CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.pdf · 82 CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.1.0 INTRODUCTION In Chapter three, researcher had discussed the research

81

CHAPTER – 4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1.0 Introduction

4.2.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data through

Analysis of Co variance

4.3.0 Factorial analysis and interpretation of the obtained data

through Analysis of Covariance

4.4.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data of Experimental

group through Analysis of Co variance

4.5.0 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of

experimental group obtained through Opinionnaire

4.6.0 Conclusion

82

CHAPTER – 4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1.0 INTRODUCTION

In Chapter three, researcher had discussed the research design and methodology,

origin of the research, design of the research, variable of the research, population and

sample of the research, tools for data collection, development stage of the CAI package,

procedure for data collection, statistical analysis done in research work.

Data analysis is consider to be important step and heart of the research in research

work. After collection of data with the help of relevant tools and techniques, the next

logical step, is to analyze and interpret data with a view to arriving at empirical solution

to the problem. The data analysis for the present research was done quantitatively with

the help of both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistical

techniques like mean, standard deviation and for the inferential statistics Analysis of Co

Variance were used during data analysis. For the analysis of opinionnaire Chi square test

was used.

4.2.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA

THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE

Comparison of control group that was taught through conventional method and

experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable

with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part.

4.2.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and

experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for rural

area

For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 1

Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.1 and 4.2

83

Table 4.1

Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group

by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean

Square F-Value Table value

Significant

level

Among 1 2229.07 2229.07

Within 96 1766.31 18.40

Total 97 3995.38 2247.47

121.15 F0.01 = 6.90

F0.05 = 3.94

Significant

at 0.01

To compare control group and experimental group of the rural area achievement

of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.1 it can

be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96

respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 2229.07 and

1766.31 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of

post test was found to be 2229.07 and 18.40 for among and within groups respectively.

The F-value was found to be 121.15 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of

significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 1, “There

will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control

group and experimental group of rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as

a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected.

Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test

means of control and experimental group. Further to know the mean of which group is

higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are

given in table 4.2

Significant difference for corrected mean

From Table C for df = 96

t0.05 = 1.98 and

t0.01 = 2.63

Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.981

Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.981

84

= 1.98 × 0.981

= 1.942

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.981

= 2.63 × 0.981

= 2.580

Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is

shown in table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2

Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental

and control group

Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Experimental 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.13

Control 50 105.86 12.30 16.92 15.33 10.80

D0.01 = 2.58

D0.05 = 1.94

significant

at 0.01

From table 4.2 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 99.60 and 105.86 for

the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.78

and 12.30 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz)

scores are 24.54 and 16.92 for experimental group and control group respectively. The

corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found

to be 26.13 and 15.33 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental

group is significantly higher than corrected mean of control group. The obtained

difference between corrected mean scores for experimental and control groups was found

to be 10.80, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that

the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the post test which may be

due to the effect of CAI. As the Hypothesis-1 was rejected, it can be concluded that the

mean achievement of experimental group that were taught through CAI is significantly

85

higher than that of the control group. The means of experimental group and control group

are also shown in the graph 4.1 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.1

Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group

and control group of rural area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Experimental Control

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My

Mean of Post test

Mz

Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the

experimental group is higher than the control group.

4.2.2 Analysis of Co-Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and

experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for urban

area



Table 4.3



Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 3318.48 3318.48

Within 96 897.52 9.35

Total 97 4215.00 3327.83

354.95 F0.01 = 6.90

F0.05 = 3.94

Significant

at 0.01

86

To compare control group and experimental group of the urban area achievement

of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.3 it can

be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96

respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 3318.48 and





will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control

group and experimental group of urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as

a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected.

Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test

means of control and experimental group. Further to know the mean of which group is

higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are

given in table 4.4



t0.05 = 1.98 and

t0.01 = 2.63


Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.648

= 1.98 × 0.648

= 1.283

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.648

= 2.63 × 0.648

= 1.704



87

Table 4.4


and control group

Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Experimental 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 36.18

Control 50 116.12 17.26 24.90 23.98 12.20

D0.01 = 1.70

D0.05 = 1.28

significant

at 0.01












mean achievement of experimental group that were taught through CAI is significantly

higher than that of the control group. The means of experimental group and control group

are also shown in the graph 4.2 for better comprehension.

88

Graph 4.2


and control group of urban area

Urban area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Experimental Group Control Group

Mea

n

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My

Mean of Post test Mz

Corrected mean of Posttest Mxyz


experimental group is higher than the control group.

4.2.3 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and

experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for rural

and urban area



Table 4.5



Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 6971.46 6971.46

395.45 F0.01 = 6.76

F0.05 = 3.89

Significant

at 0.01 Within 196 3455.29 17.63

Total 197 10426.75 6989.09

89

To compare control group and experimental group of the rural and urban area

achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the

table 4.5 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1

and 196 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 6971.46

and 3455.29 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of

squares of post test was found to be 6971.46 and 17.63 for among and within groups

respectively. The F-value was found to be 395.45 which was found to be significant at

0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 196. Hence, the null

hypothesis 3, “There will be no significant difference between corrected means of

achievement of control groups and experimental groups of rural and urban area by

considering pre test score and IQ as a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for

standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant

difference between the corrected post test means of control and experimental groups.

