Research Analysis PDF

Chapter - IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA
CHAPTER - IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.0.0 Introduction
After having collected the data from the relevant sources through
appropriate research tools the investigator organizes or systematizes the
data by following a method which renders the whole mass of data meaningful
and readily interpretable
Analysis of data means studying the organized data in order to

discover inherent new fac*s It involves breaking down existing complex
factors into simpler parts and putting the parts together in new arrangements
for the purpose of interpretation Effective analysis of data requires an alert
flexible and open mind Once tne data analysis has been made the
researcher proceeds to next stage i e of interpreting the results
The process of interpretation is essentially one of stating what results

show what are their meanings and significance of what is the answer of the
t^riyinal research problem'^ Good interpretation indeed calls for a careful
logical and critical examination of results obtained after analysis in view of
constrains of the study
Thus the analysis and interpretation of data collected for study are
important to draw out significant conclusions In the words of Best and Kahn
1999) any piece of research is generally directed towards the solution of the
problem and analysis as well as interpretation in the research helps to know
the logical and inferential part of research
Tne present chapter focuses on the analysis of data pertaining to the

effect of Constructivist Approach on 6th grade students Achievement in
Science For the purpose of analysis Achievement scores of the Science 6th
grade students taken into consideration at pretest Posttest and delayed
Posttest levels separately
143
The data was analyzed and interpreted in the light of objectives of the
study as below:
4.1 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

Groups at Different Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievetnent scores of experimental and control groups students vere

compared at different levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delsyed
posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two methods of teaching as given belo'v in
the table 4.1.
TABLE -4.1
Means Standard Deviations of the Samples at Pre-test, Post-test and

Delayed post-test scores of the Experimental and Control Groups
Test Group Method N Mean SD ^SEM^

L- -
Pre test Experimental Constructivist 70 45 90 11.17 1 33
Approach
Control Traditional 70 " 46.20 " "12.50 1 49
Approach -
Post test Experimental Constructivist 70 79.78 12.36 1 47
Approach
Control Traditional 70 56.52 12.01 1 1 43
Approach
Delayed Experimental Constructivist 70 78.82 12 62 1 50
post test Approach
Control Traditional 70 48.95 12.33 1 47
Approach
N=Number SD=Standard Deviation SEM-Std Error of mean
Table-4.1 reveals that at pre - test level there was no statistical

significant differences in the mean scores and Standard deviation of the
students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (45.90,SD=1' 17)
and Control group i.e. Conventional group (46.20 SD=12.50 ),which suggests
that students had same entry level before the treatment.
At the Post test level there was statistical significant difference ir the
mean and Standard deviation of students in experimental group i.e
Constructivist group (79 78, SD=12.36) and Control group i.e. convent onal
group (56 52, SD= 12.01) suggests that students in constructivist g'oup
gained significantly after treatment compared to their colleagues in
144
conventional group, whose mean scores are slightly different from their
means score at pre-test level (45.90, SD= 11.17).
At the delayed post test level there was significant difference in the
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the students in experimental group
i.e. Constructivist group (78.82, SD=12.62) and Control group i.e.
Conventional group (48.95, SD=12.33) implying that students in Constructivist
group retained the facts and information on selected Science Units taught
more than their colleagues in Conventional Approach group.
Figure 4.1 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

groups at Pretest, Posttest and Delayed posttest level.
Figure - 4.1
Means of Achievement Scores in Science of Experimental and Control

groups
79-78 78.82
56.52
48.95
Experimental Control
m Pre • Post a Delayed post test
4.2 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

Groups independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups students were compared for the
independent sample t test for equality of means at three levels of testing i.e.
145
Pretest, Posttest and delayed posttest w. r. t two methods of teaching as
shown below in the table 4.2.
TabIe-4.2
Summary Table for the Independent Samples on Pretest, Post test and
Delayed post test scores of Experimental and Control group.
t-test for equality of means

Tests t df Sig.(2-tailed)
Pretest -.150 138 .881
Posttest 11.28 138 .000
Delayed Posttest 14.15 138 .000
Table-4.2 shows the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed
posttest with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e. Constructivist
Approach and traditional Approach.
At the pretest level, the exact probability level is .881 which is greater
than p value (p>.05).This implies that there was no significant difference in
the mean scores of students in Constructivist group (45.90, SD=11.17) and
students in Traditional Approach group (46.20, SD=12.50).
At the posttest level, the p value is .000 which is less than p value
(p<.05).This implies that there was a significant difference in mean scores of
the students exposed to Constructivist Approach method (79.78, SD=12.36)
and students in Traditional Approach method (56.52, SD=12.01).
At the Delayed posttest level p value is also .000 which is less than the
p value (p<.05).Hence, there was significant difference in the mean scores
between the Constructivist Approach group (78.82, SD=12.62) and Traditional
Approach (48.95, SD=12.33).
Hence, the Hypotheses stated at Sr. No-1, "There will be significant

difference in the achievement of two groups of students-
i) Taught with the help of instructional material based on constructivist

approach of teaching and
146
ii) Taught with the help of instructional material based on conventional
approach teaching." Is accepted

Groups Male Students at Different Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups male students

were compared at different levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed
posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two methods of teaching as given below in
the table 4.3.
TABLE-4.3
Mean, Standard Deviations of the sample's Pre-test, Post-test and

Delayed post-test scores of the Male Students.
Test Group Method N Mean SD SEM

Pre test Experimental Constructivist 34 47.26 11.20 1.92
Approach
Control Traditional 38 49.05 11.16 1.81
Approach
Post test Experimental Constructivist 34 81.23 12.37 2.12
Approach
Approach
Delayed Experimental Constructivist 34 80.76 12.37 2.12
post test Approach
Approach
N=Number, SD=Standarcl Deviation, SEM-Std. Error of mean
It is evident from the Table-4.3 that at pre -test level there was no
statistical significant differences in the mean scores and Standard deviation of
the male students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (47.26,
SD=11.20) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (49.05, SD=11.16),which
suggests that all the male students had same entry level before the treatment.
At the Post test level there was statistical significant difference in the
mean scores and Standard deviation of male students in experimental group
i.e. Constructivist group (81.23, SD=12.37) and Control group i.e. Traditional
group (60.10, SD=11.28) suggests that male students in constructivist group
gained significantly after treatment compared to their colleagues in Traditional
147
group, whose mean scores are slightly different from their mean scores at
pre-test level (49.05, SD=11.16).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the male students in experimental
group i.e. Constructivist group (80.76, SD=12.37) and Control group i.e.
Traditional group (52.28, SD=11.09) implying that male students in
Constructivist group retained the facts and information on selected Science
Units taught more than their counterparts in Traditional Approach group.
Figure 4.2 shows the mean differences of Experimental and Control

Figure - 4.2
Mean Score Achievement of male students in Science of experimental
and control group
81.23 80.76
52.28
49.05
m Pre • Post '" Delayed post test

Groups Male Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups male students were compared for the
148
Table-4.4
Delayed post test Scores of Male students.

