CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.pdf · 82 CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND...
Transcript of CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 4.pdf · 82 CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND...
81
CHAPTER – 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.1.0 Introduction
4.2.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data through
Analysis of Co variance
4.3.0 Factorial analysis and interpretation of the obtained data
through Analysis of Covariance
4.4.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data of Experimental
group through Analysis of Co variance
4.5.0 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of
experimental group obtained through Opinionnaire
4.6.0 Conclusion
82
CHAPTER – 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter three, researcher had discussed the research design and methodology,
origin of the research, design of the research, variable of the research, population and
sample of the research, tools for data collection, development stage of the CAI package,
procedure for data collection, statistical analysis done in research work.
Data analysis is consider to be important step and heart of the research in research
work. After collection of data with the help of relevant tools and techniques, the next
logical step, is to analyze and interpret data with a view to arriving at empirical solution
to the problem. The data analysis for the present research was done quantitatively with
the help of both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistical
techniques like mean, standard deviation and for the inferential statistics Analysis of Co
Variance were used during data analysis. For the analysis of opinionnaire Chi square test
was used.
4.2.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA
THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE
Comparison of control group that was taught through conventional method and
experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable
with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part.
4.2.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and
experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for rural
area
For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 1
Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.1 and 4.2
83
Table 4.1
Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group
by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable
Sources of
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 2229.07 2229.07
Within 96 1766.31 18.40
Total 97 3995.38 2247.47
121.15 F0.01 = 6.90
F0.05 = 3.94
Significant
at 0.01
To compare control group and experimental group of the rural area achievement
of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.1 it can
be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96
respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 2229.07 and
1766.31 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of
post test was found to be 2229.07 and 18.40 for among and within groups respectively.
The F-value was found to be 121.15 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of
significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 1, “There
will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control
group and experimental group of rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as
a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected.
Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test
means of control and experimental group. Further to know the mean of which group is
higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are
given in table 4.2
Significant difference for corrected mean
From Table C for df = 96
t0.05 = 1.98 and
t0.01 = 2.63
Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.981
Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.981
84
= 1.98 × 0.981
= 1.942
and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.981
= 2.63 × 0.981
= 2.580
Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is
shown in table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2
Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental
and control group
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Experimental 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.13
Control 50 105.86 12.30 16.92 15.33 10.80
D0.01 = 2.58
D0.05 = 1.94
significant
at 0.01
From table 4.2 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 99.60 and 105.86 for
the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.78
and 12.30 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz)
scores are 24.54 and 16.92 for experimental group and control group respectively. The
corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found
to be 26.13 and 15.33 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental
group is significantly higher than corrected mean of control group. The obtained
difference between corrected mean scores for experimental and control groups was found
to be 10.80, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that
the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the post test which may be
due to the effect of CAI. As the Hypothesis-1 was rejected, it can be concluded that the
mean achievement of experimental group that were taught through CAI is significantly
85
higher than that of the control group. The means of experimental group and control group
are also shown in the graph 4.1 for better comprehension.
Graph 4.1
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group
and control group of rural area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Experimental Control
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test
Mz
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the
experimental group is higher than the control group.
4.2.2 Analysis of Co-Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and
experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for urban
area
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
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 3318.48 3318.48
Within 96 897.52 9.35
Total 97 4215.00 3327.83
354.95 F0.01 = 6.90
F0.05 = 3.94
Significant
at 0.01
86
To compare control group and experimental group of the urban area achievement
of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.3 it can
be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96
respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 3318.48 and
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.
87
Table 4.4
Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental
and control group
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Experimental 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 36.18
Control 50 116.12 17.26 24.90 23.98 12.20
D0.01 = 1.70
D0.05 = 1.28
significant
at 0.01
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.
