DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/6854/10/10...Study...

88

Chapter-IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

After collecting data, the investigator analysed the data as it was difficult to

explain the raw data because raw data gathered on certain tests have no meaning

rather it is heap of certain facts or observation. Keeping in view the objectives of the

study and their corresponding hypotheses, the data was statistically processed using

appropriate design and technique. Hence, after the data has been collected this must

be processed an analysed to draw proper inference.

Statistics is a good tool in the hands of a research. It can help in attaining some

objectives only if one is clear about the theoretical basis of the variables and their

relationship so it is necessary to interpret the result obtained statistically. It is only

then one can give meaning and direction to research. According to Good, Barr and

Scates (1941), “The process of interpretation is essentially, one of stating what the

results show? What they mean? What is their significance? What is the answer of the

original problem? ” That is all the limitations of the data must enter into and become

the part of interpretation of the result.

Thus, the analysis of data means studying the tabulated material in order to

determine inherent factors or meanings. It involves breaking down the existing

complex factors into simpler parts and putting the parts together in new arrangement

for the purpose of interpretation.

As it is of much importance to get a sum correctly solved. It is also equally

important to interpret it correctly. Interpretation is the most important step in the total

research process. It calls for a critical examination of the results of one’s analysis in

89

the light of all limitations of data gathered. Thus analysis and interpretations of data

help researchers to attack the related problems with appropriate statistical techniques

to avoid the unnecessary labour. The data was analysed with the help of Mean, S.D.

Coefficient of Correlation and ‘t’ test as to find out the significance of difference

between the means of various groups taken at a time and also to find correlation

between variables.

SECTION A

4.1 THIS SECTION DEALS WITH RELATIONSHIP OF ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT WITH STUDY HABITS, HOME ENVIRONMENT

AND SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSIONS

4.2 Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Study Habits

Table 4.1

Relationship between academic achievement and study habits of scheduled caste

secondary school students.

Variable Coefficient of correlation Level of significance

Study Habits .068 NS

N=600

The Table 4.1 reveals that coefficient of correlation between academic

achievement and study habits of scheduled caste secondary school students is .068

which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level of significance so the null

hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between study habits and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school students” is retained. Thus it can be

interpreted that there is no significant relationship between academic achievement and

study habits of scheduled caste secondary school students. It can be concluded that

study habit is not one of the reasons which influence academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school students.

90

4.3 Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Home Environment

Dimensions

Table 4.2

Coefficient of correlation of academic achievement with the dimensions of home

environment

S. No. Dimensions of Home Environment Correlation Level of Significance

1 Control -0.14 0.01

2 Protectiveness -0.14 0.01

3 Punishment -0.03 NS

4 Conformity 0.01 NS

5 Social isolation -0.23 0.01

6 Reward 0.08 NS

7 Deprivation of privileges -0.18 0.1

8 Nurturance -0.05 NS

9 Rejection -0.22 0.1

10 Permissiveness -0.10 0.05

Table 4.2 show the coefficient of correlation between academic achievement

and various dimensions of home environment viz. control, protectiveness,

punishment, conformity, social isolation, reward, deprivation of privileges,

nurturance, rejection and permissiveness.

Control and Academic Achievement

Coefficient of correlation between academic achievement and control

dimension is -0.14 which is significant at 0.01 level of significance. But the

relationship is negative. So the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship

between control dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school students” is rejected. It means that control

dimension of home environment is negatively related with the academic achievement.

91

It is concluded that higher the control of parents, lower is the academic achievement

of students.

Protectiveness and Academic Achievement

The results shown in Table 4.2 show that correlation between academic

achievement and protectiveness dimension of home environment is -0.14 which is

negatively significant at 0.01 level of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no

significant relationship between protectiveness dimension of home environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school students” is rejected. The

relationship between protectiveness and academic achievement is significant but

negative. It means that higher the protectiveness nature of parents, lower is the

academic achievement of students.

Punishment and Academic Achievement

The Table 4.2 reveals that coefficient of correlation between academic

achievement and punishment dimension of home environment is -0.03 which is

negative and not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis

“There is no significant relationship between punishment dimension of home

environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school

students” is retained. It means that punishment is negatively related to academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school students. But this relation is not

significant.

Conformity and Academic Achievement

The results of Table 4.2 show that correlation between conformity and

academic achievement is 0.01 which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level

of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between

conformity dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school students” is not rejected. It can be concluded that demands to

work according to parents’ desires and acceptations have not significant relationship

with academic achievement of students.

Social Isolation and Academic Achievement

The Table 4.2 shows that correlation between social isolation and academic

achievement is -0.23 which is negative but significant at 0.1 level of significance. So

92

the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between social isolation

dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste

secondary school students” is rejected. It means that social isolation and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school students are negatively correlated in

a significant way. It can be interpreted that higher the Social isolation, lower the

academic achievement.

