chapter 4 correction using
DESCRIPTION
referTRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER IV
INTRODUCTION
Analysis of data means critical examination of the tabulated data to determine the
inherent facts and characteristic of the object under study. This, in turn, will help in determining
the patterns of relationships among the variables relating to it.
Data Analysis embraces a whole range of activities of both the qualitative and
quantitative type. It is usual tendency in educational research that much sue of quantitative
analysis is made and statistical is made and statistical methods and techniques are employed.
Kaul defines data analysis as “studying the organized material in order to disorder inherent facts.
The data are studied born as many angles as possible to explore the new facts”. (Sharif Khan,
2009).
“Analysis of data in a general way involves a number of closely related operations,
which are performed with the purpose of summarizing the collected data and organizing these in
such a manner that they answer the research questions”. (C.R.Kothari, 1989).
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Analysis of data is one of the basic steps of research process. It is one of the processes
of collection, analyzing and interpreting the numerical data. It is studying the tabulated material
in order to determine the inherent factors or meaning. It involves breakdown of existing complex
factor into simple parts and putting the parts together in new arrangements for the purpose of
interpretation.
The analysis and interpretation of data represent the application of deductive and
inductive logic to the research process. The data are often classified by division into, subgroups
and are then analyzed and synthesized in such a way that hypothesis may be verified or rejected.
According to Gay (1976) “Analysis of the data is important as any other components of the
research process”.
In general process of analysis of research data, statistical methods as contributed a great deal,
simple statistical calculation finds a place in almost any research study dealing with large or even
small group of individuals, while complex statistical computations from the basis of many type
of research. It mayn’t be out of place, therefore, to enumerate some stastistical methods of
analysis used in educational research.
FUNCTIONS OF DATA
I. To obtain the significant results.
II. To make the raw data meaningful.
III. To evaluate parameters.
IV. To test the null hypothesis.
V. To draw some inferences or make generalization.
In this chapter percentage‘t’ test, ANOVA, and correlation co-efficient are executed.
TABLE 4.1
LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS
Low Average High
N % N % N %
20 6.7 272 90.7 8 2.7
It is inferred from above table 6.7%, 90.7%, 2.7% of IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence
HYPOTHESES TESTING
Hypotheses 1-4
Level of Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students with respect to back ground variable
TABLE 4.2
LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH RESPECT TO BACK GROUND VARIABLE
S.NO Variables Category N Low Average High
N % N % N %
1 Gender Male 151 13 8.6 135 89.4 3 2.0
Female 149 7 4.7 137 91.9 5 3.4
2 Locality of
school
Rural 121 5 4.1 113 93.4 3 2.5
Urban 179 15 8.4 159 88.8 5 2.8
It is inferred from the above table, 8.6%, 89.4%, 2% of male IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
4.7%, 91.9% 3.4% of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of
Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
4.1%, 93.4%, 2.5%, of rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Intrapersonal
Intelligence respectively.
8.4%, 88.8%, 2.8%, of urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of
Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
Hypotheses 5-10
There is no significant difference between A) Boys and girls B) Rural and Urban school C) Days
scholar and Hosteller F) Nuclear family and joint family High school students in their
Intrapersonal Intelligence.
TABLE 4.3
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND
URBAN SCHOOL C) DAYS SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR FAMILY
AND JOINT FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL
INTELLIGENCE
Back ground
variables
Category N Mean S.D Calculated
‘t’ value
Remark
at 5%
level
Gender Boys 151 21.34 5.45 2.14 S
Girls 149 22.89 7.05
Medium of
Instruction
Tamil 245 22.02 6.82 0.73 NS
English 55 22.49 3.45
Locality of School urban 121 22.83 5.65 1.67 NS
Rural 179 21.63 6.73
Nature of
Accommodation
Days
scholar
220 22.18 6.20 0.29 NS
Hosteller 80 21.93 6.70
Nature of family Nuclear 211 22.62 7.22 2.85 S
Joint 89 20.91 3.16
(At 5% level of significance, the table value is 1.96)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated‘t’ value (2.14) is greater than the table value,
the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between boys and girls
students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculated‘t’ value (0.73) is less than the table value,
the null hypothesis is accepted and there are significant difference between Tamil and English
Medium high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Locality of School, the calculated‘t’ value (1.67) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural of high
school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculated‘t’ value (0.29) is less than the table
value, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Days scholar
and Hostel high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Nature of Family, the calculated‘t’ value (2.85) is greater than the table value, the
null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family
of high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 11
There is no significant difference among Boys, Girls, and Co-Education high school students in
their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
TABLE 4.4
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Source of
Variation
Degrees of
freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
Variance
Calculated
‘F’ value
Remark at
5% level
Between 2 164.31 82.16 2.05 NS
Within 297 11905.06 40.08
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)
It is inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (2.05) is less than the table value
for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among boys,
girls, and co-education high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 12
There is no significant difference among boys, girls, and co-education high school students in
their intrapersonal intelligence.