Further to know the mean of which group is higher and which mean is lower, the details

of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.6



t0.05 = 1.97 and

t0.01 = 2.60


Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.625

= 1.97 × 0.625

= 1.231

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.625

= 2.60 × 0.625

= 1.625



90

Table 4.6


and control group

Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Experimental 100 105.02 11.83 29.90 31.62

Control 100 110.99 14.78 20.91 19.19 12.43

D0.01 = 1.62

D0.05 = 1.23

significant

at 0.01












mean achievement of experimental groups that were taught through CAI is significantly

higher than that of the control groups. The means of experimental groups and control

groups are also shown in the graph 4.3 for better comprehension.

91

Graph 4.3


and control group of urban and rural area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Experimental group control group

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My


Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental

groups is higher than the control groups.

4.3.0 FACTORIAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED

DATA THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE

By considering pre test and IQ as a Co-variable, factorial analysis through

Analysis of Co-Variance of the obtained data is as shown below.

4.3.1 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for

teaching method, gender by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable

For the present research to check the objective no. 4 and hypothesis no. 4, 2 × 2

Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.7

92

Table 4.7

2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and gender by

considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable

Source df

corrected

sum of

square

Mean

Square F-Value

Table

value

Significant

level

Teaching

Method(A) 1 6728.65 6728.65 379.83

Significant

at 0.01

Gender(B) 1 18.30 18.30 1.033 Not

Significant

Interaction

(A××××B) 1 0.305 0.305 0.017

F0.05 = 3.89

F0.01 = 6.76

Not

Significant

Within the

Group 194 3436.70 17.72

Total 197 10183.96 6764.98

(A) Teaching Method

From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are

F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 379.83,

which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom

1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of teaching

method” was rejected.

From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant

there was a significant influence of teaching method on achievement of post test score of

experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of significance of

teaching method is shown in hypothesis 3.

(B) Gender


F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for gender was 1.033, which was

found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and

93

197. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of Gender” was

accepted.


there was no significant influence of gender on achievement of post test score of

experimental group and control group. It means that the Boy students and Girl students

learn at same rate.

(A ×××× B) Interaction


F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 0.017, which was found to be

non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence

the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among

teaching method and gender” was accepted.


there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and gender on

achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The means of

Boys and Girls of experimental groups and control groups are also shown in the graph 4.4

for better comprehension.

Graph 4.4

Interaction among teaching method and gender

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Teaching Method

Me

an

Boy

Girl

94

From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method

and gender.

4.3.2 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for

teaching method and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable

For the present research to check the objective no. 5 and hypothesis no. 5, 2 × 2


Table 4.8

2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and area by


Source df

corrected

sum of

square

Mean

Square F-Value

Table

value

Significant

level

Teaching

Method(A) 1 5579.60 5579.60 402.40

Significant

at 0.01

Area(B) 1 729.29 729.29 52.60 Significant

at 0.01

Interaction

(A××××B) 1 50.15 50.15 3.62

F0.05 = 3.89

F0.01 = 6.76

Not

Significant

Within the

Group 194 2689.98 13.87

Total 197 9049.02 6372.91

(A) Teaching Method


F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 402.40,




95




teaching method is shown in hypothesis no 3.

(B) Area


F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for area was 52.60, which was found

to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence

the null hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of area” was rejected.


there was a significant influence of area on achievement of post test score of

experimental group and control group. It means that there was a significant influence of

area on learning rate of the Boy students and Girl students of the experimental group and

control group.

Now, the detailed of the corrected mean of the rural area and urban area is as

shown below.


t0.05 = 1.97 and

t0.01 = 2.60


Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.665

= 1.97 × 0.665

= 1.310

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.665

= 2.60 × 0.665

= 1.729



96

Table 4.9


and control group

Area N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Rural 100 102.73 10.54 20.73 21.45

Urban 100 113.28 16.07 30.08 29.36 7.91

D0.01 = 1.73

D0.05 = 1.31

significant

at 0.01


the rural area and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 10.54 and

16.07 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz)

scores are 20.73 and 30.08 for rural area and urban area respectively. The corrected post

test mean scores (Mxyz) of the rural and urban area were found to be 21.45 and 29.36

respectively. This shows that corrected mean of urban area is significantly higher than

corrected mean of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for

rural area and urban area was found to be 7.91, which was found to be significant at 0.01

level of significance. As the Hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of area”

was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of urban area is significantly

higher than that of the rural area. The means of rural area and urban area are also shown

in the graph 4.5 for better comprehension.

97

Graph 4.5

Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of urban and rural area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Experimental Group Control group

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My


Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the urban is

higher than the rural area.

(A ×××× B) Interaction


F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 3.62, which was found to be non

significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the

null hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching

method and area” was accepted.


there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area on

achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The means of

experimental groups and control groups of rural and urban area are also shown in the

graph 4.6 for better comprehension.