Pretest -.667 70 .501
Posttest 7.58 70 .000
Table - 4.4 indicates the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and
delayed posttest with respect to the two nnethods of teaching i.e.
Constructivist Approach and traditional Approach.
students in Traditional Approach (49.05, SD=11.16).
the students exposed to Constructivist Approach (81.23, SD=12.37) and
p value (p<.05).Hence there was significant difference in the mean scores
Approach (52.28, SD=11.09).
Hence, The Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-2, "There will be significant

difference on the achievement of male students studying in the 6th grade of
science subject taught with the help of constructivist approach and
conventional approach". Is accepted.
149
Group Female Students at Different Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups female students

the table 4.5.
TABLE-4.5
Mean, Standard Deviations of the Sample's Pre-test, Post-test and
Delayed post-test scores of the Female Students.
Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
N=Number, SD=Standard Deviation, SEM-Std. Error of mean
It is clear fromTable-4.5 that at pre - test level there was no statistical

female students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (44.61,
SD=11.15) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (42.81, SD=13.31), which
suggests that female students had same entiy level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of female students in Experimental group i.e.
Constructivist group (78.41, SD=12.37) and Control group i.e. Traditional
group (52.28, SD=11.62) suggests that students in Constructivist group
150
gained significantly after treatment compared to tlieir colleagues in Traditional
group, whose mean scores are slightly different from their means score at
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the female students in experimental
group i.e. Constmctivist group (77.00, SD=12.76) and Control group i.e.
Traditional group (45.00, SD=12.73) it is clear that female students in
Constructivist group have more retention powers than that of their
counterparts in Traditional Approach.

Figure - 4.3
Mean Score Achievement of Female students in Science of
Experimental and Control group
78.41 77
52.28
42.81
a Pre • Post B Delayed post test
151
Groups Female Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups female students were compared for
the independent sample t test for equality of means at three levels of testing
i.e. Pretest, Posttest and delayed posttest w. r. t two methods of teaching as
Table-4.6
Delayed post test scores of Female students.

Pretest .60 66 .547
Posttest 8.94 66 .000
Table-4.6 reveals the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed
posttest with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e. Constructivist
Approach and traditional Approach.
than p value (p>.05).This shows that there was no significant difference in the
mean scores of students in Constructivist group (44.61, SD=11.15) and
students in Traditional Approach group (42.81, SD=13.31).
(p<.05).This implies that that there was a significant difference in mean
scores of the student s exposed to Constructivist Approach (78.41,
SD=12.37) and students in Traditional Approach (52.28, SD=11.62).
between the Constructivist group (77.00, SD=12.76) and Traditional group
(45.00, SD=12.73).
152
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-3, "There will be significant
difference on the achievement of female students studying in the 6th grade of
science subject taught with the help of constructivist approach and
conventional approach." Is accepted.

Group Urban Students at Different Levels of Testing In Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups urban students

were compared at three levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed
posttest in Science subject based on methods of teaching i.e. Constructivist
Approach and Traditional Approach of experimental and Control groups
respectively as given in the table 4.7.
TABLE-4.7
Mean, Standard Deviations of the Sample's Pre-test, Post-test and

Delayed post-test scores of the Urban students.

Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
It can be noticed from the Table-4.7 that at pre - test level there was no
the Urban students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(43.51,SD=10.43) and Control group i.e. Traditional group ( 44.80,SD=13.14
),which suggests that Urban students had same entry level before the
treatment.
153
mean and Standard deviation of urban students in experimental group i.e.
group (56.32, SD=12.58) suggests that students in constructivist group
pre-test level (43.51, SD= 10.43).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Urban students in experimental
Traditional group (47.67, SD=13.00) implying that Urban students in
Constructivist group retained the facts and information on selected Science
Units taught more than that of their counterparts in Traditional group.

Figure - 4.4
Mean Score Achievement of Urban students in Science of Experimental

and Control group
78.15 77
< '3
56.32
47.67
m Pre m Post Delayed post test
154
Groups Urban Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups urban students were compared for the
independent sample t- test for equality of means at three levels of testing i.e.
shown in the table 4.8.
Table-4.8
Summary table for the independent samples on Pretest, Post test and
delayed post test scores urban students.

Pretest -.455 71 .650
Posttest 7.17 71 .000
Delayed 9.45 71 .000

Posttest
Table-4.8 indicates the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and
delayed posttest with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
students in Traditional Approach group (44.80, SD=13.14)
155
between the Constmctivist Approach group (77.00, SD=13.40) and Traditional
group (47.67, SD=13.00).
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-4, "There will be significant

difference on the achievement of urban Science students studying in the 6th
grade taught with the help constructivist approach and conventional
approach" is accepted

Group Rural Students at Different Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups rural students

the table 4.9.
TABLE-4.9
Mean, Standard Deviations of the Samples Pre-test, Post-test and
Delayed post-test scores of the Rural students.
Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
N=Number, SD=Standard Deviation, SEM-Std. Error of maan
It can be seen from the Table-4.9 that at pre - test level there was no
the rural students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (48.02,
SD=11.52) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (48.06, SD=11.54),which
suggests that rural students had same entry level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of rural students in experimental group i.e.
156
group (56.80, SD=11.42) suggests that rural students in constructivist group
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the rural students in experimental
group i.e. Constructivist group (80.45, 80=11.84) and Control group i.e.
Traditional group (50.66, SD=11.37) implying that rural students in
Constructivist group had more retention power in recalling the facts,
information on selected units taught to them during the experiment than that
of their counterparts in the Traditional group who were taught through
methods based on past practices of the schools .

