CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1.0 Introduction 4.2.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data through Analysis of Co variance 4.3.0 Factorial analysis and interpretation of the obtained data through Analysis of Covariance 4.4.0 Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data of Experimental group through Analysis of Co variance 4.5.0 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of experimental group obtained through Opinionnaire 4.6.0 Conclusion

81

CHAPTER – 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1.0

INTRODUCTION In Chapter three, researcher had discussed the research design and methodology,

origin of the research, design of the research, variable of the research, population and sample of the research, tools for data collection, development stage of the CAI package, procedure for data collection, statistical analysis done in research work. Data analysis is consider to be important step and heart of the research in research work. After collection of data with the help of relevant tools and techniques, the next logical step, is to analyze and interpret data with a view to arriving at empirical solution to the problem. The data analysis for the present research was done quantitatively with the help of both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistical techniques like mean, standard deviation and for the inferential statistics Analysis of Co Variance were used during data analysis. For the analysis of opinionnaire Chi square test was used. 4.2.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE Comparison of control group that was taught through conventional method and experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part. 4.2.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for rural area For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 1 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.1 and 4.2

82

Table 4.1 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Square

Among

1

2229.07

2229.07

Within

96

1766.31

18.40

Total

97

3995.38

2247.47

Table value level

121.15

F0.01 = 6.90

Significant

F0.05 = 3.94

at 0.01

To compare control group and experimental group of the rural area achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.1 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 2229.07 and 1766.31 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 2229.07 and 18.40 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 121.15 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 1, “There will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control group and experimental group of rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of control and experimental group. Further to know the mean of which group is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.2 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 96

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63 Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.981 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.981 83

= 1.98 × 0.981 = 1.942 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.981 = 2.63 × 0.981 = 2.580 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.2 below. Table 4.2 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Obtained

Mean Mean Corrected Mean

of

difference Significant

of

significant

mean of Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

8.78

24.54

between

difference

corrected

value

level

Post test Mxyz Experimental 50

99.60

mean 26.13 10.80

Control

50 105.86 12.30

16.92

15.33

D0.01 = 2.58 significant D0.05 = 1.94

at 0.01

From table 4.2 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 99.60 and 105.86 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.78 and 12.30 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 24.54 and 16.92 for experimental group and control group respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found to be 26.13 and 15.33 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental group is significantly higher than corrected mean of control group. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for experimental and control groups was found to be 10.80, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the post test which may be due to the effect of CAI. As the Hypothesis-1 was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental group that were taught through CAI is significantly 84

higher than that of the control group. The means of experimental group and control group are also shown in the graph 4.1 for better comprehension. Graph 4.1 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group and control group of rural area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Experimental

Control

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental group is higher than the control group. 4.2.2 Analysis of Co-Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for urban area For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 2 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.3 and 4.4 Table 4.3 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Table value

Square

Among

1

3318.48

3318.48

Within

96

897.52

9.35

Total

97

4215.00

3327.83 85

level

354.95

F0.01 = 6.90

Significant

F0.05 = 3.94

at 0.01

To compare control group and experimental group of the urban area achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.3 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 3318.48 and 897.52 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 3318.48 and 9.35 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 354.95 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 2, “There will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control group and experimental group of urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of control and experimental group. Further to know the mean of which group is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.4 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 96

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63 Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.648 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.648 = 1.98 × 0.648 = 1.283 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.648 = 2.63 × 0.648 = 1.704 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.4 below.

86

Table 4.4 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean

Obtained Corrected

Mean

of

of

difference Significant mean of

Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

14.88

35.26

significant between

difference

corrected

value

Post test

level

Mxyz Experimental 50 110.44

mean 36.18 12.20

Control

50 116.12 17.26

24.90

23.98

D0.01 = 1.70 significant D0.05 = 1.28

at 0.01

From table 4.2 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 110.44 and 116.12 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 14.88 and 17.26 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 35.26 and 24.90 for experimental group and control group respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found to be 36.18 and 23.98 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental group is significantly higher than corrected mean of control group. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for experimental and control groups was found to be 12.20, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the post test which may be due to the effect of CAI. As the Hypothesis-2 was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental group that were taught through CAI is significantly higher than that of the control group. The means of experimental group and control group are also shown in the graph 4.2 for better comprehension.

87

Graph 4.2 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group and control group of urban area

Urban area 140 120

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

100 Mean of Pre test My

80 60

Mean of Post test Mz

40 Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Experimental Group

Control Group

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental group is higher than the control group. 4.2.3 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable for rural and urban area For the present research to check the objective no. 2, 3 and hypothesis no. 3 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.5 and 4.6 Table 4.5 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Control and experimental group by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of Variance

df

Sum of

Mean

Square

Square

Among

1

6971.46

6971.46

Within

196

3455.29

17.63

Total

197

10426.75

6989.09

88

F-Value

395.45

Table value

Significant level

F0.01 = 6.76

Significant

F0.05 = 3.89

at 0.01

To compare control group and experimental group of the rural and urban area achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.5 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 196 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 6971.46 and 3455.29 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 6971.46 and 17.63 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 395.45 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 196.

