analysis and interpretation of...

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

5.3 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS BASED

ON PRE-TEST SCORES AND SES SCORES


ON ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES


ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SCORES.


ON THE ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION.

5.7 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP BASED

ON THE MATHEMATICAL INTEREST SCORES

5.8 GENUINENESS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS.

5.9 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OPINION OF THE

EXPERTS ON PEER TUTORING

5.10 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM

THE EVALUATION OF PEER TUTORING MODEL

5.11 EVALUATION OF TUTORS’ SKILL BY THE RESEARCHER

5.12 CONCLUSION

278

Chapter 5 Analysis and Interpretation of Data

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The analysis of data involves breaking down the complex

tabulated materials into simpler parts and putting the parts together in

new arrangements to determine the inherent meanings and facts. A

critical examination of the results will lead to acceptance or rejection of

the proposed hypothesis that in turn will contribute to knowledge in

particular area.

The major objective of the study was to test the effect of Peer

Tutoring Model on achievement, self-concept, mathematical interest

and achievement motivation of high school pupils. The data obtained

were analyzed by applying relevant statistical techniques. The details

of analysis of data are given in this chapter.

5.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

5.3 Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Based on

Pre-test Scores and SES Scores

5.3.1 Comparison of Pre-test Score of Pupils in the Experimental and

Control Groups

5.3.2 Comparison Based on SES Scores of the Pupils in the

Experimental and Control Groups

5.4 Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Based on

Achievement Test Scores

5.4.1 Comparison of Post-test Achievement Scores of Pupil inthe


5.4.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Achievement Scores of Pupils inthe


279


5.5 Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Based on the

Self-Concept Scores

5.5.1 Comparison of Post-test Self Concept Scores of Pupils in


5.5.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Self Concept Scores of Pupils in the


5.6 Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Based on the

Achievement Motivation

5.6.1 Comparison ofPost-test Achievement Motivation Scores of

Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

5.6.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Achievement Motivation Scores of

Pupils in the Experimentaland Control Groups

5.7 Comparison of Experimental and Control Group Based on the

Mathematical Interest Scores

5.7.1 Comparison ofPost-test Mathematical Interest Scores of Pupils

inthe Experimental and Control Groups

5.7.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Mathematical Interest Scores of

Pupils inthe Experimental and Control Groups

5.8 Genuineness of Difference in the Performance of Experimental

and Control Groups

5.8.1 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Achievement inMathematics

5.8.2 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Self-Concept

5.8.3 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Achievement Motivation

5.8.4 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Mathematical Interest

280


5.9 Analysis and Interpretation ofthe Opinion ofthe Experts on

Peer Tutoring

5.10 Analysis and Interpretation of the Data Obtained from the

Evaluation of PeerTutoring Model

5.10.1 Analysis and Interpretation of the Data Obtained from the

Tutors’ Diary.


Tutees’ Diary

5.10.3 Analysis and Interpretation of the Opinion of Experts

Regarding the Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring Model

5.11 Evaluation of Tutors’ Skill by the Researcher

5.3 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS BASED ON PRE-TEST SCORES AND SES SCORES

The pre-test achievement scores and SES scores of experimental

and control group were collected and analyzed for ensuring the

equivalence of the two groups. The details of the analysis of the both

the set of data are given below.

5.3.1 Comparison of Pre-Test Score of Pupils in theExperimental

and Control Groups

The mean and standard deviation of the pre-test scores of 200

pupilsin the experimental and control groups were calculated. The

critical ratio was found out and tested for significance. The data and

result of test of significance are given in Table 5.1.

281


The critical ratio 1.46 is not significant at 0.01 level. This shows

that there is no significant difference between the means of the pre-test

scores of the pupils in experimental and control groups. It means that

the two groups do not differ significantly in their pre-test scores. So it

can be concluded that two groups are more or less of the same level in

terms of pre-test scores. The pre-test scores of experimental and control

groups are graphically represented in Graph 5.1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-5 5--10 10--15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class

Control Experimental

Group N Mean SD CR Level of

significance

Experimental 200 19.91 6.66

1.46 P > 0.01

Control 200 18.26 6.11

Table 5.1 The Result of Test of Significance of the Difference Between the Means of

Pre-test Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

Graph 5.1 The Frequency Distribution of the Pre-test Scores of Pupils in the


282


5.3.2 Comparison Based on SES Scores of the Pupils in the


The mean and standard deviation of SES scores of 200 pupils in

the experimental and control group were found out. The critical ratio

was found out and tested for significance. The data and result of the

test of significance are given in Table 5.2.


Significance


0.40 P>0.01

Control 200 23.8 6.49

The critical ratio 0.40 is not significant at 0.01 level. This shows

that there is no significant difference between the means of the SES

scores of the pupils in experimental and control groups. It means that

the two groups do not differ significantly in their SES. So it can be

concluded that two groups are more or less of the same level in terms

of SES. The pre-test scores of experimental and control groups are

graphically represented in Graph5.2.

Table 5.2 The Result of the Test of Significance of the Difference Between the Means ofSocio

Economic Status of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

283


5.4 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROLGROUPSBASED ON ACHIEVEMENT TEST

SCORES

The post-test achievement scores were collected from both the

control and experimental groups. The data were analyzed by

comparing them. Also analyzed the mean gain achievement scores of

pupils in the experimental and control groups. The details of the

analysis are given below.

5.4.1 Comparison of Post-test Achievement Scores of Pupils in the


A post-test was conducted by the investigator after the peer

tutoring session in control and experimental group to find the variation

in the achievement scores due to peer tutoring. The critical ratio 8.74 is

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0-10 20--30 20-30 30-40

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class

Experimental group Control group

Graph 5.2 The Frequency Distribution of the Socio-Economic Status

ofPupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

284


significant at 0.01level. This shows that there is significant difference

between the means of the achievement scores of the pupils in

experimental and control groups. It means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievement. So it can be concluded that two

groups are at different level in achievement. The data and result of the

test of significance are given in Table 5.3.

