11 Chapter 4

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 df Variance Among Within Total 1 96 97 Square 2229.07 1766.31 3995.38 Square 2229.07 18.40 2247.47 121.15 F0.01 = 6.90 F0.05 = 3.94 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Significant at 0.01 Significant
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 Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Experimental 50
Obtained difference Significant mean of significant between Post test corrected Mxyz mean 26.13 10.80 15.33 D0.01 = 2.58 significant D0.05 = 1.94 at 0.01 difference level value
of post test Mz 24.54 16.92
99.60
8.78
Control
50 105.86 12.30
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 80 Mean 60 40 20 0 Experimental Control
Mean of IQ Mx Mean of Pre test My Mean of Post test Mz Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental group is higher than the control group. 4.2.2 Analysis of Co-Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for urban area For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 2 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.3 and 4.4 Table 4.3 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 df Variance Among Within Total 1 96 97 Square 3318.48 897.52 4215.00 Square 3318.48 9.35 3327.83 85 354.95 F0.01 = 6.90 F0.05 = 3.94 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Significant at 0.01 Significant
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 897.52 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 3318.48 and 9.35 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 354.95 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 2, There 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 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 = 0.648 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 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.4 below.
86
Table 4.4 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Experimental 50 110.44
of Post test Mz 35.26 24.90
14.88
Control
50 116.12 17.26
From table 4.2 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 110.44 and 116.12 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 14.88 and 17.26 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 35.26 and 24.90 for experimental group and control group respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found to be 36.18 and 23.98 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 12.20, 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-2 was rejected, it can be concluded that the 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 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group and control group of urban area
Urban area
140 120 100 Mean 80 60 40 20 0 Experimental Group Control Group Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz Mean of Pre test My Mean of Post test Mz Mean of IQ Mx
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental group is higher than the control group. 4.2.3 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 For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 3 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.5 and 4.6 Table 4.5 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of Variance Among Within Total df 1 196 197 Sum of Square 6971.46 3455.29 10426.75 Mean Square 6971.46 17.63 6989.09 395.45 F0.01 = 6.76 F0.05 = 3.89 Significant at 0.01 F-Value Table value Significant level
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 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 196
t0.05 = 1.97 t0.01 = 2.60
and
89
Table 4.6 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Experimental 100 105.02
11.83
Control
100 110.99 14.78
From table 4.6 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 105.02 and 110.99 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 11.38 and 14.78 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 29.90 and 20.91 for experimental group and control group respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found to be 31.62 and 19.19 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 12.43, 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-3 was rejected, it can be concluded that the 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 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group and control group of urban and rural area
120 100 80 Mean 60 40 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 Source df sum of Square square Teaching Method(A) Gender(B) Interaction (AB) Within the Group Total 194 197 3436.70 10183.96 17.72 6764.98 1 0.305 0.305 0.017 1 6728.65 6728.65 379.83 F0.05 = 3.89 F0.01 = 6.76 Significant at 0.01 Not Significant Not Significant F-Value value level Table Significant
18.30
18.30
1.033
(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 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 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. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant 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 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 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. 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 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 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching Method