Reward and Academic Achievement

The results of Table 4.2 show that correlation between reward and academic

achievement is 0.08 which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level of

significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between

reward dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school students” is retained. It can be interpreted that the reward has

not association with academic achievement. Instead of reward sometimes another

factors like self motivation, inspiration and self-guidance may influence academic

achievement.

Deprivation of Privileges and Academic Achievement

From the Table 4.2 it is observed that correlation between deprivation of

privileges and academic achievement is -0.18 which is significant at 0.01 level of

significance, but the relationship is negative. So the null hypothesis “There is no

significant relationship between deprivation of privileges dimension of home


students” is rejected. It indicates that deprivation of privileges by parents used as

some sort of punishment has negative significant relationship with academic

achievement. It implies that higher the deprivation of privileges, lesser is the

academic achievement.

Nurturance and Academic Achievement

Table 4.2 shows that coefficient of correlation between nurturance and

academic achievement is -0.05 which is negative and not significant even at 0.05 level

of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship

between nurturance dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

93

scheduled caste secondary school students” is retained. It can be interpreted that

nurturance has not significant relationship with academic achievement.

Rejection and Academic Achievement

Table 4.2 shows that correlation between rejection and Academic achievement

is -0.22 which is negative and significant at 0.01 level of significance. So null

hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between rejection dimension of home


students” is rejected. It means that rejection behaviour in home environment is

negative related with academic achievement in a significant manner.

Permissiveness and Academic Achievement

Table 4.2 shows that correlation between permissiveness and Academic

achievement is -0.10 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of significance.

So null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between permissiveness


secondary school students” is rejected. It means that permissiveness in nature of

parents is negatively related with the academic achievement of students. It implies

that higher the permissiveness nature of parents, lesser is the academic achievement

4.4 Relationship between Academic Achievement and School Environment

Table 4.3

Correlation of dimensions of school environment with academic achievement

Dimensions Value of ‘r’ Level of significance

Creative Stimulation 0.04 NS

Cognitive Encouragement -0.08 NS

Acceptance 0.03 NS

Rejection -0.10 0.5

Control -0.07 NS

Permissiveness -0.02 NS

N=600

94

Creative Stimulation and Academic Achievement

The results in Table 4.3 show that correlation between creative stimulation and

academic achievement is 0.04 which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level


creative stimulation dimension of school environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school students” is not rejected. It means that creative

stimulation is positively related with academic achievement of students but it is not

significant. Only conditions and opportunity provided by teacher cannot affect

academic achievement. But right guidance corresponding for covering syllabus and

attaining good marks can move to the better results.

Cognitive Encouragement and Academic Achievement

The Table 4.3 shows that coefficient of correlation between cognitive

encouragement and academic achievement is -0.08 which is negative and not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no

significant relationship between cognitive encouragement dimension of school


students” is retained. It means that creative stimulation is negatively related with

academic achievement of students but it is not significant. It implies that teacher’s

behavior of stimulating cognitive development of students by encouraging his actions

or behaviours, is not significantly related with academic achievement.

Acceptance and Academic Achievement

The Table 4.3 reveals that correlation between acceptance and academic

achievement is 0.03 which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the

null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between acceptance dimension of

school environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school

students” is not rejected. It means that acceptance behaviour of teacher doesn’t always

affect the academic achievement of students. These two variables have indifferent or

negligible relationship.

95


The results presented in Table 4.3 point out that correlation between rejection

and academic achievement is -0.10 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of

significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between

rejection dimension of school environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school students” is rejected. It means that rejection is negatively

related with academic achievement of scheduled caste students. It implies that higher

the rejection in behavior of teachers, lesser is the academic achievement of students.


The results presented in Table 4.3 reveal that correlation between control and

academic achievement is -0.07 which is negative and not significant even at 0.05 level


control dimension of school environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school students” is retained. It means that control is negatively related

with academic achievement of scheduled caste students but it is not significantly

related. Further it may be concluded that teacher’s autocratic or democratic behaviour

does not affect significantly performance of students.


The Table 4.3 reveals that correlation between permissiveness and academic

achievement is -0.02 which is negative and not significant even at 0.05 level of


permissiveness dimension of school environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school students” is not rejected. Hence it can be interpreted

that permissiveness environment of school is not significantly related with academic

achievement.

