Uncle Balas Data Analysis
-
Upload
balarabe-el-hussain -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Uncle Balas Data Analysis
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 1/13
SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS ON CORRELATIONAL STUDY OFLECTURERS CLASSROOM TASK PERFOMANCE & RECTORSPLANNING STYLES IN THE NIGERIAS DENTAL SCHOOLS.FrequenciesSchool
Frequency Percent
school of dental tech & therapy Enugu 76 38.0
medical school 60 30.0
school of dental health 64 32.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
school of dental tech
& therapy Enugu
medical school school of dental
health
location
Frequency Percent
Ojo - lagos 64 32.0
Enugu 72 36.0
Kaduna 64 32.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
Ojo - lagos Enugu Kaduna
your gender
Frequency Percent
male 116 58.0
female 84 42.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 2/13
84116 male
female
age range
Frequency Percent
25 - 35yrs 84 42.0
36 - 46yrs 72 36.0
47 - 57yrs 36 18.0
58yrs - above 8 4.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
25- 35yrs 36 - 46yrs 47- 57yrs 58yrs- above
educational qualificationFrequency Percent
HND 40 20.0
Bsc/BDS 44 22.0
PGD 32 16.0
Masters 72 36.0
PhD 12 6.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
HND Bsc/BDS PGD Masters PhD
years of teaching experience
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 3/13
Frequency Percent
below 5yrs 56 28.0
6 - 12yrs 76 38.0
13 - 19yrs 52 26.0
20 - 2yrs 16 8.0
Total 200 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
below5yrs 6 - 12yrs 13 - 19yrs 20 - 2yrs
THE DECISION RULE FOR THE LIKERT SCALES IS: If mean <2.5, the respondents disagree
If 3.5 < mean ≤ 2.5, the respondents are undecided
If mean ≥ 3.5, the respondents agree
Rectors’ Perception of Lecturers’ Classroom Task Performance
a) Lecturers’ PreparednessIn this school, lecturers SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Comes to lecture rooms on time and specifies the
objectives for each lecture topic or unit
40
(20)
140
(70)
12
(6)
8
(4)
0
(0)
4.060
0
0.6469
Introduces lecture topics in a stimulating and well-thought out manner, using appropriate illustrations
80(40)
92(46)
28(14)
0(0)
0(0)
4.2600
0.6890
Brings to class specific assignment for each lecture
topic and covers contents for each semester
36
(18)
96
(48)
28
(14)
40
(20)
0
(0)
3.640
0
0.9977
Marks students tests scripts on time and make
necessary corrections promptly
36
(18)
92
(46)
32
(16)
36
(18)
4
(2)
3.600
0
1.0418
Mean 3.890
0
0.2795
Source: Field Survey, 2011
b) Mastery of Subject/CoursesIn this school, lecturers SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Gives clear cut answers to questions from students 40
(20)
112
(56)
24
(12)
20
(10)
4
(2)
3.820
0
0.9338
Leaves students satisfied as having learnt
something new
56
(28)
116
(58)
24
(12)
4
(2)
0
(0)
4.120
0
0.6841
Do not leave students confused as they leave the
lecture rooms
80
(40)
60
(30)
40
(20)
8
(4)
12
(6)
3.940
0
1.1386
Summarises and agrees with what students found
in text books
48
(24)
72
(36)
40
(20)
36
(18)
4
(2)
3.620
0
1.0962
Mean 3.875
0
0.1819
Source: Field Survey, 2011
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 4/13
c) Lecturers PersonalityIn this school, lecturers SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Are always pleasant, nice and very sensitive to
students needs, though firm, but fair in the waythey handle issues
44
(22)
128
(64)
0
(0)
12
(6)
16
(8)
3.860
0
1.0799
Enforces discipline and punctuality amongst
students as well as discourage students’
involvement in examination malpractice and
cultism
92
(46)
88
(44)
0
(0)
16
(8)
4
(2)
4.240
0
0.9523
Responds to students’ questions in such a way that
students hardly ask questions in the lecture rooms
32
(16)
40
(20)
48
(24)
68
(34)
12
(6)
3.060
0
1.1931
Lectures topics in such a way that the lecture
rooms are always lively
44
(22)
92
(46)
36
(18)
20
(10)
8
(4)
3.720
0
1.0426
Mean 3.720
0
0.4259
Source: Field Survey, 2011
d) Lecturers Assessment StrategyIn this school, lecturers SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Always reviews questions students missed in the
tests
24
(12)
64
(32)
60
(30)
44
(22)
8
(4)
3.260
0
1.0574
Gives regular tests or quizzes at the rate of above
