Student academic performance in Nigeria, particularly in Kaduna State, remains a critical concern due to its far-reaching effects on regional development and socioeconomic advancement. Recent data highlight persistent under-performance in national examinations such as the West African Examinations Council (WAEC), National Examinations Council (NECO), and Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) tests, with notable disparities between Kaduna State’s Southern and Northern senatorial zones. This underachievement stems from a complex interplay of factors, including school infrastructure, teacher quality, socioeconomic conditions, home environments, and systemic issues ([22]). Contextual analysis within Kaduna State’s senatorial districts is essential to unpack these influences effectively.

Research consistently shows that inadequate school facilities and learning environments hinder academic success. In Kaduna State, substandard classrooms, outdated instructional materials, and poor ventilation have been strongly linked to student poor performance. The availability of libraries, laboratories, and other resources directly shapes teaching effectiveness and, in turn, student outcomes ([20]).

Teacher competence, subject expertise, and pedagogical skills are equally vital. Studies in Kaduna State point to shortages of qualified educators, weak classroom management, and limited professional development as key contributors to poor results ([22]). While teacher training and digital evaluation methods, such as computer-based testing preparation, have yielded modest gains in the Southern zones ([25]), uneven teaching quality persists, especially in rural areas staffed by under qualified personnel.

Socioeconomic divides between the zones exacerbate these challenges. In the Northern zones, elevated poverty, family disruptions, and parental illiteracy restrict access to learning resources and erode student motivation ([4]; [11]). Cultural elements, including parental views on education and early marriage practices, further disadvantage female students ([4]; [23]).

Student-internal factors, such as health issues, low motivation, anxiety, negative attitude and disinterest, compound the problem. Low self-efficacy, absenteeism, and behavioral challenges often lead to sub-optimal performance, worsened by limited English proficiency as the medium of instruction ([4]; [11]). The high prevalence of out-of-school children, especially in the North, undermines educational equity across Kaduna State ([27]). Despite government efforts to improve access, infrastructure, and digital literacy, gaps in teacher deployment, monitoring, and policy execution remain ([27]). Proposed solutions include prioritizing teacher recruitment and training, upgrading school facilities and materials, promoting digital literacy and examination readiness, enforcing policies to curb out-of-school children and gender disparities, and strengthening supervision and management.

Results in Table 1 indicate that the 27 environmental factors collectively contributed substantially to students’ low achievement in Agricultural Science, with grand means of 3.29 (Zone 1) and 4.14 (Zone 3), respectively. These values showed that respondents in both zones generally agreed that environmental conditions negatively influenced performance, with the magnitude of concern higher in Zone 3. The relatively small standard deviations (0.23 in Zone 1; 0.09 in Zone 3) further suggest a strong consensus among respondents regarding the adverse role of these factors in both contexts.

Table 1. Environmental factors responsible for students’ poor performance in Agricultural Science.

t-value = 13.68 > 0.05**, df = 52, Criti. value. = 2.007, x ¯ = mean, zone 1 = northern senatorial zone, zone 3 = southern senatorial zone of Kaduna State.

In Zone 1, inadequate school infrastructure and classrooms (mean = 3.97) and the absence of quiet, resourceful spaces for studying and research (mean = 3.93) ranked highest, underscoring how overcrowded, poorly maintained, and academically unconducive and unstimulating school environments can undermine sustained engagement and effective learning. In Zone 3, inadequate school infrastructure and classrooms (mean = 4.24) and the absence of wellequipped laboratories for practical subjects (mean = 4.21) were the dominant constraints, highlighting how weak support for practical, handson agricultural learning limits skill acquisition and application.

The inferential statistics reinforce these descriptive trends. The reported value of 13.68, in relation to a probability level set at p > 0.05, indicates a statistically significant difference between the two zones in the perceived influence of environmental factors on students’ poor performance, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference. In practical terms, this result implies that environmental constraints, particularly those associated with infrastructural decay and adverse home conditions, are significantly more pronounced and thus more detrimental to learning outcomes in Zone 3 than in Zone 1.

Results in Table 2 show that, overall, the 18 teacher-related factors were rated high as contributors to students’ poor performance in Agricultural Science, with grand mean scores of 3.30 in Zone 1 and 4.07 in Zone 3, respectively. The relatively low standard deviations (0.24 for Zone 1 and 0.096 for Zone 3) indicate a strong consensus among students and teachers that these factors substantially hinder academic achievement, even though the magnitude of the means varied across items and zones. Improper teaching methods and poor communication of concepts emerged as the most critical teacher factors in both zones. In Zone 1, “use of improper teaching methods and strategies” and “poor communication skills on concepts and clarity” recorded mean scores of 4.04 and 3.57, while in Zone 3 the corresponding means were even higher at 4.20 and 4.18, respectively, underscoring their dominant influence on students’ poor performance.