Hence, the null

hypothesis 3, “There will be no significant difference between corrected means of achievement of control groups and experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as a co-variable in a unit of wave optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of control and experimental groups. Further to know the mean of which group is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.6 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 196

t0.05 = 1.97

and

t0.01 = 2.60 Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.625 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.625 = 1.97 × 0.625 = 1.231 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.625 = 2.60 × 0.625 = 1.625 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.6 below.

89

Table 4.6 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean

Obtained Corrected

Mean

of

of

difference Significant mean of

Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

11.83

29.90

significant between

difference

corrected

value

Post test

level

Mxyz Experimental 100 105.02

mean 31.62 12.43

Control

100 110.99 14.78

20.91

19.19

D0.01 = 1.62 significant D0.05 = 1.23

at 0.01

From table 4.6 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 105.02 and 110.99 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 11.38 and 14.78 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 29.90 and 20.91 for experimental group and control group respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the control and experimental group were found to be 31.62 and 19.19 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental group is significantly higher than corrected mean of control group. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for experimental and control groups was found to be 12.43, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the post test which may be due to the effect of CAI. As the Hypothesis-3 was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental groups that were taught through CAI is significantly higher than that of the control groups. The means of experimental groups and control groups are also shown in the graph 4.3 for better comprehension.

90

Graph 4.3 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of experimental group and control group of urban and rural area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Experimental group control group

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental groups is higher than the control groups. 4.3.0 FACTORIAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE By considering pre test and IQ as a Co-variable, factorial analysis through Analysis of Co-Variance of the obtained data is as shown below. 4.3.1 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for teaching method, gender by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable For the present research to check the objective no. 4 and hypothesis no. 4, 2 × 2 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.7

91

Table 4.7 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and gender by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable

corrected Mean Source

df

sum of

Table

Significant

value

level

F-Value Square

square Significant

Teaching Method(A) Gender(B)

1

6728.65

6728.65

379.83

1

18.30

18.30

1.033

1

0.305

0.305

0.017

194

3436.70

17.72

197

10183.96

6764.98

Interaction (A× ×B)

at 0.01 F0.05 = 3.89

Not

F0.01 = 6.76

Significant Not Significant

Within the Group Total

(A) Teaching Method From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 379.83, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of teaching method” was rejected. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was a significant influence of teaching method on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of significance of teaching method is shown in hypothesis 3. (B) Gender From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for gender was 1.033, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 92

197. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of Gender” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was no significant influence of gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. It means that the Boy students and Girl students learn at same rate. (A × B) Interaction From Table 4.7 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 0.017, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 4 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and gender” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The means of Boys and Girls of experimental groups and control groups are also shown in the graph 4.4 for better comprehension. Graph 4.4 Interaction among teaching method and gender

35 30

Mean

25 20 Boy

15

Girl

10 5 0 Teaching Method

93

From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method and gender. 4.3.2 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for teaching method and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable For the present research to check the objective no. 5 and hypothesis no. 5, 2 × 2 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.8 Table 4.8 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable corrected Mean Source

df

sum of

Table

Significant

value

level

F-Value Square

square Significant

Teaching Method(A) Area(B)

1

5579.60

5579.60

402.40

1

729.29

729.29

52.60

1

50.15

50.15

3.62

194

2689.98

13.87

197

9049.02

6372.91

Interaction (A× ×B)

at 0.01 F0.05 = 3.89

Significant

F0.01 = 6.76

at 0.01 Not Significant

Within the Group Total

(A) Teaching Method From Table 4.8 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 402.40, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of teaching method” was rejected.

94

From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was a significant influence of teaching method on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of significance of teaching method is shown in hypothesis no 3. (B) Area From Table 4.8 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for area was 52.60, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of area” was rejected. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was a significant influence of area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. It means that there was a significant influence of area on learning rate of the Boy students and Girl students of the experimental group and control group. Now, the detailed of the corrected mean of the rural area and urban area is as shown below. From Table C for df = 194

t0.05 = 1.97

and

t0.01 = 2.60 Standard Error obtained is SED = 0.665 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 0.665 = 1.97 × 0.665 = 1.310 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 0.665 = 2.60 × 0.665 = 1.729 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.6 below.

95

Table 4.9 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of experimental and control group Mean Mean

Obtained Corrected

Mean

of

of

difference Significant mean of

Area

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

significant between

difference

corrected

value

Post test

level

Mxyz Rural

100 102.73 10.54

20.73

mean 21.45 7.91

Urban 100 113.28 16.07

30.08

29.36

D0.01 = 1.73 significant D0.05 = 1.31

at 0.01

From table 4.9 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 102.73 and 113.28 for the rural area and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 10.54 and 16.07 for the experimental and control groups respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 20.73 and 30.08 for rural area and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the rural and urban area were found to be 21.45 and 29.36 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for rural area and urban area was found to be 7.91, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. As the Hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of area” was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of urban area is significantly higher than that of the rural area. The means of rural area and urban area are also shown in the graph 4.5 for better comprehension.

96

Graph 4.5 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of urban and rural area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Experimental Group

Control group

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the urban is higher than the rural area.

(A × B) Interaction From Table 4.8 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 194 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 3.62, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 194. Hence the null hypothesis 5 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The means of experimental groups and control groups of rural and urban area are also shown in the graph 4.6 for better comprehension.