two or more a month
28
(14)
84
(42)
36
(18)
48
(24)
4
(2)
3.420
0
1.0663
Allows students performance in a test to affect the
way they teach students
32
(16)
68
(34)
48
(24)
36
(18)
16
(8)
3.320
0
1.1767
Awards students marks that are fair assessment of
students work
44
(22)
92
(46)
32
(16)
16
(8)
16
(8)
3.660
0
1.1440
Mean 3.415
0
0.1526
Source: Field Survey, 2011
e) Lecturers’ Professional Development In this school, lecturers SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Experiments with innovative approaches and
materials to facilitate instructional delivery
36
(18)
128
(64)
16
(8)
16
(8)
4
(2)
3.880
0
0.8657
Brainstorm with fellow lecturers to find solutions
to instructional problems
32
(16)
88
(44)
36
(18)
40
(20)
4
(2)
3.520
0
1.0465
Attend seminars organised locally, nationally
and/or internationally as well as in-service training
such as sandwich programmes
80
(40)
96
(48)
16
(8)
4
(2)
4
(2)
4.220
0
0.8337
Mean 3.873
3
0.2858
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Lecturers’ Perception of Rectors Planning Stylesa) Autocratic Planning Styles
In this school, the rectors SA(%)
A(%)
U(%)
D(%)
SD(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 5/13
Dictates policies, procedures and imposes tasks
and methods to lecturers with little or no
participation of lecturers in decision-making
20
(10)
8
(4)
32
(16)
68
(34)
72
(36)
2.180
0
1.2472
Centralisation of authority to the top and assigning
tasks to lecturers without commensurable
authority discourages lecturers to perform
60
(30)
32
(16)
44
(22)
48
(24)
16
(8)
3.360
0
1.3414
Objection to lecturers’ use of their innovative
ideas and changes that dampens the morale of
lecturers on assigned tasks
32
(16)
20
(10)
52
(26)
72
(36)
24
(12)
2.820
0
1.2472
Self-centredness and unwillingness to make
sacrifices for the development and upliftment of
the image of the school, when the need arises only
dampens lecturers’ spirit to perform on assigned
tasks
8
(4)
24
(12)
28
(14)
48
(24)
92
(46)
2.040
0
1.2023
Mean 2.600
0
0.5282
Source: Field Survey, 2011
b) Free-Rein/Lassie Fairer Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Allows lecturers complete freedom to do what they wish
at will, and is always indecisive, indifferent and
vacillated about his/her responsibilities to lecturers
4
(2)
16
(8)
24
(12)
84
(42)
72
(36)
1.980
0
0.9922
Misuses functional authority and establishes careless and
poor measurable goals for lecturers
0
(0)
8
(4)
28
(14)
100
(50)
64
(32)
1.900
0
0.7830
Careless, coordinates and implementation of personnel
good policies destroy lecturers’ morale to perform
8
(4)
20
(10)
24
(12)
80
(40)
68
(34)
2.100
0
1.1028
Poor arrangement and combination of both human and
material resources make lecturers lose confidence in a
given task
16
(8)
32
(16)
32
(16)
56
(28)
64
(32)
2.400
0
1.2994
Mean 2.095
0
0.1899
Source: Field Survey, 2011
c) Democratic Planning Styles
In this school, the rectors SA(%)
A(%)
U(%)
D(%)
SD(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Involves lecturers’ full participation in organisational
administration, decision making and policy formulation,
giving room for self-expression, interactions and
criticisms
40
(20)
60
(30)
36
(18)
36
(18)
28
(14)
3.240
0
1.3384
Obtains from lecturers the information needed for
planning school programmes and encourages lecturers
to follow standard rules and regulations
28
(14)
88
(44)
32
(16)
40
(20)
12
(6)
3.400 1.1342
Regard for lecturers’ initiative, suggestion, creativeness
and outward mark of respect for them, improves their
performance on assigned tasks
20
(10)
144
(72)
16
(8)
8
(4)
12
(6)
3.760
0
0.9091
Use of stabilised policies, division of labour and work
simplification, programs with equal and fair treatment,
60
(30)
100
(50)
28
(14)
8
(4)
4
(2)
4.020
0
0.8852
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 6/13
with fair remuneration that could afford lecturers
performance to enhance their task performance
Mean 3.605
0
0.3048
Source: Field Survey, 2011
d) Consultative Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Invites educational experts to study current trends in
curriculum development and advises instructional
lecturers on planning for improved curriculum policies
60
(30)
100
(50)
16
(8)
24
(12)
0
(0)
3.980
0