88
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Experimental Group Control Group
Mea
n
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test Mz
Corrected mean of Posttest Mxyz
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 df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 6971.46 6971.46
395.45 F0.01 = 6.76
F0.05 = 3.89
Significant
at 0.01 Within 196 3455.29 17.63
Total 197 10426.75 6989.09
89
To compare control group and experimental group of the rural and urban area
achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the
table 4.5 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1
and 196 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 6971.46
and 3455.29 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of
squares of post test was found to be 6971.46 and 17.63 for among and within groups
respectively. The F-value was found to be 395.45 which was found to be significant at
0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 196. Hence, the null
hypothesis 3, “There will be no significant difference between corrected means of
achievement of control groups and experimental groups of rural and urban area by
considering pre test score and IQ as a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for
standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant
difference between the corrected post test means of control and experimental groups.
Further to know the mean of which group is higher and which mean is lower, the details
of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.6
Significant difference for corrected mean
From Table C for df = 196
t0.05 = 1.97 and
t0.01 = 2.60
Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.625
Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.625
= 1.97 × 0.625
= 1.231
and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.625
= 2.60 × 0.625
= 1.625
Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is
shown in table 4.6 below.
90
Table 4.6
Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental
and control group
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Experimental 100 105.02 11.83 29.90 31.62
Control 100 110.99 14.78 20.91 19.19 12.43
D0.01 = 1.62
D0.05 = 1.23
significant
at 0.01
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.
91
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Experimental group control group
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test Mz
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental
groups is higher than the control groups.
4.3.0 FACTORIAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED
DATA THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE
By considering pre test and IQ as a Co-variable, factorial analysis through
Analysis of Co-Variance of the obtained data is as shown below.
4.3.1 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for
teaching method, gender by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable
For the present research to check the objective no. 4 and hypothesis no. 4, 2 × 2
Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.7
92
Table 4.7
2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and gender by
considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable
Source df
corrected
sum of
square
Mean
Square F-Value
Table
value
Significant
level
Teaching
Method(A) 1 6728.65 6728.65 379.83
Significant
at 0.01
Gender(B) 1 18.30 18.30 1.033 Not
Significant
Interaction
(A××××B) 1 0.305 0.305 0.017
F0.05 = 3.89
F0.01 = 6.76
Not
Significant
Within the
Group 194 3436.70 17.72
Total 197 10183.96 6764.98
(A) Teaching Method
From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are
F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 379.83,
which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom
1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of teaching
method” was rejected.
From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant
there was a significant influence of teaching method on achievement of post test score of
experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of significance of
teaching method is shown in hypothesis 3.
(B) Gender
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
93
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Teaching Method
Me
an
Boy
Girl
94
From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method
and gender.
4.3.2 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for
teaching method and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable
For the present research to check the objective no. 5 and hypothesis no. 5, 2 × 2
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
Source df
corrected
sum of
square
Mean
Square F-Value
Table
value
Significant
level
Teaching
Method(A) 1 5579.60 5579.60 402.40
Significant
at 0.01
Area(B) 1 729.29 729.29 52.60 Significant
at 0.01
Interaction
(A××××B) 1 50.15 50.15 3.62
F0.05 = 3.89
F0.01 = 6.76
Not
Significant
Within the
Group 194 2689.98 13.87
Total 197 9049.02 6372.91
(A) Teaching Method
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.
95
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 and
t0.01 = 2.60
Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.665
Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.665
= 1.97 × 0.665
= 1.310
and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.665
= 2.60 × 0.665
= 1.729
Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is
shown in table 4.6 below.
96
Table 4.9
Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental
and control group
Area N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Rural 100 102.73 10.54 20.73 21.45
Urban 100 113.28 16.07 30.08 29.36 7.91
D0.01 = 1.73
D0.05 = 1.31
significant
at 0.01
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.
97
Graph 4.5
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of urban and rural area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Experimental Group Control group
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
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.
98
Graph 4.6
Interaction among teaching method and area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Teaching Method
Me
an Rural
Urban
From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method
and area.