96

4.5 Relationship between Academic Achievement and Study Habits of

Scheduled Caste Secondary School Boys

Table 4.4

Coefficient of correlation between academic achievement and study habits of

scheduled caste secondary school boys

Variable Coefficient of

Correlation

Level of significance

Study Habits 0.11 0.05

N=350

The Table 4.4 reveals that coefficient of correlation between study habits and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys is 0.11 which is

significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant relationship between study habits and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It can be interpreted that academic

achievement has dependence on study habits. So it can be concluded that Study habits

have significant affect on academic achievement of scheduled caste boys. It implies

that higher the study habits, higher the academic achievement.

4.6 Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Study Habits of

Scheduled Caste Secondary School Girls

Table 4.5

Coefficient of correlation between academic achievement and study habits of

scheduled caste secondary school girls

Variable Coefficient of Correlation Level of significance

Study Habits 0.01 NS

N= 250

The Table 4.5 reveals that coefficient of correlation between study habits and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls is 0.01 which is not

97

significant even at .05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant relationship between study habits and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school girls” is retained. Hence it can be interpreted that academic

achievement has no dependence on study habits. So it can be concluded that study

habits is not only one factor which affect academic achievement of scheduled caste

girls there are other factors like environment, motivation and guidance which can be

resulted in good academic achievement.

4.7 Relationship between Academic Achievement and Home Environment of

Scheduled Caste Boys

Table 4.6

Coefficient of correlation between dimensions of home environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste boys

S. No. Dimensions of home

Environment

Correlation Level of

Significance

1 Control -0.12 0.05


3 Punishment 0.01 NS

4 Conformity 0.04 NS

5 Social Isolation -0.23 0.01

6 Reward 0.88 0.01

7 Deprivation Of Privileges -0.19 0.01



10 Permissiveness -0.08 NS

N=350


It is revealed from Table 4.6 that coefficient of correlation between control


secondary school boys is -0.12 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of

98

significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between

control dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It implies that control imposed by parents is

significantly related with academic achievement and it is negative also. It means that

higher the control, lesser is the academic achievement.


The Table 4.6 reveals that coefficient of correlation between protectiveness


secondary school boys is -0.12 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of


protectiveness dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It implies that protectiveness

provided by parents affect academic achievement significantly and it is related

negatively also. It means that too much protectiveness nature of parents can also lead

to lower academic achievement.


The Table 4.6 points out that coefficient of correlation between punishment


secondary school boys is 0.01 which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level

of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between

punishment dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school boys” is retained. It can be interpreted that punishment nature

of parents and academic achievement are not significantly related. In others words,

punishment is not only reason for affecting academic achievement of boys.


The Table 4.6 reveals that coefficient of correlation between conformity


secondary school boys is 0.04 which is not significant even at 0.05 level of



99

caste secondary school boys” is retained. It can be interpreted that conformity nature

of parents and academic achievement are not significantly related.


The results presented in Table 4.6 reveal that coefficient of correlation

between social isolation dimension of home environment and academic achievement

of scheduled caste secondary school boys is -0.23 which is negative and significant at

0.01 level of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship


of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It means that social isolation

and academic achievement are negatively related in a significant way. It further

implies that higher the social isolation as a form of punishment given by parents,

lower will be the academic achievement.


The Table 4.6 reveals that coefficient of correlation between reward


secondary school boys is 0.88 which is significant at 0.01 level of significance. So the

null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between reward dimension of

home environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school

boys” is rejected. It means that reward and academic achievement are related

positively in a significant way. It can be concluded that reward may be taken as

positive stimulation in increasing academic achievement.


The result presented in Table 4.6 show that coefficient of correlation between

deprivation of privileges dimension of home environment and academic achievement

of scheduled caste secondary school boys is -0.19 which is negative and significant at


between deprivation of privileges dimension of home environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It indicates that

deprivation of privileges by parents used as a form of punishment is negatively related

100

with academic achievement and it is significant also. It implies that higher the

deprivation, lesser is the academic achievement.




scheduled caste secondary school boys is -0.01 which is negative and not significant

even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no significant

relationship between nurturance dimension of home environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is not rejected. It means that

nurturance by parents is negatively related with academic achievement and this

relationship is not significant.


The results presented in Table 4.6 that coefficient of correlation between

rejection dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school boys is -0.20 which is negative and significant at 0.01 level of



caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It can be concluded that rejection by parents

is negatively related with academic achievement, that is higher is the rejection by

parents, lesser is the academic achievement.


The analysis of results of Table 4.6 show that coefficient of correlation

between permissiveness dimension of home environment and academic achievement

of scheduled caste secondary school boys is -0.08 which is negative and not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant relationship between permissiveness dimension of home environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is not rejected. It

can be concluded that permissiveness in behaviour by parents is negatively but not

significantly related with academic achievement.