0.9295
Consults lecturers when handling complex problems and
solicits for lecturers’ feedback (both positive and
negative) on school plans
20
(10)
88
(44)
36
(18)
24
(12)
32
(16)
3.200
0
1.2521
Consultative approach at new ideas with other lecturers
encourages lecturers perform better, in a free working
environment with a minimum friction and confusion
52
(26)
120
(60)
16
(8)
8
(4)
4
(2)
4.040
0
0.8257
Invitation of experts to advice lecturers on instructional
planning improves lecturers’ task performance
92
(46)
88
(44)
12
(6)
4
(2)
4
(2)
4.300
0
0.8328
Mean 3.880
0
0.4106
Source: Field Survey, 2011
e) Delegative Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Permits organisation of such activities relative to the
development of lecturers’ professional organisational lifeto the lecturers which enhance their performance
12
(6)
120
(60)
40
(20)
16
(8)
12
(6)
3.520
0
0.9456
Delegates the responsibility of curriculum delivery and
development of other academic programmes to academic
heads and other competent lecturers
12
(6)
120
(60)
20
(10)
36
(18)
12
(6)
3.420
0
1.0436
Assigns the planning and organisation of lecturers’
professional development tasks to his/her deputy and
other competent lecturers
20
(10)
92
(46)
40
(20)
32
(16)
16
(8)
3.340
0
1.1093
Delegates responsibility of overseeing the school after
extra-curricular activities to lecturers
12
(6)
112
(56)
24
(12)
36
(18)
16
(8)
3.340
0
1.0910
Mean 3.405
0
0.0740
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Influence of Sex in Rectors’ Planning Stylesa) Sex Influence on Rectors Planning
Male Rectors SA
(%)
A
(%)
U
(%)
D
(%)
SD
(%)
Mean Std. Dev.
Are better planners, organisers and coordinators
and are willing to take responsibility for directing
their lecturers’ behaviour at work than the female
rectors
24
(12)
32
(16)
44
(22)
60
(30)
40
(20)
2.700 1.2878
Have lesser capacity to analyse large amounts of 0 12 52 96 40 2.180 0.8191
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 7/13
seemingly unrelated, complex information and see
patterns or opportunities and threats where other
female rectors might not see them
(0) (6) (26) (48) (20) 0
Have lesser emotional attachment in the discharge
of their duties and are less concerned about a few
group of favoured lecturers dominating in schoolaffairs than the female rectors
44
(22)
64
(32)
24
(12)
48
(24)
20
(10)
3.320
0
1.3215
Have high levels of effort, tenacity, energy and
initiatives towards motivating, other lecturers
achieve their ambition and aspirations than the
female rectors
52
(26)
64
(32)
36
(18)
40
(20)
8
(4)
3.560
0
1.1889
Even when things go wrong, they remain even-
tempered and consistent in their outlook and the
way in which they treat lecturers, as they know
precisely what is expected of their lecturers and
give lecturers specific guidelines for performing
their tasks than the female rectors
60
(30)
40
(20)
32
(16)
48
(240
20
(10)
3.360
0
1.3856
Mean 3.4050
0.0740
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Research Question One
What planning styles do Rectors in the Nigeria’s Dental Schools mostlyuse?From the above Likert Scale tables on Leaders’ Perception of RectorsPlanning Styles, Autocratic Planning Style has a mean response of 2.6000,Free-rein/Lassie Fairer Planning Style has a mean response of 2.0950,Democratic Planning Style has a mean response of 3.6050, ConsultativePlanning Style has a mean response of 3.8800 and Delegative Planning Stylehas a mean response of 3.4050. From the foregoing, with ConsultativePlanning Style having the high mean response (3.8800), it can be concludedthat the planning styles rectors in the Nigeria’s dental schools mostly use is
the Consultative Planning Style.
Research Question TwoTo what extent are lecturers’ performances influenced by rectorsplanning styles?
Research Question ThreeTo what extent is sex a factor in Rector’s planning styles?
Response from the Likert Scale table on influence of sex in rectors’ planningstyles indicates that with a general mean response of 3.4050, the respondents
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 8/13
are undecided as to whether sex is factor in rector’s planning styles.
Research Question Four To what extent is lecturers’ performance environmentally determined?