Boy Girl
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 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.8 Table 4.8 2 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable corrected Mean Source df sum of Square square Teaching Method(A) Area(B) Interaction (AB) Within the Group Total 194 197 2689.98 9049.02 13.87 6372.91 1 50.15 50.15 3.62 1 5579.60 5579.60 402.40 F0.05 = 3.89 F0.01 = 6.76 Significant at 0.01 Significant at 0.01 Not Significant F-Value value level Table Significant
729.29
729.29
52.60
(A) Teaching Method From Table 4.8 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 402.40, 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 teaching method was rejected.
94
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 no 3. (B) Area From Table 4.8 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 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. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant 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. From Table C for df = 194
t0.05 = 1.97 t0.01 = 2.60
and
95
Table 4.9 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean Corrected Mean Area N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Rural
100 102.73 10.54
Urban 100 113.28 16.07
From table 4.9 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 102.73 and 113.28 for 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 80 Mean 60 40 20 0 Experimental Group Control group Mean of IQ Mx Mean of Pre test My Mean of Post test Mz Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the urban is higher than the rural area.
(A B) Interaction From Table 4.8 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 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. 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 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 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching Method Rural Urban
From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method and area. 4.3.3 2 2 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for teaching method gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a CoVariable For the present research to check the objective no. 6 and hypothesis no. 6, 2 2 2 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.10
98
Table 4.10 2 2 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method, gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable corrected Mean Source df sum of Square square Teaching Method(A) Gender(B) 1 5309.31 5309.31 383.93 Significant at 0.01 Not Significant Significant at 0.01 F-Value value level Table Significant
23.95
23.95
1.732
Area(C) Teaching Method Gender (AB) Teaching Method Area(AC) Gender Area (BC) Interaction (ABC) Within the Group Total
622.12
622.12
44.99
0.02
0.02
0.001 F0.05 = 3.89 F0.01 = 6.76
Not Significant
44.06
44.06
3.17
Not Significant
30.52
30.52
2.21
Not Significant Not Significant
6.57
6.57
0.475
190 198
2627.48 8664.03
13.83 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, 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 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 no. 3. (B) Gender 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 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. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant 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 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 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. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant 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. (AB) Teaching Method Gender 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 was 0.001, 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 interaction among teaching method and gender was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as covariant 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 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching Method boy girl
(AC) Teaching Method Area 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 was 3.17, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence
101
the null hypothesis 6 There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method 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 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 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching Method Rural Urban
(BC) Gender Area 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 was 2.21, 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 interaction among 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 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 15 10 5 0 Gender r u
(ABC) Interaction 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 was 0.475, 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 interaction among teaching method, gender and area was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as covariant 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 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching method B g
4.4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE Comparison of boys of the rural area and boys of the urban area of the experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part. 4.4.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 7 and hypothesis no. 7 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.11 and 4.12
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 Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 52 53 Square 547.77 1137.51 1685.28 Square 547.77 21.88 569.65 25.04 F0.01 = 7.17 F0.05 = 4.03 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Significant at 0.01 Significant
To compare boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group, achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.11 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 52 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 547.77 and 1137.51 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 547.77 and 21.88 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 25.04 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 52. Hence, the null hypothesis 7, There 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 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 52
t0.05 = 2.01 and t0.01 = 2.68

Standard Error obtained is SED = 1.536 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 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.2 below. 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 Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Rural
Obtained difference Significant mean of significant between Post test corrected Mxyz mean 24.83 7.69 32.52 D0.01 = 4.11 D0.05 = 3.08 significant at 0.01 difference level value
32
98.69
8.72
Urban
24 108.96 12.71
From table 4.12 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 98.69 and 108.96 for 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 experimental group of the rural and urban area
120 100 80 Mean 60 40 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. For the present research to check the objective no. 8 and hypothesis no. 8 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.13 and 4.14
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 Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 40 41 Square 109.72 292.41 402.13 Square 109.72 7.31 569.65 15.01 F0.01 = 7.31 F0.05 = 4.08 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Significant at 0.01 Significant
To compare girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.13 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 40 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 109.72 and 292.41 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of 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 significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 40. Hence, the null hypothesis 8, There 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 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 40
t0.05 = 2.02 and t0.01 = 2.71