Across the remaining items, Zone 3 consistently recorded higher mean ratings than Zone 1 on factors such as limited subject-matter knowledge (4.11 vs. 3.55), inadequate student motivation (4.07 vs. 3.50), frequent missing of classes (4.19 vs. 3.19), poor teacher–student relationships (4.04 vs. 3.26), poor ICT integration (4.07 vs. 3.26), and non-utilization of instructional materials (4.05 vs. 3.22).

Table 2. Teacher factors responsible for poor student performance in Agricultural Science.

t-value = 12.64 > 0.05*, df = 34, crit. value. = 2.032, x ¯ = mean, zone 1 = northern senatorial zone, zone 3 = southern senatorial zone of Kaduna State.

The inferential results support these descriptive patterns. The computed t value of 12.64 exceeded the critical value at the p > 0.05 level of significance, indicating a statistically significant difference in the contribution of teacher factors to students’ poor performance between Zone 1 and Zone 3. This implies that teacher-related constraints weigh more heavily on student outcomes in Zone 3 than in Zone 1, suggesting a location effect on teaching quality and effectiveness in Agricultural Science. Consequently, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in teacher factors between the two zones was rejected.

Results in Table 3 indicated that parental factors were rated as important contributors to students’ poor academic achievement in Agricultural Science in both zones, with grand mean scores of 3.29 in Zone 1 and 4.14 in Zone 3. The relatively low standard deviations (0.23 for Zone 1 and 0.098 for Zone 3) suggested a high level of agreement among respondents that the 18 identified parental factors adversely affect achievement, with the problem perceived as more acute in Zone 3. Results also showed that, across both zones, the most critical parental constraints were parents’ limited interest in their children’s studies, failure to assist with homework, and negative influence on children’s study and career choices. In Zone 1, parents’ lack of interest in children’s studies (mean = 3.88) and failure to help with homework or assignments (mean = 3.50) were especially prominent, whereas in Zone 3, parental lack of interest in studies (mean = 4.37) and undue influence on children’s study career (mean = 4.27) emerged as the dominant barriers. These results evidently implied that both emotional support (interest, encouragement) and instructional support (homework assistance, provision of learning resources) are central to students’ success in Agricultural Science.

Table 3. Parental factors that cause poor student performance in Agricultural Science.

t-value = 14.42 > 0.05**, df = 34, crit. Value = 2.032, x ¯ = mean, zone 1 = northern senatorial zone, zone 3 = southern senatorial zone of Kaduna State.

The independent t-test produced a t-value of 14.42 at the p ≤ 0.05 level, indicating a statistically significant difference in parental factors between the two locations in favour of Zone 3 (Southern Senatorial Zone), where the mean ratings were consistently higher. This result implies that parental practices and home conditions undermining Agricultural Science achievement are more severe or more frequently reported in Zone 3 than in Zone 1, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in parental contributions across the two zones.

Table 4. Student factors responsible for their poor performance in Agricultural Science.

t-value = 17.93 > 0.05**, df = 30, crit. value. =2.042, x ¯ = mean, zone 1 = northern senatorial zone, zone 3 = southern senatorial zone of Kaduna State.

Results in Table 4 showed that student-related attributes were rated as important contributors to poor performance in Agricultural Science in both zones, with grand mean scores of 3.28 in Zone 1 and 4.22 in Zone 3. The relatively small standard deviations (0.20 for Zone 1; 0.06 for Zone 3) indicate a high level of consensus among respondents that the 16 identified student factors negatively affect achievement, with the problem perceived as more severe in Zone 3. Generally, absenteeism from school emerged as the most critical student factor, with mean ratings of 3.84 in Zone 1 and 4.37 in Zone 3, followed by behaviours linked to poor study habits, such as nonchalant attitude to study (3.35) in Zone 1 and poor preparedness for tests and examinations (4.28) in Zone s3. Other highly rated constraints included irregular class attendance, wasting time on nonacademic activities, negative peer influence, reliance on social media, and difficulty understanding English, which together point to patterns of disengagement, distraction, and weak academic foundations among students.

The independent t-test yielded a t-value of 17.93 at the p ≤ 0.05 level, indicating a statistically significant difference in studentrelated factors between the two zones, with students in Zone 3 reporting higher levels of negative attributes. Consequently, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in students’ attributes contributing to poor performance between the two locations was rejected, suggesting that the intensity of maladaptive behaviours and poor study practices is greater in the Southern (Zone 3) than in the Northern (Zone 1) senatorial zone.