98

Graph 4.6

Interaction among teaching method and area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Teaching Method

Me

an Rural

Urban

From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method

and area.

4.3.3 2 ×××× 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for

teaching method gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-

Variable

For the present research to check the objective no. 6 and hypothesis no. 6, 2 × 2 × 2


99

Table 4.10

2 ×××× 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method, gender and area by


Source df

corrected

sum of

square

Mean

Square F-Value

Table

value

Significant

level

Teaching

Method(A) 1 5309.31 5309.31 383.93

Significant

at 0.01

Gender(B) 1 23.95 23.95 1.732 Not

Significant

Area(C) 1 622.12 622.12 44.99 Significant

at 0.01

Teaching

Method ××××

Gender

(A××××B)

1 0.02 0.02 0.001 Not

Significant

Teaching

Method××××

Area(A××××C)

1 44.06 44.06 3.17 Not

Significant

Gender ××××

Area

(B××××C)

1 30.52 30.52 2.21 Not

Significant

Interaction

(A××××B××××C) 1 6.57 6.57 0.475

F0.05 = 3.89

F0.01 = 6.76

Not

Significant

Within the

Group 190 2627.48 13.83

Total 198 8664.03 6050.38

100

(A) Teaching Method

From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190

are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 383.93,







teaching method is shown in hypothesis no. 3.

(B) Gender


are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for gender was 1.732, which was

found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and

190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of Gender” was

accepted.


there was not significant influence of gender on achievement of post test score of

experimental group and control group. It means that the Boy students and Girl students

learn at same rate.

(C) Area


are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for area was 44.99, which was

found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190.

Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of area” was rejected.


there was a significant influence of area on achievement of post test score of

experimental group and control group. It means that there was a significant influence of

area on learning rate of the Boy students and Girl students of the experimental group and

control group.

101

The detailed explanation of the significance of area is shown in hypothesis no – 3.

(A××××B) Teaching Method ×××× Gender


are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 0.001, which was found to be



teaching method and gender” was accepted.

From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-

variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and

gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The

detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method and gender

is shown in the graph 4.7 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.7

Interaction among teaching method and Gender

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Teaching Method

Mean boy

girl

(A××××C) Teaching Method×××× Area




102


teaching method and area” was accepted.


there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area on

achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed

explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method and area is shown

in the graph 4.8 for better comprehension

Graph 4.8

Interaction among teaching method and area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Teaching Method

Mean Rural

Urban

(B××××C) Gender ×××× Area




the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among gender

and area” was accepted.


there was no significant influence of interaction among gender and area on achievement

of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of

103

the significance of interaction among gender and area is shown in the graph 4.9 for better

comprehension.

Graph 4.9

Interaction among gender and area

(A××××B××××C) Interaction





teaching method, gender and area” was accepted.

From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-

variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method, gender

and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The

detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method, gender

and area is shown in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gender

Me

an r

u

104

Graph 4.10

Interaction among teaching method, gender and area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Teaching method

Mean

B

g

4.4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA OF

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE

Comparison of boys of the rural area and boys of the urban area of the

experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable

with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part.

4.4.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Boys of the

experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ

as a Co Variable.

For the present research to check the objective no. 7 and hypothesis no. 7


105

Table 4.11

Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Boys of the experimental group of the

rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 547.77 547.77

Within 52 1137.51 21.88

Total 53 1685.28 569.65

25.04 F0.01 = 7.17

F0.05 = 4.03

Significant

at 0.01

To compare boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group,



and 52 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 547.77 and





will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the

boys of experimental group of urban and rural area by considering pre test score

and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is

rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected

post test means of boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group. Further to

know the mean of which areas boys of experimental group is higher and which mean is

lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.12



t0.05 = 2.01 and

t0.01 = 2.68


Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.536

= 2.01 × 1.536

106

= 3.08

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.536

= 2.68 × 1.536

= 4.11



Table 4.12

Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of boys of the

experimental group of the rural and urban area

Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Rural 32 98.69 8.72 23.69 24.83

Urban 24 108.96 12.71 34.04 32.52 7.69

D0.01 = 4.11

D0.05 = 3.08

significant

at 0.01


the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre test

(My) score are 8.72 and 12.71for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area

respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 23.69 and 34.04 for the boys of

experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean

scores (Mxyz) of the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively

were found to be 24.83 and 32.52 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of boys of

experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of boys of

experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean

scores for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 7.69,

which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the boys of

experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the boys of experimental groups of

rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-7 was rejected, it can be concluded that the

107

mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher

than that of the boys of experimental groups of rural area. The means of boys of

experimental groups of urban area and boys of experimental groups of rural area are also

shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.11

Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of boys of the


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rural Urban

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My

Mean of Post test

Mz

Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the boys of

experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the boys of

experimental groups of rural area.

4.4.2 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls of the

experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ

as a Co Variable.



