11 - Chapter 4 Angu PDF

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
81
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
82
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 Sum of Mean Significant
df F-Value Table value
Variance Square Square level
Among 1 2229.07 2229.07
F0.01 = 6.90 Significant
Within 96 1766.31 18.40 121.15
F0.05 = 3.94 at 0.01
Total 97 3995.38 2247.47
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
83
= 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
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
Mean of of difference Significant
mean of significant
Groups N of IQ Pre post between difference
Post test level
Mx test test corrected value
Mxyz
My Mz mean
Experimental 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.13 D0.01 = 2.58 significant

10.80
Control 50 105.86 12.30 16.92 15.33 D0.05 = 1.94 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
84
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
120
100
Mean of IQ Mx
80
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
60
Mean of Post test
Mz
40
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
20
0
Experimental Control
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
Among 1 3318.48 3318.48
Within 96 897.52 9.35 354.95
F0.05 = 3.94 at 0.01
Total 97 4215.00 3327.83
85
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
86
Table 4.4
and control group
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Groups N of IQ Pre Post between difference
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean

12.20
Control 50 116.12 17.26 24.90 23.98 D0.05 = 1.28 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.
87
Graph 4.2
and control group of urban area
Urban area
140
120 Mean of IQ Mx
100
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
80
60
Mean of Post test Mz
40
20 Corrected mean of Post
test Mxyz
0
Experimental Group Control Group
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
Among 1 6971.46 6971.46
Within 196 3455.29 17.63 395.45
F0.05 = 3.89 at 0.01
Total 197 10426.75 6989.09
88
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
89
Table 4.6
and control group
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean

12.43
Control 100 110.99 14.78 20.91 19.19 D0.05 = 1.23 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.
90
Graph 4.3
and control group of urban and rural area
120
100
Mean of IQ Mx
80
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
60
40
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
20
0
Experimental group control group
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
91
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
corrected
Mean Table Significant
Source df sum of F-Value
Square value level
square
Teaching Significant
1 6728.65 6728.65 379.83
Method(A) at 0.01
F0.05 = 3.89 Not
Gender(B) 1 18.30 18.30 1.033
Interaction Not
1 0.305 0.305 0.017
(A×
×B) Significant
Within the
194 3436.70 17.72
Group
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
92
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
35
30
25
20
Mean
15 Boy
Girl
10
5
0
Teaching Method
93
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
corrected
Square value level
square
1 5579.60 5579.60 402.40
Method(A) at 0.01
Area(B) 1 729.29 729.29 52.60
F0.01 = 6.76 at 0.01
Interaction Not
1 50.15 50.15 3.62
(A×
×B) Significant
Within the
194 2689.98 13.87
Group
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,
94
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
95
Table 4.9
and control group
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Area N of IQ Pre Post between difference
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean
Rural 100 102.73 10.54 20.73 21.45 D0.01 = 1.73 significant

7.91
Urban 100 113.28 16.07 30.08 29.36 D0.05 = 1.31 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.
96
Graph 4.5
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of urban and rural area
120
100 Mean of IQ Mx
80 Mean of Pre test My

Mean
60
40
Corrected mean of
20 Post test Mxyz
0
Experimental Group Control group
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.
97
Graph 4.6
Interaction among teaching method and area
40
35
30
25
Rural
Mean
20
Urban
15
10
0
Teaching Method
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
98
Table 4.10
2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method, gender and area by
corrected
Square value level
square
1 5309.31 5309.31 383.93
Method(A) at 0.01
Not
Gender(B) 1 23.95 23.95 1.732
Significant
Significant
Area(C) 1 622.12 622.12 44.99
at 0.01
Teaching
Method × Not
1 0.02 0.02 0.001
Gender F0.05 = 3.89 Significant
(A×
×B) F0.01 = 6.76
Teaching
Not
Method×
× 1 44.06 44.06 3.17
Significant
Area(A×
×C)
Gender ×
Not
Area 1 30.52 30.52 2.21
Significant
(B×
×C)
Interaction Not
1 6.57 6.57 0.475
(A×
×B×
×C) Significant
Within the
190 2627.48 13.83
Group
Total 198 8664.03 6050.38
99
(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.
100
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
35
30
25
20 boy
Mean
15 girl
10
0
Teaching Method
(A×
×C) Teaching Method×
× Area
101
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
40
35
30
25
Rural
Mean
20
Urban
15
10
0
Teaching Method
(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
102
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
30
25
20
Mean
r
15
u
10
0
Gender
(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.
103
Graph 4.10
Interaction among teaching method, gender and area
40
35
30
25 B
Mean
20 g
15
10
0
Teaching method
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
104
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
Among 1 547.77 547.77
Within 52 1137.51 21.88 25.04
F0.05 = 4.03 at 0.01
Total 53 1685.28 569.65
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
105
= 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
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean

