analysis and interpretation of data -...

Chapter 5

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

5.1 Summary of Different Analysis Carried Out

5.2 Achievement in Biology of Secondary School Students in Experimental

and Control Groups

5.3 Comparison of Achievement in Biology of Secondary School Students

in Experimental and Control Groups

5.4 Genuineness of the Difference in Achievement

5.5 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the Total

Achievement in Biology of Experimental and Control Groups

5.6 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

Achievement in Biology of Different Objectives of Cognitive Domain

in Experimental and Control Groups

5.7 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

Achievement in Biology of Students in Experimental and Control

Groups having different Learning Styles

5.8 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA on the Achievement in Biology

of Students in Experimental Group having different Learning Styles

5.9 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA on the Achievement in Biology

of Students in Experimental Group having different Levels of MI

Analysis and Interpretation of Data 169

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The analysis and interpretation of data represent the application of

deductive and inductive logic to the research process. Analysis of data involves a

number of closely related operations that are performed with the purpose of

summarizing the collected data and organizing these in such a manner that they

will yield answers to the research questions.

The purpose of analysis is to build up an intellectual model that explains

the relationship between different variables. The analyzed data is then synthesized

in such a way that hypotheses may be accepted or rejected.

The major objective of this investigation was to ascertain the relative

effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement in biology of secondary school

students. Hence the investigator adopted experimental method with the Pre-test Post-test

- Non-Equivalent groups Design where there was one experimental group and one control

group. The experimental group was taught through MIA and the control group was taught

through CMDI.

Six divisions of standard X students of three schools from three districts of

Kerala were selected for the study. De Paul Higher Secondary School,

Thodupuzha, Idukki, Kuriakose Elias Higehr Secondary School, Mannanam,

Kottayam and Mother Theresa H.S.S. Muhamma, Alappuzha were the selected

schools. Thus the sample consisted of 188 students from all the above three

schools in which 94 students were in each experimental and control groups.


The investigator prepared and standardized an achievement test in biology

and the same was used as both pre-test and post-test to measure the achievement

of students before and after the experiment. The experimental group was taught

through MIA on the basis of lesson transcripts prepared by the investigator and the

control group was taught through CMDI. During the time of experiment the

investigator administered all the other tools such as Multiple Intelligence Inventory

which is prepared and standardized by the investigator and Kolb’s Learning Style

Inventory in both the experimental and control groups. Then the post-test was

given to two groups. The difference between the pre and post-test scores of

experimental and control groups were compared with the help of appropriate

statistical techniques to ascertain the relative effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on

the achievement in biology of secondary school students.

The data pertaining to the experimental and control groups were subjected

to the following statistical analysis:

1) Classification and tabulation of scores

2) Calculation of Measures of Central tendency, Dispersion, Skewness and

Kurtosis

3) Test of significance of the difference between the means

4) Analysis of variance

5) Analysis of Co variance and

6) Bonferroni test

5.1 Summary of Different Analysis Carried Out

Different analysis carried out for the present study were


1. Total achievement in biology of secondary school students

a) Before Experiment

b) After Experiment

c) Gain in Achievement

2. Comparison of the total achievement in biology of secondary school

students in experimental and control groups

a) Before Experiment

b) After Experiment

c) Gain in Achievement

3. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the total

achievement in biology of secondary school students.

Experimental group versus Control group

4. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement in

biology of secondary school students in different objectives of Cognitive

domain such as

a) Remembering,

b) Understanding,

c) Applying,

d) Analyzing,

e) Evaluating and

f) Creating.


5. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement in

biology of secondary school students having different Learning styles such

as

a) Diverging style,

b) Assimilating style,

c) Accommodating style and

d) Converging style.

6. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in biology of

experimental group students having different learning styles such as

a) Diverging style,

b) Assimilating style,

c) Accommodating style and

d) Converging style.

7. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in biology of

experimental group students having different levels of MI such as

a) Verbal /linguistic,

b) Logical /Mathematical,

c) Visual / Spatial,

d) Bodily/Kinaesthetic,

e) Musical/ Rhythmical


f) Interpersonal,

g) Intrapersonal and

h) Naturalistic.

5.2. Achievement in Biology of Secondary School Students in Experimental and

Control Groups

5.2.1. Before Experiment

The pre-test scores obtained by secondary school students in the

experimental and control groups were condensed into frequency tables and then

calculated the Arithmetic Mean, Median, Mode, Standard Deviation, Skewness and

Kurtosis in order to get a general picture. The values of various statistics calculated

are given in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1

Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion of Pre-test Scores of

Experimental and Control Groups

Values Obtained Statistics Calculated Experimental Group Control Group

Mean 2.85

2.82

Median 3.00

3.00

Mode 3.00

3.00

Standard Deviation 1.00

1.06

Skewness 0.696

0.539

Kurtosis 0.429

0.174


The test carried a maximum weightage of 40 marks. The calculated values

of the three most commonly used measures of central tendency mean, median and

mode are below four. This indicates that students in experimental and control

groups had only limited knowledge on the topic to be taught.