The critical ratio 8.74 is significant at 0.01 level. This shows that

there is significant difference between the means of the post-

testachievement scores of the pupils in experimental and control

groups. It means that the two groups differ significantly in their

achievement. So it can be concluded that two groups are of different

levels in terms of post-test scores. The post-test achievement scores of

experimental and control groups are graphically represented in

Graph5.3.


significance


8.74 P>0.01

Control 200 21.2 7.67

Table 5.3 The Result of Test of Significance of the Difference between the Means of

Post-Test Achievement Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

285


5.4.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Achievement Scores of Pupils in

the Experimental and Control Groups

The mean and standard deviation of the gain achievement score

of the two groups were calculated. The critical ratio was found out and

tested for significance. The data and result of the test of significance

are given in Table 5.4.


significance


20.83 P > 0.01

Control 200 1.1 1.19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-5 5--10 10--15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class

Experimental group Control Group

Graph 5.3 The Frequency Distribution of the Post-test Achievement Scores

of Pupils in the Experimental and Control groups

Table 5.4 The Result of Test of Significance of The Difference Between Mean Gain

Achievement Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

286


The mean gain achievement of 200 pupils in experiment and

control group was 5.7 and 1.1 respectively with a deviation of 3.05 and

1.19. It was observed that the two groups significantly differed in mean

gain scores with a critical value of 20.83 at 0.01 level.

5.5 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROLGROUPSBASED ON THE SELF-CONCEPT

SCORES

The post-test self-concept scores were collected from both the

control and experimental groups. The data were analyzed by

comparing them. Also analyzed the mean gain self-concept scores of

pupils in the experimental and control groups. The details of the

analysis are given below.

5.5.1 Comparison of Post-test Self-Concept Scores of Pupils in


The mean and standard deviation of scores of self-conceptof 200

pupils in the experimental and control group were found out before and

after peer tutoring session. The critical ratio was found out and tested

for significance. The data and result of the test of significance are given

in Table.5.5.


significance


3.73 P > 0.01

Control 200 71.5 16.06

Table 5.5 The Result of Test of Significance of the Difference Between Means of Self

Concept Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

287



there is significant difference between the means of the self-

conceptscores of the pupils in experimental and control groups. It

means that the two groups differ significantly in their self-concept. So

it can be concluded that two groups are different in level in terms of

self-concept. The self-concept scores of experimental and control

groups are graphically represented in Graph 5.4.

5.5.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Self Concept Scores of Pupils in

the Experimental and Control Groups

The mean and standard deviation of gain scores of self-

conceptof 200 pupils in the experimental and control group were found

out before and after peer tutoring session. The critical ratio was found

out and tested for significance. The data and result of the test of

significance are given in Table.5.6.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-10 10--20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class

Experimental group

Graph 5.4 The Frequency Distribution of the Self Concept Scores of Pupils in the

Experimental and Control Groups.

288


The mean gain self-concept of 200 pupils in experimental and

control groups were 7.3 and 2.7 respectively with deviations of 3.5 and

3.3. It was observed that the mean gain significantly differed in both

control and experimental group with a critical value of 14.08 at

0.01level (Table.5.6)

5.6 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS BASED ON THE ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

The post-test achievement motivation scores were collected from

both the control and experimental groups. The data were analyzed by

comparing them. Also analyzed the mean gain achievement motivation

scores of pupils in the experimental and control groups. The details of

the analysis are given below.

5.6.1 Comparison of Post-test Achievement Motivation Scores of

Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

The mean and standard deviation of scores of achievement

motivation of200 pupils in the experimental and control group were

found out before and after peer tutoring session. The critical ratio was

found out and tested for significance. The data and result of the test of

significance are given in Table 5.7.


significance

Experimental 200 7.3 3.5 14.08 P > 0.01

Control 200 2.7 3.3

Table 5.6 The Results of Test of Significance of the Difference Between Mean Gain Self

Concept Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

289


The critical ratio 3.77 is significant at 0.01level. This shows that

there is significant difference between the means of the achievement

motivation scores of the pupils in experimental and control groups. It

means that the two groups differ significantly in their achievement

motivation. So it can be concluded that two groups are different in

levels in terms of achievement motivation. The achievement

motivation of experimental and control groups are graphically

represented in Graph5.5.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0-10 20 -30 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class


Group N Mean Sd CR Level of

significance

Experimental 200 36.5 10.16 3.77 P > 0.01

Control 200 32.3 12.01

Table 5.7 The Result of Test of Significance of the Difference Between Means of

Achievement Motivation Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

Graph 5.5 The Frequency Distribution of the Achievement Motivation Scores

ofPupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

290


5.6.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Achievement Motivation Scores

of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

The mean and standard deviation of gain scores of achievement

motivation of 200 pupils in the experimental and control group were





significance


23.50 P>0.01

Control 200 1.7 1.3

The mean gain achievement motivation of 200 pupils in

experimental and control groups were 6.6 and 1.7 respectively with

deviations of 2.8 and 1.3. It was observed that the mean gain

significantly differed in both control and experimental group with a

critical value of 23.50 at 0.01 level(Table.5.8).

5.7 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP

BASED ON THE MATHEMATICAL INTEREST SCORES

The post-testMathematics interest scores were collected from

both the control and experimental groups.The data was analysed

bycomparing them. Also analysed the mean gain Mathematics

interestscores of pupils in the experimental and control groups. The

details of the analysis are given below:

Table 5.8 The Result of Test of Significance of the Mean GainAchievement Motivation

Scores of Pupils in theExperimental and Control Groups

291


5.7.1Comparison of Post-testMathematical Interest Scores of

Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups.

The mean and standard deviation of scores of mathematical

interest of 200 pupils in the experimental and control group were




Group N Mean Sd CR Level of

significance


4.42 P > 0.01

Control 200 20.62 6.88


there is significant difference between the means of the mathematical

interest scores of the pupils in experimental and control groups. It

means that the two groups differ significantly in their mathematical

interest. So it can be concluded that two groups are different in level in

terms of mathematical interest. The mathematical interest scores of

experimental and control groups are graphically represented in Graph

5.6.

Table 5.9 The Result of Test of Significance of the Difference Between Means

ofMathematical Interest Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

292


5.7.2 Comparison of Mean Gain Mathematical Interest Scores of


The mean and standard deviation of gain scores of mathematical

interest of 200 pupils in the experimental and control group were



significance are given in Table 5.10


significance

Experimental 200 5.2 2.5 13.5 P > 0.01

Control 200 2.3 2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-5 5--10 10--15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40

Fre

qu

en

cy

Class


Table 5.10 The Result of Test of Significance of the Mean Gain in Mathematical Interest

Scores of Pupils in the Experimental and Control Groups

Graph 5.6 The Frequency Distribution of the Mathematical Interest Scores of


293


The mean gain achievement motivation of200 pupils in

experimental and control groups were 5.2 and 2.3 respectively with

deviations of 2.5 and 2.0. It was observed that the mean gain

significantly differed in both control and experimental group with a

critical value of 13.5 at 0.01level (Table.5.10).