101

4.8 Relationship between Academic Achievement and Home Environment of

Scheduled Caste Girls

Table 4.7

Coefficient of correlation between dimensions of home environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls

S. No. Dimensions of Home

Environment

Correlation Level of

Significance

1 Control -0.16 0.05


3 Punishment -0.07 NS

4 Conformity -0.16 0.05

5 Social Isolation -0.22 0.01

6 Reward 0.72 0.01

7 Deprivation of Privileges -0.15 0.05



10 Permissiveness -0.14 0.05

N = 250


It is revealed from the Table 4.7 that coefficient of correlation between control


secondary school girls is -0.16 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of


control dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It implies that control imposed by parents is

significantly related with academic achievement and it is negative also. It means that

higher the control, lesser is the academic achievement.

102


The Table 4.7 reveals that coefficient of correlation between protectiveness




protectiveness dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school girls” is rejected. Therefore the protectiveness is

significantly related with Academic achievement. The relationship is inverse. It can

be concluded that higher the protectiveness, lesser is the academic achievement.


The Table 4.7 reveals that coefficient of correlation between punishment


secondary school girls is -0.07 which is negative and not significant even at 0.05 level


punishment dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school girls” is retained. It can be interpreted that punishment nature

of parents and academic achievement are not significantly related. In others words

punishment dimension is not only reason for affecting academic achievement of girls.


The Table 4.7 reveals that coefficient of correlation between conformity





caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It can be interpreted that less conformity in

behaviour of parents play significant role in enhancing academic performance.

103


The results presented in Table 4.7 that coefficient of correlation between

social isolation dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school girls is -0.22 which is negative and significant at



of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It means that social isolation

and academic achievement are negatively related in a significant way. It further

implies that higher the social isolation as a form of punishment given by parents,

lower will be the academic achievement.


The results presented in Table 4.7 show that coefficient of correlation between

reward dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school girls is 0.72 which is significant at 0.01 level of significance.

So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between reward


secondary school girls” is rejected. It means that reward and academic achievement

are related in a significant way. It can be concluded that reward may be taken as

positive stimulation in increasing academic achievement. This relationship between

these two variables is high.



deprivation dimension of home environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school girls is -0.15 which is negative and significant at 0.05 level of


deprivation of privileges dimension of home environment and academic achievement

of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It indicates that deprivation of

privileges by parents used as a form of punishment is negatively related with

academic achievement and is significant also. It implies that higher the deprivation,

lesser is the academic achievement.

104




scheduled caste secondary school girls is -0.10 which is negative and not significant

even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

relationship between nurturance dimension of home environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is not rejected. It means that

nurturance by parents is negatively related with academic achievement and this

relationship is not significant.




caste secondary school girls is -0.24 which is negative and significant at 0.01 level of



caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It can be concluded that rejection by parents

is negatively related with academic achievement that is higher the rejection by

parents, lesser is the academic achievement, but the coefficient of correlation is low.


The analysis of results of Table 4.7 show that coefficient of correlation

between permissiveness dimension of home environment and academic achievement

of scheduled caste secondary school girls is -0.14 which is significant at 0.05 level of


permissiveness dimension of home environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school girls” is rejected. It can be concluded that rejection

by parents is significantly related with academic achievement.

105

4.9 Relationship between Academic Achievement and School Environment of

Scheduled Caste Boys

Table 4.8

Coefficient of correlation between dimensions of School Environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys

Dimensions of School

Environment

Correlation Level of significance

Creative Stimulation 0.64 0.01

Cognitive Encouragement 0.01 NS

Acceptance 0.05 NS

Rejection -0.10 NS

Control -0.09 NS

Permissiveness 0.01 NS


The results in Table 4.8 show that correlation between creative stimulation and

academic achievement of scheduled caste boys is 0.64 which is significant at 0.01

level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship

between creative stimulation dimension of school environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is rejected. It indicates that

creative stimulation is positively related with academic achievement and it is

significant also. The coefficient of correlation is substantial or marked relationship.


The results in Table 4.8 show that correlation between cognitive

encouragement and academic achievement of scheduled caste boys is 0.01 which not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis “There is no

significant relationship between cognitive encouragement dimension of school

environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school boys” is

retained. Hence it can be interpreted that only cognitive encouragement is not one

106

factor that affect academic achievement but there are various other factors like

intelligence, I.Q. which may bring change in academic achievement.


The results presented in Table 4.8 show that correlation between acceptance

and academic achievement is 0.05 which is not significant even at 0.05 level of


acceptance dimension of school environment and academic achievement of scheduled

caste secondary school boys” is retained. Therefore it can be concluded that

acceptance is not significantly related with academic achievement of scheduled caste

boys.


The results presented in Table 4.8 point out that correlation between rejection

and academic achievement is -0.10 which is negative and not significant. So the null

hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between rejection dimension of school


not rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that rejection is negatively related with

academic achievement of scheduled caste boys. But this relation is not significant.