The arithmetic mean scores obtained for the experimental and control

groups are 2.85, and 2.82 respectively. The absolute difference in arithmetic mean

scores of experimental and control groups is 0.03. This value shows that the two

groups had almost same previous knowledge on the topic.

The median value of both experimental and the control groups is three.

From this value it is inferred that only 50% of the students in these groups have

scored above this value. This also shows that the two groups did not differ very

much in their scores in pre-test.

The mode value obtained for the experimental and control group is three.

This value too shows that the typical scores are below four. The details are shown

in Figure 5.1.


2.852.82

3 3 3 3

2.7

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

3

Mean Median Mode

ExperimentalgroupControl Group

Figure 5.1 Measures of Central Tendency of Pre-Test Scores of


The values of standard deviation of experimental group (Ex. gr.) and control

group (Con. gr.) (S.D. for Ex. gr. = 1.00 and Con. gr. = 1.06) too show that there is

only very small variations in the pre-test scores of students in both groups from

the average.

The values of skewness obtained for experimental and control groups are

0.696 and 0.539 respectively. These values show that the scores were positively

skewed in experimental and control groups and more individuals scored less than

the average score of their group.


The value of kurtosis for the experimental and control groups are 0.429,

and 0.174 respectively. Since the value of kurtosis is greater than 0.263 in the

experimental group, it can be inferred that the distribution is platykurtic and the

value is lesser than 0.263 in the control group, it can be inferred that the

distribution is leptokurtic i.e., the frequency distributions are more peaked than the

normal.

5.2.2. After Experiment

The post-test scores obtained by students in the experimental and control

groups were condensed into frequency tables and then calculated the various

measures of central tendency and dispersion. The values of statistics calculated are

given in Table 5.2.

TABLE 5.2

Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion of Post-test Scores of


Values Obtained Statistics Calculated Experimental Group Control Group

Mean 29.96

17.91

Median 28.50

17.00

Mode 26.00

17.00


4.17

Skewness 0.170

0.508

Kurtosis -1.308

-0.694


The mean, median and mode values of experimental group are 29.96, 28.50 and

26.00 and that of control group are 17.91, 17.00, and 17.00. These values clearly show

that MIA had significant impact on the achievement in the post-test. The details are

shown in Figure 5.2.

29.96

28.5

26

17.91

17 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

experimental group control group

Mean

Median

Mode

FIGURE 5.2 Measures of Central Tendency of Post-Test Scores of


The values of standard deviation 5.48 and 4.17 respectively of experimental

and control groups show that the scores do not vary much from the average.

The values of skewness obtained for experimental and control groups are

0.170, and 0.508 respectively. These values showed that the scores were positively



the average score of their group.

The values of kurtosis -1.308, and -0.694 respectively of the experimental

and control groups show that the distributions are leptokurtic i.e., the frequency

distributions are more peaked than normal.

5.2.3 Gain in Achievement

The difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of students in

experimental and control groups were condensed into frequency tables. The

measures of central tendency and dispersion of the scores were computed in order

to get a general picture of the gain in achievement of the two groups. The results

are given in Table 5.3.

TABLE 5.3

Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion of Gain Scores of


Values Obtained Statistics Calculated

Experimental Group Control Group

Mean 27.14

15.10

Median 26.00

14.00

Mode 23

13


4.23

Skewness 0.166

0.442

Kurtosis -1.246

- 0.652


A careful observation of the table makes it clear that the values of measures

of central tendency decreases as one moves from experimental group to control

group. This regular gradation in value indicates the superiority of experimental

group over control group. The details are shown in Figure 5.3.

27.14 26

23

15.1

14

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

experimental group control group

Mean

Median

Mode

FIGURE 5.3 Measures of Central Tendency of Gain Scores of Experimental

and Control Groups


The moderate values of standard deviation (S.D. for Ex.gr. = 5.54, and Con.gr.

= 4.23) showed that there were only small variations in the achievement of students

from the mean value.

The values of skewness of the experimental and control groups were 0.166

and 0.442 respectively. These values showed that the scores were positively


the average score for their group. The values of kurtosis for the experimental and

control groups are -1.246 and - 0.652 respectively which are less than 0.263.