97

Graph 4.6 Interaction among teaching method and area 40 35 30

Mean

25 Rural

20

Urban

15 10 5 0 Teaching Method

From the graph it can be seen that there is no interaction among teaching method and area. 4.3.3

2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of the data for teaching method gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a CoVariable For the present research to check the objective no. 6 and hypothesis no. 6, 2 × 2 × 2

Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.10

98

Table 4.10 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Analysis of Co Variance for teaching method, gender and area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co-Variable corrected Mean Source

df

sum of

Table

Significant

value

level

F-Value Square

square Significant

Teaching Method(A) Gender(B)

Area(C)

1

5309.31

5309.31

383.93

1

23.95

23.95

1.732

1

622.12

622.12

44.99

1

0.02

0.02

0.001

at 0.01 Not Significant Significant at 0.01

Teaching Method × Gender

Not F0.05 = 3.89

(A× ×B)

Significant

F0.01 = 6.76

Teaching Method× ×

1

44.06

44.06

3.17

1

30.52

30.52

2.21

1

6.57

6.57

0.475

190

2627.48

13.83

198

8664.03

6050.38

Not Significant

Area(A× ×C) Gender × Area

Not Significant

(B× ×C) Interaction (A× ×B× ×C) Within the Group Total

99

Not Significant

(A)

Teaching Method From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190

are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for teaching method was 383.93, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of teaching method” was rejected. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was a significant influence of teaching method on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of significance of teaching method is shown in hypothesis no. 3. (B)

Gender From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190

are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for gender was 1.732, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of Gender” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was not significant influence of gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. It means that the Boy students and Girl students learn at same rate. (C)

Area From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190

are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value for area was 44.99, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of area” was rejected. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was a significant influence of area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. It means that there was a significant influence of area on learning rate of the Boy students and Girl students of the experimental group and control group. 100

The detailed explanation of the significance of area is shown in hypothesis no – 3. (A× ×B) Teaching Method × Gender From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 0.001, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and gender” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as covariant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and gender on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method and gender is shown in the graph 4.7 for better comprehension. Graph 4.7 Interaction among teaching method and Gender 35 30

Mean

25 20

boy

15

girl

10 5 0 Teaching Method

(A× ×C) Teaching Method× × Area From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 3.17, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence

101

the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method and area is shown in the graph 4.8 for better comprehension Graph 4.8 Interaction among teaching method and area 40 35 30

Mean

25 Rural

20

Urban

15 10 5 0 Teaching Method

(B× ×C) Gender × Area From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 2.21, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among gender and area” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as co-variant there was no significant influence of interaction among gender and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of

102

the significance of interaction among gender and area is shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension. Graph 4.9 Interaction among gender and area 30 25

Mean

20 r

15

u

10 5 0 Gender

(A× ×B× ×C) Interaction From Table 4.10 it can be seen that the Table value of F for df = 1 and df = 190 are F0.05 = 3.89 and F0.01 = 6.76. The computed F-value was 0.475, which was found to be non significant at 0.05 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 190. Hence the null hypothesis 6 “There will be no significant influence of interaction among teaching method, gender and area” was accepted. From this it can be concluded that by considering IQ and pre test as covariant there was no significant influence of interaction among teaching method, gender and area on achievement of post test score of experimental group and control group. The detailed explanation of the significance of interaction among teaching method, gender and area is shown in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension.

103

Graph 4.10 Interaction among teaching method, gender and area 40 35

Mean

30 25

B

20

g

15 10 5 0 Teaching method

4.4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP THROUGH ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE Comparison of boys of the rural area and boys of the urban area of the experimental group learn through CAI by considering pre test and IQ as a co variable with the help of Analysis of Co Variance is considered in this part. 4.4.1 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 7 and hypothesis no. 7 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.11 and 4.12

104

Table 4.11 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Square

Among

1

547.77

547.77

Within

52

1137.51

21.88

Total

53

1685.28

569.65

Table value level

25.04

F0.01 = 7.17

Significant

F0.05 = 4.03

at 0.01

To compare boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group, achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.11 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 52 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 547.77 and 1137.51 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 547.77 and 21.88 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 25.04 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 52. Hence, the null hypothesis 7, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the boys of experimental group of urban and rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of boys of the rural and urban area of the experimental group. Further to know the mean of which areas boys of experimental group is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.12 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 52

t0.05 = 2.01 and t0.01 = 2.68 Standard Error obtained is SED = 1.536 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.536 = 2.01 × 1.536 105

= 3.08 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.536 = 2.68 × 1.536 = 4.11 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.2 below. Table 4.12 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area Obtained

Mean Mean Corrected Mean

of

difference Significant

of

significant

mean of Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

8.72

23.69

between

difference

corrected

value

level

Post test Mxyz Rural

32

98.69

mean 24.83 7.69

Urban

24 108.96 12.71

34.04

32.52

D0.01 = 4.11

significant

D0.05 = 3.08

at 0.01

From table 4.12 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 98.69 and 108.96 for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.72 and 12.71for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 23.69 and 34.04 for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively were found to be 24.83 and 32.52 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of boys of experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for the boys of experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 7.69, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the boys of experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the boys of experimental groups of rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-7 was rejected, it can be concluded that the

106

mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the boys of experimental groups of rural area. The means of boys of experimental groups of urban area and boys of experimental groups of rural area are also shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension.