The results presented in Table 4.8 reveal that correlation between control and

academic achievement is -0.09 which is negative and not significant. So the null

hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between control dimension of school


not rejected. It can be concluded that controlled behaviour of teachers has a reverse

effect on academic achievement of students. But this effect is not significantly related

with academic achievement.


The results shown in Table 4.8 reveal that correlation between permissiveness

and academic achievement is 0.01 which is not significant. So the null hypothesis

“There is no significant relationship between permissiveness dimension of school

107


not rejected. It can be concluded that permissiveness behaviour of teachers has a

positive effect on academic achievement but this relationship is not significant.

4.10 Relationship Between Academic Achievement and School Environment of

Scheduled Caste Girls

Table 4.9

Coefficient of correlation between dimensions of school environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls

Dimensions of school

environment

Correlation Level of significance

Creative Stimulation 0.01 NS

Cognitive Encouragement -0.03 NS

Acceptance 0.01 NS

Rejection -0.11 NS

Control -0.04 NS

Permissiveness -0.06 NS


The results in Table 4.9 shows that the coefficient of correlation between

creative stimulation dimension of School Environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste girls is 0.01 which is positive and not significant even at 0.05 level of

significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between

creative stimulation dimension of school environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be concluded

that creative stimulation is not the factor which influence academic achievement.


The results in Table 4.9 show that correlation between cognitive

encouragement and academic achievement of scheduled caste girls is -0.03 which is

negative and not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis

108

“There is no significant relationship between cognitive encouragement dimension of

school environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school

girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be interpreted that only cognitive encouragement is

not one factor in affecting academic achievement but there are various other factors

like intelligence, knowledge, which may bring change in academic achievement.


The results of the Table 4.9 reveal that correlation between acceptance

dimension of school environment and academic achievement is 0.01 which is not


significant relationship between acceptance dimension of school environment and

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is retained.

Therefore it can be concluded that acceptance is not significantly related with

academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls. The relationship is

negligible.


The Table 4.9 shows that correlation between rejection dimension of School

environment and academic achievement of scheduled caste girls is -0.11 which is

negative and not significant. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

relationship between rejection dimension of school environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is not rejected. Therefore it

can be concluded that rejection is negatively related with academic achievement of

scheduled caste girls and this relation is not significant.


The results presented in Table 4.9 show that correlation between control

dimension of school environment and academic achievement is -0.04 which is

negative and not significant. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

relationship between control dimension of school environment and academic

achievement of scheduled caste secondary school girls” is not rejected. It can be

109

concluded that controlled features of teachers has a negative effect on academic

achievement of students but the relationship is not significant.


The results shown in the Table 4.9 reveal that correlation between

permissiveness and academic achievement is -0.06 which is negative and not

significant. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant relationship between

permissiveness dimension of school environment and academic achievement of

scheduled caste secondary school girls” is not rejected. It can be concluded that

permissiveness in behaviour of teachers has a negative effect on academic

achievement of girls and this effect is not significant.

SECTION : B

THIS SECTION DEALS WITH SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN MEAN OF

STUDY HABITS, HOME ENVIRONMENT AND SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

DIMENSIONS OF SCHEDULED CASTE STUDENTS OF LOW AND HIGH

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

4.11 Significance of Difference in Mean of Study Habits, Home Environment

and School Environment Dimensions of Low and High Achievers

Table 4.10

Significance of difference in mean of study habits of scheduled caste secondary

school students of low and high academic achievement

Variables N Mean S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Study habits

of low

achievers

113 118.94 13.61

1.35 NS Study habits

of high

achievers

111 121.04 14.24

110

Table 4.10 shows that the ‘t’ value is 1.35 which is not significant even at 0.05

level of significance. So the null hypothesis. “There is no significant difference in

mean of study habits of scheduled castes secondary school students of low and high

academic achievement” is retained. This calculated difference is not real but it may be

due to chance factor. Thus it can be interpreted that there is no significant difference

in study habits of low and high academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary

school students.