7.69
Urban 24 108.96 12.71 34.04 32.52 D0.05 = 3.08 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
106
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
120
100
Mean of IQ Mx
80
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
60
Mean of Post test
Mz
40
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
20
0
Rural Urban
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.
107
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
Among 1 109.72 109.72
Within 40 292.41 7.31 15.01
F0.05 = 4.08 at 0.01
Total 41 402.13 569.65
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
108
= 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
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean

4.74
Urban 26 111.81 16.88 36.38 34.10 D0.05 = 2.47 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
109
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
120
100
Mean of IQ Mx
80
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
60
Mean of Post test
Mz
40
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
20
0
Rural Urban
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.
110
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
Among 1 0.461 0.461
F0.01 = 7.17 Not
Within 46 450.25 9.79 0.047
Total 47 450.71 10.52
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.
111
Table 4.16
group of the rural and rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Among 1 44.37 44.37
F0.01 = 7.17 Not
Within 46 991.47 21.55 2.059
Total 47 1035.84 65.92
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.
112
Table 4.17
groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable

Among 1 15.42 15.42
F0.01 = 6.90 Not
Within 96 2129.08 22.18 0.695
Total 97 2144.50 37.60
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.
113
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

Among 1 657.82 657.82
F0.01 = 6.90
Within 96 1486.68 15.49 42.48 Significant
F0.05 = 3.94
Total 97 2144.50 673.31
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
114
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
Mean Mean Obtained