4.3.3 2 ×××× 2 ×××× 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for
teaching method gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-
Variable
For the present research to check the objective no. 6 and hypothesis no. 6, 2 × 2 × 2
Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.10
99
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
Source df
corrected
sum of
square
Mean
Square F-Value
Table
value
Significant
level
Teaching
Method(A) 1 5309.31 5309.31 383.93
Significant
at 0.01
Gender(B) 1 23.95 23.95 1.732 Not
Significant
Area(C) 1 622.12 622.12 44.99 Significant
at 0.01
Teaching
Method ××××
Gender
(A××××B)
1 0.02 0.02 0.001 Not
Significant
Teaching
Method××××
Area(A××××C)
1 44.06 44.06 3.17 Not
Significant
Gender ××××
Area
(B××××C)
1 30.52 30.52 2.21 Not
Significant
Interaction
(A××××B××××C) 1 6.57 6.57 0.475
F0.05 = 3.89
F0.01 = 6.76
Not
Significant
Within the
Group 190 2627.48 13.83
Total 198 8664.03 6050.38
100
(A) Teaching Method
From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190
are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 383.93,
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.
101
The detailed explanation of the significance of area is shown in hypothesis no – 3.
(A××××B) 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 co-
variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and
gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The
detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method and gender
is shown in the graph 4.7 for better comprehension.
Graph 4.7
Interaction among teaching method and Gender
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Teaching Method
Mean boy
girl
(A××××C) Teaching Method×××× Area
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
102
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Teaching Method
Mean Rural
Urban
(B××××C) 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
103
the significance of interaction among gender and area is shown in the graph 4.9 for better
comprehension.
Graph 4.9
Interaction among gender and area
(A××××B××××C) Interaction
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 co-
variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method, gender
and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The
detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method, gender
and area is shown in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Gender
Me
an r
u
104
Graph 4.10
Interaction among teaching method, gender and area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Teaching method
Mean
B
g
4.4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA OF
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE
Comparison of boys of the rural area and boys of the urban area of the
experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable
with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part.
4.4.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Boys of the
experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ
as a Co Variable.
For the present research to check the objective no. 7 and hypothesis no. 7
Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.11 and 4.12
105
Table 4.11
Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Boys of the experimental group of the
rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable
Sources of
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 547.77 547.77
Within 52 1137.51 21.88
Total 53 1685.28 569.65
25.04 F0.01 = 7.17
F0.05 = 4.03
Significant
at 0.01
To compare boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group,
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
106
= 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
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Rural 32 98.69 8.72 23.69 24.83
Urban 24 108.96 12.71 34.04 32.52 7.69
D0.01 = 4.11
D0.05 = 3.08
significant
at 0.01
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
107
mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher
than that of the boys of experimental groups of rural area. The means of boys of
experimental groups of urban area and boys of experimental groups of rural area are also
shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension.
Graph 4.11
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of boys of the
experimental group of the rural and urban area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rural Urban
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test
Mz
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
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
108
Table 4.13
Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls of the experimental group of the
rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable
Sources of
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 109.72 109.72
Within 40 292.41 7.31
Total 41 402.13 569.65
15.01 F0.01 = 7.31
F0.05 = 4.08
Significant
at 0.01
To compare girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group
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
109
= 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
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Rural 18 101.22 8.89 26.06 29.36
Urban 26 111.81 16.88 36.38 34.10 4.74
D0.01 = 3.32
D0.05 = 2.47
significant
at 0.01
From table 4.12 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 101.22 and 111.81
for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre
test (My) score are 8.89 and 16.88 for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban
area respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 26.06 and 36.38 for the girls of
experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean
scores (Mxyz) of the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively
were found to be 29.36 and 34.10 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of girls of
experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of girls of
experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean
scores for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 4.74,
which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the girls of
experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the boys of experimental groups of
rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-8 was rejected, it can be concluded that the
110
mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher
than that of the girls of experimental groups of rural area. The means of girls of
experimental groups of urban area and girls of experimental groups of rural area are also
shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension.