Graph 4.11 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Rural

Urban

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the boys of experimental groups of rural area. 4.4.2 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 8 and hypothesis no. 8 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.13 and 4.14

107

Table 4.13 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Square

Among

1

109.72

109.72

Within

40

292.41

7.31

Total

41

402.13

569.65

Table value level

15.01

F0.01 = 7.31

Significant

F0.05 = 4.08

at 0.01

To compare girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group achievement of the experimental group was compared with the control group. From the table 4.13 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 40 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 109.72 and 292.41 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 109.72 and 7.31 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 15.01 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 40. Hence, the null hypothesis 8, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls of experimental group of urban and rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the rural and urban area of the experimental group. Further to know the mean of which areas girls of experimental group is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.14 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 40

t0.05 = 2.02 and t0.01 = 2.71 Standard Error obtained is SED = 1.225 Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.225 = 2.02 × 1.225 108

= 2.474 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.225 = 2.71 × 1.225 = 3.319 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.2 below. Table 4.14 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of girls of the experimental group of the rural and urban area Obtained

Mean Mean Corrected Mean

of

difference Significant

of

significant

mean of Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

8.89

26.06

between

difference

corrected

value

level

Post test Mxyz Rural

18 101.22

mean 29.36 4.74

Urban

26 111.81 16.88

36.38

34.10

D0.01 = 3.32

significant

D0.05 = 2.47

at 0.01

From table 4.12 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 101.22 and 111.81 for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.89 and 16.88 for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 26.06 and 36.38 for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively were found to be 29.36 and 34.10 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of girls of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of girls of experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for the girls of experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 4.74, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the girls of experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the boys of experimental groups of rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-8 was rejected, it can be concluded that the

109

mean achievement of boys of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the girls of experimental groups of rural area. The means of girls of experimental groups of urban area and girls of experimental groups of rural area are also shown in the graph 4.9 for better comprehension. Graph 4.12 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of girls of the experimental group of the rural and urban area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Rural

Urban

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the girls of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the girls of experimental groups of rural area. 4.4.3 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 9 and hypothesis no. 9 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.15

110

Table 4.15 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Square

Among

1

0.461

0.461

Within

46

450.25

9.79

Total

47

450.71

10.52

Table value level

0.047

F0.01 = 7.17

Not

F0.05 = 4.03

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of rural area achievement of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental group. From the table 4.15 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 0.461 and 450.25 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 0.461 and 9.79 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.047 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the null hypothesis 9, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the urban area and boys of the urban area of the experimental group. 4.4.4 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 10 and hypothesis no. 10 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.16

111

Table 4.16 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental group of the rural and rural area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df

Significant F-Value

Variance

Square

Square

Among

1

44.37

44.37

Within

46

991.47

21.55

Total

47

1035.84

65.92

Table value level

2.059

F0.01 = 7.17

Not

F0.05 = 4.03

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group of urban area achievement of the girls of the experimental group was compared with the boys of the experimental group. From the table 4.16 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 46 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 44.37 and 991.47 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 44.37 and 21.55 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 2.059 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 46. Hence, the null hypothesis 10, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental group of rural area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the rural area and boys of the rural area of the experimental group. 4.4.5 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 11 and hypothesis no. 11 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.17

112

Table 4.17 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of Girls and Boys of the experimental groups by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Significant F-Value

Square

Square

Among

1

15.42

15.42

Within

96

2129.08

22.18

Total

97

2144.50

37.60

Table value level

0.695

F0.01 = 6.90

Not

F0.05 = 3.94

Significant

To compare girls and boys of the experimental group achievement of the girls of the experimental groups was compared with the boys of the experimental groups. From the table 4.17 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 15.42 and 2129.08 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 15.42 and 22.18 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 0.695 which was found to be not significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 11, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the girls and boys of experimental groups by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is accepted. Hence it can be said that there is no significant difference between the corrected post test means of girls of the experimental groups and boys of the experimental groups. 4.4.6 Analysis of Co Variance and interpretation of post test score of the experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable. For the present research to check the objective no. 12 and hypothesis no. 12 Analysis of Co Variance was done and obtained value is shown in table 4.18

113

Table 4.18 Analysis of Co Variance of post test score of the experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test and IQ as a Co Variable Sources of