Figure - 4.5
Mean Score Achievement of Rural students in Science of Experimental
and Control group
81.24 80.45
56.8
50.66
• Pre • Post M Delayed post test
157
Groups Rural Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups rural students were compared for the
Pretest, Posttest and delayed posttest w. r. t Constructivist Approach and
Traditional Approach of teaching in classroom as shown in the table 4.10.
Table-4.10
Delayed post test scores of Rural students.
Pretest -.014 65 .989
Posttest 8.71 65 .000
Table-4.10 elaborates the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and
Constructivist Approach and traditional Approach. At the pretest level, the
exact probability level which is.989 greater than p value (p>.05).This implies
that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of students in
Constructivist group (48.02, SD=11.52) and students in Traditional group
(48.06,80=11.54)
the student exposed to Constructivist Approach (81.24, 30=11.41) and
students in Traditional Approach (56.80, 30=11.42).
At the Oelayed Posttest level p value is also .000 which is less than the
Approach (50.66, 30=11.37).
158
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-5, "There wili be significant
difference on the achievennent of rural Science students studying in the 6th
grade taught with the help constructivist approach and conventional
approach" is accepted.

Group Upper Class Socio Economic Status Students at Different
Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups upper class

Socio Economic Status students were compared at different levels of testing
i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two
methods of teaching as given below in the table 4.11.
TABLE-4.11
Delayed post-test scores of the Upper class Socio Economic Status
Students.
Pre test Experimental Constructivist 50.27 11.80 3.56
Approach
Control Traditional 55.09 15.23 4.59
Approach
Post test Experimental Constructivist 85.00 10.40 3.13
Approach
Approach
Delayed Experimental Constructivist 84.09 10.38 3.13
post test Approach
Approach
159
It is evident from tiie Table-4.11 that at pre - test level there was no
the upper class SES students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(50.27, SD=11.80) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (55.09,
SD=15.23), which suggests that upper class Socio Economic Status students
had same entry level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of upper class Socio Economic Status students
in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (85.00, SD=10.40) and Control
group i.e. Traditional group (66.45, SD=14.69) suggests that upper class
Socio Economic Status students in constructivist group gained significantly
after treatment with comparison of their colleagues in Traditional group,
whose mean scores were slightly different from their means score at pre-test
level (50.27, SD=11.80).
At the delayed posttest level there was significant difference in the

mean scores and Standard Deviation of the upper class Socio Economic
Status students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (84.09,
SD=10.38) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (59.72, SD=15.04)
implying that upper class Socio Economic Status students in Constructivist
group had more retention power of retaining the facts and information on
selected Science Units taught to them as compared their colleagues in
Traditional group.

160
Figure - 4.6
Mean Score Achievement of Upper class Socio Economic Status
students in Science of Experimental and Control group
85 84.09
66.45
• Pre • Post B Delayed post test

Groups Upper Class SES Students Independent Samples in
Science
The Experimental and control groups upper class Socio Economic Status
students were compared at the independent sample t- test for equality of
means at three levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed Posttest
w. r. t two methods of teaching as shown below in the table 4.12.
Table-4.12
Delayed post test Scores the Upper class Socio Economic Status
students.
Pretest .-8.29 20 .417
Posttest 3.411 20 .003
161
It can be noticed from the Table-4.12 the t-test values for the pretest,
posttest and delayed posttest with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
exact probability level is .417 which is greater than p value (p>.05).This
implies that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of students
in Constructivist group (50.27, SD=11.80) and students in Traditional
Approach (55.09, SD=15.23).
At the Delayed posttest level p value is .000 which is less than the p
value (p<.05).Hence, there was significant difference in the mean scores
between the Constructivist Approach (84.09, SD=10.38) and Traditional
Approach (59.72, SD=15.04)
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated al. Sr. No-6, "There will be significant
difference on the effectiveness of constructivist approach and conventional
approach on the achievement of Upper class SES students" is accepted.

Group Upper Middle Class SES Students at Different Levels of
Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups upper middle

class students were compared at different levels of testing i.e. Pretest,
Posttest and Delayed posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two methods of
teaching as given below in the table 4.13.
162
TABLE-4.13

delayed post-test scores of the Upper middle class Socio Economic
Status students.

Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
N=Number, SD=Standard Deviation, SEI\i1-Std. Error of mean
It may be observed from the Table-4.13 that at pre-test level there was
no statistical significant differences in the mean scores and Standard
deviation of the upper middle class Socio Economic Status students in
experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (50.55,SD=6.60) and Control
group i.e. Traditional group (49.10,SD=13.07),which suggests that Upper
middle class Socio Economic Status students had same entry level before the
treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of students in experimental group i.e.
Constructivist group (84.40, SD=6.53) and Control group i.e. Traditional group
(58.57, SD=13.01) suggests that upper middle class Socio Economic Status
students in constructivist group gained significantly after treatment in
comparison to their colleagues in Traditional group, whose mean scores were
slightly different from their means score at pre-test level (50.55, SD=6.60).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Upper middle class Socio
Economic Status students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(83.65, SD=6.46) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (51.63, SD=12.36)
163
implying tliat upper middle class SES students in Constructivist group
retained the facts and informations on selected Science Units taught, more
than their colleagues in Traditional group.
Figure 4.7 shows the mean differences of experimental and Control

Figure - 4.7
Mean Score Achievement of Upper middle class Socio Economic Status

84.4 83.65
58.57
51.63
a Pre m Post Delayed post test

Groups Upper Middle Class Socio Economic Status Students
Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups upper middle class Socio Economic
Status students were compared at the independent sample t-test for equality
of means at three levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and delayed posttest
w. r. t two methods of teaching as shown in the table 4.14.
164
Table-4.14
Delayed post test scores of Upper middle class Socio Economic Status
students.