Therefore it can be inferred that the distribution of scores in both the groups is

leptokurtic, i.e., the frequency distribution is peaked than the normal.

5.3. Comparison of Achievement in Biology of Secondary School Students in


To ascertain the relative effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students, the investigator compared

the total achievement of the experimental and control groups. For this the mean

pre-test scores, mean post-test scores and mean gain scores were computed before

and after the experiment and subjected to analysis of Critical ratio.

5.3.1 Before experiment.

Before starting the experiment, the achievement of students in experimental

group was compared with achievement of students in the control group. This was

done by testing the significance of difference between means of pre-test scores of

experimental and control groups. Data and result of test of significance are given in

Table 5.4.


TABLE 5.4

Data and Result of Test of Significance of the Difference between the Mean

Pre-test Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Group No. of Students Mean Standard

Deviation Critical Ratio

Level of Significance

Experimental Group 94 2.85 1.00

Control Group 94 2.82 1.06

0.212 P>0.05

The Critical ratio obtained (CR = 0.212 P> 0.05) is not significant even at

0.05 level. This showed that there is no significant difference between the means of

the pre-test scores of students in experimental and control groups. The above

observation made clear that the two groups did not differ significantly in their

academic achievement before the experiment. Thus it can be interpreted that before

subjecting to the instructional strategies, the two groups were more or less

equivalent with reference to the previous knowledge.

5.3.2 After experiment.

After the experiment, the achievement of the students in the experimental

and control groups were compared by testing the significance of difference

between the means of the post-test scores of the two groups. The data and result of

significance are given in Table 5.5.


TABLE 5.5


Post-test Scores of Experimental and Control Groups






16.972 P<0.01

The obtained value of Critical ratio is highly significant (CR =16.972; P<

0.01). This means that there is significant difference between the means of the

post-test scores of the students in experimental and control groups. Since the mean

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

group, the students in the experimental group is superior to the students in the

control group in their academic achievement. So then, it is tentatively interpreted

that the MIA is much superior to CMDI with respect to pupil’s academic

achievement.

5.3.3 Gain in achievement.

The gain in achievement of students in both groups was compared by

testing the significance of the difference between means of the gain scores of the

two groups. For this critical ratio was found out and tested for significance. The

data and results of the test of significance are given in Table 5.6.


TABLE 5.6


Gain Scores of Experimental and Control Groups






16.764 P<0.01

The obtained value of Critical ratio (CR =16.764; P <0.01) is significant

even at 0.01 level. This significant difference between the means of gain scores of

students in experimental and control groups shows that the two groups differ

significantly in their academic achievement. The higher gain scores of the

experimental group when compared to control group indicate that the experimental

group is superior to the control group on the achievement in biology.

Since experimental and control groups selected for the present study were intact

class room groups which were not equated for intelligence, socio-economic status etc. of

the students, it is only tentatively interpreted that MIA is more effective than CMDI.

The details of comparison of pre-test, post-test and gain scores of students

in experimental and control groups are shown in Figure 5.4.


2.82 2.85

29.96

17.91

27.14

15.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pre-test scores Post-test scores Gain scores

experimental group

control group

FIGURE 5.4 The Comparison of Pre-Test, Post-Test and Gain Scores

of Students in Experimental and Control Groups

5.4. Genuineness of the Difference in Achievement

The analysis of the post-test scores and the gain scores of the students in

the two groups (experimental and control groups) showed that there is significant

difference on the achievement in biology of students in these groups. But the two

groups selected for the study were non-equivalent intact classroom groups, and

differed slightly in the means of their pre-test scores. Hence it can not be

concluded that the students of the two groups are differed significantly on their

achievement in the post-test by simply comparing the post-test scores or the gain

scores.


More than that, the higher post-test scores of the students in the

experimental group than that of the students in the control group cannot be

attributed to the application of the experimental variables to the experimental

group. In this context, it became necessary to analyze the data using the statistical

technique called Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), by which the difference in

the initial status of the two groups can be removed statistically, that they can be

compared as though their initial status had been equated.

In the present study ANCOVA was used in two major ways; as a technique

for controlling extraneous variables and as a means of increasing power. Use of

covariance is essentially equivalent to matching groups on the variable or the

variables to be controlled. ANCOVA adjusts post-test scores for initial differences

on some variable and compares adjusted scores. In other words, the groups were

equalized with respect to the control variable and then compared. By using

covariance the investigator has attempted to reduce variation in post-test scores,

which has been attributable to another variable.

The second function of ANCOVA is that it increases the power of a

statistical test by reducing within group (error) variance. By using covariance the

investigator has attempted to reduce within group (error) variance, which is due to

limited sample size in the present study.