Sum of

Mean

df Variance

Square

Square

Among

1

657.82

657.82

Within

96

1486.68

15.49

97

2144.50

673.31

Total

Significant F-Value

Table value level

42.48

F0.01 = 6.90 F0.05 = 3.94

Significant

To compare experimental groups of rural and urban area achievement of the experimental group of rural area was compared with the experimental group of the urban area. From the table 4.18 it can be seen that the degree of freedom for among and within groups were 1 and 96 respectively. The sum of squares of corrected post test was found to be 657.82 and 1486.68 for among and within groups respectively. The corrected mean sum of squares of post test was found to be 657.82 and 15.49 for among and within groups respectively. The F-value was found to be 42.48 which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance for the degree of freedom 1 and 96. Hence, the null hypothesis 12, “There will be no significant difference between the corrected means of achievement of the experimental groups of rural and urban area by considering pre test score and IQ as co variable in a unit of optics for standard XII science students” is rejected. Hence it can be said that there is significant difference between the corrected post test means of experimental group of the rural area and experimental group of the urban area. Further to know the mean of experimental group of which area is higher and which mean is lower, the details of mean scores and corrected mean scores are given in table 4.19 Significant difference for corrected mean From Table C for df = 96

t0.05 = 1.98 and t0.01 = 2.63 Standard Error obtained is SED = 1.023

114

Therefore D0.05 = t0.05 × 1.023 = 1.98 × 1.023 = 2.025 and for D0.01 = t0.01 × 1.023 = 2.63 × 1.023 = 2.690 Corrected mean and difference between corrected mean with level of significance is shown in table 4.19 below. Table 4.19 Level of significance and difference between corrected mean of the experimental group of the rural and urban area Obtained

Mean Mean Corrected Mean

of

difference Significant

of

significant

mean of Groups

N

of IQ

Pre

Post

Mx

test

test

My

Mz

8.78

24.54

between

difference

corrected

value

level

Post test Mxyz Rural

50

99.60

mean 26.57 6.66

Urban

50 110.44 14.88

35.26

33.23

D0.01 = 2.69

significant

D0.05 = 2.03

at 0.01

From table 4.19 it can be seen that the Mean of IQ (Mx) are 99.60 and 110.44 for the experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean pre test (My) score are 8.78 and 14.88 for the experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The mean post test (Mz) scores are 24.54 and 35.26 for the experimental groups of rural and urban area respectively. The corrected post test mean scores (Mxyz) of the experimental groups of rural and urban area were found to be 26.57 and 33.23 respectively. This shows that corrected mean of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than corrected mean of experimental groups of rural area. The obtained difference between corrected mean scores for the experimental groups of rural and urban area was found to be 6.66, which was found to be significant at 0.01 level of significance. It showed that the experimental groups of urban area scored higher than the 115

experimental groups of rural area in the post test. As the Hypothesis-12 was rejected, it can be concluded that the mean achievement of experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the experimental groups of rural area. The means of experimental groups of urban area and experimental groups of rural area are also shown in the graph 4.10 for better comprehension. Graph 4.13 Mean of IQ, pre test, post test and corrected post test means of the experimental group of the rural and urban area 120 100

Mean of IQ Mx

Mean

80

Mean of Pre test My

60

Mean of Post test Mz

40

Corrected mean of Post test Mxyz

20 0 Rural

Urban

From the graph it can be seen that the corrected mean of post test for the experimental groups of urban area is significantly higher than that of the experimental groups of rural area. 4.5.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OPINION OF THE STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OBTAINED THROUGH OPINIONNAIRE To achieve objective 13 of the present study i.e. ‘To study the opinions of the students of experimental groups regarding effectiveness of used CAI in optics.’ An opinionnaire was developed with 20 statements those representing different components

116

like content presentation, questioning, individualization and self pacing of CAI software. Out of these 20 statements five statements were negative and 15 statements were positive. The data related to the opinionnaire is analyzed with

2

test which is given in table 4.20

which are followed by discussion. The five point Likert type scale opinionnaire ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree was constructed. To find merit number the five point scale were given the weightage as below. Strongly agree

: +2

Agree

: +1

Undecided

:

Disagree

: -1

Strongly Disagree

: -2

0

4.5.1 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of the experimental group of rural area obtained through opinionnaire The interpretation of the opinions of the students of the experimental group of rural area was carried out and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.20

117

Table 4.20 Sr. No

Analysis of the opinion of the students of the rural area

Statements

Nature of statement

SA

D

SD

Total Rank Score

Chi Squre Value

1

The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable.

Positive

38 12 00 00 00 (76%) (24%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

88

3

108.80*

2

The content presentation was interesting.

Positive

37 10 01 00 00 (78%) (20%) (02%) (00%) (00%)

84

5

97.40*

3

Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.

Positive

37 12 01 00 00 (74%) (24%) (02%) (00%) (00%)

86

4

101.40*

4

The figures were properly explained.

Positive

32 13 04 01 00 (64%) (26%) (08%) (02%) (00%)

76

7

71*

5

The language used in the CAI package was easy.

Positive

02 07 00 06 35 (12%) (70%) (04%) (14%) (00%)

40

16

81.40*

6

The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.

Negative

04 06 05 18 17 (08%) (12%) (10%) (36%) (34%)

38

17

19*

7

Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.

Negative

07 03 01 (14%) (06%) (02%)

00 (00%)

22

20

108*

8

Some information seems to be more confusing.

Negative

11 17 17 01 04 (02%) (08%) (22%) (34%) (34%)

45

15

21.60*

9

I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI.

Positive

21 17 10 02 00 (42%) (34%) (20%) (04%) (00%)

57

14

33.40*

10

I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.

Positive

23 22 05 00 00 (46%) (44%) (10%) (00%) (00%)

68

12

53.80*

118

39 79%)

Sr. No

Statements

Nature of statement

SA

D

SD

Total Rank Score

Chi Squre Value

11

Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly.