Pretest .439 37 .663
Posttest 7.89 37 .000
The t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest can be
observed from the Table-4.14 with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
Constructivlst Approach and traditional Approach. At the pretest level, the
in Constructivlst group (50.55, SD=6.60) and students in Traditional group
(49.10, SD=13.07).
the students exposed to Constructivlst Approach (84.40, SD=6.53) and
At the Delayed posttest level p value is also .000 which Is less than the
between the Constructivlst Approach (83.65, SD=6.46) and Traditional
Approach (51.63, SD=12.36).
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-7, "Ther%,wlll be significant

difference on the effectiveness of constructivlst approach and conventional
approach on the achievement of Upper middle class SES students" Is
accepted.
165
4,15 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control
Group Middle Class Socio Economic Status Students at Different
Levels of Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups middle class

students were compared at different levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and
Delayed posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two methods of teaching as given
below in the table 4.15.
TABLE-4.15
Mean, Standard Deviations of the Samples Pre-test Post-test and
Delayed post-test scores of the Middle class Socio Economic Status
Students.
Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Control Traditional 15 44,53 7.71 1.99
Approach
Table-4.15 indicates that at pre - test level there was no statistical

middle class SES students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(47.52,80=9.39) and Control group i.e. Traditional group
(41.46,SD=8.42),which suggests that Middle class Socio Economic Status
students had same entry level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of middle class Socio Economic Status
students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (83.70, SD=7.97) and
Control group i.e. Traditional group (51.00, SD=7.80) suggests that Low SES
students in constructivist group gained significantly after treatment as
166
compared to their colleagues In Traditional group, whose mean scores were
slightly different from their means score at pre-test level (47.52, SD=9.39).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Middle class Socio Economic
Status students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (82.94,
SD=8.86) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (44.53, SD=7.71) implying
that Middle class Socio Economic Status students in Constructivist group
retained the facts and information on selected Science Units taught more than
their colleagues in Traditional group.
Figure 4.8 depicts the mean differences of experimental and Control

Figure - 4.8
Mean Score Achievement of lUliddle class Socio Economic Status

83.7 82.94
51
41.46
B Pre • Post B Delayed post test
167
Groups Middle Class SES Students Independent Samples in
Science
The Experimental and control groups middle class SES students were
compared at the independent sample t test for equality of means at three
levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and delayed posttest w. r. t two
methods of teaching as shown belowin the table 4.16.
Table-4.16
Summary table for the Independent Samples on Pretest, Post test and
Delayed post test scores of the Middle class Socio Economic Status
students.

Pretest 1.91 30 .066
Posttest 11.69 30 .000
The t-test value for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest is evident
from the Table-4.16 with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
in Constructivist group (47.52, SD=9.39) and students in Traditional group
(41.46,80=8.42).
168
Approach (44.53, SD=7.71).
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-8. "There will be significant

approach on the achievement of middle class SES students", is accepted.

Group Upper Lower Class SES Students at Different Levels of
Testing in Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups upper lower

class students were compared at different levels of testing i.e. Pretest,
Posttest and Delayed posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two methods of
teaching as given below in the table 4.17.
TABLE-4.17
Delayed post-test scores of the Upper Lower class Socio Economic
Status students.
Approach
Approach
Post test Expenmental Constructivist 11 76.27 12.27 3.70
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
169
From the Table-4.17 it can be seen that at pre - test level there was no
the upper lower class SES students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist
group (44.72, SD=5.06) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (45.30,
SD=8.15), which suggests that students had same entry level before the
treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of Upper Lower class Socio Economic Status
students in experimental group i.e. Con.structivist group (76.27, SD=12.27)
and Control group i.e. Traditional group (55.07, SD=6.68) suggests that
Upper Lower class Socio Economic Status students in constructivist group
group, whose mean scores were slightly different from their means score at
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Upper Lower class Socio
Economic Status students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(74.81, SD=12.13) and Control group i.e. Traditional group (46.84, SD=7.70)
implying that students Upper Lower class Socio Economic Status in
Constructivist group retained the facts and informations on selected Science
Units taught more than that of their colleagues in Traditional group.
Figure 4.9 depicts the mean differences of experimental and Control

170
Figure - 4.9
Mean Score Achievement of Upper Lower class Socio Economic Status
students in Science of experimental and control group

Groups Upper Lower Class SES Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups Upper Lower class Socio Economic
Status students were compared for the independent sample t test for
equality of means at three levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and delayed
posttest w. r. t two methods of teaching as shown below in the table 4.18.
Table-4.18
Delayed post test Scores of Upper lower class Socio Economic Status
students.

Pretest -.205 22 .840
Posttest 5.36 22 .000
171
The t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest may be
observed from the Table -4.18 with respect to the two methods of teaching
i.e. Constructivist Approach and traditional Approach. At the pretest level, the
in Constructivist group (44.72, SD=5.06) and students in Traditional Approach
(45.30, SD=8.15)
Approach (46.84, SD=7.70).

approach on the achievement of upper lower class SES students" is
accepted.
4.19 Findings on Acliievement Scores of Experimentai and Control

Group Lower Class SES Students at Different Levels of Testing In
Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups lower class

Socio Economic Status students were compared at different levels of testing
i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed posttest in Science subject w.r.t. two
methods of teaching as given in the table 4.19.
172
TABLE-4.19

Delayed post-test scores of the Lower class Socio Economic Status
students.

Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
N=Number, SD=Standard Deviation, SEIVI-Std. Error of mean
It may be observed from the Table-4.19 that at pre - test level there
was no statistical significant differences in the mean scores and Standard
deviation of the lower class Socio Economic Status students in experimental
Traditional group (40.33, SD=12.82) which suggests that lower class Socio
Economic Status students had same entry level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of lower class SES students in experimental
Traditional group (52.66,SD=11.82) suggests that lower class Socio
Economic Status students in constructivist group gained significantly after
treatment as compared to their colleagues in Traditional group, whose mean
scores were slightly different from their mean scores at pre-test level
(40.33,SD=12.82).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the lower class SES students in
experimental group i.e. Constructivist group (62.45, SD=14.90) and Control
group i.e. Traditional group (42.66, SD=12.43) implying that lower class Socio
173
Economic Status students in Constructivist group retained tlie facts and
informations on selected Science Units taught more than that of their
colleagues in Traditional group.

Figure - 4.10
Mean Score Achievement of Lower class SES students in Science of

Experimental and Control group
63.63 62.45
52.66
42.66
4.20 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and

Control Groups Lower Class SES Students Independent
Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups lower class Socio Economic Status
students were compared at the independent sample t test for equality of
means at three levels of testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed posttest w.
r. t two methods of teaching as shown below in the table 4.20.
174
Table-4.20
Summary table for the Independent Samples on Pretest, Post test and
delayed post test scores of Lower class Socio Economic Status
students.