5.5. Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the Total

Achievement in Biology of Experimental and Control Groups

To compare the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement in

biology of secondary school students the pre-test and post-test scores of the

experimental and control groups were subjected to the statistical analysis of


covariance. The summary of the analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’

(post-test) scores of students in experimental and control groups, taken separately

is given in Table 5.7.

TABLE 5.7

Summary of Analysis of Variance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test) Scores

of Students in Experimental and Control Groups, Taken Separately

Source of Variance df SSx SSy MSx(Vx) MSy(Vy)

Among group mean 1 0.05 6816.1 0.05 6816.09

Within group mean 186 197.84 4401.1 1.06 23.66

Total 187 197.89 11217.2

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05

Fy = 66.23

1.6816 = 288.06

From table of F ratio, df for 1/186

F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76

The obtained Fx and Fy ratios were tested for significance. The table value

of F ratio for df 1/186 is 3.89 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant

even at 0.05 level (Fx = 0.05; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial score

(X), Fx falls far short of significance at 0.05 level, it is clear that the means do not

differ significantly.


The table value of F ratio for df 1/186 is 6.76 at 0.01 level. So the obtained

Fy is highly significant (Fy = 288.06; P<0.01). Since the F test applied to the final

scores (Y) Fy falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance, it can be tentatively

interpreted that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of the two

groups.

Analysis of Covariance

The final (Y) scores were corrected for difference in initial (X) scores. For

that the SSy have been adjusted for any variability in ‘Y’ contributed by ‘X’. The

adjusted sum of squares for ‘Y’, that is SSyx were computed and the F ratio (Fyx)

was calculated. The summary of analysis of covariance of pre-test and post-test

scores of students in experimental and control groups taken separately is given in

Table 5.8.

TABLE 5.8

Summary of Analysis of Co-variance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test)

Scores of Students in Experimental and Control Groups, Taken Separately

Source of Variance df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx MSy(Vy) SDyx

Among group mean 1.00 0.05 6816.1 18.06 6812.80 6812.80

Within group mean 185 197.84 4401.1 8.96 4400.74 23.79

Total 186 197.89 11217.2 27.02 11213.54

4.88

Fyx = 79.2380.6812 = 286.40

From table of F ratio = df 1/185 for

F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


Since the table value of F ratio for 1/185 is 6.76 at 0.01 level of

significance, the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx= 286.40; P<0.01). The

significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students in the

experimental and control groups have significant difference. The significant Fyx

ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores of students in the

experimental and control groups differ significantly even after they have been

adjusted for difference in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted

that MIA has greater effect on the achievement in biology than CMDI.

Comparison of Adjusted ‘Y’ Means

The adjusted means of post-test scores (Y means) of students in the

experimental and control groups were computed and the difference between the

adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for significance. The data for adjusted means of

post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups taken separately is

given in Table 5.9.

TABLE 5.9

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ means of Post-test Scores of Students in Experimental

and Control Groups, Taken Separately

Group N Mx My Adjusted Y Mean (Myx)

Experimental Group 94 2.85 30.0 29.96

Control Group 94 2.82 17.9 17.92

General Means 94 2.84 23.94 23.94

S Em =0.71

‘t’ = 16.93


Table value of ‘t’

‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60

The table value of ‘t’ is 1.97 at 0.05 level and 2.60 at 0.01 level. The

calculated ‘t’ value (16.93) is significant at 0.01 level. The significantly greater

adjusted ‘Y’ mean of the experimental group than the control group indicates that

experimental group is superior to control group, on the achievement in biology. It

may therefore be interpreted that the students taught through MIA has better

achievement in biology than those taught through CMDI.

From the analysis of total achievement scores of students in experimental

and control groups, by using the statistical technique of analysis of covariance it

becomes apparent that the MIA is more effective than the CMDI on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students.

5.6. Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

Achievement in Biology of Different Objectives of Cognitive Domain in


An objective is the intended behaviour of students, the ways in which

individuals are to act, think or feel as a result of participating in some unit of

instruction. An objective is a level of mental growth which the teacher expects the

child to reach through learning experiences. The child who has achieved the

objectives will be different from the child who hasn’t achieved the objectives. This

means, as a result of educational process the teacher brings about desirable changes

in the pupil. These behavioural changes indicate the attainment of an objective.


To compare the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement of

different objectives of Cognitive domain in biology at the secondary level, the pre-

test and post-test scores at different objective levels of the cognitive domain of the

two groups (experimental and control groups) were subjected to the statistical

technique of analysis of covariance.