5.8 GENUINENESS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE

OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

The analysis of the post-test scores and gain scores of pupils for

each dependent variable revealed that the experimental group

performed much better than control group. Thus the investigator

concluded tentatively that Peer Tutoring Model is more effective than

prevailing method of teaching. But it cannot be conclusively say that

both the groups differ significantly by simply comparing the post-test

scores of or gain scores of the groups. Since it was highly inconvenient

to sort out the students from different classes to form equator groups,

the investigator selected intact class groups for experimentation. Even

though the groups were equated in terms of pre-test scores and socio

economic status, many other intervening variables might have affected

the experimentation. It is difficult to ascertain whether the difference

between the pre-test and post-test scores results from the experimental

factor or from other intervening variables. So it become necessary that

the scores be analysed using the technique of analysis of covariance for

much more reliable results.

294


5.8.1 Effectof Peer Tutoring Model on Achievement in Mathematics

The achievement scores in Mathematics of 200 pupils of the

experimental and control group were subjected to analysis of

covariance to determine the effectiveness of Peer Tutoring Model over

prevailing method of teaching.

Total sum of squares, mean square variances and F ratios for the

pre and post achievement test scores of the experimental and control

groups were computed (Table 5.11).

Source of

variation df SSx SSy MSx MSy

Fx=2.16

Fy=90.95

Among

means 1 131.10 5685.16 131.10 5685.16

Within

groups 398 24130.4 24877.28 60.62 62.50

Total 399 24261.5 30562.44

The F ratios for the two sets of scores were tested for

significance. The Chi-square value of df 1/398 are 3.86 at 0.05 level.

The obtained value of Fx is 2.16 which is not significant at 0.05 level

and the obtained value of Fy is 90.95 which is significant at 0.05 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for

post-test scores were computed. F ratio was calculated (Table.5.12).

Table 5.11 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Pre and Post Achievement Test Scores

of Experimental and Control Groups

295


The obtained value of F ratio is 51.83. It is significant at 0.01

level, since the value at 0.01 level from the table is 6.7. The significant

F ratio for the adjusted post-test scores shows that the two final mean

scores, viz., the final mean score of pupil in the experimental group and

that of control group differ significantly after they have been adjusted

for differences in pre-test scores.

The adjusted means for post-test scores of pupil in the

experimental and control group were computed using correlation and

regression. The results are shown in Table 5.13.

Groups N Mx My My.x (adjusted)

Experimental 200 18.26 29.6 29.8

Control 200 19.91 21.2 20.1

General means 19.1 25.4

Source

of variation df SSx SSy SSxy SSy.x Msy.x SDy.x

Fy.x

=

51.8

3

Among

means 1 131.10 5685.16 266.35

1800.9

5 1800.95

5.89

Within

groups 397

24130.

40

24877.2

8

25028.5

5 13794 34.75

Total 398 24261.

50

30562.4

4

24762.2

0

15594.

95

Table 5.13 Data for Adjusted Means of Post-test Achievement Scores of Pupils in


Table 5.12 Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Pre and Post Achievement Test Scores of


296


Adjusted means for post-test scores were tested for significance

for df = 1/397. The t-value obtained was 7.35.The table value for

significance for df = 397 is1.97 at 0.05 level and 2.59 at 0.01 level. So

the obtained value is significant at 0.01 level (t=7.35;P<0.01).

The significant t-value leads to the conclusion that the two

means differ considerably. This implies that the experimental and

control groups differ significantly in their achievement. The adjusted

mean of post-test scores for the experimental group is greater than that

of the control group. So it is obvious that experimental group is better

than the control group in achievement. It may thereforeinferred that

the students who learned through Peer Tutoring Model have better

achievement than those who studied in the prevailing approach. In

other words Peer Tutoring Model is a better method of instruction than

the prevailing method for the student achievement.

5.8.2 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Self-Concept

The self-concept scores in Mathematics of 200 pupils of the

experimental and control group were subjected to analysis of


prevailing learning approach.


pre and post self-concept scores of the experimental and control groups

were computed (Table5.14).

297


Source of


Fx= 0.95

Fy=15.88

Among

means 1 246.49 3782.25 46.49 3782.25

Within

groups 398 104447.9 94811.5 262.43 238.22

Total 399 104694.4 98593.75


significance. The table value of df 1/397 are 3.86 at 0.05 level. The

obtained value of Fx is 0.94 which is not significant at 0.05 level and

the obtained value of Fy is15.88 which is significant at 0.01 level.






scores , viz., the final mean score of pupil in the experimental group

and that of control group differ significantly after they have been

adjusted for differences in pre-test scores.

Source of

variation df SSx SSy SSxy SSy.x Msy.x SDy.x

Fy.x

=

27.1

Among

means 1

246.

49

3782.

25

380.

67

2448.

10

2448.

10 9.51

Within

groups 397

10447.

90

94811.

50

23247.

50

35882.

52

90.

38

Total 398 104694.

40

98593.

75

23628.

17

36126.

62

Table 5.14 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Pre and Post Self Concept

Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Table 5.15 Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Pre and Post Self

Concept Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

298




regression. The results are shown in Table 5.16


Experimental 200 71.05 77.2 77.6

Control 200 70.05 71.58 70.42



for df = 1/397. The t-value obtained was 10.35. The table value for

significance for df =397 is1.97 at 0.05 level and 2.59 at 0.01 level. So




control groups differ significantly in their self-concept. The adjusted

mean of post-test scores for the experimental group is greater than that

of the control group. So it is obvious that experimental group is better

than the control group in self-concept. It may bethereforeinferred that

the students who learned through Peer Tutoring Model have better self-

concept than those who studied in the prevailing approach. In other

words Peer Tutoring Model is a better method of instruction than the

prevailing method for the student’s self-concept.

