on work and home life. Retrieved 

from http://www.vra-uk.org/node 

Marina, Z. (2012). Job factors related to musculoskeletal symptoms among nursing personnel. A Review, 41, 2516-

2520.  

Mbugua, Z. K., Muthaa, G. M., Kibet, K. G., & Nkonke, G. R. (2012). Factors contributing to students’ poor 

performance in Mathematics at Kenya certificate of secondary education in Kenya: A case of Baringo 

County, Kenya. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(6), 10-17.  

Naylor, C. & Malcomson, J. D. (2001). A study of workload of English teachers in B.C. secondary grades. BCTR 

research report. RTO 1-0036 16-17.  

Nwikina, L. & Nwanekezi, A. (2010). Management of job-related teacher burnout in Nigerian schools. Academic 

Arena, 2(7), 23-34. 

Ofoegbu, F. I. (2004).  Teacher Motivation: A Factor for classroom effectiveness and school improvement in 

Nigeria. Gale Group. Retrieved from http://www.findArticles.com 

Olaoye, A. A. (2012). Preparation and availability of NCE mathematics teachers in Nigerian teacher education. 

Book of proceedings of the national conference organized by Faculty of Education, University of Abuja, 

Nigeria. 

Osim, R. O. (2009). School quality, principals’ administrative characteristics and secondary school teachers’ task 

performance in Cross River State. Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Faculty of Education, University of 

Calabar.  

Razmjou, S. (1996). Mental workload in heat: Toward a framework for analyses of stress states. Aviation, Space, 

and Environmental Medicine, 67(6), 530-538.  

Staal, M. A. (2004). Stress, cognition, and human performance: A literature review and conceptual framework, 

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.  

Sultana, B., Bano, Y., Bano, F. & Shafa, M. D. (2012). The nature and impact of teacher stress in the private schools 

of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and 

Development, 1(2), 64-84.  

Ukeje, B. O. (1992). Educational Administration. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Company Ltd. 

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley 

Wosyanju, M. G. (2005). Assessment of large classes. A paper presented at the 31st annual conference of 

international association for educational assessment, Abuja, September 4th -9
th

.  

 

 

Copyrights  

https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000338227


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijelr            American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research           Vol. 1, No. 1; 2018 

 

23 

 

 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an 

open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 