Standard Error obtained is SED = 1.225 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 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.2 below. Table 4.14 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of girls of the experimental group of the rural and urban area Mean Mean Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Rural
18 101.22
8.89
Urban
26 111.81 16.88
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 experimental group of the rural and urban area
120 100 80 Mean 60 40 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. For the present research to check the objective no. 9 and hypothesis no. 9 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.15
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 Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 46 47 Square 0.461 450.25 450.71 Square 0.461 9.79 10.52 0.047 F0.01 = 7.17 F0.05 = 4.03 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Not Significant Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of rural area achievement of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental group. From the table 4.15 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 0.461 and 450.25 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 0.461 and 9.79 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.047 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the null hypothesis 9, There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the urban area and boys of the urban area of the experimental group. 4.4.4 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 10 and hypothesis no. 10 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.16
111
Table 4.16 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the rural and rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 46 47 Square 44.37 991.47 1035.84 Square 44.37 21.55 65.92 2.059 F0.01 = 7.17 F0.05 = 4.03 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Not Significant Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of urban area achievement of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental group. From the table 4.16 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 44.37 and 991.47 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 44.37 and 21.55 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 2.059 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the null hypothesis 10, There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of rural 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 rural area and boys of the rural area of the experimental group. 4.4.5 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 11 and hypothesis no. 11 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.17
112
Table 4.17 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 96 97 Square 15.42 2129.08 2144.50 Square 15.42 22.18 37.60 0.695 F0.01 = 6.90 F0.05 = 3.94 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Not Significant Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group achievement of the girls of the experimental groups was compared with the boys of the experimental groups. From the table 4.17 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 15.42 and 2129.08 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 15.42 and 22.18 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.695 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 11, There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental groups by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the experimental groups and boys of the experimental groups. 4.4.6 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of the experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 12 and hypothesis no. 12 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.18
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 Sources of df Variance Among Within Total 1 96 97 Square 657.82 1486.68 2144.50 Square 657.82 15.49 673.31 42.48 F0.01 = 6.90 F0.05 = 3.94 Sum of Mean F-Value Table value level Significant
Significant
To compare experimental groups of rural and urban area achievement of the experimental group of rural area was compared with the experimental group of the urban area. From the table 4.18 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 657.82 and 1486.68 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 657.82 and 15.49 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 42.48 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 12, There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the experimental groups of rural and urban 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 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 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 = 1.023
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 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.19 below. Table 4.19 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of the experimental group of the rural and urban area Mean Mean Corrected Mean Groups N of IQ Mx of Pre test My
Rural
50
99.60
8.78
Urban
50 110.44 14.88
From table 4.19 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 99.60 and 110.44 for 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 80 Mean 60 40 20 0 Rural Urban
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the 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. The data related to the opinionnaire is analyzed with 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 Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree : +2 : +1 : 0
2
test which is given in table 4.20
: -1 : -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 Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statements
Analysis of the opinion of the students of the rural area Nature of statement Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Total Rank Score 88 84 86 76 40 38 22 45 57 68 3 5 4 7 16 17 20 15 14 12 Chi Squre Value 108.80* 97.40* 101.40* 71* 81.40* 19* 108* 21.60* 33.40* 53.80*
SA
SD
The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable. The content presentation was interesting. Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. The figures were properly explained. The language used in the CAI package was easy. The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate. Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic. Some information seems to be more confusing. I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI. I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.
38 12 00 00 00 (76%) (24%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 37 10 01 00 00 (78%) (20%) (02%) (00%) (00%) 37 12 01 00 00 (74%) (24%) (02%) (00%) (00%) 32 13 04 01 00 (64%) (26%) (08%) (02%) (00%) 02 07 00 06 35 (12%) (70%) (04%) (14%) (00%) 04 06 05 18 17 (08%) (12%) (10%) (36%) (34%) 07 03 01 (14%) (06%) (02%) 39 79%) 00 (00%)
11 17 17 01 04 (02%) (08%) (22%) (34%) (34%) 21 17 10 02 00 (42%) (34%) (20%) (04%) (00%) 23 22 05 00 00 (46%) (44%) (10%) (00%) (00%)
118
Sr. No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statements Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly. The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics. This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also. Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package. Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience. Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content. It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package. Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject. Content was presented at proper pace. The explanation given for every topic is proper. * Significant at 0.01 level
Nature of statement Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive
SA
SD
Total Rank Score 36 98 73 69 76 82 30 94 73 63 18 1 9 11 7 6 19 2 9 13
Chi Squre Value 19.20* 180.80* 62.20* 52.20* 70.40* 84.80* 16.80* 154.20* 65* 57.40*
01 11 05 17 16 (02%) (22%) (10%) (34%) (32%) 48 02 00 00 00 (96%) (04%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 30 14 05 01 00 (60%) (28%) (10%) (02%) (00%) 27 16 06 01 00 (54%) (32%) (12%) (02%) (00%) 06 00 00 32 12 (64%) (24%) (12%) (00%) (00%) 32 18 00 00 00 (64%) (36%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 03 13 03 16 15 (06%) (26%) (06%) (32%) (30%) 45 04 01 00 00 (90%) (08%) (02%) (00%) (00%) 01 02 00 28 19 (56%) (38%) (02%) (04%) (00%) 02 00 02 21 25 (42%) (50%) (04%) (00%) (04%)
119
Graph 4.14 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of rural area
120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement SA A U D SD
Percentage
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 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. 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 significance respectively. From this it 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. 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 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 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 undecided, 34 % students disagree while 32 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 19.20 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 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 180.80 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 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 remain undecided 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 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 package. 6 % students strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 6 % students remain undecided, 32 % students disagree while 30 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 19th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.80 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 found that the 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 square value of the statement is 57.40 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 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 Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statements
Analysis of the opinion of the students of the urban area Nature of statement Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Total Rank Score 91 76 92 78 51 45 28 33 60 55 2 7 1 6 15 16 20 18 12 14 Chi Squre Value 126.20* 70.40* 132.80* 74.20* 38.80* 21.60* 113.60* 38.20* 37.40* 85.0*
SA
SD
The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable. The content presentation was interesting. Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. The figures were properly explained. The language used in the CAI package was easy. The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate. Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic. Some information seems to be more confusing. I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI. I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.
41 09 00 00 00 (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 29 19 01 01 00 (58%) (38%) (02%) (02%) (00%) 42 08 00 00 00 (84%) (16%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 29 20 01 00 00 (58%) (40%) (02%) (00%) (00%) 23 18 01 03 05 (46%) (36%) (02%) (06%) (10%) 03 04 09 13 21 (06%) (08%) (18%) (26%) (42%) 02 40 00 04 04 (08%) (08%) (04%) (80%) (00%) 02 03 12 26 07 (04%) (06%) (24%) (52%) (14%) 24 15 08 03 00 (48%) (30%) (16%) (06%) (00%) 05 00 00 10 35 (20%) (70%) (10%) (00%) (00%)
126
Sr. No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statements Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly. The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics. This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also. Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package. Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience. Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content. It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package. Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject. Content was presented at proper pace. The explanation given for every topic is proper. * Significant at 0.01 level
Nature of statement Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive
SA
SD
Total Rank Score 33 91 57 69 65 79 37 90 61 74 18 2 13 9 10 5 17 4 11 8
Chi Squre Value 16.40* 126.20* 48.60* 58.60* 53.40* 103.40* 16.20* 137.40* 48.60* 67.0*
03 09 05 18 15 (06%) (18%) (10%) (36%) (30%) 41 09 00 00 00 (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%) 28 13 02 02 05 (56%) (26%) (04%) (04%) (10%) 28 17 03 00 02 (56%) (34%) (06%) (00%) (04%) 28 15 04 00 03 (56%) (30%) (08%) (00%) (06%) 38 09 00 00 03 (76%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (06%) 07 17 16 02 08 (04%) (16%) (14%) (34%) (32%) 03 00 00 43 04 (86%) (08%) (04%) (00%) (02%) 26 17 01 04 02 (52%) (34%) (02%) (08%) (04%) 29 18 02 00 01 (58%) (36%) (04%) (00%) (02%)
127
Graph 4.15 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of urban area
100% 90% 80% 70%