5.8.3 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Achievement Motivation

The achievement motivation scores in Mathematics of 200

pupils of the experimental and control group were subjected to analysis

Table 5.16 Data for Adjusted Means of Post-test Self Concept Scores of

Pupils inExperimental and Control Groups

299


of covariance to determine the effectiveness of Peer Tutoring Model

over prevailing learning approach.


pre and post achievement motivation scores of the experimental and

control groups were computed (Table 5.17).

Source of variation df SSx SSy MSx MSy

Fx= 32.89

Fy=0.98

Among means 1 4900 156.25 4900 156.25

Within groups 398 59300 63521.5 148.995 159.60

Total 399 64200 63677.75

The Fratios for the two sets of scores were tested for

significance. The table value of df 1/397 is 3.86 at 0.05 level. The

obtained value of Fx is 32.89which is not significant at 0.05 level and

the obtained value of Fy is 0.98 which is significant at 0.01 level.


post-test scores were computed. F ratio was calculated (Table 5.18).

Source of


Fy.x

=

64.09

Among

means 1 4900 156.25

340.

92

2315.

46

2315.

46 6.01

Within

groups 397 59300

63521.5

0

32036.

64

14345.

76

36.

14

Total 398 64200 63677.7

5

32377.

56

16661.

22

Table 5.17Summary of Analysis of Variance of Pre and Post Achievement Motivation


Table 5.18 Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Pre and Post Achievement

Motivation Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

300





scores, viz., the final mean score of pupil in the experimental group and

that of control group differ significantly after they have been adjusted

for differences in pre-test scores.



regression. The results are shown in Table 5.19


for df = 1/397. The t-value obtained was 8.71. The table value for

significance for df = 397 is 1.97 at 0.05 level and 2.59 at 0.01 level. So




control groups differ significantly in their achievement motivation. The

adjusted mean of post-test scores for the experimental group is greater

than that of the control group. So it is obvious that experimental group

is better than the control group in achievement motivation. It may

betherefore inferred that the students who learned through Peer


Experimental 200 29.5 36.5 36.8

Control 200 20.01 20.12 20.09


Table 5.19 Data for Adjusted Means of Post-test Achievement Motivation Scores of Pupils

in Experimental and Control Groups

301


Tutoring Model have better achievement motivation than those who

studied in the prevailing approach. In other words Peer Tutoring

Model is a better method of instruction than the prevailing method for

the student’s achievement motivation.

5.8.4 Effect of Peer Tutoring Model on Mathematical Interest

The mathematical interest scores in Mathematics of 200 pupils

of the experimental and control group were subjected to analysis of


prevailing learning approach.


pre and post mathematical interest scores of the experimental and

control groups were computed (Table 5.20).


significance. The table value of df 1/398 is3.86 at 0.05 level. The

obtained value of Fx is 8.47 which is not significant at 0.05 level and

the obtained value of Fy is1.04 which is significant at 0.05 level.



Source of


Fx=8.47

Fy=1.04

Among

means 1 402.0 52.101 402.01 52.10

Within

groups 398 18803.27 19801.24 47.48 50

Total 399 19205.28 19853.34

Table 5.20 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Pre and Post Mathematical Interest


302


The obtained value of F ratio is 45.55.It is significant at

0.01level, since the value at 0.01 level from the table is 6.7. The

significant F ratio for the adjusted post-test scores shows that the two

final mean scores,viz., the final mean score of pupil in the experimental

group and that of control group differ significantly after they have been

adjusted for differences in pre-test scores.



regression. The results are shown in Table 5.22.


Experimental 200 18 23.48 24.12

Control 200 18.7 20.63 19.2



for df = 1/397.The t-value obtained was 15.2. The table value for

Source of


Fy.x

=

45.5

5

Among

means 1 402.0 52.10 213.08

1519.5

0

1519.5

0 5.78

Within

groups 398

18803.

27

198011.

24

20022.

84

13242.

24 33.36

Total 399 19205.

28

19853.3

4

20235.

92

14761.

74

Table 5.21 Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Pre and Post Mathematical

Interest Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Table 5.22 Data for Adjusted Means of Post-test Mathematical InterestScores of Pupils

in Experimental and Control Groups

303


significance for df = 397 is1.97 at 0.05 level and 2.59 at 0.01 level. So

the obtained value is significant at 0.01 level (t=15.2.;P<0.01).



control groups differ significantly in their mathematical interest. The

adjusted mean of post-test scores for the experimental group is greater

than that of the control group. So it is obvious that experimental group

is better than the control group in mathematical interest. It may

therefore inferred that the students who learned through Peer Tutoring

Model have better mathematical interest than those who studied in the

prevailing approach. In other words Peer Tutoring Model is a better

method of instruction than the prevailing method for the student’s

mathematical interest.

5.9 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OPINION

OFTHE EXPERTS ON PEER TUTORING

The mean and standard deviation values of the scores obtained

from the strategy evaluation proforma (Peer Tutoring) were calculated

by using the formula M±SD.

Variable Mean SD

Opinion on peer Tutoring 152.17 20.12

The mean and standard deviation obtained from the total score of

opinion on peer Tutoring are given in Table 5.2. The experts getting

score 173 and above grouped as high, score in between 132 and 172

Table 5.23 The Mean and Standard Deviation Values of Opinion of the Experts on

Peer Tutoring

304


grouped as moderate and score 131 and below grouped as low opinion

on Peer Tutoring.

Level Number of Experts Percentage

Low 7 14

Moderate 35 70

High 8 16

Total 50 100

The table shows that the frequency of experts fall under three

levels of scores. Seventy per cent of experts have a moderate opinion

on Peer Tutoring and 16 per cent experts have high opinion on Peer

Tutoring.It showed that majority of the experts have a positive opinion

in the administration of the Peer Tutoring Method.The graphical

representation of the result from Table 5.24 is as follows.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low Moderate High

Table 5.24 Levels of Opinion of the Experts on Peer Tutoring

Graph 5.7 Levels of Opinion of the Expert on Peer Tutoring

305


The bar diagram shows the data and results indicating the levels

of opinion of experts on peer tutoring. It denotes that majority of the

experts have a positive opinion on peer tutoring.

5.10 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA OBTAINED

FROM THE EVALUATION OFPEER TUTORING MODEL

The evaluation of the Peer Tutoring Model was done with the

help of the data collected from both the students (tutors and tutee) and

teachers. The data for the evaluation was collected from tutors’ diary

and tutees’ diary.A Check-list was also given to the teachers and

experts for the same purpose. The detailsof the analysis of the dataare

given below.