Corrected
mean of significant
Post test level
Mxyz
My Mz mean

6.66
Urban 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 33.23 D0.05 = 2.03 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
115
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
120
100
Mean of IQ Mx
80
Mean of Pre test My
Mean
60
Mean of Post test
Mz
40
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
20
0
Rural Urban
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
116
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.
2
The data related to the opinionnaire is analyzed with 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
117
Table 4.20 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the rural area
Chi
Sr. Statements Nature of Total
SA D SD Rank Squre
No statement Score
Value
The CAI package presented through the computer 38 12 00 00 00
1 Positive 88 3 108.80*
was knowledgeable. (76%) (24%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
37 10 01 00 00
2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 84 5 97.40*
(78%) (20%) (02%) (00%) (00%)
37 12 01 00 00
3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 86 4 101.40*
(74%) (24%) (02%) (00%) (00%)
32 13 04 01 00
4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 76 7 71*
(64%) (26%) (08%) (02%) (00%)
06 35 02 07 00
5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 40 16 81.40*
(12%) (70%) (04%) (14%) (00%)
The picture and text presented for each slide was 04 06 05 18 17
6 Negative 38 17 19*
not appropriate. (08%) (12%) (10%) (36%) (34%)
Questions at the end of slides break the continuity 07 03 01 39 00
7 Negative 22 20 108*
of the topic. (14%) (06%) (02%) 79%) (00%)
01 04 11 17 17
8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 45 15 21.60*
(02%) (08%) (22%) (34%) (34%)
I would like to learn other topics of the physics 21 17 10 02 00
9 Positive 57 14 33.40*
also with this kind of CAI. (42%) (34%) (20%) (04%) (00%)
I would like to learn through such Self Learning 23 22 05 00 00
10 Positive 68 12 53.80*
package. (46%) (44%) (10%) (00%) (00%)
118
Chi
SA D SD Rank Squre
No statement Score
Value
Content presented in CAI package was not 01 11 05 17 16
11 Negative 36 18 19.20*
arranged properly. (02%) (22%) (10%) (34%) (32%)
The colored and animated pictures helped us to 48 02 00 00 00
12 Positive 98 1 180.80*
develop our interest in learning physics. (96%) (04%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
This type of learning program should be used in 30 14 05 01 00
13 Positive 73 9 62.20*
other subjects also. (60%) (28%) (10%) (02%) (00%)
Each topic becomes easier while learning through 27 16 06 01 00
14 Positive 69 11 52.20*
CAI package. (54%) (32%) (12%) (02%) (00%)
Learning through Computer is really a captivating 32 12 06 00 00
15 Positive 76 7 70.40*
experience. (64%) (24%) (12%) (00%) (00%)
Presentation through Such technique reduce the 32 18 00 00 00
16 Positive 82 6 84.80*
burden of content. (64%) (36%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI 03 13 03 16 15
17 Negative 30 19 16.80*
package. (06%) (26%) (06%) (32%) (30%)
Learning through CAI package is motivating to 45 04 01 00 00
18 Positive 94 2 154.20*
know more about the subject. (90%) (08%) (02%) (00%) (00%)
28 19 01 02 00
19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 73 9 65*
(56%) (38%) (02%) (04%) (00%)
21 25 02 00 02
20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 63 13 57.40*
(42%) (50%) (04%) (00%) (04%)
* Significant at 0.01 level
119
Graph 4.14 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of rural area
120%
100%
80% SA
Percentage
A
60% U
D
40% SD
20%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statement
120
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 rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 97.40
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.
121
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
statement. This statement gets 17th 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
122
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
undecided while 02 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th 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
undecided while 02 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 11th
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.
123
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 rank. The Chi square value
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.
124
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
125
Table 4.21 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the urban area
Chi
SA D SD Rank Squre
No statement Score
Value
The CAI package presented through the computer 41 09 00 00 00
1 Positive 91 2 126.20*
was knowledgeable. (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
29 19 01 01 00
2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 76 7 70.40*
(58%) (38%) (02%) (02%) (00%)
42 08 00 00 00
3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 92 1 132.80*
(84%) (16%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
29 20 01 00 00
4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 78 6 74.20*
(58%) (40%) (02%) (00%) (00%)
23 18 01 03 05
5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 51 15 38.80*
(46%) (36%) (02%) (06%) (10%)
The picture and text presented for each slide was 03 04 09 13 21
6 Negative 45 16 21.60*
not appropriate. (06%) (08%) (18%) (26%) (42%)
Questions at the end of slides break the continuity 04 04 02 40 00
7 Negative 28 20 113.60*
of the topic. (08%) (08%) (04%) (80%) (00%)
02 03 12 26 07
8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 33 18 38.20*
(04%) (06%) (24%) (52%) (14%)
I would like to learn other topics of the physics 24 15 08 03 00
9 Positive 60 12 37.40*
also with this kind of CAI. (48%) (30%) (16%) (06%) (00%)
I would like to learn through such Self Learning 10 35 05 00 00
10 Positive 55 14 85.0*
package. (20%) (70%) (10%) (00%) (00%)
126
Chi
SA D SD Rank Squre
No statement Score
Value
Content presented in CAI package was not 03 09 05 18 15
11 Negative 33 18 16.40*
arranged properly. (06%) (18%) (10%) (36%) (30%)
The colored and animated pictures helped us to 41 09 00 00 00
12 Positive 91 2 126.20*
develop our interest in learning physics. (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%)
This type of learning program should be used in 28 13 02 02 05
13 Positive 57 13 48.60*
other subjects also. (56%) (26%) (04%) (04%) (10%)