108

Table 4.13

Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls of the experimental group of the

rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 109.72 109.72

Within 40 292.41 7.31

Total 41 402.13 569.65

15.01 F0.01 = 7.31

F0.05 = 4.08

Significant

at 0.01

To compare girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group



and 40 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 109.72 and


post test was found to be 109.72 and 7.31 for among and within groups respectively. The

F-value was found to be 15.01 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of


will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the

girls of experimental group of urban and rural area by considering pre test score

and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is

rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected

post test means of girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group. Further to

know the mean of which areas girls of experimental group is higher and which mean is

lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.14



t0.05 = 2.02 and

t0.01 = 2.71


Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.225

= 2.02 × 1.225

109

= 2.474

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.225

= 2.71 × 1.225

= 3.319



Table 4.14

Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of girls of the


Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Rural 18 101.22 8.89 26.06 29.36

Urban 26 111.81 16.88 36.38 34.10 4.74

D0.01 = 3.32

D0.05 = 2.47

significant

at 0.01

From table 4.12 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 101.22 and 111.81

for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre

test (My) score are 8.89 and 16.88 for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban

area respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 26.06 and 36.38 for the girls of

experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean

scores (Mxyz) of the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively

were found to be 29.36 and 34.10 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of girls of

experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of girls of

experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean

scores for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 4.74,

which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the girls of

experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the boys of experimental groups of

rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-8 was rejected, it can be concluded that the

110

mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher

than that of the girls of experimental groups of rural area. The means of girls of

experimental groups of urban area and girls of experimental groups of rural area are also

shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.12

Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of girls of the


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rural Urban

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My

Mean of Post test

Mz

Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the girls of

experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the girls of

experimental groups of rural area.

4.4.3 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys

of the experimental group of the urban area by considering pre test and IQ as

a Co Variable.



111

Table 4.15

Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental

group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 0.461 0.461

Within 46 450.25 9.79

Total 47 450.71 10.52

0.047 F0.01 = 7.17

F0.05 = 4.03

Not

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of rural area achievement of

the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental

group. From the table 4.15 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and

within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was

found to be 0.461 and 450.25 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected

mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 0.461 and 9.79 for among and within

groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.047 which was found to be not

significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the

null hypothesis 9, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected

means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of urban area by

considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII

science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference

between the corrected post test means of girls of the urban area and boys of the urban

area of the experimental group.


of the experimental group of the rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a

Co Variable.



112

Table 4.16


group of the rural and rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 44.37 44.37

Within 46 991.47 21.55

Total 47 1035.84 65.92

2.059 F0.01 = 7.17

F0.05 = 4.03

Not

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of urban area achievement

of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental

group. From the table 4.16 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and

within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was

found to be 44.37 and 991.47 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected

mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 44.37 and 21.55 for among and within

groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 2.059 which was found to be not



means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of rural area by


science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference

between the corrected post test means of girls of the rural area and boys of the rural area

of the experimental group.


of the experimental groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable.



113

Table 4.17


groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 15.42 15.42

Within 96 2129.08 22.18

Total 97 2144.50 37.60

0.695 F0.01 = 6.90

F0.05 = 3.94

Not

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group achievement of the girls of

the experimental groups was compared with the boys of the experimental groups. From

the table 4.17 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were

1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 15.42

and 2129.08 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of

squares of post test was found to be 15.42 and 22.18 for among and within groups

respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.695 which was found to be not significant at

0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis

11, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of

achievement of the girls and boys of experimental groups by considering pre test

score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is

accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the

corrected post test means of girls of the experimental groups and boys of the

experimental groups.

4.4.6 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of the

experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as

a Co Variable.



114

Table 4.18

Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of the experimental groups of rural and

urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Sources of

Variance df

Sum of

Square

Mean


Significant

level

Among 1 657.82 657.82

Within 96 1486.68 15.49

Total 97 2144.50 673.31

42.48 F0.01 = 6.90

F0.05 = 3.94 Significant

To compare experimental groups of rural and urban area achievement of the

experimental group of rural area was compared with the experimental group of the urban

area. From the table 4.18 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within

groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found

to be 657.82 and 1486.68 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean

sum of squares of post test was found to be 657.82 and 15.49 for among and within

groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 42.48 which was found to be



means of achievement of the experimental groups of rural and urban area by


science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference

between the corrected post test means of experimental group of the rural area and

experimental group of the urban area. Further to know the mean of experimental group

of which area is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected

mean scores are given in table 4.19



t0.05 = 1.98 and

t0.01 = 2.63


115

Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.023

= 1.98 × 1.023

= 2.025

and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.023

= 2.63 × 1.023

= 2.690



Table 4.19

Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of the experimental

group of the rural and urban area

Groups N

Mean

of IQ

Mx

Mean

of

Pre

test

My

Mean

of

Post

test

Mz

Corrected

mean of

Post test

Mxyz

Obtained

difference

between

corrected

mean

Significant

difference

value

significant

level

Rural 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.57

Urban 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 33.23 6.66

D0.01 = 2.69

D0.05 = 2.03

significant

at 0.01


the experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My)

score are 8.78 and 14.88 for the experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively.