Tutors’ Diary

The tutors’ opinion about Peer Tutoring Model was evaluated

periodically after each session with five degrees of opinion. The data

were collected from the tutors’ dairy. Analysis and interpretation of the

data on tutors’ diary after each session was given below.

5.10.1.1The Opinion of Tutors’ with Respect to Their Self Evaluation

and Tutoring Schedule of Session 1

The opinion of tutors with respect to their self-evaluation and

tutoring schedule of session 1 is presented in Table.5.25. It was

observed that score were concentrated on good and average level and

the Chi-square is distributed normally with respect to expected ratios

since it showed good fit with it.The computed value of Chi–

square(6.4)is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it

306


cannot be taken as significant.Therefore the opinion expressed by

tutors is not based on mere chance factor.

The graphical representation of the opinion of tutors’ with

respect to their self-evaluation and tutoring schedule of session 1 is

presented in Graph 5.8. It was clearly observed that most of the tutors

possess average and above average performance in their session 1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor

2.5

22.5

62.5

10Series1, 2.5

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of

significance Frequency Percentage

Computed

value

Table

value

Excellent 1 2.5

6.4 9.49 4 0.05

Good 9 22.5

Average 25 62.5

Poor 4 10

Very poor 1 2.5

Graph 5.8 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutors’ Diary after Session 1

Table 5.25 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained

fromTutors’Diary after Session 1

307


The opinion of tutors with respect to their self-evaluation in

session 1 indicated that the performance is excellent for 2.5 per

centtutors, good for 22.5 per cent and average for 62.5 per cent of

tutors.

5.10.1.2The Opinion of Tutors’ with Respect to Their SelfEvaluation





the Chi–square is distributed normally with respect to expected ratios

since it showed good fit with it.The computed value of Chi–square(5.0)

is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be

taken as significant. Therefore the opinions expressed by tutors are not

based on mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of

significance Frequency Percentage Computed

value

Table

value

Excellent 1 2.5

5.0 9.49 4 0.05

Good 11 27.5

Average 23 57.5

Poor 4 10.0

Very poor 1 2.5



presented in Graph.5.9. It was clearly observed that most of the tutors


Table.5.26 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained

from Tutors’ Diary after Session 2

308



session 2 indicated that the performance is excellent for 2.5 per cent

tutors, good for 27.5 per cent and average for 57.5 per cent of tutors.

5.10.1.3The Opinion of Tutors ’ with Respect to TheirSelf

Evaluation and Tutoring Schedule of Session 3





since it showed good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square

(5.8)is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be

taken as significant. .Therefore the opinions expressed by tutors are not


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2.5

27.5

57.5

102.5

Graph 5.9 Distributionof Responses Obtained from Tutors’Diary after Session 2

309


Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 2 5.0

5.8 19.49 4 0.05

Good 10 25.0

Average 23 57.5

Poor 5 12.5

Very poor 0 0





0

10

20

30

40

50

60


5

25

57.5

12.5

0


fromTutors’Diary after Session 3

Graph 5.10Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutors’Diaryafter Session 3

310



session 3 indicated that the performance is excellent for fiveper

centtutors, good for 25 per cent and average for 57.5 percent of tutors.

5.10.1.4 The Opinion of Tutors’ with Respect to Their Self-Evaluation






since it showed good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–

square(3.58 )is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it

cannot be taken as significant. .Therefore the opinions expressed by

tutors are not based on mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value Table

value

Excellent 1 2.5

3.58 9.49 4 0.05

Good 11 27.5

Average 22 55.0

Poor 6 15.0

Very poor 0 0





Table.5.28 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Tutors’Diary after

Session 4.

311




tutors, good for 27.5 per cent tutors and average for 55.0 per cent of

tutors.











0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2.5

27.5

55

15

0

Graph 5.11 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutors’Diary after Session 4

312




presented in Graph5.12. It was clearly observed that most of the tutors


The

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


7.5

27.5

50

15

0

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 3 7.5

6.9 9.49 4 0.05

Good 11 27.5

Average 20 50.0

Poor 6 15.0

Very poor 0 0

Table 5.29 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Tutors’ Diary

after Session 5.


313



session 5 indicated that the performance is excellent for 7.5 per

centtutors, good for 27.5 per centand average for 50.0 per cent of

tutors.

5.10.1.6 The opinion of Tutors’ with Respect to Their Self-Evaluation






since it showed good fit with it.The computed value of Chi–square(3.3)

is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be

taken as significant. Therefore the responses expressed by tutors are

not based on mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value Table

value

Excellent 2 5.0

3.3 9.49 4 0.05

Good 13 32.5

Average 18 45.0

Poor 6 15.0

Very poor 1 2.5



Table 5.30 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from

Tutors’Diary after Session 6

314





session 6 indicated that the performance is excellent for fiveper cent

tutors’, good for 32.5 per cent and average for 45.0 per cent of tutors.





observed that score were concentrated on good and average leveland


since it showed good fit with it.The computed value of Chi–


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


5

32.5

45

15

2.5


315








0

10

20

30

40

50


7.5

25

50

15

2.5

Series1

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of

significance Frequenc

y Percentage

Computed

value

Table

value

Excellent 3 7.5

5.8 9.49 4 0.05

Good 10 25

Average 20 50

Poor 6 15

Very poor 1 2.5




316




tutors, good for 25 per cent and average for 50 per cent of tutors.


and Tutoring Schedule of Session 8.





since it showed good fit with it.The computed value of Chi–square

(5.5)is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be

taken as significant.Therefore the opinions expressed by tutors are not






Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 2 2.0

5.5 9.49 4 0.05

Good 11 27.5

Average 22 55.0

Poor 4 10.0

Very

poor 1 2.5


Tutors’Diaryafter Session 8

317



session 8 indicated that the performance is excellent for twoper cent



andTutoring Schedule of Session 9






square(3.4) is less than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it

cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the opinion expressed by


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2

27.5

55

102.5


318


Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 1 2.5

3.4 9.49 4 0.05

Good 11 27.5

Average 22 55.0

Poor 5 12.5

Very poor 1 2.5

The graphical representation of the opinion of tutors with respect

to their self-evaluation and tutoring schedule of session 9 is presented

in Graph.5.16. It was clearly observed that most of the tutors possess

average and above average performance in their session 9.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2.5