Pretest -1.56 21 .132
Posttest 1.98 21 .060
The t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest can be
seen from the Table-4.20 with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
students in Traditional group (40.33, SD=12.82)
At the posttest level, the p value is .060 which is greater than p value
(p>.05).This implies that there was no significant difference in mean scores of
the students lower class Socio Economic Status exposed to Constructivist
Approach method (63.63, SD=14.63) and students in Traditional Approach
(52.66, SD=11.82).
Approach (42.66, SD=12.43).

approach on the achievement of lower class SES students" is retained.
175
Group govt. School Students at Different Levels of Testing in
Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups govt, school

TABLE-4.21

Delayed post-test scores of the Govt. School students.
Test Group IVIethod N Mean SD SEM

Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
Table-4.21 reveals that at pre - test level there was no statistical

significant differences in the mean scores and Standard deviation of the Govt,
school students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(41.14,50=12.64) and Control group i.e. Traditional group(41.42,SD=10.80)
,which suggests that Govt, school students had same entn^ level before the
treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of Govt, school students in experimental group
group (53.11,SD=10.22) suggests that Govt. School students in constructivist
group gained significantly after treatment in comparison to their colleagues in
176
Traditional group, whose mean scores were sliglitly different from ttieir mean
scores at pre-test level (41.42,SD=10.80).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Govt, school students in
group i.e. Traditional group (44.65, SD=10.68) implying that Govt. School
students in Constructivist group retained the facts and informations on
selected Science Units taught more than their colleagues in Traditional group.

Figure-4.11
Mean Score Achievement of Govt, school students In Science of

Experimental and control group
76.25 75.22
53.11
44.65
• Pre • Post m Delayed post test
177
Groups Govt. School Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups Govt, schools students were

compared at the independent sample t test for equality of means at three
levels of testing i.e. Pretesi, Posttest and delayed posttest w. r. t two
methods of teaching as shown below in the table 4.22.
Table-4.22
Delayed post test scores of Govt, school students.

Pretest -.102 68 .919
Posttest 7.73 68 .000
Table-4.22 indicates that the t-test values for the pretest, posttest and
students in Traditional group(41.42, SD=10.80).
the students exposed to Constructivist Approach (76.25, 80=14.45) and
p value (p<.05).Hence there was significant difference in the mean scores
between the Constructivist group (75.22, SD=14.73) and Traditional group
(44.65, SD=10.68).
178
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-11, "There will be a significant
diiference on the achievement of Govt, school 6th grade Science students
taught with the help of Constructivist and conventional approach" is accepted.

Group Public School Students at Different Levels of Testing in
Science.
The achievement scores of experimental and control groups Public school

TABLE-4.23

Delayed post-test scores of the Public school students.

Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
post test Approach
Approach
Table-4.23 shows that at pre - test level there was no statistical

Public school students in experimental group i.e. Constructivist group
(50.65,SD=6.85)and Control group i.e. Traditional group
(50.97„SD=12.39),which suggests that Public school students had same
entry level before the treatment.
mean and Standard deviation of Public school students in experimental group
179
group (59.94,SD=12.82) suggests that Public school students in constructivist
group gained significantly after treatment comparison to their colleagues in
Traditional group, whose mean scores were slightly different from their means
score at pre-test level (50.97,SD=12.39).
mean scores and Standard Deviation of the Public school students in
group i.e. Traditional group (53.25, SD-12.50) implying that Public school
students in Constructivist group retained the facts and infomnation on selected
Science Units taught more than their colleagues in Traditional group.

Figure-4.12
Mean Score Achievement of Public students in Science of Experimental
and Control group
8331 82.42
59.94
50.97 53.25
180
Groups Public School Students Independent Samples in Science
The Experimental and control groups Public school students were compared
at the independent sample t-test for equality of means at three levels of
testing i.e. Pretest, Posttest and Delayed Posttest w. r. t two methods of
teaching as shown in the table 4.24.
Table-4.24
Delayed post test scores of Public school students.

' Tests t df Sig.(2-talled)
1 Pretest -.131 68 .896
Posttest 8.92 68 .000
The t-test values for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest are
evident from the Table-4.24 with respect to the two methods of teaching i.e.
students in Traditional group (50.97, SD=12.39).
181
Approach (53.25, SD=12.50).
Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-12, "There will be a significant

difference on the achievement of Public school 6th grade Science students
taught with the help of Constructivist and conventional approach" is retained.
4.25 Paired Samples Comparison on Achievement Scores of

Experimental Groups Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups students were

compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed Posttest,
and Posttest-Delayed Posttest .The paired differences are given in the table
4.25.
Table-4.25
Paired Samples test for Experimental Group Students
Paired Differences
Paired 1 M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-tailed)
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest & -33.88 5.39 .64 -52.66 69 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest & -32.92 5.63 .67 -48.89 69 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest .95 1.54 .18 5.18 69 .000
& delayed
posttest
Table-4.25 presents paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed

posttest and Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist
Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .OOO.This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores, at all the levels of pairing in
Constructivist teaching group.
182
Experimental Male Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups male students

were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed
Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired Differences are shown in
the table 4.26.
Table-4.26
Paired Samples test for group Male students of Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-tailed)
Samples test
P:.;r 1 Pretest & -33.97 3.91 .67 -50.63 33 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -33.50 3.93 .67 -49.66 33 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 .47 1.37 .23 1.99 33 .054
Posttest&
delayed posttest
Table-4.26 indicates paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed

Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except the Posttest -
Delayed posttest, where the p- value is.054. This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores, at pair 1 and pair 2 levels of pairing,
while at the Posttest-Delayed Posttest p value was found .054, which implies
that there was no significant difference between the scores of two variables
i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the male students of Constructivist teaching
Group.

Experimental Groups Female Students
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups female

students were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest, Pretest-
183
Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences can
be observed from the table 4.27
Table-4.27
Paired Samples test for Female students of Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-tailed
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -33.80 6.55 1 09 -30.96 35 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -32.38 6.88 1.'i4 -28.23 35 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 1.41 1.57 .26 .5.39 35 .000
Posttest&
delayed posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest a id
Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist teaching
Approach is shown in Table-4.27. Here the p-value for all painng is .000 This
implies that there was significant difference in the mean scores at all the
levels of pairing, of the female students of Constructivist teaching Group .