Percentage
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Statement
SA A U D SD
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 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. 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 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 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 statement. This statement gets 6th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 74.20 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 the figures were explained properly. For the statement no.5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. 46 % students strongly agreed, 36 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided, 6 % students disagree while 10 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 15th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 38.80 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 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 undecided, 26 % students disagree while 42 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 16th 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 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 square value of the statement is 113.60 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 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 strongly agreed, 6 % students agree, 24 % students remain undecided, 52 % students disagree while 14 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 38.20 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 the information were clearly presented and not confusing. For the statement no.9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI. 48 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree while 16 % students remain undecided while 06 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 12th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 37.40 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. 20 % students strongly agreed, 70 % students agree while 10 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 14th rank. The Chi square value 130
of the statement is 85.0 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.6 % students strongly agreed, 18 % students agree, 10 % students remain undecided, 36 % students disagree while 30 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.40 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 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. 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 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 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 statement. This statement gets 13th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 48.60 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 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. 56 % students strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 6 % students remain undecided while 02 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 58.60 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 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 statement gets 10th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 53.40 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 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 package. 4 % students strongly agreed, 16 % students agree, 14 % students remain undecided, 34 % students disagree while 32 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 17th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.20 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 the learning through CAI package was not tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI. For the statement no.18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject. 86 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 2 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 4th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 137.40 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 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
11th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 48.60 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 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 square value of the statement is 67.0 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 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
Sr. No
Statements
Gender Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
SA 45 34 79 38 28 66 47 32 79 35 26 61 16 13 29 5 2 7 11 10 21 14 15 29 9 11 20 18 15 33 32 21 53 3 7 10 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 3 5 0 3 3 6 8 14
D 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 5 10 18 13 31
SD 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 24 14 38
Chi Squre Value 0.062*
The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable. The content presentation was interesting.
2.281*
Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.
1.164*
The figures were properly explained.
0.607*
The language used in the CAI package was easy.
1.943*
The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.
2.307*
134
Sr. No
Statements
Gender Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
SA 5 6 11 3 0 3 23 22 15 21 12 33 3 1 4 49 40 89 37 21 58 3 4 8 3 4 7 18 14 32 30 27 57 11 9 20 7 4 11 13 14 27 2 1 3 13 10 23 12 6 18 5 5 10 3 7 10 0 0 0 4 3 7
D 46 33 79 22 21 43 3 2 5 0 0 0 22 13 35 0 0 0 0 3 3
SD 0 0 0 15 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 14 31 0 0 0 2 3 5
Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.
Some information seem to be more confusing.
1.614*
I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI. I would like to learn through such Self Learning package. Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly. The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics. This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.
0572*
10
0.523*
11
1.769*
12
0.128*
13
2.836*
135
Sr. No
Statements
Gender Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
SA 34 21 55 33 27 60 41 29 70 3 2 5 48 40 88 34 20 54 26 24 50 17 16 33 16 11 27 13 14 27 13 8 21 6 2 8 16 20 36 26 17 43 4 5 9 6 4 10 0 0 0 4 6 10 2 2 4 2 0 2 1 3 4
D 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 33 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 0 0
SD 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 16 15 31 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 3
14
Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package. Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience. Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content. It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package. Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.
15
0.365*
16
0.440*
17
0.833*
18
0.574*
19
Content was presented at proper pace.
2.068*
20
The explanation given for every topic is proper. * Significant at 0.01 level
2.019*
136
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63