27.5

55

12.52.5




319


5.10.1.10 The opinion of Tutors’ with Respect to Their Self-Evaluation




observed that score were concentrated on good and average level

andthe Chi–square is distributed normally with respect to expected

ratios since it showed good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–


cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the opinions expressed by


The graphical representation of the opinion of tutorswith respect

to their self-evaluation and tutoring schedule of session 10 is presented

in Graph.5.17. It was clearly observed that most of the tutors possess

average and above average performance in their session 10.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value Table

value

Excellent 3 7.5

8.3 9.49 4 0.05

Good 10 25

Average 22 55.0

Poor 5 12.5

Very poor 0 0


Tutors’ Diaryafter Session 10

320





5.10.2 Analysis and Interpretation of the Data Obtained from

the Tutees’ Diary

The tutees opinion about Peer Tutoring Model was evaluated

periodically after each session with five levels of opinion. The data

were collected from the tutees’ dairy. Analysis and interpretation of the

data on tutees’ diary after each session was given below.

5.10.2.1 The Opinion of Tutees’ with Respect to the Tutoring Schedule

of Session 1

The opinion of tutees with respect to the tutoring schedule of

session 1 is presented in Table.5.35. It was observed that score were

concentrated on good and average level and theChi–squareis

distributed normally with respect to expected ratios since it showed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


7.5

25

55

12.5

0


321


good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square (1.55) is less than

the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be taken as

significant. Therefore the opinions expressed by tutees are not based on

mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 6 3.750

1.55 9.49 4 0.05

Good 43 26.875

Average 72 45.000

Poor 35 21.875

Very poor 4 2.500

The graphical representation of the opinion of tutees with respect

to tutoring schedule of session 1 is presented in Graph.5.18. The

distribution of opinion of tutees with respect to session 1 indicated that

it is excellent for 3.75 per cent, good for 26.8 per cent and average for

45.0 per cent i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session 1

isabove.average.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


3.75

26.875

45

21.875

2.5


Tutees’Diaryafter Session 1

Graph 5.18 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session1

322


5.10.2.2The Opinion of Tutees’ with Respect to the Tutoring Schedule of

Session 2



concentrated on good and average level andthe Chi–square is


good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square(2.38)is less than


significant.Therefore the opinions expressed by tutees are not based on

mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 8 5

2.38 9.49 4 0.05

Good 40 25

Average 73 45.63

Poor 36 22.5

Very poor 3 1.875




it is excellent for fiveper cent, good for 25 per cent and average for

45.6 per cent, i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session 2 is

above average.


from Tutees’Diary after Session 2

323



of Session 3.



concentrated on good and average level and the Chi–square

isdistributed normally with respect to expected ratios since it showed

good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square (1.34)is less than



mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 7 4.375

1.34 9.49 4 0.05

Good 40 25.0

Average 75 46.875

Poor 32 20.0

Very poor 6 3.750

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


5

25

45.63

22.5

1.875

Graph 5.19 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session 2


from Tutees’Diaryafter Session 3

324


The graphical representation of the opinion of tutee with respect



it is excellent for 4.37 per cent, good for 25 per cent and average for

46.8 per cent, i.e., majority ofthe tutees responded that the session 3 is

above average.


of Session 4.



concentrated on good and average level and the Chi–square is





mere chance factor.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


4.375

25

46.875

20

3.75

Graph 5.20 Distribution of responses Obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session3

325





it is excellent for 5.6 per cent, good for 24.37per cent and average for


above average.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


5.6

24.37

45

22.5

2.5

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 9 5.6

2.30 9.49 4 0.05

Good 39 24.37

Average 72 45.0

Poor 36 22.5

Very poor 4 2.5



Graph 5.21 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session4

326


5.10.2.5 The Opinion of Tutees’ with Respect to the Tutoring

Schedule of Session 5





good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square (5.14) is less than

the critical value of the Chi–square; hence it cannot be taken as


mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 9 5.62

5.14 9.49 4 0.05

Good 39 24.37

Average 73 45.62

Poor 35 21.88

Very poor 4 2.5





45.62 per cent i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session 5 is

above average.


Tutees’Diary after Session 5.

327


5.10.2.6 The Opinion of Tutees’ with Respect to theTutoring Schedule

of Session 6


session 6 is presented in Table.5.40.It was observed that score were






mere chance factor.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


5.62

24.37

45.62

21.88

2.5

Series1


328







above average.

0

10

20

30

40

50


4.37

26.25

47.5

20

1.875

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 7 4.37

3.25 9.49 4 0.05

Good 42 26.25

Average 76 47.5

Poor 32 20.0

Very poor 3 1.875


Tutees’Diary after Session 6


329


5.10.2.7 The Opinion of Tutees’ with Respect to the Tutoring



session 7 is presented in Table. 5.41. It was observed that score were






mere chance factor.




it is excellent for fiveper cent, good for 26.8 per cent and average for

45.62 per cent, i.e., majority ofthe tutees responded that the session 7 is

above average.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 8 5.0

1.82 9.49 4 0.05

Good 43 26.875

Average 73 45.625

Poor 33 20.625

Very poor 3 1.874

Table.5.41 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from

Tutees’Diary after Session 7

330



of Session 8








mere chance factor.

0

10

20

30

40

50


5

26.875

45.625

20.625

1.874


331


Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of

significance Frequency Percentage

Computed

value

Table

value

Excellent 9 5.625

2.98 9.49 4 0.05

Good 40 25.00

Average 74 46.25

Poor 33 20.62

Very poor 4 2.5




it is excellent for 5.62 per cent, good for 25 per cent and average for

46.25 per cent, i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session 8

is above average.

0

10

20

30

40

50


5.625

25

46.25

20.62

2.5


Tutees’ Diary after Session 8

Graph 5. 25 Distribution of Responses Obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session 8

332



of Session 9





good fit with it. The computed value of Chi–square(1.56 )is less than



mere chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 6 3.750

1.56 9.49 4 0.05

Good 42 26.25

Average 74 46.25

Poor 34 21.25

Very poor 4 2.5





46.25 per cent, i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session 9

is above average.



333


5.10.2.10 The Opinion of Tutees’ with respect to the Tutoring









mere chance factor.