Table 4.11

Significance of difference in mean of home environment dimensions of scheduled

caste students of low and high academic achievement

Dimensions of

Home

Environment

Academic

Achievement

Mean

S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Control Low

High

24.43

22.49

5.56

6.34 2.43 0.5

Protectiveness Low

High

28.27

25.97

4.73

5.18 3.46 0.01

Punishment Low

High

27.43

27.65

4.41

5.92 0.31 NS

Conformity Low

High

28.04

28.98

5.89

5.57 1.22 NS

Social

Isolation

Low

High

23.55

18.65

7.70

6.43 5.18 0.01

Reward Low

High

26.68

27.91

7.06

6.59 1.34 NS

Deprivation of

privileges

Low

High

23.17

19.52

8.10

7.03 3.59 0.01

Nurturance Low

High

24.17

24.01

5.33

5.35 0.22 NS

Rejection Low

High

20.56

16.40

7.28

7.17 4.29 0.01

Permissiveness Low

High

24.19

22.83

5.59

6.39 1.69 NS

N = Low achievers :-113

High achievers :-111

111


The Table 4.11 reveals that the t-value of control dimension of home

environment of low and high academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary

school students is 2.43 which is significant at 0.5 level of significance. So the null

hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in mean of control dimension of home

environment of scheduled caste secondary school students of low and high academic

achievement” is rejected and this difference is real. The mean value of control

dimension of low achievers is more than the mean value of control dimension of high

achievers. It can be interpreted that low achievers are having more control by parents

than high achievers. This may be uneducated behaviour of parents. It can be

concluded that significant control may cause the low achievement.


The Table 4.11 reveals that the t-value is 3.46 which is significant at 0.01 level

of significance. Thus null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in mean of

protectiveness dimension of home environment of scheduled caste secondary school

students of low and high academic achievement” is rejected. Further the mean of

protectiveness dimension of low achiever is higher than the mean of protectiveness

dimension of high achievers. It can be concluded that students related to low

academic achievement were given more protective environment at home than student

of high academic achievement. Therefore, the significant protective behaviour of

home environment may cause low academic achievement.


The Table 4.11 reveals that the t-value 0.31 which is not significant even at

0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of punishment dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school students of low and high academic achievement” is retained. This

difference may be due to chance factor.

112


The results presented in Table 4.11 reveals that the t-value is 1.22 which is not

significant even at 0.5 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant difference in mean of conformity dimension of home environment of

scheduled caste secondary school students of low and high academic achievement.” is

retained. It means that conformity is not significantly related with academic

achievement and it can be interpreted that some times parents directions, commands

and order does not affect significantly the performance of child. They are motivated

by self experience and self guidance.


The Table 4.11 reveals that the t-value is 5.18 which is significant at 0.01 level

of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in mean

of social isolation dimension of home environment of scheduled caste secondary

school students of low and high academic achievement” is rejected. Further analysis

of results shows that mean value of social isolation dimension of low achievers is

higher than mean value of social isolation dimension of high achievers. It further

implies that students belong to low academic achievement suffer more social isolation

and students related to high academic achievement suffer less social isolated

behaviour at home.


It is observed from Table 4.11 that the t-value is 1.34 which is not significant

even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of reward dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school students of low and high academic achievement” is retained. It can

be interpreted that any type of reward whether it is material or symbolic in order to

increase or strengthen the probability of desired behaviours does not affect academic

achievement significantly.


The results shown in Table 4.11 reveal that the t-value is 3.59 which is

significant at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no

113

significant difference in mean of deprivation of privileges dimension of home

environment of scheduled caste secondary school students of low and high academic

achievement” is rejected. The further analysis of results shows that mean value of

deprivation of privileges of low achievers is higher than the mean value of deprivation

of privileges dimension of high achievers It implies that too much restriction can be

resulted in low academic achievement and vice-versa.


The results presented in Table 4.11 reveal that the t-value is 0.22 which is not


significant difference in mean of nurturance dimension of home environment of

scheduled caste secondary school students of low and high academic achievement” is

retained. Although the mean value of nurturance dimension of low achievers is

greater than the mean values of nurturance dimension of high achievers, but it points

out that in both cases, parents have equal emotional attachment with their children.


The results shown in Table 4.11 reveal that the t-value is 4.29 which is

significant at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant difference in mean of rejection dimension of home environment of


rejected. The further analysis of results shows that mean value of rejection dimension

of low achievers is higher than the mean value of rejection dimension of high

achievers. It implies that students who have more restriction were had low academic

achievement as compared to those students who had less restriction.


The results presented in Table 4.11 reveal that the t-value is 1.69 which is not


significant difference in mean of permissiveness dimension of home environment of


retained. Although, the mean value of permissiveness dimension of low achievers is

greater than the mean value of permissiveness dimension of high achievers, but more

114

freedom is given by parents in case of low achievers. But it is concluded that there is

no significant difference in low and high achievers regarding permissiveness

dimension of home environment.

Table 4.12

Significant difference in mean of school environment dimensions of scheduled

caste students of low and high academic achievement.