Experimental Groups of Urban Students
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups urtân

students were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest, Prete'St-
Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest as shown in the table 4 2H.
Table-4.28
Paired Samples test for urban students of Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test 1
Pair 1 Pretest -34.63 6.10 1.06 -32.60 32 .000
& Posttest 1
Pair 2 Pretest -33.48 6.23 1.08 -30.84 32 .000

& Delayed
Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 1.15 1.41 .24 ' 4.66 32 .000
& delayed 1
posttest 1
184
Table-4.28 represents paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-
Delayed posttest and Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to Constructivist
Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .OOO.This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores, at all the levels of pairing of the
urban students of Constructivist teaching Group.

Experimental Groups Rural Students
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups rural students

Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences are given the
table 4.30.
Table-4.29
Paired Samples test for rural students of Experimental Group.
Paired D ifferences
Samples test
Pairl Pretests -33.21 4.65 .76 -43.39 36 .000
Posttest
Pair2 Pretests -32.43 5.07 .83 -38.87 36 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair3 .78 1.65 .27 2.88 36 .007
Posttest& delayed
posttest
pcsttest and Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist
i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the rural Constructivist teaching Group.
185
Experimental Groups Upper Class SES Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups upper class

SES students were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest,
Pretest-Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired
differences are shown in the table 4.30.
Tabie-4.30
Paired Samples test for Upper class SES students.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM df Sig.
*
Samples test (2-tailed]
Pair1 Pretest & -34.72 3.13 .94 -3r3.75 10 .000
Posttest
Pair2 Pretest & -33.81 3.34 1.00 -33.56 10 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair3 Posttest .90 1.13 .34 2.65 10 .024
& delayed
posttest
Table-4.30 reveals paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed

i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the upper class SES students of
Constructivist teaching Group.

Experimental Groups Upper Middle Class SES Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups upper middle

class SES students were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest,
186
differences can be seen from the table 4.31.
Table-4.31
Paired Samples test for Upper Middle class SES students of

Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -33.85 3.92 .87 -38.57 19 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -33.10 4.03 .90 -36.65 19 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest & .75 1.51 .33 2.21 19 .040
delayed posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest and

Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist Approach may be
observed from the Table-4.31. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except
the Posttest -Delayed posttest, where the p- value is.040. This implies that
there was significant difference in the mean scores, at pair 1 and pair 2 levels
of pairing, while at the Posttest-Delayed Posttest p value was found .040,
which implies that there was no significant difference between the scores of
two variables i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the upper middle class SES
students of Constructivist teaching Group.

Experimental Groups Middle Class SES Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups middle class

Pretest-Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest, The paired
differences can be observed from table 4.32.
187
Table-4.32
Paired Samples test for Middle class SES students of Experimental

Group..
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -36.17 3.57 .36 -41.72 16 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -35.41 4.13 1.00 -35.27 16 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest .76 1.75 .42 1.80 16 .091
& delayed
posttest
The Table-4.32 reports paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-

Delayed posttest and Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the
Constructivist Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except the
Posttest -Delayed posttest, where the p- value is.091. This implies that there
was significant difference in the mean scores, at pair 1 and pair 2 levels of
pairing, while at the Posttest-Delayed Posttest p value was found .091, which
implies that there was no significant difference between the scores of two
variables i.e. Posttest-Delayed Posttest of the Middle Class SES students of

Experimental Groups Upper Lower Class SES Students
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups upper lower

class SES students were compared on the paired basis i.e. Pretest-Posttest,
differences are shown in the table 4.33.
188
Table-4.33
Paired Samples test for Upper Lower class SES students of

Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t ' df Sig.(2-tailed)
Samples test
Pa;r 1 Pretest & -3154 9 93 2 99 -10 53 10 ' .000
Postlest i
Pair 2 Pretests -30 0 9 , 9 87 2 97 i -10 10 10 000
i
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 145 1.57 47 3 06 i 10 ! 012
I
& delayed
posttest

Approach Here the p-value for all painng is 000, except the Posttest -
Delayed posttest, where the p- value is 012 This implies that there was
I e Posttest-Delayed posttest of the Upper Lower class SES students of
Constructivist teaching Group

Experimental Groups Lower Class SES Students
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups lower class

SES students were compared on the paired basis i.e Pretest-Posttest,
Pretest-Delayed Posttest. and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired
differences are given in the table 4 34
189
Table-4.34
Paired Samples test for Lower class SES students of Experimental
Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest & -31.90 4.74 1.42 -22.31 10 .000
Posttest
Pair2 Pretests -30.72 5.13 1.54 -19.82 10 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 1.18 1.72 .51 2.27 10 .046
& delayed
posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest and Posttest-

delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist Approach can be observed
from the table-4.34. . Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except the
Posttest -Delayed posttest, where the p- value is.046. This implies that there
was significant difference in the mean scores, at pair 1 and pair 2 levels of
pairing, while at the Posttest-Delayed Posttest p value was found .046, which
implies that there was no significant difference between the scores of two
variables i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the Lower class SES students of

Experimental Group Govt. School Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental groups Govt. School

Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. Paired differences are
shown in the table 4.35.
190
Table-4.35
Paired Samples test for Govt. School students of Experimental Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest -35.11 6.28 1.06 -33.04 34 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest -34 08 6.46 1.09 -31.17 34 .000 '
&
Delayed
Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 1.02 1.63 .27 3.72 34 .001
& delayed
posttest

thac there was no significant difference between the scores of two variables
i.e Posttest-Delayed posttest of the Govt. School students of Constructivist
teaching Group.
4.36 Paired Samples Comparison Achievement Scores of

Experimental Groups Public School Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the experimental group Public school

Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences can
be observed from the table 4.36.
191
Table-4.36
Paired Samples test for Public School students of Experimental Group
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-tai led)
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest -32.65 4.05 .68 -47.69 34 .000
&
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest -31.77 4.45 .75 -42.21 34 .000
&Delayed
Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest .88 1.47 .24 3.56 '34 .001
& delayed
posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest ard

Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Constructivist Approach can tê
seen from the above Table-4.36. Here the p-value for all pairing is .003,
except the Posttest-Delayed posttest, where the p- value is.001. This implies
that there was significant difference in the mean scores, at pair 1 and pair 2
levels of pairing, while at the Posttest-Delayed Posttest p value was found
.001, which implies that there was no significant difference between tfie
scores of two variables i.e. Posttest-Delayed posttest of the Public schocis
students of Constructivist teaching Group.
Hence the Hypotheses stated at Sr. No-13, There will be significant

differences on the achievement of Experimental Groups at all the three ievîls
of pairing in terms of:
I) Gender
ii) Locality
iii) Socio-Economic Status Groups
Iv) Type of Institution"
is Partially retained.
192
4.37 Paired Samples Comparison on Achievement Scores of Control
Groups Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups students were

and Posttest-Delayed Posttest .The paired differences w.rt. each pair is
given in the table 4.37.
Table-4.37
Paired Samples test for Control group students
Paired Differences
Paired 1 M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-tailed)
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -10.32 4.38 .52 -19.68 69 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretests -2.75 3.12 .37 -7.37 69 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 7.57 3.83 .45 16.53 69 .000
& delayed
posttest
Table-4.37 presents paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed

Posttest and Posttest-delayed Posttest with respect to the Traditional
Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000. This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores at the levels of pairing of the Control
groups students in traditional teaching Group.