0

10

20

30

40

50


3.75

26.25

46.25

21.25

2.5

Graph 5.26 Distribution of responses obtained from Tutees’Diary after Session 9

334




distribution of opinion of tutees with respect to session 10 indicated

that it is excellent for 3.75 per cent, good for 27.5 per cent and average

for 44.3per cent i.e., majority of the tutees responded that the session10

is above average.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


3.75

27.5

44.3

22.5

1.875

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Excellent 6 3.750

2.55 9.49 4 0.05

Good 44 27.5

Average 71 44.3

Poor 36 22.5

Very poor 3 1.875

Table 5.44 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data obtained

fromTutees’Diary after Session 10


335


5.10.3 Analysis and Interpretation of the Opinion of Experts

Regarding the Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring Model

The experts’ opinion about Peer Tutoring Model was evaluated

after the completion of the peer tutoring. A check-list containing 10

statement regarding different aspects of peer tutoring was examined by

50 experts and their critical opinion were grouped with five levels of

classes like 'very high', 'high', 'moderate', 'low' and 'none'. The data

collected were analysed, interpreted and presented in following tables

and graphs.

5.10.3.1 Experts’ Opinion about Statement 1.

“At what level of subject knowledge and grade level was the

students performancebefore tutoring?”

Regarding experts’ opinion about the subject knowledge and

grade level attainment of students before tutoring is categorized in to

'very high', 'high', 'moderate', 'low' and 'none'. Twoper cent of the

experts opined that there is very high level of attainment, 26 per cent is

of opinion that there is high level of attainment, 48 per cent supports

the view that there is moderate level of attainment and 20 per cent

observed low level of attainment and four per cent were neutral in

opinion. The Chi-square distribution of the data showed good fit with

normal (Table.5.45). The computed value of Chi-square(0.95 )is less

than the critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be taken as

significant. Therefore the opinions expressed by experts are not based

on mere chance factor.

336


Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 1 2

0.95 9.49 4 0.05

High 13 26

Moderate 24 48

Low 10 20

None 2 4

Graphical representation of the data regarding the subject

knowledge and grade level attainment of students before tutoring

clearly indicating the dominance of positive responses especially at

moderate and high levels (Graph 5.28).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Very high High Moderate Low None

2

26

48

20

4


Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of PeerTutoring on the Basis of Statement 1

Graph 5.28 Opinion of Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of PeerTutoring

on the Basis of Statement 1

337


5.10.3.2 Experts’ Opinion about Statement 2

“To what extent did the students self-concept improve due to

peer tutoring?”

Regarding self-concept 50 per cent of the expert is of opinion

that there is moderate improvement in self-concept after peer tutoring.

Twenty eightper cent opined that there is high level of improvement,

twoper cent opined that there is very high level of improvement, 18 per

cent supports low improvement and twoper cent is neutral. The Chi-

square distribution of the data showed good fit with normal

(Table.5.46). The computed value of Chi–square(1.75)is less than the

critical value of the Chi–square, hence it cannot be taken as significant.

Therefore the opinions expressed by experts are not based on mere

chance factor.

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of

significance Frequency Percentage Compute

d value

Table

value

Very high 1 2

1.75 9.49 4 0.05

High 14 28

Moderate 25 50

Low 9 18

None 1 2

Graphical representation of the data regarding the model of

peer tutoring on the basis of self-concept of students after tutoring

clearly indicating the dominance of positive responses of experts

especially at moderate and high levels (Graph 5.29).

Table 5.46- Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Experts

Evaluation Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring on the Basis of Statement 2

338



“To what extent did the peer tutoring improve the students study

skills?”

Regarding study skills 48 per cent of the expertsare of opinion

that there is moderate improvement in study skills after peer tutoring.

Twenty eightper cent opined that there is high level of improvement,

sixper cent opined that there is very high level of improvement and 18

per cent supports low improvement. The Chi-square distribution of the

data showed good fit with normal. The computed value of Chi–


cannot be taken as significant.Therefore the opinions expressed by

tutors are not based on mere chance factor (Table.5.47).

0

10

20

30

40

50


2

28

50

18

2



339


Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 3 6

4.37 9.49 4 0.05

High 14 28

Moderate 24 48

Low 9 18

None 0 0

Graphical representation of the data regarding the Model of Peer

Tutoring on the basis of study skills of students after tutoring clearly

indicating the dominance of positive responses of experts especially at


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


6

28

48

18

0

Table 5.47 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Experts’




340



“To what extent did the peer tutoring improve the students daily

academic class room performance?”

Regarding students’ daily academic class room performance, 46

per cent of the expertsareof opinion that there is moderate

improvement in class room performance after peer tutoring. Thirtyper

cent opined that there is high level of improvement, fourper cent

opined that there is very high level of improvement and 14 per cent

supports low improvement. The Chi-square distribution of the data

showed good fit with normal. The computed value of Chi–


cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the opinions expressed by

experts are not based on mere chance factor (Table.5.48).

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 2 4

6.83 9.49 4 0.05

High 15 30

Moderate 23 46

Low 7 14

None 3 6


Tutoring on the basis of daily academic class room performance of

students after tutoring clearly indicated the dominance of positive

responses of experts especially at moderate and high levels (Graph

5.31).

Table.5.48 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Experts


341


5.10.3.5 Experts’Opinion about Statement 5

“To what extent did the peer tutoring improve the students

achievement motivation towards academic achievement?”

Regarding students’ achievement motivation 46 per cent of the

expertsareof opinion that there is moderate improvement in motivation

after peer tutoring. Thirtyper cent opined that there is high level of

improvement, 6 per cent opined that there is very high level of

improvement and 18per cent supports low improvement. The Chi-

square distribution of the data showed good fit with normal .The

computed value of Chi–square(2.5)is less than the critical value of the

Chi–square, hence it cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the

opinions expressed by tutors are not based on mere chance factor

(Table.5.49).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


4

30

46

146



342



Tutoring on the basis of achievement motivation of students after

tutoring clearly indicated the dominance of positive responses of

experts especially at moderate and high levels (Graph 5.32).

0

10

20

30

40

50


6

30

46

18

0

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 3 6

2.5 9.49 4 0.05

High 15 30

Moderate 23 46

Low 9 18

None 0 0

Table 5.49 Computation of the Chi-square with the DataObtained from Experts


Graph 5.32 Opinion of Experts EvaluationRegarding the Model of

PeerTutoring on the Basis of Statement 5

343



“To what extent did the student’s overall confidence improve due to

peer tutoring ?”

