Impact of Agricultural Education Facilities on Students’ Attitude to Agricultural Education Programs in Higher Institutions in Bayelsa State

books contribute to students' understanding and comprehension of subjects? 3.18 1.00 3.25 0.78 Agree 8 Reference books improve students' critical thinking and analytical skills 3.09 0.47 3.50 0.76 Agree Grand Mean 3.23 0.94 3.44 0.07 The data in Table 2 showed the respondents expressed agreement for the items. Lecturers' mean scores spanned from 2.91 to 3.36, while student scores spanned from 3.25 to 3.50. Ultimately, the grand means of 3.23 for lecturers and 3.44 for students demonstrate that agricultural education teaching facilities influence students' attitudes toward agricultural education programmes. Research Question 3: How does infrastructural facilities shape students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions? Table 3: Mean and standard deviation of student’s attitude to agricultural education programmes based on infrastructural facilities S/N Item Statement Lecturers X̅1 SD1 Students X̅2 SD2 Decision 9 Well-equipped and designed classroom block(s) positively shape students’ motivation 3.00 1.00 3.16 0.83 Agree IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io 10 Comfortable seating arrangements improves students’ attitude 3.18 1.07 3.45 0.82 Agree 11 Adequate lighting and ventilation enhance students’ attitude 3.36 1.02 3.30 0.83 Agree 12 Availability and quality of resources in the library block impact learning experience 3.27 1.10 3.50 0.82 Agree Grand Mean 3.40 1.20 2.97 0.73 The data in Table 3, reveal the respondents expressed agreement among the entire items. The lecturers mean scores spanned from 3.00 to 3.36, while those for students ranged from 3.16 to 3.50. Ultimately, the grand means of 3.40 for lecturers and 2.97 for students indicate that agricultural education infrastructural facilities have a significant impact on shaping students' attitudes toward these programs in higher institutions. Research Question 4: How does health facilities shape students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions? Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of student’s attitude to agricultural education programmes based on health facilities S/N Item Statement Lecturers X̅1 SD1 Students X̅2 SD2 Decision 13 Health facilities safeguard and promote the health of students 3.36 0.92 3.40 0.76 Agree 14 Aids students maintain a healthy lifestyle. 2.81 1.25 3.50 0.77 Agree 15 Health center/clinic offers a range of medical services, including general check 3.09 0.94 3.33 0.73 Agree 16 Counseling centers provide mental health support to students. 2.81 1.16 3.49 0.77 Agree Grand Mean 3.07 1.00 3.15 0.64 The results presented in Table 4, showed both groups of respondents expressed agreement with all four items. Mean scores for lecturers ranged from 2.81 to 3.36, while student scores spanned from 3.33 to 3.50. Moreover, the grand means of 3.07 for lecturers and 3.15 for students confirm that agricultural education health facilities have a significant impact on shaping student attitudes toward these academic programs in higher institutions. Test of Hypotheses Ho1: There is no significant difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of learning facilities on students’ attitudes regarding agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions. IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io Table 5: t-test result of the significance difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of learning facilities and students’ attitude to agricultural education programmes Table 5 shows that the mean score for lecturers is 3.02, while that of students is 3.38, with a t- value of -1.39 and a p-value of 0.17. Since the p-value exceeds the 0.05 significant level, the null hypothesis is retained, indicating no significant difference between lecturers’ and students’ responses regarding students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes based on the impact of learning facilities. Ho2: There is no significant difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of teaching facilities on students’ attitudes regarding agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions. Table 6: t-test result of the significance difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of teaching facilities and students’ attitude to agricultural education programmes Table 6 shows that the mean score for lecturers is 3.18, while that of students is 3.37, with a t- value of 0.81 and a p-value of 0.17. Since the p-value exceeds the 0.05 significant level, the null hypothesis is retained, indicating no significant difference between lecturers’ and students’ responses regarding students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes based on the impact of teaching facilities. Ho3: There is no significant difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of teaching infrastructural facilities on students’ attitudes regarding agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions. Table 7: t-test result of the significance difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of infrastructural