Groups Of Male Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups male students were
and Posttest-Delayed Posttest . The paired differences w.r.t. each pair can
be observed from the table 4.38.
193
Table-4.38
Paired Samples test for Male students of Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -11.05 5.14 .83 -13.23 37 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretests -3.23 3.56 .57 5.59 37 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 7.81 4.31 .69 11.17 37 .000
& delayed
posttest
significant difference in the mean scores at the levels of pairing of the male
students of traditional teaching Group..

groups of Female Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups female students

Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences w.r.t. eacn
pair is indicated in the table 4.39.
Table-4.39
Paired Samples test for Female students of Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -9.46 3.14 .55 -17.04 31 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretests -2.18 2.44 .43 -5.06 31 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 7.28 3.21 .56 12.81 31 .000
S delayed
posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed Posttest and
Posttest-Delayed posttest with respect to Traditional Approach is shown in
194
Table-4.39. Here the p-value for all pairing is .OOO.This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores, at all the levels of pairing of the
female students of Traditional Approach group.

Groups of Urban Students
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups urban students

Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences w.r.t. each
pair is shown in the table 4.40.
Table-4.40
Paired Samples test for control group urban students of Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretests -11.52 4.09 .64 -17.80 39 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -2.87 3.68 .58 -4.94 39 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 8.65 3.91 .61 13.95 39 .000
& delayed
posttest
Table-4.40 represents paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-

Delayed Posttest and Posttest-delayed Posttest with respect to the Traditional
significant difference in the mean scores at the levels of pairing of the urban
students traditional teaching Group.
195
Groups Of Rural Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups rural students were
and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences w.r.t. each pair is given
in the table 4.41.
Table-4.41
Paired Samples test for control groups rural students of Control

Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest& -8.73 4.32 .78 -11.06 29 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretests -2.60 2.23 .40 -6.36 29 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest & 6.13 3.24 .59 10.35 29 .000
delayed posttest
Table-4.41 elaborates paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest

Delayed posttest and Posttest-delayed posttest with respect to the Traditional
significant difference in the mean scores at the levels of pairing of the rura'
students traditional teaching Group.

Groups of Upper Class SES Students
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups upper class SES
students were compared on the paired basis i e. Pretest-Posttest, Pretest-
Delayed Posttest, and Posttest-Delayed Posttest. The paired differences
w.r.t. each pair is indicated in the table 4.42.
196
Table-4.42
Paired Samples test for control group Upper class SES students of
Control Group.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t df Sig.
Samples test (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Pretests -11.36 5.81 1.75 -6.47 10 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest& -4.63 4.84 1.46 -3.17 10 .010
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 6.72 3.52 1.06 6.33 10 .000
& delayed
posttest

Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except the Pretest-Delayed
Posttest level where the p-value .010. This implies that there was significant
difference in the mean scores at the Pair 1 and Pair 3 levels of pairing , While
p-value in pair 2 is .010, which implies that there is no significant difference
between the scores of two variables i.e. Pretest-Delayed posttest of the
Upper class SES students of Traditional teaching group.

Groups of Upper Middle Class SES Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups upper middle class
differences w.r.t. each pair can be seen from the table 4.43.
197
Table-4.43
Paired Samples test for control group Upper Middle class SES students
Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest & -9.47 5.39 1.23 -7.64 18 .000
Posttest
Pair2 Pretests -2.52 3.20 .73 -3.43 18 .003
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest & 6.94 4.36 1.00 6.93 18 .000
delayed posttest

Posttest and Posttest-Delayed Posttest with respect to the Traditional
Approach. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000, except the pretest-Delayed
Posttest level where the p-value .003. This implies that there was significant
difference in the mean scores at the Pair 1 and Pair 3 levels of pairing, While
p-value in pair 2 is .003, which implies that there is no significant difference
between the scores of two variables i.e. Pretest-Delayed posttest of the
Upper Middle class SES students of Traditional teaching group.

Groups of Middle Class SES Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups of middle class SES
w.r.t. each pair is given in the table 4.44.
198
Table-4.44
Paired Samples test for control group Middle class SES students of
Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest & -9.53 2.58 .66 -14.26 14 .000
Posttest
Pair2 Pretests -3.06 2.15 .55 -5.51 14 .000
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 6.46 3.46 .89 7.23 14 .000
& delayed
posttest
The Table-4.44 reports paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed
Posttest and Posttest-Delayed Posttest with respect to the Traditional
significant difference in the mean scores at the levels of pairing of the Middle
class SES students of traditional teaching Group.

Groups of Upper Lov/er Class SES Students
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups upper lower class
differences w.r.t. each pair is shown in the table 4.45
Table-4.45
Paired Samples test for control group Upper Lower class SES students
of Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest & -9.76 3.41 .94 -10.30 12 .000
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest & -1.53 1.80 .50 -3.06 12 .010
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 8.23 3.46 .96 8.55 12 .000
& delayed
posttest
199
Table-4.45 indicates paired t-test for pretest-P:)sttest Pretest-Delaye:!
Fôsttest and Posttest-Delayed Posttest with respect to the Tradition.JI
Approach Here, the p-value for all pairing is 000. except the pretest-Delayeii
Posttest level where the p-value is 010 This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scores at the Pair 1 and Pair 3 levels ( '
pairing, while p-value m pair 2 is 010 which im'plies that there is n i
significant difference between the scores of two variables i e. Pretest-Delaye :
Pos'test of the Upper Middle class SES students of Traditional Teachin ]
group
4.46 Paired Samples Comparison on Achievement Scores of Contrcl