Graph 4.12
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of girls of the
experimental group of the rural and urban area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rural Urban
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test
Mz
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
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
111
Table 4.15
Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental
group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable
Sources of
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 0.461 0.461
Within 46 450.25 9.79
Total 47 450.71 10.52
0.047 F0.01 = 7.17
F0.05 = 4.03
Not
Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of rural area achievement of
the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental
group. From the table 4.15 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and
within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was
found to be 0.461 and 450.25 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected
mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 0.461 and 9.79 for among and within
groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.047 which was found to be not
significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the
null hypothesis 9, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected
means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of urban area by
considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII
science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference
between the corrected post test means of girls of the urban area and boys of the urban
area of the experimental group.
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
112
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
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 44.37 44.37
Within 46 991.47 21.55
Total 47 1035.84 65.92
2.059 F0.01 = 7.17
F0.05 = 4.03
Not
Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of urban area achievement
of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental
group. From the table 4.16 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and
within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was
found to be 44.37 and 991.47 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected
mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 44.37 and 21.55 for among and within
groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 2.059 which was found to be not
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
113
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
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 15.42 15.42
Within 96 2129.08 22.18
Total 97 2144.50 37.60
0.695 F0.01 = 6.90
F0.05 = 3.94
Not
Significant
To compare girls and boys of the experimental group achievement of the girls of
the experimental groups was compared with the boys of the experimental groups. From
the table 4.17 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were
1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 15.42
and 2129.08 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of
squares of post test was found to be 15.42 and 22.18 for among and within groups
respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.695 which was found to be not significant at
0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis
11, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of
achievement of the girls and boys of experimental groups by considering pre test
score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is
accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the
corrected post test means of girls of the experimental groups and boys of the
experimental groups.
4.4.6 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of the
experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as
a Co Variable.
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
114
Table 4.18
Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of the experimental groups of rural and
urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable
Sources of
Variance df
Sum of
Square
Mean
Square F-Value Table value
Significant
level
Among 1 657.82 657.82
Within 96 1486.68 15.49
Total 97 2144.50 673.31
42.48 F0.01 = 6.90
F0.05 = 3.94 Significant
To compare experimental groups of rural and urban area achievement of the
experimental group of rural area was compared with the experimental group of the urban
area. From the table 4.18 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within
groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found
to be 657.82 and 1486.68 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean
sum of squares of post test was found to be 657.82 and 15.49 for among and within
groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 42.48 which was found to be
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
115
Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.023
= 1.98 × 1.023
= 2.025
and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.023
= 2.63 × 1.023
= 2.690
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
Groups N
Mean
of IQ
Mx
Mean
of
Pre
test
My
Mean
of
Post
test
Mz
Corrected
mean of
Post test
Mxyz
Obtained
difference
between
corrected
mean
Significant
difference
value
significant
level
Rural 50 99.60 8.78 24.54 26.57
Urban 50 110.44 14.88 35.26 33.23 6.66
D0.01 = 2.69
D0.05 = 2.03
significant
at 0.01
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
116
experimental groups of rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-12 was rejected, it
can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental groups of urban area is
significantly higher than that of the experimental groups of rural area. The means of
experimental groups of urban area and experimental groups of rural area are also shown
in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension.
Graph 4.13
Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of the experimental
group of the rural and urban area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rural Urban
Mean
Mean of IQ Mx
Mean of Pre test My
Mean of Post test
Mz
Corrected mean of
Post test Mxyz
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
117
like content presentation, questioning, individualization and self pacing of CAI software.
Out of these 20 statements five statements were negative and 15 statements were positive.
The data related to the opinionnaire is analyzed with �2 test which is given in table 4.20
which are followed by discussion.
The five point Likert type scale opinionnaire ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree was constructed. To find merit number the five point scale were given
the weightage as below.