facilities and students’ attitude to agricultural education programmes Variables N SD df t-value p-value alpha level Decision Lecturers Students 10 186 3.22 3.41 0.18 0.74 194 0.84 0.17 0.05 Not sig Table 7 shows that the mean score for lecturers is 3.22, while that of students is 3.41, with a t- value of 0.84 and a p-value of 0.17. Since the p-value exceeds the 0.05 significant level, the null Variables N X̅ SD df t-value p-value alpha level Decision Lecturers 10 3.02 0.24 194 -1.39 0.17 0.05 NS Students 186 3.38 0.82 Variables N X̅ SD df t-value p-value alpha level Decision Lecturers 10 3.18 0.09 194 0.81 0.17 0.05 NS Students 186 3.37 0.75 IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io hypothesis is retained, indicating no significant difference between lecturers’ and students’ responses regarding students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes based on the impact of infrastructural facilities. Ho4: There is no significant difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of health facilities on students’ attitudes regarding agricultural education programmes in Bayelsa State higher institutions. Table 8: t-test result of the significance difference between the responses of lecturers and students on the impact of health facilities and students’ attitude to agricultural education programmes Variables N SD df t-value p-value alpha level Decision Lecturers Students 10 186 3.07 3.41 0.01 0.74 194 1.44 0.17 0.05 Not sig Table 8 shows that the mean score for lecturers is 3.07, while that of students is 3.41, with a t- value of 1.44 and a p-value of 0.17. Since the p-value exceeds the 0.05 significant level, the null hypothesis is retained, indicating no significant difference between lecturers’ and students’ responses regarding students’ attitudes to agricultural education programmes based on the impact of health facilities. Discussion of Findings The findings from table one revealed that the grand mean for both lecturers and students exceeded the 2.50 criterion mean, indicating that modern learning facilities substantially influence students' attitudes toward agricultural education programs. These findings parallel with that of Okolie et al. (2021), who highlighted in the supplying of facilities for learning enhance student interest in vocational disciplines. Furthermore, Ifeanyi and Okoro (2023) verified that experiential learning on demonstration plots strengthens practical competencies and subject preference. The findings on table five also indicated that the responses of lecturers and students show no significant difference. This consistency in perception directly aligns with Onwuka and Chidi (2022), who found that staff and students maintain uniform views regarding institutional learning assets. The finding from research question two showed that both respondent groups averaged above the 2.50 benchmark, demonstrating that agricultural teaching facilities play an important role in molding student attitudes. These dynamics match the observations of Mukembo et al. (2023), who argued that tailored instructional materials maximize student engagement and participation. Hypothesis two revealed no significant variation between lecturer and student responses. This finding reinforces the conclusions of Onwuka and Chidi (2022), who documented strong agreement between university personnel and students regarding the necessity of instructional resources. Regarding research question three, grand mean scores exceeding 2.50 indicate that structural infrastructure directly affects student attitudes. This aligns with Okolie et al. (2021), who established that functional building environments support academic concentration and programmatic commitment. Hypothesis three indicated no significant difference between lecturers and students’ responses. This is congruent with Akinyemi and Ojo (2022), who reported that lecturers and students similar view regarding how structural conditions dictate classroom efficacy. The results for research question four showed that both groups recorded means above the 2.50 threshold, establishing that campus health services positively influence student dispositions. This IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io finding supports Schunk and DiBenedetto (2020), who demonstrated that comprehensive institutional support systems safeguard student motivation and psychological well-being. Hypothesis four indicated that no significant difference occurs in the responses of lecturers and students. This outcome complies with Eze and Nwankwo (2021), who verified that university staff and students maintain highly similar evaluations of the role support infrastructure plays in institutional success. Conclusion In conclusion, this study establishes that agricultural education facilities spanning learning, teaching, infrastructural, and health resources are vital components in shaping student attitudes toward agricultural programs in Bayelsa State's higher institutions. The data demonstrates that functional and modern infrastructure directly enhances a student's academic comprehension, motivation, and overall engagement with the discipline. Furthermore, the strong alignment between the perspectives of lecturers and students underscores a unified, institutional recognition of how much these resources matter. Therefore, prioritizing the consistent provision and careful maintenance of well-equipped facilities is vital to fostering positive student dispositions and maintaining the ongoing effectiveness of agricultural education programmes. Recommendations The study recommends that: 1. University management should provide and routinely maintain modern agricultural learning facilities. This includes functional laboratories, farm tools, machinery, and demonstration farms to enrich hands-on learning and foster positive student attitudes. 