Groups of Lower Class SES Students
The achievement scores in Science of the control groups lower class SES
students were compared on the paired basis i e Pretest-Posttest. Pretest
Delayed Posttest. and Posttest-Delayed Posttest "I he paired difference.
vi r t each pair is given in the table 4 46
•Table-4.46
Paired Samples test for Lower class SES students Control Group.
Paired Differences
P"aTr"ed M" ' S.D SEM t df Sig.{2-tailed)
Samples test
Paul Pretests ' - 1 2 3 3 ' 3 62 ~ T 0 4 ~ ~Tl~78 11 ' 000
Posttest i
: I . .
Pair 2 Pretests. -2 33 I 2 83 81 -2 84 11 016
Delayed Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest & 10 00 3 35 96 10 31 11 000
delayed posttest i
Table-4 40 shows paired t-test for pretest-Posttest Pretest-Delayec

Posttest and Posttest-delayed Posttest with respect to the Traditiora
Approach. Here the p-value for ail pairing is .000. except the pretest-Delay(5c
Posttest level where the p-value is 016 This implies that there was
significant difference in the mean scoies at the Pair 1 and Pair 3 levels of
pairing. While p-value in pair 2 is 016 which implies that there is nc
200
significant difference between the scores of two variables i.e. Pretest-Delayed
Posttest of the Lower class SES students of Traditional teaching group.

Groups of Govt. Scliool Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control group of Govt. School

w.r.t. each pair can be seen from the table 4.47.
Table-4.47
Paired Samples test for Govt. School students Control Group.
Paired Differences
Paired M S.D SEM t df Sig.(2-taiied)
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest -11.68 2.76 .46 -25.02 34 .000
&
Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest -3.22 2.67 .45 -7.12 34 .000
&Delayed
Posttest
Pair 3 Posttest 8.45 3.45 .58 14.50 34 .000
& delayed
posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest and Posttest-

Delayed posttest with respect to the Traditional Approach which can be
noticed from the Table-4.47. Here the p-value for all pairing is .000. This
implies that there was significant difference in the mean scores at the all
levels of pairing of the Govt. School students of traditional teaching Group.
201
Groups of Public School Students.
The achievement scores in Science of the control group of Public School

w.r.t. each pair can be observed from the table 4.48.
Table-4.48
Paired Samples test for Public School students Control Group.
Paired Differences
Samples test
Pair 1 Pretest -8.97 5.26 .88 -10.08 34 .000
&Posttest
Pair 2 Pretest -2.28 3.49 .59 -3.87 34 .000
&Delayed
Posttest
Pairs Posttest 6.68 4.03 .68 9.80 34 .000
& delayed
posttest
Paired t-test for pretest-Posttest, Pretest-Delayed posttest and

Posttest-Delayed posttest with respect to the Traditional Approach which can
be seen from the above Table-4.48. Here, the p-value for all pairing is .000.
This implies that there was significant difference in the mean scores at the all
levels of pairing of the Public School students of traditional teaching Group.
Hence the Hypotheses stated at Sr. No-14, "There will be significant

differences on the achievement of Control Groups at all the three levels of
pairing in terms of:
I) Gender
ii) Locality
202
iii) Socio-Economic Status Groups
Iv) Type of Institution"
Is partially accepted.
4.49 Discussion of the Results:
The objectives of the present study have been given in the Chapter-I.
The data related to the objectives were analyzed by using appropriate
Stastically techniques as mentioned in the Chapter-Ill. The results along v^îth
their interpretation have been presented here in this Chapter. From the
interpretations presented in this Chapter, the following findings emerged.
• The Constructivist Approach was found to be effective in classroom

transaction to enhance the learning level of the students in Science as
compared to the Traditional Approach of teaching.
• The students in experimental group performed better on the Science

achievement test than that of the students in Control group with
respect to Gender, Locality, Socio-Economic Status and Type of
Institution.
• Students of the Experimental group have the better retention power on

the Science Achievement Test than that of the students of the control
group with respect to Gender, Locality, Socio-Economic Status and
Type of Institution.
203

Research Analysis 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

Research Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter - IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Analysis of data means studying the organized data in order to

The process of interpretation is essentially one of stating what results

Tne present chapter focuses on the analysis of data pertaining to the

4.1 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievetnent scores of experimental and control groups students vere

Means Standard Deviations of the Samples at Pre-test, Post-test and

Test Group Method N Mean SD ^SEM^

Table-4.1 reveals that at pre - test level there was no statistical

Figure 4.1 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

Means of Achievement Scores in Science of Experimental and Control

m Pre • Post a Delayed post test

4.2 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

t-test for equality of means

Hence, the Hypotheses stated at Sr. No-1, "There will be significant

i) Taught with the help of instructional material based on constructivist

4.3 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups male students

Mean, Standard Deviations of the sample's Pre-test, Post-test and

Test Group Method N Mean SD SEM

Figure 4.2 shows the mean differences of Experimental and Control

m Pre • Post '" Delayed post test

4.4 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

t-test for equality of means

Hence, The Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-2, "There will be significant

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups female students

It is clear fromTable-4.5 that at pre - test level there was no statistical

Figure 4.3 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

a Pre • Post B Delayed post test

t-test for equality of means

4.7 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups urban students

Mean, Standard Deviations of the Sample's Pre-test, Post-test and

Test Group Method N Mean SD SEM

Figure 4.4 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

Mean Score Achievement of Urban students in Science of Experimental

m Pre m Post Delayed post test

t-test for equality of means

Posttest 7.17 71 .000

Delayed 9.45 71 .000

Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-4, "There will be significant

4.9 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups rural students

Figure 4.5 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

• Pre • Post M Delayed post test

4.11 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups upper class

N=Number, SD=Standard Deviation, SEM-Std. Error of mean

At the delayed posttest level there was significant difference in the

Figure 4.6 depicts the mean differences of Experimental and Control

• Pre • Post B Delayed post test

4.12 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

4.13 Findings on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

The achievement scores of experimental and control groups upper middle

Mean, Standard Deviations of the Samples Pre-test, Post-test and

Test Group Method N Mean SD SEM

Figure 4.7 shows the mean differences of experimental and Control

Mean Score Achievement of Upper middle class Socio Economic Status

a Pre m Post Delayed post test

4.14 Comparison on Achievement Scores of Experimental and Control

t-test for equality of means

Hence, the Hypotheses Stated at Sr. No-7, "Ther%,wlll be significant