Negative

01 11 05 17 16 (02%) (22%) (10%) (34%) (32%)

36

18

19.20*

12

The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics.

Positive

48 02 00 00 00 (96%) (04%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

98

1

180.80*

13

This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.

Positive

30 14 05 01 00 (60%) (28%) (10%) (02%) (00%)

73

9

62.20*

14

Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package.

Positive

27 16 06 01 00 (54%) (32%) (12%) (02%) (00%)

69

11

52.20*

15

Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience.

Positive

06 00 00 32 12 (64%) (24%) (12%) (00%) (00%)

76

7

70.40*

16

Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content.

Positive

32 18 00 00 00 (64%) (36%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

82

6

84.80*

17

It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package.

Negative

03 13 03 16 15 (06%) (26%) (06%) (32%) (30%)

30

19

16.80*

18

Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.

Positive

45 04 01 00 00 (90%) (08%) (02%) (00%) (00%)

94

2

154.20*

19

Content was presented at proper pace.

Positive

01 02 00 28 19 (56%) (38%) (02%) (04%) (00%)

73

9

65*

20

The explanation given for every topic is proper.

Positive

02 00 02 21 25 (42%) (50%) (04%) (00%) (04%)

63

13

57.40*

* Significant at 0.01 level

119

Graph 4.14 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of rural area

120%

Percentage

100% 80%

SA A U D SD

60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement

120

For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable’ 76 % students strongly agree and 24 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 3rd rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 108.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found CAI package presented through compute was knowledgeable. For the statement no.2 ‘The content presentation was interesting.’ 78 % students strongly agreed, 20 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 5th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 97.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the presentation of the content through developed CAI in interesting way. For the statement no.3 ‘Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.’ 74 % students strongly agreed, 24 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 4th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 101.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the presentation of the content through simulation which clarify the fundamental by appropriately changing the values. For the statement no.4 ‘The figures were properly explained.’ 64 % students strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 8 % students remain undecided while 2 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 7th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 71 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the figures were explained properly. For the statement no.5 ‘The language used in the CAI package was easy.’ 12 % students strongly agreed, 70 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 14 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 16th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 81.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the language used in the CAI package being easy to understand. 121

For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.’ 8 % students strongly agreed, 12 % students agree, 10 % students remain undecided, 36 % students disagree while 34 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 17th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 19 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the picture and text presented for each slide was appropriate to the content. For the statement no.7 ‘Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.’ 14 % students strongly agreed, 06 % students agree, 22 % students remain undecided while 78 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 20th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 108 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the questions at the end of the slide does not break the continuity of the content presentation. For the statement no.8 ‘Some information seem to be more confusing.’ 2 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 22 % students remain undecided, 34 % students disagree while 34 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 15th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 21.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the information were clearly presented and not confusing. For the statement no.9 ‘I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI.’ 42 % students strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 20 % students remain undecided while 04 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 14th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 33.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students like to learn the other topics of the physics also with the help of CAI package. For the statement no.10 ‘I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.’ 46 % students strongly agreed, 44 % students agree while 10 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 12th rank. The Chi square value 122

of the statement is 53.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students like to learn through self learning package. For the statement no.11 ‘Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly.’ 2 % students strongly agreed, 22 % students agree, 10 % students remain undecided, 34 % students disagree while 32 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 19.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the content presented through CAI package was arranged properly. For the statement no.12 ‘The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics.’ 96 % students strongly agree and 4 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 1st rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 180.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the coloured and animated picture helped them in developing their interest in learning physics. For the statement no.13 ‘This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.’ 60 % students strongly agreed, 28 % students agree, 10 % students remain undecided while 02 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 62.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that such type of learning program should be prepared in other subject also. For the statement no.14 ‘Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package.’ 54 % students strongly agreed, 32 % students agree, 12 % students remain undecided while 02 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 11th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 52.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package. 123

For the statement no.15 ‘Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience.’ 64 % students strongly agreed, 24 % students agree while 12 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 7th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 70.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through computer is really a captivating experience for them. For the statement no.16 ‘Presentation through Such technique reduces the burden of content.’ 64 % students strongly agree and 36 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 6th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 84.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the content presentation through such CAI packages reduce the burden of the content. For the statement no.17 ‘It is tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI package.’ 6 % students strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 6 % students remain undecided, 32 % students disagree while 30 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 19th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the learning through CAI package was not tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI. For the statement no.18 ‘Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.’ 90 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 2nd rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 154.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject. For the statement no.19 ‘Content was presented at proper pace.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 38 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided while 04 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 65 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the pace at which the content was presented was proper. 124

For the statement no.20 ‘The explanation given for every topic is proper.’ 42 % students strongly agreed, 50 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 4 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 13th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 57.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the explanation given for every topic was proper. 4.5.2 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion of the students of the experimental group of urban area obtained through opinionnaire The interpretation of the opinions of the students of the experimental group of urban area was carried out and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.21

125

Table 4.21 Sr. No

Analysis of the opinion of the students of the urban area

Statements

Nature of statement

SA

D

SD

Total Rank Score

Chi Squre Value

1

The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable.