TABLE 4.5
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Source of
Variation
Degrees of
freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
Variance
Calculated
‘F’ value
Remark at
5% level
Between 2 218.36 109.18 2.74 NS
Within 297 11851.02 39.90
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (2.74) is less than the table value for
(2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among
government, aided, private high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 13-18
There is no significant association between father’s Education, Father’s Occupation, Mother’s
Occupation and Mother’s Monthly Income of high school students in their Intrapersonal
Intelligence.
TABLE 4.6
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHER’S EDUCATION,
FATHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION
AND MOTHER’S MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR
INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Back
ground
Variables
Category Low Average High Calculated
χ2 value
Remark at
5% level
Father’s
Education
Illiteracy 7(10) 135(132) 4(4) 15.22 S
SSLC 8(6) 76(77) 1(2)
HSC 3(3) 45(44) 0(1)
UG and above 2(1) 16(19) 3(1)
Father’s Coolie 7(9) 121(120) 4(4) 3.12 NS
Occupation Business 2(3) 38(38) 2(1)
Private 5(4) 61(61) 1(2)
Government 6(4) 52(53) 1(2)
Mother’s
Occupation
Coolie 2(4) 55(54) 2(2) 5.99 NS
Business 8(7) 100(100) 2(3)
Private 2(3) 41(42) 3(1)
Government 4(3) 45(45) 0(1)
Mother’s
monthly
Income
Below Rs.5000 4(4) 55(55) 2(2) 3.82 NS
Rs.5000-10000 7(6) 84(84) 2(2)
Rs.10000-20000 4(5) 76(73) 0(2)
Above 20000 5(4) 57(60) 4(2)
Father’s
monthly
Income
Below Rs.5000 7(6) 86(88) 4(3) 5.92 NS
5000-10000 2(3) 49(46) 0(1)
10000-20000 4(5) 68(67) 2(2)
Above 20000 7(5) 69(71) 2(2)
Mother’s
Education
Illiteracy 7(9) 125(121) 2(4) 5.92 NS
SSLC 5(5) 65(63) 2(2)
HSC 5(4) 53(53) 1(2)
UG and above 3(3) 32(34) 3(1)
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)
It is inferred from the above table that the calculated χ 2 value (15.22) is greater than the table
value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant association between
father’s education and Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students.
As the calculated χ 2 value (3.12) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s Occupation and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
As the calculated χ 2 value (5.90) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Mother’s Occupation and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
Calculated χ 2’ value (5.99) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted
and there is no significant association between Mother’s monthly Income and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
Calculated χ 2’ value (3.82) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted
and there is no significant association between Father’s Income and Intrapersonal Intelligence of
high school students.
Calculated χ 2’ value (5.92) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted
and there is no significant association between Mother’s Education and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
Hypotheses 19-20
TABLE 4.7
LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Low Average High
N % N % N %
50 16.7 214 71.3 36 12.0
It is inferred from the above table 16.7%, 71.3%, 12.0 of IX standard students have low average,
high level of Self Confidence.
TABLE 4.8
LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF IX STANDARD STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO
BACKGROUND VARIABLE
S
.NO
Back
ground
variable
Category N Low Average High
N % N % N %
1 Gender Male 151 26 17.2 109 72.2 16 10.6
Female 149 24 16.1 105 70.5 20 13.4
2 Locality of
school
Rural 121 14 11.6 83 68.6 24 19.8
Urban 179 36 20.1 131 73.2 12 6.7
It is inferred from the above table 17.2%, 72.2%, 10.6%, of male IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Self Confidence respectively.
16.1%, 70.5%, of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self Confidence
respectively.
11.6%, 68.6%, 19.8%, of Rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self
Confidence respectively.
20.1%73.2%, 6.7%, of Urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self
Confidence respectively.
Hypothesis 21-25
There is no significant difference between a) boys and girls b) rural and urban school c) Tamil
and English d) Rural and Urban e) Days Scholar and Hosteller f) Nuclear and Joint Family
Students in their Self Confidence.