Strongly agree : +2
Agree : +1
Undecided : 0
Disagree : -1
Strongly Disagree : -2
4.5.1 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of the experimental
group of rural area obtained through opinionnaire
The interpretation of the opinions of the students of the experimental group of
rural area was carried out and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.20
118
Table 4.20 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the rural area
Sr.
No
Statements
Nature of
statement S A � � D SD
Total
Score Rank
Chi
Squre
Value
1 The CAI package presented through the computer
was knowledgeable. Positive
38
(76%)
12
(24%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 88 3 108.80*
2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 37
(78%)
10
(20%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 84 5 97.40*
3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 37
(74%)
12
(24%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 86 4 101.40*
4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 32
(64%)
13
(26%)
04
(08%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%) 76 7 71*
5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 06
(12%)
35
(70%)
02
(04%)
07
(14%)
00
(00%) 40 16 81.40*
6 The picture and text presented for each slide was
not appropriate. Negative
04
(08%)
06
(12%)
05
(10%)
18
(36%)
17
(34%) 38 17 19*
7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity
of the topic. Negative
07
(14%)
03
(06%)
01
(02%)
39
79%)
00
(00%) 22 20 108*
8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 01
(02%)
04
(08%)
11
(22%)
17
(34%)
17
(34%) 45 15 21.60*
9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics
also with this kind of CAI. Positive
21
(42%)
17
(34%)
10
(20%)
02
(04%)
00
(00%) 57 14 33.40*
10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning
package. Positive
23
(46%)
22
(44%)
05
(10%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 68 12 53.80*
119
Sr.
No
Statements
Nature of
statement S A � � D SD
Total
Score Rank
Chi
Squre
Value
11 Content presented in CAI package was not
arranged properly. Negative
01
(02%)
11
(22%)
05
(10%)
17
(34%)
16
(32%) 36 18 19.20*
12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to
develop our interest in learning physics. Positive
48
(96%)
02
(04%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 98 1 180.80*
13 This type of learning program should be used in
other subjects also. Positive
30
(60%)
14
(28%)
05
(10%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%) 73 9 62.20*
14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through
CAI package. Positive
27
(54%)
16
(32%)
06
(12%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%) 69 11 52.20*
15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating
experience. Positive
32
(64%)
12
(24%)
06
(12%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 76 7 70.40*
16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the
burden of content. Positive
32
(64%)
18
(36%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 82 6 84.80*
17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI
package. Negative
03
(06%)
13
(26%)
03
(06%)
16
(32%)
15
(30%) 30 19 16.80*
18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to
know more about the subject. Positive
45
(90%)
04
(08%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 94 2 154.20*
19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 28
(56%)
19
(38%)
01
(02%)
02
(04%)
00
(00%) 73 9 65*
20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 21
(42%)
25
(50%)
02
(04%)
00
(00%)
02
(04%) 63 13 57.40*
* Significant at 0.01 level
120
Graph 4.14 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of rural area
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statement
Perc
en
tag
e S A
A
U
D
SD
121
For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was
knowledgeable’ 76 % students strongly agree and 24 % students agree with this
statement. This statement gets 3rd
rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 108.80
which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of
significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found CAI
package presented through compute was knowledgeable.
For the statement no.2 ‘The content presentation was interesting.’ 78 % students
strongly agreed, 20 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this
statement. This statement gets 5th
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.
122
For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not
appropriate.’ 8 % students strongly agreed, 12 % students agree, 10 % students remain
undecided, 36 % students disagree while 34 % student strongly disagree with this
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
123
of the statement is 53.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05
and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students
like to learn through self learning package.
For the statement no.11 ‘Content presented in CAI package was not arranged
properly.’ 2 % students strongly agreed, 22 % students agree, 10 % students remain
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.
124
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.