Positive

41 09 00 00 00 (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

91

2

126.20*

2

The content presentation was interesting.

Positive

29 19 01 01 00 (58%) (38%) (02%) (02%) (00%)

76

7

70.40*

3

Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.

Positive

42 08 00 00 00 (84%) (16%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

92

1

132.80*

4

The figures were properly explained.

Positive

29 20 01 00 00 (58%) (40%) (02%) (00%) (00%)

78

6

74.20*

5

The language used in the CAI package was easy.

Positive

23 18 01 03 05 (46%) (36%) (02%) (06%) (10%)

51

15

38.80*

6

The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.

Negative

03 04 09 13 21 (06%) (08%) (18%) (26%) (42%)

45

16

21.60*

7

Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.

Negative

02 40 00 04 04 (08%) (08%) (04%) (80%) (00%)

28

20

113.60*

8

Some information seems to be more confusing.

Negative

02 03 12 26 07 (04%) (06%) (24%) (52%) (14%)

33

18

38.20*

9

I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI.

Positive

24 15 08 03 00 (48%) (30%) (16%) (06%) (00%)

60

12

37.40*

10

I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.

Positive

05 00 00 10 35 (20%) (70%) (10%) (00%) (00%)

55

14

85.0*

126

Sr. No

Statements

Nature of statement

SA

D

SD

Total Rank Score

Chi Squre Value

11

Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly.

Negative

03 09 05 18 15 (06%) (18%) (10%) (36%) (30%)

33

18

16.40*

12

The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics.

Positive

41 09 00 00 00 (82%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (00%)

91

2

126.20*

13

This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.

Positive

28 13 02 02 05 (56%) (26%) (04%) (04%) (10%)

57

13

48.60*

14

Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package.

Positive

28 17 03 00 02 (56%) (34%) (06%) (00%) (04%)

69

9

58.60*

15

Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience.

Positive

28 15 04 00 03 (56%) (30%) (08%) (00%) (06%)

65

10

53.40*

16

Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content.

Positive

38 09 00 00 03 (76%) (18%) (00%) (00%) (06%)

79

5

103.40*

17

It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package.

Negative

07 17 16 02 08 (04%) (16%) (14%) (34%) (32%)

37

17

16.20*

18

Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.

Positive

03 00 00 43 04 (86%) (08%) (04%) (00%) (02%)

90

4

137.40*

19

Content was presented at proper pace.

Positive

26 17 01 04 02 (52%) (34%) (02%) (08%) (04%)

61

11

48.60*

20

The explanation given for every topic is proper.

Positive

29 18 02 00 01 (58%) (36%) (04%) (00%) (02%)

74

8

67.0*

* Significant at 0.01 level

127

Graph 4.15 Analysis of the opinionnaire data from experimental group of urban area

100% 90% 80% Percentage

70%

SA A U D SD

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement

128

For the statement no.1 ‘The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable’ 82 % students strongly agree and 18 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 2nd rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 126.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found CAI package presented through compute was knowledgeable. For the statement no.2 ‘The content presentation was interesting.’ 58 % students strongly agreed, 18 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided while 2 % students remain disagree with this statement. This statement gets 7th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 70.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the presentation of the content through developed CAI in interesting way. For the statement no.3 ‘Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.’ 84 % students strongly agreed and 16 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 1st rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 132.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the presentation of the content through simulation which clarify the fundamental by appropriately changing the values. For the statement no.4 ‘The figures were properly explained.’ 58 % students strongly agreed, 40 % students agree while 2 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 6th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 74.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the figures were explained properly. For the statement no.5 ‘The language used in the CAI package was easy.’ 46 % students strongly agreed, 36 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided, 6 % students disagree while 10 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 15th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 38.80 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the language used in the CAI package being easy to understand. 129

For the statement no.6 ‘The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.’ 6 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 18 % students remain undecided, 26 % students disagree while 42 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 16th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 21.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the picture and text presented for each slide was appropriate to the content. For the statement no.7 ‘Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.’ 8 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 80 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 20th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 113.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the questions at the end of the slide does not break the continuity of the content presentation. For the statement no.8 ‘Some information seem to be more confusing.’ 4 % students strongly agreed, 6 % students agree, 24 % students remain undecided, 52 % students disagree while 14 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 38.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the information were clearly presented and not confusing. For the statement no.9 ‘I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI.’ 48 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree while 16 % students remain undecided while 06 % students disagree with this statement. This statement gets 12th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 37.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students like to learn the other topics of the physics also with the help of CAI package. For the statement no.10 ‘I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.’ 20 % students strongly agreed, 70 % students agree while 10 % students remain undecided with this statement. This statement gets 14th rank. The Chi square value 130

of the statement is 85.0 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students like to learn through self learning package. For the statement no.11 ‘Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly.’6 % students strongly agreed, 18 % students agree, 10 % students remain undecided, 36 % students disagree while 30 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 18th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the content presented through CAI package was arranged properly. For the statement no.12 ‘The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics.’ 82 % students strongly agree and 18 % students agree with this statement. This statement gets 2nd rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 126.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the coloured and animated picture helped them in developing their interest in learning physics. For the statement no.13 ‘This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 26 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided, 4 % students disagree while 10 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 13th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 48.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that such type of learning program should be prepared in other subject also. For the statement no.14 ‘Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 6 % students remain undecided while 02 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 9th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 58.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package. 131