Infrastructural constraints emerged as the most critical cluster of determinants across the two zones ([28]; [13]). Infrastructure and several schoollevel and homebased environmental conditions also exerted considerable negative influence on students’ performance ([7]). Factors such as unstable power supply, lack of ICT facilities, insecure school environments, and disruptive noise within or around the school recorded consistently high mean scores in both zones, indicating that learners operate in settings that are not conducive to concentration, motivation, or modern pedagogical approaches. Homerelated conditions, such as including lack of quiet study space, limited access to books and internet, excessive domestic responsibilities, economic pressure to work, inadequate meals, and exposure to substance abuse were also rated highly, suggesting that many students face a double burden of disadvantage both at school and at home ([6]; [12]; [8]). The pattern of means shows that although specific factors vary slightly in their ranking across the zones, environmental challenges are more acute in Zone 3, where virtually all items attracted higher mean scores than in Zone 1. The results align with the grand mean difference (3.29 vs. 4.14), indicating that the learning environment in Zone 3 is perceived as more hostile to effective teaching and learning in Agricultural Science. Such disparities may reflect unequal governmental investment, insecurity, differential school governance, or broader socioeconomic disadvantages that concentrate infrastructural decay and household stressors in certain locations. The elevated severity of environmental factors in Zone 3 (Southern senatorial zone) compared to Zone 1 (Northern senatorial zone) underscores a critical regional disparity in the challenges impeding Agricultural Science performance among secondary school students in Kaduna State. This reflects compounded pressures from denser rural populations, intensified household dynamics, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities that more acutely disrupt learning environments in the South. Infrastructure limitations, cultural practices, and nutritional insecurities further exacerbate these barriers, creating a less conducive social environment for academic success.

Although both zones significantly showed high severity in teachers contributing poor academic achievement, Zone 3’s higher grand mean for teachers’ factors (4.07 ± 0.096 and Zone 1’s 3.30 ± 0.24) stems primarily from systemic resource shortages and heavier workloads in Southern Kaduna’s peri-urban and rural contexts. These pressures exacerbate improper teaching methods, frequent absences, poor lesson planning, inadequate ICT proficiency, limited subject expertise, and motivational deficits, fostering weaker classroom management, strained student relationships, and unprofessional assessment practices that undermine Agricultural Science instruction more acutely than in the relatively stable Northern zone. These findings align with studies that link ineffective pedagogy, inadequate explanation of concepts, and low use of learner-center strategies to weak outcomes in Agricultural Science ([1]). Field observations further revealed that shortages of specialists in Agricultural Science teachers had led schools, particularly in Zone 3, to engage teachers from related disciplines such as Geography, Integrated Science, and Biology, which exacerbated gaps in pedagogical content knowledge and practical orientation ([23]; [1]). The low values of standard deviation in both zones confirm the agreement that teacher factors constituted a significant barrier ([10]). These results supported recent evidence that teacher variables, such as qualification, teaching methods, classroom management, and absenteeism are strongly associated with students’ achievement in Agricultural Science. They also corroborate findings that teachers’ quality and deployment patterns vary across locations, with understaffed or rural zones often experiencing more acute negative effects on students’ performance ([29]; [9]).

Parents exhibited greater disinterest in children’s studies, neglected homework support, withheld learning resources, avoided teacher interactions, and favoured punishment over encouragement. Career influences, fee payment delays, excessive curricular distractions, low parental education, family conflicts, overprotection, poor motivation, school skipping tolerance, gender biases in prioritization, and discouragement of curiosity further intensified these shortcomings, likely stemming from deeper socioeconomic strains and cultural norms in Zone 3. Reports have shown that, parental involvement and home background strongly shape secondary school students’ academic outcomes in Nigeria. For example, [3] reported that parents’ level of education and provision of educational facilities significantly influenced students’ performance in Agricultural Science. Similarly, [17] also reported that parental education, home discussions about school, family structure, and parental occupation collectively exerted powerful effects on students’ achievement, confirming that home background remains a critical determinant of academic performance. Globally, empirical evidence has shown positive association between parental involvement and academic achievement across subjects and grade levels, with parental expectations and encouragement often exerting stronger effects than mere homework supervision. However, [15] cautioned that parental pressure, such as overly high expectations, harsh punishment, or controlling attitudes inflict negative or mixed effects on performance, suggesting that the quality and style of involvement matter as much as its frequency. As such, condemnation rather than encouraging learning efforts and prioritizing some children’s education over others implied that certain parental behaviours may depress, rather than enhance, students’ motivation in Agricultural Science. Contrary to the findings of study, reports have shown that the relationship between parental involvement and achievement is often indirect and mediated by school relationships and student characteristics. For instance, [5] reported that adequate quality control in student-teacher relationship diminishes the direct predictive effect of parent involvement on classroom performance. Implying that supportive teacher interactions can buffer or amplify home influences. Furthermore, they were also of the view that age, gender, and socioeconomic status may mediate the impact of parental practices, resulting in different outcomes for different student groups even under similar home conditions.