125
For the statement no.20 ‘The explanation given for every topic is proper.’ 42 %
students strongly agreed, 50 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 4 %
student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 13th
rank. The Chi
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
126
Table 4.21 Analysis of the opinion of the students of the urban area
Sr.
No
Statements
Nature of
statement S A � � D SD
Total
Score Rank
Chi
Squre
Value
1 The CAI package presented through the computer
was knowledgeable. Positive
41
(82%)
09
(18%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 91 2 126.20*
2 The content presentation was interesting. Positive 29
(58%)
19
(38%)
01
(02%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%) 76 7 70.40*
3 Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic. Positive 42
(84%)
08
(16%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 92 1 132.80*
4 The figures were properly explained. Positive 29
(58%)
20
(40%)
01
(02%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 78 6 74.20*
5 The language used in the CAI package was easy. Positive 23
(46%)
18
(36%)
01
(02%)
03
(06%)
05
(10%) 51 15 38.80*
6 The picture and text presented for each slide was
not appropriate. Negative
03
(06%)
04
(08%)
09
(18%)
13
(26%)
21
(42%) 45 16 21.60*
7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity
of the topic. Negative
04
(08%)
04
(08%)
02
(04%)
40
(80%)
00
(00%) 28 20 113.60*
8 Some information seems to be more confusing. Negative 02
(04%)
03
(06%)
12
(24%)
26
(52%)
07
(14%) 33 18 38.20*
9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics
also with this kind of CAI. Positive
24
(48%)
15
(30%)
08
(16%)
03
(06%)
00
(00%) 60 12 37.40*
10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning
package. Positive
10
(20%)
35
(70%)
05
(10%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 55 14 85.0*
127
Sr.
No
Statements
Nature of
statement S A � � D SD
Total
Score Rank
Chi
Squre
Value
11 Content presented in CAI package was not
arranged properly. Negative
03
(06%)
09
(18%)
05
(10%)
18
(36%)
15
(30%) 33 18 16.40*
12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to
develop our interest in learning physics. Positive
41
(82%)
09
(18%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%) 91 2 126.20*
13 This type of learning program should be used in
other subjects also. Positive
28
(56%)
13
(26%)
02
(04%)
02
(04%)
05
(10%) 57 13 48.60*
14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through
CAI package. Positive
28
(56%)
17
(34%)
03
(06%)
00
(00%)
02
(04%) 69 9 58.60*
15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating
experience. Positive
28
(56%)
15
(30%)
04
(08%)
00
(00%)
03
(06%) 65 10 53.40*
16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the
burden of content. Positive
38
(76%)
09
(18%)
00
(00%)
00
(00%)
03
(06%) 79 5 103.40*
17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI
package. Negative
02
(04%)
08
(16%)
07
(14%)
17
(34%)
16
(32%) 37 17 16.20*
18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to
know more about the subject. Positive
43
(86%)
04
(08%)
03
(04%)
00
(00%)
00
(02%) 90 4 137.40*
19 Content was presented at proper pace. Positive 26
(52%)
17
(34%)
01
(02%)
04
(08%)
02
(04%) 61 11 48.60*
20 The explanation given for every topic is proper. Positive 29
(58%)
18
(36%)
02
(04%)
00
(00%)
01
(02%) 74 8 67.0*
* Significant at 0.01 level
128
Graph 4.15 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of urban area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Statement
Pe
rce
nta
ge
S A
A
U
D
SD
129
For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was
knowledgeable’ 82 % students strongly agree and 18 % students agree with this
statement. This statement gets 2nd
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.
130
For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not
appropriate.’ 6 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 18 % students remain
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
131
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.
132
For the statement no.15 ‘Learning through Computer is really a captivating
experience.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree, 8 % students remain
undecided while 6 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This
statement gets 10th
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
133
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
134
Table 4.22 Analysis of the opinion of the boys and girls of the experimental groups
Sr.