TABLE 4.9
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND
URBAN SCHOOL C) TAMIL AND ENGLISH D) RURAL AND URBAN E) DAYS
SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR AND JOINT FAMILY IN THEIR SELF
CONFIDENCE
Back ground
Variables
category N Mean S.D Calculated
‘t’ Value
Remark
at 5%
level
Gender Boys 151 57.21 10.18 0.75 NS
Girls 149 58.13 11.22
Medium of
Instruction
Tamil 245 57.01 10.83 2.42 S
English 60 60.58 9.67
Locality of School Urban 121 61.05 10.05 4.70 S
Rural 179 55.38 10.55
Nature of
Accommodation
Days
Scholar
220 58.71 10.44
2.78 S
Hosteller 80 54.79 10.94
Nature of Family Nuclear 211 57.22 11.09 1.17 NS
Joint 89 58.72 9.70
(At 5% level significance, the table value is 1.96)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated‘t’ value (0.75) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Boys and Girls students
in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculated‘t’ value (2.42) is greater than the table
value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant difference between Tamil and
English Medium high School students in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Locality of School, the calculated‘t’ value (4.70) is greater than the table value,
the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural High
School students in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculated‘t’ value (2.78) is greater than the table
value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Days Scholar
and hostel High School students in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Nature of Family, the calculated‘t’ value (1.17) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family
high school students in their Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 26
TABLE 4.10
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE
Source of
Variation
Degrees of
freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean square
Variance
Calculated
‘F’ Value
Remark at
5% level
Between 2 1582.13 791.06 7.15 S
Within 297 32866.63 110.66
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)
It is inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (7.15) is greater than the table
value for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among
boys, girls, and Co-Education high School students in their Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 27
TABLE 4.11
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square Calculated Remark at
Variation freedom Squares Variance ‘F’ Value 5% level
Between 2 2512.38 1256.19 11.68 S
Within 297 31936.38 107.53
(At 5% level of significance, the tale value for (2,297) df is 3.03)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (11.68) is greater than the table
value for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among
Government, Aided, Private High School students in their level of Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 28-33
TABLE 4.12
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHER’S EDUCATION,
FATHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION
AND MOTHER’S MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR
SELF CONFIDENCE.
Back
ground
variables
Category Low Average High Calculated
‘χ’
Value
Remark at
5% level
Father’s
Education
illiteracy 28(24) 105(104) 13(18) 9.86 NS
SSLC 13(14) 63(61) 9(10)
HSC 4(8) 33(34) 11(6)
UG and
above
5(4) 13(15) 3(3)
Father’s
Occupation
Coolie 24(22) 97(94) 11(16) 6.33 NS
Business 8(7) 30(30) 4(5)
Private 10(11) 48(48) 9(8)
Governmen 8(10) 39(42) 12(7)
t
Mother’s
Occupation
Coolie 11(10) 43(42) 5(7) 6.82 NS
Business (18) 81(79) 10(13)
Private 10(8) 28(33) 8(5)
Governmen
t
4(8) 38(38) 7(6)
Mother’s
monthly
Income
3000-5000 8(10) 47(44) 6(7) 10.47 NS
6000-10000 16(16) 68(68) 9(11)
10000-
20000
15(13) 59(57) 6(10)
Above
20000
11(11) 40(47) 15(8)
Father’s
Income
3000-5000 (16) 75(69) 3(12) 13.83 S
6000-10000 (9) 39(36) 6(6)
10000-
20000
(12) 47(53) 13(9)
Above
20000
(13) 53(56) 14(9)
Mother’s
Education
illiteracy 21(22) 99(96) 14(14) 8.06 NS
SSLC 9(12) 55(49) 5(5)
HSC 13(10) 35(42) 11(7)
UG and
above
7(6) 25(27) 6(5)
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘χ2’ value (9.86) is less than the table value
for 6 df the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s
Education and Self Confidence of high School Students.
As the calculated ‘χ2’ value (6.33) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s Occupation and Self
Confidence of high School Students.
As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (6.82) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Mother’s Occupation and Self
Confidence of High School Students.
As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (10.47) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is a significant association between Mother’s Monthly Income and Self
Confidence of High School students.
As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (13.83) is greater than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis
is rejected and there is a significant association between Father’s Income and Self Confidence of
High School students.
As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (8.06) is than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected
and there is no significant association between Mother’s Education and Self Confidence of High
School Students.
Hypothesis 34
TABLE 4.13
SIGNIFICANCE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTRAPERSONAL
INTELLIGENCE AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
N ƩX ƩY ƩX2 ƩY2 ƩXY Calculated
‘ γ’ Value
Remark
at
5%level
300 6633 17300 158725 1032082 379335 0.155 S
It is inferred from the above table that the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0,155) is greater than the table
value (0.113) for 298 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship
between Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of High School Students.
Hypothesis 35
TABLE 4.14
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH RESPECT
GENDER AND LOCALITY OF SCHOOL
Categor
y
N ƩX ƩY ƩX2 ƩY2 ƩXY Calculate
d ‘ γ’
value
Remark
at
5%level
Boys 151 3222 8638 73238 509782 182608 0.204 S
Girls 149 3411 8662 85487 522300 196727 0.133 NS
Urban 121 2762 7387 66914 463193 169370 0.109 NS
Rural 179 3871 9913 91811 568889 209965 0.347 S
With respect to boys, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.204) is greater than the table value (0.159) for
149 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school boys students.
With respect to girls, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.133) is less than the table value (0.159) for
147 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school girls students.
With respect to urban students, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.109) is less than the table value
(0.159) for 119 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship
between intrapersonal intelligence and self confidence of urban high school students.
With respect to rural students, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.347) is greater than the table value
(0.177) for 117 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of rural high school students.