Students in Zone 3 exhibited more acute behavioural and attitudinal barriers by displaying elevated absenteeism, irregular attendance, time wastage on non-academic pursuits and weak educational foundations. Negative peer influences, consistent lateness, English comprehension difficulties, disobedience, social media addiction, drug abuse, examination unpreparedness, poor notetaking also influenced their performance. Field experience equally showed that negligence to homework, classroom distractions, overconfidence, and strained teacher interactions intensified by Zone 3’s socioeconomic pressures and cultural dynamics increased the challenges. These findings align with Nigerian and African studies that identify absenteeism, truancy, poor attitude, and weak study habits as major predictors of low achievement in Agricultural Science and related subjects. For instance, studies on mass failure in Agricultural Science have shown that truancy, poor reading habits, lack of concentration, and negative attitudes to the subject significantly contributed to students’ poor performance ([23]). Similarly, research on truancy in Nigerian secondary schools has documented that irregular attendance and internal truancy (skipping lessons, evading assignments) are closely linked to declining academic outcomes and increased risk of examination failure ([18]; [26]). Evidence on study habits further supports the emphasis on poor preparation for tests and examinations, showing that time allocation to study, homework completion, reading and notetaking, and testtaking strategies are significant predictors of science achievement. [19] demonstrate that strengthening students’ time management, consistent class attendance, and testpreparation routines can yield meaningful gains in achievement, especially in resourceconstrained settings. Implying that students’ behaviours such as attendance, engagement, and discipline are very crucial in improving performance in Agricultural Science.

However, it has been argued that student misbehaviour and poor study habits often reflect deeper structural constraints, such as inadequate school facilities, ineffective teaching, and weak guidance and counselling services ([23]). Implying that, high rates of absenteeism and disengagement may be symptoms of broader systemic problems rather than purely individual failings, and suggesting that interventions should combine student-focused strategies such as study skills, counselling, and behavioral support, with improvements in school quality and learning environments ([24])

The study revealed that multiple interrelated environmental, teacher-related, parental, and student-specific factors significantly contributed to the poor performance of students in Agricultural Science across the two zones of Kaduna State. While these factors were present in both zones, their impact was more pronounced in Zone 3 (southern senatorial zone), as evidenced by higher mean scores and statistically significant differences. The findings revealed infrastructural decay, ineffective teaching practices, parental disengagement, and student indiscipline as the dominant contributors to poor performance. The rejection of the null hypotheses across the study implied the need for targeted interventions tailored to the unique challenges of each zone.

1) There is a need for government and school management to engage in environmental reform through rehabilitation of school infrastructure. This can be achieved via renovation of damaged classrooms, libraries, and laboratories to ensure availability of essential learning tools. Furthermore, access to ICT facilities through the provision of solar powered electricity, internet connectivity, and multimedia devices should be enabled to modernize instruction. There should also be needed to establish quiet learning spaces by setting up community study hubs for students lacking conducive environments at home.

2) There is also a need to prioritize hiring Agricultural Science specialists through the recruitment of qualified teachers rather than reassigning teachers from unrelated fields. Continuous capacity building through regular training on pedagogical skills, lesson planning, ICT integration, and differentiated learning is necessary for upgrading teachers, while implementing teachers’ evaluation models to monitor lesson delivery, absenteeism, and professional conduct is imperative.

3) Community sensitization through educating parents on the importance of active involvement in their children’s education, as well as schools’ parent partnership initiatives, will go a long way in solving negative parental influence on students’ performance and promoting consistent communication via parent-teacher forums, open days, and feedback systems. Parents, through support services like workshops that focus on academic encouragement, career guidance, and emotional support, are asine qua nonfor improved performance.

4) The government should also encourage attendance by providing student-centered interventions, such as the use of digital check-in systems to reduce absenteeism and track engagement. There is also a need for academic enrichment programs for students by launching after-school clubs and mentorship schemes. Such a programme improves students’ behaviour and provides emotional support. Provision of school-based counseling and peer mentorship will also mitigate drug abuse, peer pressure, and poor study habits, and subsequently enhance performance.

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Northern and Southern Zones School Management Boards for granting formal permission to undertake this research within their schools, and thankful to the teachers and students who willingly contributed their time and efforts to the data collection process. The authors also extend sincere appreciation to the management of the Federal University of Education, Zaria, for granting approval to disseminate and publish this article. Finally, our unreserved appreciation goes to Mazi Uchenna Nnaji, a USA based friend of the first author for funding publication of this article.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the relevant educational authorities in Kaduna State prior to data collection. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students; for minors, consent was provided through school authorities in line with institutional and state guidelines.