The mean post test (Mz) scores are 24.54 and 35.26 for the experimental groups of rural

and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the

experimental groups of rural and urban area were found to be 26.57 and 33.23

respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental groups of urban area is

significantly higher than corrected mean of experimental groups of rural area. The

obtained difference between corrected mean scores for the experimental groups of rural

and urban area was found to be 6.66, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of

significance. It showed that the experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the

116

experimental groups of rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-12 was rejected, it

can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental groups of urban area is

significantly higher than that of the experimental groups of rural area. The means of

experimental groups of urban area and experimental groups of rural area are also shown

in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.13

Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of the experimental

group of the rural and urban area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rural Urban

Mean

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean of Pre test My

Mean of Post test

Mz

Corrected mean of

Post test Mxyz


experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the experimental

groups of rural area.

4.5.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OPINION OF THE

STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OBTAINED THROUGH

OPINIONNAIRE

To achieve objective 13 of the present study i.e. ‘To study the opinions of the

students of experimental groups regarding effectiveness of used CAI in optics.’ An

opinionnaire was developed with 20 statements those representing different components

117

like content presentation, questioning, individualization and self pacing of CAI software.

Out of these 20 statements five statements were negative and 15 statements were positive.

The data related to the opinionnaire is analyzed with �2 test which is given in table 4.20

which are followed by discussion.

The five point Likert type scale opinionnaire ranging from strongly agree to

strongly disagree was constructed. To find merit number the five point scale were given

the weightage as below.

Strongly agree : +2

Agree : +1

Undecided : 0

Disagree : -1

Strongly Disagree : -2

4.5.1 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of the experimental

group of rural area obtained through opinionnaire

The interpretation of the opinions of the students of the experimental group of

rural area was carried out and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.20

118

Table 4.20 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the rural area

Sr.

No

Statements

Nature of

statement S A � � D SD

Total

Score Rank

Chi

Squre

Value

1 The CAI package presented through the computer

was knowledgeable. Positive

38

(76%)

12

(24%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 88 3 108.80*

2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 37

(78%)

10

(20%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 84 5 97.40*

3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 37

(74%)

12

(24%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 86 4 101.40*

4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 32

(64%)

13

(26%)

04

(08%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%) 76 7 71*

5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 06

(12%)

35

(70%)

02

(04%)

07

(14%)

00

(00%) 40 16 81.40*

6 The picture and text presented for each slide was

not appropriate. Negative

04

(08%)

06

(12%)

05

(10%)

18

(36%)

17

(34%) 38 17 19*

7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity

of the topic. Negative

07

(14%)

03

(06%)

01

(02%)

39

79%)

00

(00%) 22 20 108*

8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 01

(02%)

04

(08%)

11

(22%)

17

(34%)

17

(34%) 45 15 21.60*

9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics

also with this kind of CAI. Positive

21

(42%)

17

(34%)

10

(20%)

02

(04%)

00

(00%) 57 14 33.40*

10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning

package. Positive

23

(46%)

22

(44%)

05

(10%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 68 12 53.80*

119

Sr.

No

Statements

Nature of


Total

Score Rank

Chi

Squre

Value

11 Content presented in CAI package was not

arranged properly. Negative

01

(02%)

11

(22%)

05

(10%)

17

(34%)

16

(32%) 36 18 19.20*

12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to

develop our interest in learning physics. Positive

48

(96%)

02

(04%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 98 1 180.80*

13 This type of learning program should be used in

other subjects also. Positive

30

(60%)

14

(28%)

05

(10%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%) 73 9 62.20*

14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through

CAI package. Positive

27

(54%)

16

(32%)

06

(12%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%) 69 11 52.20*

15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating

experience. Positive

32

(64%)

12

(24%)

06

(12%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 76 7 70.40*

16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the

burden of content. Positive

32

(64%)

18

(36%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 82 6 84.80*

17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI

package. Negative

03

(06%)

13

(26%)

03

(06%)

16

(32%)

15

(30%) 30 19 16.80*

18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to

know more about the subject. Positive

45

(90%)

04

(08%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 94 2 154.20*

19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 28

(56%)

19

(38%)

01

(02%)

02

(04%)

00

(00%) 73 9 65*

20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 21

(42%)

25

(50%)

02

(04%)

00

(00%)

02

(04%) 63 13 57.40*

* Significant at 0.01 level

120

Graph 4.14 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of rural area

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Statement

Perc

en

tag

e S A

A

U

D

SD

121

For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was

knowledgeable’ 76 % students strongly agree and 24 % students agree with this

statement. This statement gets 3rd

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 108.80

which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of

significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found CAI

package presented through compute was knowledgeable.

For the statement no.2 ‘The content presentation was interesting.’ 78 % students

strongly agreed, 20 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this

statement. This statement gets 5th



significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the

presentation of the content through developed CAI in interesting way.