Each topic becomes easier while learning through 28 17 03 00 02
14 Positive 69 9 58.60*
CAI package. (56%) (34%) (06%) (00%) (04%)
Learning through Computer is really a captivating 28 15 04 00 03
15 Positive 65 10 53.40*
experience. (56%) (30%) (08%) (00%) (06%)
Presentation through Such technique reduce the 38 09 00 00 03
16 Positive 79 5 103.40*
burden of content. (76%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (06%)
It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI 02 08 07 17 16
17 Negative 37 17 16.20*
package. (04%) (16%) (14%) (34%) (32%)
Learning through CAI package is motivating to 43 04 03 00 00
18 Positive 90 4 137.40*
know more about the subject. (86%) (08%) (04%) (00%) (02%)
26 17 01 04 02
19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 61 11 48.60*
(52%) (34%) (02%) (08%) (04%)
29 18 02 00 01
20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 74 8 67.0*
(58%) (36%) (04%) (00%) (02%)
127
Graph 4.15 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of urban area
100%
90%
80%
70% SA
Percentage
60% A
50% U
40% D
30% SD
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statement
128
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 rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 126.20
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
respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the language used in
the CAI package being easy to understand.
129
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
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
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
130
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
can be concluded that the students found that topic becomes easier while learning through
CAI package.
131
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
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
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
132
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
133
Table 4.22 Analysis of the opinion of the boys and girls of the experimental groups
Chi
Sr. Statements
Gender SA D SD Squre
No
Value
Boys 45 11 0 0 0
The CAI package presented through the computer
1 Girls 34 10 0 0 0 0.062*
was knowledgeable.
Total 79 21 0 0 0
Boys 38 14 2 0 2
2 The content presentation was interesting.
Girls 28 15 0 1 2 2.281*
Total 66 29 2 1 2
Boys 47 9 0 0 0
3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.
Girls 32 11 1 0 0 1.164*
Total 79 20 1 0 0
Boys 35 18 2 1 0
4 The figures were properly explained. Girls 26 15 3 0 0 0.607*
Total 61 33 5 1 0
Boys 16 32 0 5 3
5 The language used in the CAI package was easy.
Girls 13 21 3 5 2 1.943*
Total 29 53 3 10 5
The picture and text presented for each slide was Boys 5 3 6 18 24
6
not appropriate. Girls 2 7 8 13 14 2.307*
Total 7 10 14 31 38
134
Chi
Sr. Statements
No
Value
Boys 5 3 2 46 0
Questions at the end of slides break the continuity
7 Girls 6 4 1 33 0 0.565*
of the topic.
Total 11 8 3 79 0
Boys 3 3 13 22 15
8 Some information seem to be more confusing. Girls 0 4 10 21 9 1.614*
Total 3 7 23 43 24
Boys 23 18 12 3 0
I would like to learn other topics of the physics
9 Girls 22 14 6 2 0 0572*
also with this kind of CAI.
Total 15 32 18 5 0
Boys 21 30 5 0 0
I would like to learn through such Self Learning
10 Girls 12 27 5 0 0 0.523*
package.
Total 33 57 10 0 0
Boys 3 11 3 22 17
Content presented in CAI package was not
11 Girls 1 9 7 13 14 1.769*
arranged properly.
Total 4 20 10 35 31
Boys 49 7 0 0 0
The colored and animated pictures helped us to
12 Girls 40 4 0 0 0 0.128*
develop our interest in learning physics.
Total 89 11 0 0 0
Boys 37 13 4 0 2
This type of learning program should be used in
13 Girls 21 14 3 3 3 2.836*
other subjects also.
Total 58 27 7 3 5
135
Chi
Sr. Statements
No
Value
Boys 34 17 4 0 1
Each topic becomes easier while learning through
14 Girls 21 16 5 1 1 1.238*
CAI package.
Total 55 33 9 1 2
Boys 33 16 6 0 1
Learning through Computer is really a captivating
15 Girls 27 11 4 0 2 0.365*
experience.
Total 60 27 10 0 3
Boys 41 13 0 0 2
Presentation through Such technique reduce the
16 Girls 29 14 0 0 1 0.440*
burden of content.
Total 70 27 0 0 3
Boys 3 13 4 20 16
It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI
17 Girls 2 8 6 13 15 0.833*
package.
Total 5 21 10 33 31
Boys 48 6 2 0 0
Learning through CAI package is motivating to
18 Girls 40 2 2 0 0 0.574*
know more about the subject.
Total 88 8 4 0 0
Boys 34 16 2 3 1
19 Content was presented at proper pace. Girls 20 20 0 3 1 2.068*
Total 54 36 2 6 2
Boys 26 26 1 0 3
20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Girls 24 17 3 0 0 2.019*
Total 50 43 4 0 3
136
2
The table value of test for df = 4 at 0.01 and 0.05 level are 9.488 and 13.277
2
From the above table it can be concluded that 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.
137

11 - Chapter 4 Angu PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 - Chapter 4 Angu PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER – 4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.2.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA

Mean Mean Obtained

Experimental 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.13 D0.01 = 2.58 significant

Mean Mean Obtained

Experimental 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 36.18 D0.01 = 1.70 significant

Mean Mean Obtained

Experimental 100 105.02 11.83 29.90 31.62 D0.01 = 1.62 significant

4.3.0 FACTORIAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED

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

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

(A) Teaching Method

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

(A) Teaching Method

Mean Mean Obtained

Rural 100 102.73 10.54 20.73 21.45 D0.01 = 1.73 significant

80 Mean of Pre test My

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

4.4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA OF

Mean Mean Obtained

Rural 32 98.69 8.72 23.69 24.83 D0.01 = 4.11 significant

Mean Mean Obtained

Rural 18 101.22 8.89 26.06 29.36 D0.01 = 3.32 significant

Sources of Sum of Mean Significant

Sources of Sum of Mean Significant

Sources of Sum of Mean Significant

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

Mean Mean Obtained

Rural 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.57 D0.01 = 2.69 significant

4.5.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OPINION OF THE

* Significant at 0.01 level

* Significant at 0.01 level

You might also like