For the statement no.15 ‘Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience.’ 56 % students strongly agreed, 30 % students agree, 8 % students remain undecided while 6 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 10th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 53.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through computer is really a captivating experience for them. For the statement no.16 ‘Presentation through such technique reduces the burden of content.’ 76 % students strongly agree, 18 % students agree with this statement while 6 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 5th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 103.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the student found that the content presentation through such CAI packages reduce the burden of the content. For the statement no.17 ‘It is tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI package.’ 4 % students strongly agreed, 16 % students agree, 14 % students remain undecided, 34 % students disagree while 32 % student strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 17th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 16.20 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the learning through CAI package was not tedious and exhausting to learn through CAI. For the statement no.18 ‘Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.’ 86 % students strongly agreed, 8 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 2 % students remain strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 4th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 137.40 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject. For the statement no.19 ‘Content was presented at proper pace.’ 52 % students strongly agreed, 34 % students agree, 2 % students remain undecided, 8 % students disagree while 4 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 132

11th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 48.60 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found that the pace at which the content was presented was proper. For the statement no.20 ‘The explanation given for every topic is proper.’ 58 % students strongly agreed, 36 % students agree, 4 % students remain undecided while 2 % students strongly disagree with this statement. This statement gets 8th rank. The Chi square value of the statement is 67.0 which is more than significant value 9.488 and 13.277 for 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance respectively. From this it can be concluded that the students found the explanation given for every topic was proper. 4.5.3 Analysis and interpretation of the opinion through contingency table for the Boys and Girls of the experimental groups obtained through opinionnaire For the present research to check the objective no. 14 and hypothesis no. 13 the interpretation of the opinions of Boys and girls of the experimental groups was carried out through contingency table and the result obtained is as shown in table 4.22

133

Table 4.22 Analysis of the opinion of the boys and girls of the experimental groups

Sr. No

Statements

1

The CAI package presented through the computer was knowledgeable.

2

The content presentation was interesting.

3

Simulation takes me to the depth of the topic.

4

The figures were properly explained.

5

The language used in the CAI package was easy.

6

The picture and text presented for each slide was not appropriate.

134

Gender

SA

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total

45 34 79 38 28 66 47 32 79 35 26 61 16 13 29 5 2 7

11 10 21 14 15 29 9 11 20 18 15 33 32 21 53 3 7 10

0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 3 5 0 3 3 6 8 14

D

SD

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 5 10 18 13 31

0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 24 14 38

Chi Squre Value 0.062*

2.281*

1.164*

0.607*

1.943*

2.307*

Sr. No

Statements

7

Questions at the end of slides break the continuity of the topic.

8

Some information seem to be more confusing.

9

I would like to learn other topics of the physics also with this kind of CAI.

10

I would like to learn through such Self Learning package.

11

Content presented in CAI package was not arranged properly.

12

The colored and animated pictures helped us to develop our interest in learning physics.

13

This type of learning program should be used in other subjects also.

135

Gender

SA

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls

5 6 11 3 0 3 23 22 15 21 12 33 3 1 4 49 40 89 37 21

3 4 8 3 4 7 18 14 32 30 27 57 11 9 20 7 4 11 13 14

Total

58

27

D

SD

2 1 3 13 10 23 12 6 18 5 5 10 3 7 10 0 0 0 4 3

46 33 79 22 21 43 3 2 5 0 0 0 22 13 35 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 15 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 14 31 0 0 0 2 3

7

3

5

Chi Squre Value 0.565*

1.614*

0572*

0.523*

1.769*

0.128*

2.836*

Sr. No

Statements

14

Each topic becomes easier while learning through CAI package.

15

Learning through Computer is really a captivating experience.

16

Presentation through Such technique reduce the burden of content.

17

It is long and exhausting to learn through CAI package.

18

Learning through CAI package is motivating to know more about the subject.

19

Content was presented at proper pace.

20

The explanation given for every topic is proper. * Significant at 0.01 level

136

Gender

SA

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total

34 21 55 33 27 60 41 29 70 3 2 5 48 40 88 34 20 54 26 24 50

17 16 33 16 11 27 13 14 27 13 8 21 6 2 8 16 20 36 26 17 43

4 5 9 6 4 10 0 0 0 4 6 10 2 2 4 2 0 2 1 3 4

D

SD

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 33 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 0 0

1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 16 15 31 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 3

Chi Squre Value 1.238*

0.365*

0.440*

0.833*

0.574*

2.068*

2.019*

The table value of

2

test for df = 4 at 0.01 and 0.05 level are 9.488 and 13.277

From the above table it can be concluded that

2

value for every statement is not

significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis “There will be no significant difference between opinion of Boys and Girls of experimental group” is accepted. Hence, it can be said that the boys and girls of the experimental group posses the same opinion regarding the learning through CAI package. 4.6.0

CONCLUSION In the present chapter researcher analysed and interpreted the obtained data and

discussed the result. In the next chapter summary of the research work, major findings, implication and suggestion were made for the future research.

137