Dimensions of

School

Environment

Academic

Achievement

Mean S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Creative

Stimulation

Low

High

53.84

51.13

8.32

11.7

1.98

0.5

Cognitive

Encouragement

Low

High

27. 74

27.55

7.53

7.50 1.00 NS

Acceptance Low

High

25.24

26.22

5.76

4.94 1.36 NS

Rejection Low

High

24.30

23.51

5.40

3.77 1.28 NS

Control Low

High

21.46

20.64

5.11

4.93 1.22 NS

Permissiveness Low

High

26.18

25.18

5.14

5.20 1.44 NS

N = Low achievers :-113

High achievers :-111


The results presented in Table 4.12 show that t-value is 1.98 which is

significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant difference in mean of creative stimulation dimension of school

environment of scheduled castes secondary school students of low and high academic

115

achievement” is rejected. Further analysis of results show that mean value of creative

stimulation dimension of low achievers is higher than the mean value of creative

stimulation dimension of high achievers. It further implies that more creative

activities of students some time leads to low academic achievement due to

concentration on other co-curricular activities. As a result they may go ahead on

another direction.


The results presented in Table 4.12 show that t-value is 1.00 which is not


significant difference in mean of cognitive encouragement dimension of school

environment of scheduled castes secondary school students of low and high academic

achievement” is retained. Although the mean value of cognitive encouragement

dimension of low academic achievers is higher than the mean value of cognitive

encouragement dimension of high achievers. But this difference may be due to chance

factor. It is not real.


The results shown in Table 4.12 shows that t-value is 1.36 which is not


significant difference in mean of acceptance dimension of school environment of

scheduled castes secondary school students of low and high academic achievement” is

retained. It further interprets that due to change in technology, democracy and

freedom there is not significant difference between these two variables.


The results presented in Table 4.12 reveal that t-value is 1.28 which is not


significant difference in mean of rejection dimension of school environment of


retained. It seems that teacher at both places keeps restriction on the student’s

activities equally. But this difference is not real, it may be due to chance factor.

116


The results presented in Table 4.12 shows that t-value is 1.22 which is not


significant difference in mean of control dimension of school environment of


retained. But there is no significant difference in mean of control dimension of low

and high academic achievement of scheduled caste secondary school students. It

means that discipline and control is maintained equally at both level.


The results presented in Table 4.12 show that t-value is 1.44 which is not


significant difference in mean of permissiveness dimension of school environment of


retained. It may be due to the similar tendency of teachers to control the behaviour of

their students in both low and high achievement groups. It is evident that there is not

significant difference in mean of permissiveness dimension of low and high academic

achievement of scheduled caste students.

4.12 Significance of Difference in Mean of Study Habits, Home Environment

Dimensions and School Environment Dimensions of Scheduled Caste

Secondary School Boys and Girls.

Table 4.13

Significance of difference in mean of study habits of scheduled

caste boys and girls

Variables N Mean S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Study habits

of boys

350 119.07 12.89

2.83

0.01

Study habits

of girls

250 122.13 13.28

117

The table 4.13 reveals that t-value is 2.83, which is significant at 0.01 level of

significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in mean of

study habits of scheduled castes secondary school boys and girls” is rejected. This

difference is real and not due to chance factor. It can be concluded that mean of girls

is higher than the mean of boys. Further girls have better study habits than boys.

Table 4.14

Significance of difference in mean of various home environment dimensions of

scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls

Dimensions of

Home

Environment

Sex Mean S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Control Boys

Girls

22.92

23.72

6.11

5.66 1.64 NS

Protectiveness Boys

Girls

26.60

26.89

5.06

5.02 0.68 NS

Punishment Boys

Girls

26.45

26.76

5.35

5.48 0.69 NS

Conformity Boys

Girls

27.70

28.39

6.05

5.89 0.13 NS

Social

Isolation

Boys

Girls

19.91

20.58

7.11

7.07 1.14 NS

Reward Boys

Girls

27.28

27.30

6.48

6.36 0.03 NS

Deprivation of

Privileges

Boys

Girls

20.38

20.74

7.20

7.17 0.60 NS

Nurturance Boys

Girls

23.75

24.03

5.70

5.65 0.99 NS

Rejection Boys

Girls

18.67

19.70

7.40

6.97 1.73 NS

Permissiveness Boys

Girls

22.42

22.84

6.02

5.79 0.81 NS

N=Boys-350

Girls-250

Control Environment of boys and girls

The results of Table 4.14 show that t-value is 1.64 which is not significant

even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of control dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school boys and girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the

118

difference is not real and may be due to chance factor. Therefore, it can be concluded

that no significant difference exists in control dimension of home environment among

boys and girls.

Protectiveness Environment of boys and girls

The Table 4.14 reveals that t-value is 0.68 which is not significant even at 0.05

level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in

mean of protectiveness dimension of home environment of scheduled caste secondary

school boys and girls” is retained. Thus, it can be interpreted that boys and girls does

not have any significant difference in mean value of protectiveness dimension of boys

and girls.