Regarding students’ confidence, 58 per cent of the expertsare of

opinion that there is moderate improvement in confidence after peer

tutoring. Twenty eightper cent opined that there is high level of

improvement, fourper cent opined that there is very high level of

improvement and 16 per cent supports low improvement. The Chi-

square distribution of the data showed good fit with normal .The



opinions expressed by experts are not based on mere chance factor

(Table.5.50).

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 2 4

2.66 9.49 4 0.05

High 14 28

Moderate 26 58

Low 8 16

None 0 0


Tutoring on the basis of confidence of students after tutoring clearly

indicating the dominance of positive responses of experts especially at


Table 5.50 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Experts


344



“To what extent did the students interest in Mathematics improve

due to peer tutoring ?”

Regarding students’ ability to logical thinking 52 percent of the

expertsare of opinion that there is moderate improvement in confidence

after peer tutoring. Twenty fourper cent opined that there is high level

of improvement, eightper cent opined that there is very high level of

improvement and 16 per cent supports low improvement. The Chi-

square distribution of the data showed good fit with normal. The



opinions expressed by tutors are not based on mere chance factor

(Table.5.51).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


4

28

58

16

0



345



Tutoring on the basis of logical thinking of students after tutoring

clearly indicated the dominance of positive responses of experts

especially at moderate and high levels (Graph 5.34).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


8

24

52

16

0

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 4 8

4.72 9.49 4 0.05

High 12 24

Moderate 26 52

Low 8 16

None 0 0


Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring on the Basis of Statement 7

Graph 5.34 Opinion of Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring


346



“To what extent has the socio- economic status of a student

influenced his adaptability towards peer tutoring programme?”

Regarding the influence of socio-economic status to the

adaptability to peer tutoring programme, 52 per cent of the expertsare

of opinion that there is moderate influence of SES on peer tutoring

while 30 per cent opined that there is high influence, fourper cent

opined very high level of influence and 14 per cent supported low

influence. The Chi-square distribution of the data showed good fit with

normal. The computed value of Chi–square (4.22) is less than the

critical value, hence it cannot be taken as significant.Therefore the


(Table.5.52).

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 2 4

4.22 9.49 4 0.05

High 15 30

Moderate 26 52

Low 7 14

None 0 0

Graphical representation of the data regarding opinion of experts

with respect to the Model of Peer Tutoring on the basis of socio-

economic status of students after tutoring clearly indicated the

dominance of positive responses of experts especially at moderate and

high levels (Graph 5.35).


Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring on the Basis of Statement 8

347



“To what extent did the students problem solving skills improve due

to peer tutoring?”

Regarding the subject knowledge and grade level attainment

after peer tutoring programme, 50 per cent of the expertsare of opinion

that there is moderate effect, 22 per cent opined high effect, sixper cent

very high level of effect, and 22 per cent supported low effect. The

Chi-square distribution of the data showed good fit with normal.The

computed value of Chi–square(1.67)is less than the critical value,

hence it cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the opinion expressed

by experts are not based on mere chance factor (Table.5.53).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


4

30

52

14

0

Graph 5.35 Opinion of Experts Evaluation Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring

onthe Basis of Statement 8

348



with respect to the Model of Peer Tutoring on the basis of subject

knowledge and grade level attainment of students after tutoring clearly

indicated the dominance of positive responses of experts especially at


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


6

22

50

22

0

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 3 6

1.67 9.49 4 0.05

High 11 22

Moderate 25 50

Low 11 22

None 0 0

Table 5.53 Computation of the Chi-squarewith the Data Obtained from Experts



on theBasis of Statement 9

349



“To what extent did the educational values improve due to peer

tutoring programme ?”

Regarding the opinion of experts about peer tutoring

programme, 48 per cent of the expertsare of opinion that the system is

of moderate importance, 24 per cent opined high importance, 10 per

cent very high level of importance, and 16 per cent supported low

importance. The Chi-square distribution of the data showed good fit

with normal.The computed value of Chi–square (5.87)is less than the

critical value, hence it cannot be taken as significant. Therefore the


(Table.5.54).

Opinion

Score Chi

df Level of


value

Table

value

Very high 5 10

5.87 9.49 4 0.05

High 12 24

Moderate 24 48

Low 8 16

None 1 2


with respect to the importance of the Model of Peer Tutoring clearly

indicated the dominance of positive responses of experts especially at


Table 5.54 Computation of the Chi-square with the Data Obtained from Experts Evaluation

Regarding the Model of Peer Tutoring on the Basis of Statement 10

350


5.11 EVALUATION OF TUTORS’ SKILL BY THE RESEARCHER

When the peer tutoring programme was going on, the researcher

evaluated the tutors’ skill. She used a check-list containing 25 items to

identify the tutors’ skill in handling peer tutoring sessions. She

observed that tutors fall under three categories, excellent with 35

percentof tutors, very good with 37.5 per cent, good with 27.5 per cent,

and fair with the least (2.5 per cent). The data indicated that all the

tutors are competent in handling the sessions (Table.5.55).

Category Score Frequency Percentage

Poor 1-25 0 0

Fair 25-50 1 2.5

Good 50-75 10 25

Very good 75-100 15 37.5

Excellent 100-125 14 35

Total 40 100

0

10

20

30

40

50


10

24

48

16

2

Graph 5.37 Opinion of Experts Evaluation Regarding the Modelof Peer Tutoring


Table. 5.55 Researcher’s Evaluation about the Tutors’ Skill

351


The graphical representation of the data on competency of tutors

indicated that the distribution of frequency are all in the positive levels;

with none at poor level.

5.12 CONCLUSION

Research data becomes meaningful in the process of being

analyzed and interpreted. The purpose of analysis is to build upon

intellectual model that explains the relationships between various

variables. The data after collection has to be processed at the time of

developing the research plan. The analysed data is then synthesized in

such a way that hypotheses may be verified or rejected. A tentative

plan for the analysis of the research result is very important because

this plan may have a considerable bearing upon the number of subjects

needed. The summary of findings and the detailed discussion of results

are given in the next chapter.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent

02.5

25

37.535

Graph 5.38 Researcher’s Evaluation about the Tutors’ Skill

analysis and interpretation of...

Documents