For the statement no.3 ‘Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.’ 74 %

students strongly agreed, 24 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with

this statement. This statement gets 4th

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is

101.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of


presentation of the content through simulation which clarify the fundamental by

appropriately changing the values.

For the statement no.4 ‘The figures were properly explained.’ 64 % students

strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 8 % students remain undecided while 2 % students

disagree with this statement. This statement gets 7th

rank. The Chi square value of the

statement is 71 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01

level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found

that the figures were explained properly.

For the statement no.5 ‘The language used in the CAI package was easy.’ 12 %

students strongly agreed, 70 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 14

% students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 16th

rank. The Chi square

value of the statement is 81.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for

0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the

students found the language used in the CAI package being easy to understand.

122

For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not

appropriate.’ 8 % students strongly agreed, 12 % students agree, 10 % students remain

undecided, 36 % students disagree while 34 % student strongly disagree with this


rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 19



picture and text presented for each slide was appropriate to the content.

For the statement no.7 ‘Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the

topic.’ 14 % students strongly agreed, 06 % students agree, 22 % students remain

undecided while 78 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 20th

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 108 which is more than significant value

9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be

concluded that the students found the questions at the end of the slide does not break the

continuity of the content presentation.

For the statement no.8 ‘Some information seem to be more confusing.’ 2 %

students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 22 % students remain undecided, 34 %

students disagree while 34 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 15th

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 21.60 which is more

than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance

respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the information were

clearly presented and not confusing.

For the statement no.9 ‘I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with

this kind of CAI.’ 42 % students strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 20 % students

remain undecided while 04 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets

14th

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 33.40 which is more than significant

value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it

can be concluded that the students like to learn the other topics of the physics also with

the help of CAI package.

For the statement no.10 ‘I would like to learn through such Self Learning

package.’ 46 % students strongly agreed, 44 % students agree while 10 % students

remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 12th

rank. The Chi square value

123

of the statement is 53.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05

and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students

like to learn through self learning package.

For the statement no.11 ‘Content presented in CAI package was not arranged

properly.’ 2 % students strongly agreed, 22 % students agree, 10 % students remain





significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the

content presented through CAI package was arranged properly.

For the statement no.12 ‘The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop

our interest in learning physics.’ 96 % students strongly agree and 4 % students agree

with this statement. This statement gets 1st rank. The Chi square value of the statement is


significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the

coloured and animated picture helped them in developing their interest in learning

physics.

For the statement no.13 ‘This type of learning program should be used in other

subjects also.’ 60 % students strongly agreed, 28 % students agree, 10 % students remain


rank.

The Chi square value of the statement is 62.20 which is more than significant value 9.488

and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be

concluded that the students found that such type of learning program should be prepared

in other subject also.

For the statement no.14 ‘Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI

package.’ 54 % students strongly agreed, 32 % students agree, 12 % students remain


rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 52.20 which is more than significant value

9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be

concluded that the students found that topic becomes easier while learning through CAI

package.

124

For the statement no.15 ‘Learning through Computer is really a captivating

experience.’ 64 % students strongly agreed, 24 % students agree while 12 % students




and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning

through computer is really a captivating experience for them.

For the statement no.16 ‘Presentation through Such technique reduces the burden

of content.’ 64 % students strongly agree and 36 % students agree with this statement.

This statement gets 6th

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 84.80 which is

more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance

respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the content

presentation through such CAI packages reduce the burden of the content.

For the statement no.17 ‘It is tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI







learning through CAI package was not tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI.

For the statement no.18 ‘Learning through CAI package is motivating to know

more about the subject.’ 90 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree while 2 %

students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 2nd

rank. The Chi

square value of the statement is 154.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and

13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded

that learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.

For the statement no.19 ‘Content was presented at proper pace.’ 56 % students

strongly agreed, 38 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided while 04 %

students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th


of the statement is 65 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and

0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students

found that the pace at which the content was presented was proper.

125

For the statement no.20 ‘The explanation given for every topic is proper.’ 42 %

students strongly agreed, 50 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 4 %

student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 13th

rank. The Chi



that the students found the explanation given for every topic was proper.

4.5.2 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of the experimental

group of urban area obtained through opinionnaire

The interpretation of the opinions of the students of the experimental group of

urban area was carried out and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.21

126

Table 4.21 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the urban area

Sr.

No

Statements

Nature of


Total

Score Rank

Chi

Squre

Value

1 The CAI package presented through the computer

was knowledgeable. Positive

41

(82%)

09

(18%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 91 2 126.20*

2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 29

(58%)

19

(38%)

01

(02%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%) 76 7 70.40*

3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 42

(84%)

08

(16%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 92 1 132.80*

4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 29

(58%)

20

(40%)

01

(02%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 78 6 74.20*

5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 23

(46%)

18

(36%)

01

(02%)

03

(06%)

05

(10%) 51 15 38.80*

6 The picture and text presented for each slide was

not appropriate. Negative

03

(06%)

04

(08%)

09

(18%)

13

(26%)

21

(42%) 45 16 21.60*

7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity

of the topic. Negative

04

(08%)

04

(08%)

02

(04%)

40

(80%)

00

(00%) 28 20 113.60*

8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 02

(04%)

03

(06%)

12

(24%)

26

(52%)

07

(14%) 33 18 38.20*

9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics

also with this kind of CAI. Positive

24

(48%)

15

(30%)

08

(16%)

03

(06%)

00

(00%) 60 12 37.40*

10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning

package. Positive

10

(20%)

35

(70%)

05

(10%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 55 14 85.0*

127

Sr.