Punishment Environment of boys and girls

The Table 4.14 points out that the t-value is 0.69 which is not significant even

at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of punishment dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school boys and girls” is retained. The obtained difference is not real but it

may be due to chance factor. It is concluded that punishment at home has not

significant difference among boys and girls.

Conformity Environment of boys and girls

The Table 4.14 reveals that t-value is 0.13, which is not significant even at

0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of conformity dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school boys and girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be interpreted that

conformity at home has not significant difference among boys and girls.

Social Isolation Environment of boys and girls


level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference

in mean of social isolation dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school boys and girls” is retained. The obtained difference is not real but it

119

may be due to chance factor. It is concluded that social isolation at home given by

parents has not significant difference among boys and girls.

Reward Environment of boys and girls


level of significance. So the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference in

mean of reward dimension of home environment of scheduled caste secondary school

boys and girls” is retained. Thus it can be concluded that difference is not real but it

may be due to chance factor.

Deprivation of Privileges Environment of boys and girls



significant difference in mean of deprivation of privileges dimension of home

environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained.

Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference in mean value of

deprivation of privilege of home environment of boys and girls.

Nurturance Environment of boys and girls

The Table 4.14 points out that the t-value is 0.99 which is not significant even

at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of nurturance dimension of home environment of scheduled caste

secondary school boys and girls” is retained. The difference in mean value of

nurturance dimension is not real but it may be due to chance factor.

Rejection Environment of boys and girls


significant. Therefore null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in mean of

rejection dimension of home environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys

and girls” is retained. It can be concluded that difference is not real, it may be due to

chance factor.

120

Permissiveness Environment of boys and girls

Table 4.14 reveals that t-value is 0.81 which is not significant. Hence the null

hypothesis “There is no significant difference in mean of permissiveness dimension of

home environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained.

The difference in mean values of permissiveness dimension of home environment is

not real. But it may be due to chance factor.

Table 4.15

Significance of difference in mean of various dimensions of school environment

of boys and girls

Dimensions of

School

Environment

Sex Mean S.D. t-value Level of

significance

Creative

Stimulation

Boys

Girls

53.16

53.00

18.13

15.95

0.11

NS

Cognitive

Encouragement

Boys

Girls

27.14

27.17

7.26

7.05

0.05

NS

Acceptance Boys

Girls

24.90

25.37

5.68

5.43

1.03

NS

Rejection Boys

Girls

22.67

23.12

5.91

5.39

0.97

NS

Control Boys

Girls

20.27

20.68

5.61

5.59

0.88

NS

Permissiveness Boys

Girls

25.05

25.20

5.89

5.72

0.14

NS

N= Boys-350

Girls-250

Creative Stimulation Environment of boys and girls

The results presented in table 4.15 reveal that t-value is 0.11 which is not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance therefore the null hypothesis, “There is

no significant difference in mean of creative stimulation dimension of school

environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained. This

difference is not real but it may be due to chance factor. It can be concluded that it

may be due to availability of qualified staff and unbiased nature of teachers.

121

Cognitive Encouragement Environment of boys and girls

The table 4.15 points out that t-value is 0.05 which is not significant even at

0.05 level of significance therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of cognitive encouragement dimension of school environment of

scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be

concluded that there is no significant difference in mean value of cognitive

encouragement dimension of school environment of scheduled caste secondary

school boys and girls.

Acceptance Environment of boys and girls


level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference

in mean of acceptance dimension of school environment of scheduled caste secondary

school boys and girls” is retained. Therefore, it can be interpreted that there is no

significant difference in mean value of acceptance dimension of school environment

of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls.

Rejection Environment of boys and girls

The results in Table 4.15 show that t-value is 0.97 which is not significant

even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no

significant difference in mean of rejection dimension of school environment of

scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained. But this difference is not

real it may be due to chance factor. It seems that teacher at both places keeps

restriction on the student’s activities equally.

Control Environment of boys and girls

The results presented in table 4.15 point out that the t-value is 0.88 which is

not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis,

“There is no significant difference in mean of control dimension of school

environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained. It means

that discipline and control is maintained equally at both level. It is concluded that this

difference is not real, it may be due to chance factor.

122

Permissiveness Environment of boys and girls

The table 4.15 points out that t-value is 0.14 which is not significant even at

0.05 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis, “There is no significant

difference in mean of permissiveness dimension of school environment of scheduled

caste secondary school boys and girls” is retained. It may be due to the similar

tendency of teachers to control the behaviour of their students. It can be concluded

that there exist no significant difference in mean value of permissiveness dimension

of school environment of scheduled caste secondary school boys and girls.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/6854/10/10...Study...

Documents

Transcript of DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/6854/10/10...Study...