Test of Hypothesis One
Ho: Perception on Lecturer’s classroom task is not significantly different among the
lecturers.
Hi: Perception on Lecturer’s classroom task is significantly different among the
lecturers
In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ perception of
lecturers’ classroom task performance, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z
non-parametric test (as n > 30).
Mean Response on Rectors’ Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Performance
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 9/13
Mean Response Frequency Percent
2.63 4 2.0
2.68 4 2.0
2.84 8 4.0
2.95 4 2.0
3.16 4 2.03.21 24 12.0
3.26 8 4.0
3.32 4 2.0
3.37 8 4.0
3.42 4 2.0
3.47 12 6.0
3.53 12 6.0
3.58 4 2.0
3.63 8 4.0
3.74 12 6.0
3.79 16 8.0
3.84 4 2.0
3.89 8 4.0
4.05 4 2.0
4.11 8 4.0
4.16 16 8.0
4.32 4 2.0
4.53 8 4.0
4.58 4 2.0
4.68 4 2.0
4.74 4 2.0
Total 200 100.0
Mean 3.6495
Std. Dev. .50912
Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;
NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task 200 3.6495 .50912 2.63 4.74
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 10/13
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
N 200
Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 3.6495
Std. Deviation .50912
Most Extreme Differences Absolute .076
Positive .076
Negative -.074
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.069
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .203
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 1.069 (which is less than Z-critical
value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.203 > 0.05indicates that there is no significant difference in the respondents responses on the rectors’
perception of lecturers’ classroom tasks performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be
accepted and the alternate rejected accordingly.
Test of Hypothesis Two
Ho: Perception on Rectors’ Planning Styles is not significantly different among the
lecturers.
Hi: Perception on Rectors’ Planning Styles is significantly different among the
lecturers.
In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ planningstyles, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z non-parametric test (as n > 30).
Perception on rectors' planning style
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 11/13
Mean Response Frequency Percent
1.80 4 2.0
2.35 4 2.0
2.50 8 4.0
2.60 4 2.0
2.70 4 2.0
2.80 4 2.0
2.85 4 2.0
2.90 12 6.0
3.00 24 12.0
3.05 20 10.0
3.10 8 4.0
3.15 32 16.0
3.20 12 6.0
3.25 4 2.0
3.30 12 6.0
3.35 16 8.0
3.40 8 4.0
3.60 4 2.0
3.70 4 2.0
3.75 4 2.0
4.05 4 2.0
4.35 4 2.0
Total 200 100.0
Mean 3.1170
Std. Dev. .39680
Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;
NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Perception on rectors' planning style 200 3.1170 .39680 1.80 4.35
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Perception on rectors' planning style
N 200
Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 3.1170
Std. Deviation .39680
Most Extreme Differences Absolute .164
Positive .139
Negative -.164
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 2.320
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-SmirnovZ value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 2.320 (which is greater than Z-
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 12/13
critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.000 <
0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference in the respondents responses on the
rectors’ planning styles. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate
accepted accordingly.
Test of Hypothesis ThreeHo: The perception of lecturers about the rectors’ planning style is not significantly
different from their perception about the lecturers’ classroom task.
Hi: The perception of lecturers about the rectors’ planning style is significantly
different from their perception about the lecturers’ classroom task.
In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ perception of
lecturers classroom task performance and rectors’ planning styles are tested with the Z non-
parametric test (as n > 30). Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;
NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task 200 3.6495 .50912 2.63 4.74
Perception on rectors' planning style 200 3.1170 .39680 1.80 4.35
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks TestRanks
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Perception on rectors' planning style -Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
Negative Ranks 168a 107.45 18052.00
Positive Ranks 32b 64.00 2048.00
Ties 0c
Total 200
a. Perception on rectors' planning style < Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
b. Perception on rectors' planning style > Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
c. Perception on rectors' planning style = Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
Test Statisticsb
Perception on rectors' planning style - Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task
Z -9.765a
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000
a. Based on positive ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
From the Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, most of the mean responses of the respondents on
perception of rectors’ planning style are higher than their responses on rectors’ perception on
lecturers’ classroom task performance. This indicates that there is a difference of perception
in these two perceptions.
Furthermore, testing these mean responses of the respondents with the two related Z-
statistics, the Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 9.765 (which is greater
than Z-critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of
8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 13/13
0.000 < 0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference between the respondents
perception of the rectors’ planning style and the rectors perception about the lecturers’
classroom task performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate
accepted accordingly.