No

Statements

Nature of


Total

Score Rank

Chi

Squre

Value

11 Content presented in CAI package was not

arranged properly. Negative

03

(06%)

09

(18%)

05

(10%)

18

(36%)

15

(30%) 33 18 16.40*

12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to

develop our interest in learning physics. Positive

41

(82%)

09

(18%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%) 91 2 126.20*

13 This type of learning program should be used in

other subjects also. Positive

28

(56%)

13

(26%)

02

(04%)

02

(04%)

05

(10%) 57 13 48.60*

14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through

CAI package. Positive

28

(56%)

17

(34%)

03

(06%)

00

(00%)

02

(04%) 69 9 58.60*

15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating

experience. Positive

28

(56%)

15

(30%)

04

(08%)

00

(00%)

03

(06%) 65 10 53.40*

16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the

burden of content. Positive

38

(76%)

09

(18%)

00

(00%)

00

(00%)

03

(06%) 79 5 103.40*

17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI

package. Negative

02

(04%)

08

(16%)

07

(14%)

17

(34%)

16

(32%) 37 17 16.20*

18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to

know more about the subject. Positive

43

(86%)

04

(08%)

03

(04%)

00

(00%)

00

(02%) 90 4 137.40*

19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 26

(52%)

17

(34%)

01

(02%)

04

(08%)

02

(04%) 61 11 48.60*

20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 29

(58%)

18

(36%)

02

(04%)

00

(00%)

01

(02%) 74 8 67.0*


128

Graph 4.15 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of urban area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Statement

Pe

rce

nta

ge

S A

A

U

D

SD

129

For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was

knowledgeable’ 82 % students strongly agree and 18 % students agree with this

statement. This statement gets 2nd



significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found CAI

package presented through compute was knowledgeable.

For the statement no.2 ‘The content presentation was interesting.’ 58 % students

strongly agreed, 18 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided while 2 % students

remain disagree with this statement. This statement gets 7th

rank. The Chi square value of

the statement is 70.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and

0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students

found the presentation of the content through developed CAI in interesting way.

For the statement no.3 ‘Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.’ 84 %

students strongly agreed and 16 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets

1st rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 132.80 which is more than significant


can be concluded that the students found the presentation of the content through

simulation which clarify the fundamental by appropriately changing the values.

For the statement no.4 ‘The figures were properly explained.’ 58 % students

strongly agreed, 40 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this





figures were explained properly.

For the statement no.5 ‘The language used in the CAI package was easy.’ 46 %


students disagree while 10 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 15th



respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the language used in

the CAI package being easy to understand.

130

For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not

appropriate.’ 6 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 18 % students remain






picture and text presented for each slide was appropriate to the content.

For the statement no.7 ‘Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the

topic.’ 8 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided

while 80 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 20th

rank. The Chi



that the students found the questions at the end of the slide does not break the continuity

of the content presentation.

For the statement no.8 ‘Some information seem to be more confusing.’ 4 %


students disagree while 14 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 18th



respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the information were

clearly presented and not confusing.

For the statement no.9 ‘I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with

this kind of CAI.’ 48 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree while 16 %

students remain undecided while 06 % students disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 12th



respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students like to learn the other topics

of the physics also with the help of CAI package.

For the statement no.10 ‘I would like to learn through such Self Learning

package.’ 20 % students strongly agreed, 70 % students agree while 10 % students



131


and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students

like to learn through self learning package.

For the statement no.11 ‘Content presented in CAI package was not arranged

properly.’6 % students strongly agreed, 18 % students agree, 10 % students remain






content presented through CAI package was arranged properly.

For the statement no.12 ‘The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop

our interest in learning physics.’ 82 % students strongly agree and 18 % students agree

with this statement. This statement gets 2nd

rank. The Chi square value of the statement is


significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the

coloured and animated picture helped them in developing their interest in learning

physics.

For the statement no.13 ‘This type of learning program should be used in other

subjects also.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 4 % students remain

undecided, 4 % students disagree while 10 % students remain strongly disagree with this




significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that such

type of learning program should be prepared in other subject also.

For the statement no.14 ‘Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI


undecided while 02 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets

9th



can be concluded that the students found that topic becomes easier while learning through

CAI package.

132

For the statement no.15 ‘Learning through Computer is really a captivating

experience.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree, 8 % students remain

undecided while 6 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 10th



respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through computer is really a

captivating experience for them.

For the statement no.16 ‘Presentation through such technique reduces the burden

of content.’ 76 % students strongly agree, 18 % students agree with this statement while 6

% students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 5th

rank. The

Chi square value of the statement is 103.40 which is more than significant value 9.488

and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be

concluded that the student found that the content presentation through such CAI packages

reduce the burden of the content.