2. Agricultural education departments must secure up-to-date textbooks, workbooks, reference materials, and modern instructional tools. Faculty members should be actively supported in integrating these materials into their daily teaching. 3. University authorities need to upgrade basic infrastructure by ensuring well-designed classrooms, ergonomic seating, adequate lighting, proper ventilation, and fully stocked libraries to create an optimal learning environment. 4. University management should boost campus wellness by providing functional medical centres, reliable basic healthcare, and accessible counselling. Routine wellness initiatives should be introduced to support students' physical and mental health. IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io References Adejoh, A., et al. (2016). Assessment of students' attitudes and motivation toward vocational education programmes. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 10(2), 45–58. Akinyemi, T. O., & Ojo, A. B. (2022). School infrastructure and its contribution to teaching effectiveness in tertiary institutions. African Journal of Educational Studies, 14(1), 112– 125. Chikafalimani, S. H. P., Kibwami, N., Moyo, S., et al. (2021). Management of facilities at public universities in Africa: Current challenges and the way forward. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 29(1), 22–35. Eze, C. U., & Nwankwo, P. I. (2021). Institutional support services and student welfare provisions in vocational education departments. Journal of Education and Practice, 12(8), 89–101. Food and Agriculture Organization . (2021). Agricultural education for sustainable rural development in developing countries: Challenges and policy options. FAO Publications. Gordon, R. (2014). The role of physical infrastructure and workshops in practical skill development. International Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 6(3), 201– 215. Haruna, I., Bello, B., & Ibrahim, H. (2019). The role of agricultural education in blending classroom instruction with practical competencies. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Science Education, 5(2), 74–88. Ifeanyi, C. C., & Okoro, J. M. (2023). Impact of instructional learning facilities on students' practical competence and attitude in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 27(4), 55–67. Mukembo, S. C., et al. (2023). Instructional resources and entrepreneurial participation in agricultural education. Global Journal of Agricultural Education, 19(2), 140–153. Nuru, A. (2014). Tertiary agricultural education and the pedagogical readiness of graduates in Nigerian institutions. Journal of Vocational Education, 22(1), 15–29. Nwachukwu, O. I., & Daramola, M. S. (2021). Learner predispositions and emotional engagement in professional vocational studies. Journal of Educational Psychology and Pedagogy, 8(3), 102–114. Nwabuisi, E. C., & Igweh, F. K. (2022). Structural learning environments and academic concentration in specialized higher education programs. Journal of Infrastructure in Education, 4(1), 60–73. Ogunleye, O. M., & Ajayi, S. A. (2022). Campus medical and counseling services as correlates of student classroom participation. Journal of Student Wellbeing and Healthcare, 11(2), 134– 146. Okolie, A. N., et al. (2021). Vocational education and training in Nigeria: Challenges, facilities, and prospects for student self-efficacy. Journal of Technical and Vocational Education, 15(2), 80–95. Oluwatayo, J. A., & Adedayo, O. T. (2021). Textbooks, reference materials, and critical thinking frameworks in vocational agriculture classes. Instructional Science Review, 18(3), 210– 222. Onwuka, K. C., & Chidi, E. N. (2022). Staff and student perceptions of learning environments in vocational education departments. Journal of Educational Management and Administration, 30(4), 175–189. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and student well-being in supportive technical training environments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 160–174. IJEE IJEE www.ijee.io Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2012). The philosophy and practical objectives of agricultural education curricula in secondary and tertiary settings. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(3), 96–108. Suleiman, M. A. (2014). Attitude of students towards agricultural education and their perceived organizational atmosphere. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16(4), 311– 324.