Comparing Mathematics Achievement across High-Stakes Examinations: Evidence from WAEC/NECO and JAMB in Nigeria
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
491-508
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/ijecs.v4i3.9375
Viewed: 66 times
Downloaded: 39 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:Hassan Muhammad1*
Copyright :Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study compares mathematics performance across essay-based secondary school examinations administered by the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and the National Examinations Council (NECO) and the multiple-choice university entrance examination administered by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) in Nigeria. Using an ex post facto comparative design, archival mathematics examination records from 600 secondary school graduates were analyzed to determine the comparability of performance across the three examination systems. Mathematics performance in WAEC and NECO was operationalized using official grade classifications, whereas JAMB performance was assessed using subject-level aggregate score ranges. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, score standardization, and paired-samples t tests. The findings showed that a substantial proportion of candidates who attained credit-level grades in WAEC and NECO Mathematics obtained relatively low aggregate scores in JAMB Mathematics. Standardized mean comparisons further indicated that the same candidates performed better in WAEC and NECO than in JAMB, while the paired-samples analysis confirmed that the differences were statistically significant and associated with a large effect size. These results demonstrate systematic variation in mathematics performance between essay-based and multiple-choice high-stakes examinations. The study contributes empirical evidence to the mathematics education literature on assessment comparability in multi-examination contexts and underscores the need for cautious interpretation of examination outcomes generated by assessment systems with different formats and purposes, particularly when such results inform high-stakes educational decisions.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles
-
Edwin E. (2027)Inflammation-driven multiorgan Dysfunction: Biomarker-Guided diagnosis, mechanistic insights and emerging precision therapeutic strategiesAdvances in Biomarker Sciences and Technology, 9(1), 1-25
-
Li X. (2027)Characterization of shale gas adsorption behavior based on the gravimetric methodUnconventional Resources, 17
-
Ushikubo K. (2027)Endoscopic Pseudo-dilation of Esophagogastric Junction During Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: (With Video)Den Open, 7(1)
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Adeleke, A. O., et al. (2025). The limitations of traditional mathematics assessments in measuring problem-solving ability. Journal of Mathematics Education, 49(3), 312–323.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Amalina, L., & Vidákovich, S. (2022). Mathematical literacy: Expanding the scope of assessment. Educational Assessment Review, 24(4), 45–59.
Anghel, F., et al. (2024). Cognitive alignment in mathematics assessments: A critical review. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(5), 167–182.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Assessment in the service of learning: Challenges and opportunities or Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 50, 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0937-1
Cantley, I., & McAllister, J. (2021). The gender similarities hypothesis: Insights from a multilevel analysis of high-stakes examination results in mathematics. Sex Roles, 85(7–8), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01234-5
Fokuo, M. O., Lassong, B. S., & Kwasi, S. F. (2022). Students’ poor mathematics performance in Ghana: Are there contributing factors? Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 30(4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2022/v30i430729
Leonard, B. (2024). Reasoning in mathematics assessments: A deeper analysis. Mathematics Education Journal, 42(3), 230–245.
Mutawah, R., et al. (2018). A framework for assessing mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(2), 225–238.
Ní Shúilleabháin, A., O’Connor, R., & Meehan, M. (2019). Investigating cognitive demand of higher-level Leaving Certificate mathematics examination tasks pre- and post-curriculum reform. In L. Harbison & A. Twohill (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Research in Mathematics Education in Ireland (MEI7) (pp. 203–210). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3580824
Nortvedt, G. A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics education: Responding to issues regarding methodology, policy, and equity. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 50, 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0963-z
Papanastasiou, E., & Michaelides, M. (2024). Cognitive complexity and mathematical problem-solving in large-scale assessments. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 178–192.
Park, M., et al. (2023). The role of student practices in mathematical ability assessments: A neglected factor. Mathematics Education Journal, 58(2), 129–145.
Pettersen, M., & Braeken, S. (2017). Reimagining mathematics assessments: Moving beyond procedural fluency. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(3), 185–199.
Provasnik, S. (2021). Process data, the new frontier for assessment development: Rich new soil or a quixotic quest? Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 9, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00092-z
Raji, M. O. (2021). Postsecondary entrance examinations in Nigeria: A critical analysis of the design and predictive validity of the tripartite assessment system. African Journal of Teacher Education, 10(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v10i1.6296
Salles, R., Santos, E., & Keskpaik, J. (2020). Developing process-oriented assessment tasks for higher-order mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 487–504.
Scherer, N., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Time constraints and problem-solving performance in mathematics assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(4), 399–412.
Smith, J., Wang, H., & Liu, L. (2020). Revisiting the role of cognitive complexity in mathematics assessments. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 15–25.
Zana, F. M., Sa’dijah, C., & Susiswo. (2024). The cognitive alignment of mathematics teachers’ assessments and its curriculum. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(3), 1561–1575. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.26814