For the statement no.17 ‘It is tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI







learning through CAI package was not tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI.

For the statement no.18 ‘Learning through CAI package is motivating to know

more about the subject.’ 86 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 4 % students

remain undecided while 2 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This

statement gets 4th



respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through CAI package is

motivating to know more about the subject.

For the statement no.19 ‘Content was presented at proper pace.’ 52 % students

strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided, 8 % students

disagree while 4 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets

133

11th



can be concluded that the students found that the pace at which the content was presented

was proper.

For the statement no.20 ‘The explanation given for every topic is proper.’ 58 %

students strongly agreed, 36 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 2 %

students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 8th

rank. The Chi



that the students found the explanation given for every topic was proper.

4.5.3 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion through contingency table for the

Boys and Girls of the experimental groups obtained through opinionnaire

For the present research to check the objective no. 14 and hypothesis no. 13 the

interpretation of the opinions of Boys and girls of the experimental groups was carried

out through contingency table and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.22

134

Table 4.22 Analysis of the opinion of the boys and girls of the experimental groups

Sr.

No

Statements

Gender S A � � D SD

Chi

Squre

Value

Boys 45 11 0 0 0

Girls 34 10 0 0 0 1 The CAI package presented through the computer

was knowledgeable. Total 79 21 0 0 0

0.062*

Boys 38 14 2 0 2

Girls 28 15 0 1 2 2

The content presentation was interesting.

Total 66 29 2 1 2

2.281*

Boys 47 9 0 0 0

Girls 32 11 1 0 0 3

Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.

Total 79 20 1 0 0

1.164*

Boys 35 18 2 1 0

Girls 26 15 3 0 0 4 The figures were properly explained.

Total 61 33 5 1 0

0.607*

Boys 16 32 0 5 3

Girls 13 21 3 5 2 5

The language used in the CAI package was easy.

Total 29 53 3 10 5

1.943*

Boys 5 3 6 18 24

Girls 2 7 8 13 14 6

The picture and text presented for each slide was

not appropriate.

Total 7 10 14 31 38

2.307*

135

Sr.

No

Statements


Chi

Squre

Value

Boys 5 3 2 46 0

Girls 6 4 1 33 0 7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity

of the topic. Total 11 8 3 79 0

0.565*

Boys 3 3 13 22 15

Girls 0 4 10 21 9 8 Some information seem to be more confusing.

Total 3 7 23 43 24

1.614*

Boys 23 18 12 3 0

Girls 22 14 6 2 0 9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics

also with this kind of CAI. Total 15 32 18 5 0

0572*

Boys 21 30 5 0 0

Girls 12 27 5 0 0 10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning

package. Total 33 57 10 0 0

0.523*

Boys 3 11 3 22 17

Girls 1 9 7 13 14 11 Content presented in CAI package was not

arranged properly. Total 4 20 10 35 31

1.769*

Boys 49 7 0 0 0

Girls 40 4 0 0 0 12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to

develop our interest in learning physics. Total 89 11 0 0 0

0.128*

Boys 37 13 4 0 2

Girls 21 14 3 3 3 13 This type of learning program should be used in

other subjects also. Total 58 27 7 3 5

2.836*

136

Sr.

No

Statements


Chi

Squre

Value

Boys 34 17 4 0 1

Girls 21 16 5 1 1 14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through

CAI package. Total 55 33 9 1 2

1.238*

Boys 33 16 6 0 1

Girls 27 11 4 0 2 15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating

experience. Total 60 27 10 0 3

0.365*

Boys 41 13 0 0 2

Girls 29 14 0 0 1 16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the

burden of content. Total 70 27 0 0 3

0.440*

Boys 3 13 4 20 16

Girls 2 8 6 13 15 17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI

package. Total 5 21 10 33 31

0.833*

Boys 48 6 2 0 0

Girls 40 2 2 0 0 18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to

know more about the subject. Total 88 8 4 0 0

0.574*

Boys 34 16 2 3 1

Girls 20 20 0 3 1 19 Content was presented at proper pace.

Total 54 36 2 6 2

2.068*

Boys 26 26 1 0 3

Girls 24 17 3 0 0 20 The explanation given for every topic is proper.

Total 50 43 4 0 3

2.019*


137

The table value of �2 test for df = 4 at 0.01 and 0.05 level are 9.488 and 13.277

From the above table it can be concluded that �2

value for every statement is not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis “There will

be no significant difference between opinion of Boys and Girls of experimental

group” is accepted. Hence, it can be said that the boys and girls of the experimental

group posses the same opinion regarding the learning through CAI package.

4.6.0 CONCLUSION

In the present chapter researcher analysed and interpreted the obtained data and

discussed the result. In the next chapter summary of the research work, major findings,

implication and suggestion were made for the future research.

Documents

CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.pdf · 82 CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.1.0 INTRODUCTION In Chapter three, researcher had discussed the research