No
Statements
Gender S A � � D SD
Chi
Squre
Value
Boys 45 11 0 0 0
Girls 34 10 0 0 0 1 The CAI package presented through the computer
was knowledgeable. Total 79 21 0 0 0
0.062*
Boys 38 14 2 0 2
Girls 28 15 0 1 2 2
The content presentation was interesting.
Total 66 29 2 1 2
2.281*
Boys 47 9 0 0 0
Girls 32 11 1 0 0 3
Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.
Total 79 20 1 0 0
1.164*
Boys 35 18 2 1 0
Girls 26 15 3 0 0 4 The figures were properly explained.
Total 61 33 5 1 0
0.607*
Boys 16 32 0 5 3
Girls 13 21 3 5 2 5
The language used in the CAI package was easy.
Total 29 53 3 10 5
1.943*
Boys 5 3 6 18 24
Girls 2 7 8 13 14 6
The picture and text presented for each slide was
not appropriate.
Total 7 10 14 31 38
2.307*
135
Sr.
No
Statements
Gender S A � � D SD
Chi
Squre
Value
Boys 5 3 2 46 0
Girls 6 4 1 33 0 7 Questions at the end of slides break the continuity
of the topic. Total 11 8 3 79 0
0.565*
Boys 3 3 13 22 15
Girls 0 4 10 21 9 8 Some information seem to be more confusing.
Total 3 7 23 43 24
1.614*
Boys 23 18 12 3 0
Girls 22 14 6 2 0 9 I would like to learn other topics of the physics
also with this kind of CAI. Total 15 32 18 5 0
0572*
Boys 21 30 5 0 0
Girls 12 27 5 0 0 10 I would like to learn through such Self Learning
package. Total 33 57 10 0 0
0.523*
Boys 3 11 3 22 17
Girls 1 9 7 13 14 11 Content presented in CAI package was not
arranged properly. Total 4 20 10 35 31
1.769*
Boys 49 7 0 0 0
Girls 40 4 0 0 0 12 The colored and animated pictures helped us to
develop our interest in learning physics. Total 89 11 0 0 0
0.128*
Boys 37 13 4 0 2
Girls 21 14 3 3 3 13 This type of learning program should be used in
other subjects also. Total 58 27 7 3 5
2.836*
136
Sr.
No
Statements
Gender S A � � D SD
Chi
Squre
Value
Boys 34 17 4 0 1
Girls 21 16 5 1 1 14 Each topic becomes easier while learning through
CAI package. Total 55 33 9 1 2
1.238*
Boys 33 16 6 0 1
Girls 27 11 4 0 2 15 Learning through Computer is really a captivating
experience. Total 60 27 10 0 3
0.365*
Boys 41 13 0 0 2
Girls 29 14 0 0 1 16 Presentation through Such technique reduce the
burden of content. Total 70 27 0 0 3
0.440*
Boys 3 13 4 20 16
Girls 2 8 6 13 15 17 It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI
package. Total 5 21 10 33 31
0.833*
Boys 48 6 2 0 0
Girls 40 2 2 0 0 18 Learning through CAI package is motivating to
know more about the subject. Total 88 8 4 0 0
0.574*
Boys 34 16 2 3 1
Girls 20 20 0 3 1 19 Content was presented at proper pace.
Total 54 36 2 6 2
2.068*
Boys 26 26 1 0 3
Girls 24 17 3 0 0 20 The explanation given for every topic is proper.
Total 50 43 4 0 3
2.019*
* Significant at 0.01 level
137
The table value of �2 test for df = 4 at 0.01 and 0.05 level are 9.488 and 13.277
From the above table it can be concluded that �2
value for every statement is not
significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis “There will
be no significant difference between opinion of Boys and Girls of experimental
group” is accepted. Hence, it can be said that the boys and girls of the experimental
group posses the same opinion regarding the learning through CAI package.
4.6.0 CONCLUSION
In the present chapter researcher analysed and interpreted the obtained data and
discussed the result. In the next chapter summary of the research work, major findings,
implication and suggestion were made for the future research.