of post test Mz 24.54 16.92

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63

of Post test Mz 35.26 24.90

t0.05 = 1.97 t0.01 = 2.60

of Post test Mz 29.90 20.91

100 110.99 14.78

35 30 25 Mean 20 15 10 5 0 Teaching Method

t0.05 = 1.97 t0.01 = 2.60

of Post test Mz 20.73 30.08

100 102.73 10.54

Urban 100 113.28 16.07

Graph 4.6 Interaction among teaching method and area

0.001 F0.05 = 3.89 F0.01 = 6.76

Not Significant Not Significant

Graph 4.10 Interaction among teaching method, gender and area

t0.05 = 2.01 and t0.01 = 2.68

of Post test Mz 23.69 34.04

t0.05 = 2.02 and t0.01 = 2.71

of Post test Mz 26.06 36.38

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63

of Post test Mz 24.54 35.26

test which is given in table 4.20

Table 4.20 Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statements

Total Rank Score 36 98 73 69 76 82 30 94 73 63 18 1 9 11 7 6 19 2 9 13

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement SA A U D SD

Table 4.21 Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statements

Total Rank Score 33 91 57 69 65 79 37 90 61 74 18 2 13 9 10 5 17 4 11 8

100% 90% 80% 70%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Chi Squre Value 0.062*

Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.

The figures were properly explained.

The language used in the CAI package was easy.

Chi Squre Value 0.565*

Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.

Some information seem to be more confusing.

Chi Squre Value 1.238*

Content was presented at proper pace.

The table value of

From the above table it can be concluded that

value for every statement is not

You might also like