Levels of objectives of Cognitive domain selected for the analysis of covariance

were

a) Remembering, b) Understanding, c) Applying ,

d) Analyzing, e) Evaluating and f) Creating.

The post-test scores of the different objectives of Cognitive domain obtained

by the students in the experimental and control groups were condensed into

frequency tables and then calculated the mean and standard deviation. The

consolidated results of the post-test scores of different objectives of cognitive

domain in the experimental and control groups are given in Table 5.10.

TABLE 5.10

Mean and Standard Deviation of Post-test Scores of Different Objectives of Cognitive Domain in Experimental and Control Groups

Experimental Group Control Group No

Objectives Mean SD Mean SD

1 Remembering 3.74 0.44 3.2 0.7

2 Understanding 4.55 0.63 3.59 0.91

3 Applying 9.24 1.33 6.06 1.41

4 Analyzing 9.3 2.04 4.61 1.91

5 Evaluating 1.87 0.94 0.38 0.57

6 Creating 1.24 1.09 0.15 0.36


10 Experimental Group

Control Group9

8

7

6Post-test Scores 5

4

3

2

1

0RE AP AN CR UN EV

Objectives

FIGURE 5.5 The Comparison of Mean Post-Test Scores of Different

Objectives of Cognitive Domain in Experimental and

Control Groups

5.6.1. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students with respect to the

REMEMBERING level.

To compare the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the achievement in biology

of secondary school students with respect to Remembering level, the pre-test and post-

test scores of the experimental and control groups at the Remembering level were


subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary of analysis of

variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students in experimental

and control groups at the Remembering level, taken separately is given in Table

5.11.

TABLE 5.11


of Students in Experimental and Control Groups with Respect to the

REMEMBERING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 13.8 0.05 13.84


Total 187 197.89 76.8

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05

Fy = 34.084.13 = 40.83


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


of F ratio for 1/186 is 3.89 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even

at 0.05 level (Fx =0.05; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X),


Fx falls far short of significance at 0.05 level, it is clear that the means do not differ

significantly.



(Y) scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance, it can be tentatively

interpreted that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of two

groups.



that the SSy have been adjusted for any variability in ‘Y’ contributes by ‘X’. The



scores of students in experimental and control groups with respect to

Remembering level taken separately, is given in Table 5.12.

TABLE 5.12

Summary of Analysis of Covariance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test)

Scores of Students in Experimental and Control Groups, with Respect to the


Source of Variance df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx

MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 13.8 0.81 13.79 13.79


Total 186 197.89 76.8 5.67 76.70

0.58


Fyx = 34.079.13 = 40.56

From table of F ratio, df 1/185 for

F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76

Since the table value of F ratio for df 1/185 is 6.76 at 0.01 level of

significance, the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx =40.56; P<0.01). The

significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the

Remembering level in the experimental and control groups have significant

difference. The significant Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test

scores at the Remembering level of students in the experimental and control groups

differ significantly even after they have been adjusted for difference in the pre-test

scores. So it can tentatively interpreted that MIA has greater effect than CMDI on

the achievement in biology of secondary school students at the Remembering

level.





post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups at the Remembering

level, taken separately is given in Table 5.13.


TABLE 5.13

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Students in

Experimental and Control Groups, with Respect to the




Control Group 94 2.82 3.2 3.20

General Means 94 2.84 3.47 3.47

S Em =0.09

“t” =6.39


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60




experimental group is superior to control group on the achievement in biology at

the Remembering level. It may therefore be inferred that the secondary school

students taught through MIA has better achievement in biology at the

Remembering level than those taught through CMDI.




UNDERSTANDING level.


biology of secondary school students with respect to the Understanding level, the pre-

test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups at the

Understanding level were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The

summary of analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of

students in experimental and control groups at the Understanding level, taken

separately is given in Table 5.14.

TABLE 5.14



UNDERSTANDING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 44.0 0.05 44.05


Total 187 197.89 158.1

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05

Fy = 61.005.44 = 72.213


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76






significantly.





groups.


The final (Y) scores were corrected for difference in initial (X). For that the

SSy have been adjusted for any variability in ‘Y’ contributes by ‘X’. The adjusted

sum of squares for ‘Y’, that is, SSyx were computed and the F ratio (Fyx) was

calculated. The summary of analysis of covariance of pre-test and post-test scores

of students in experimental and control groups with respect to the Understanding

level taken separately , is given in Table 5.15.

TABLE 5.15

Summary of Analysis of Covariance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test) Scores of Students in Experimental and Control Groups with Respect to the

UNDERSTANDING Level, Taken Separately Source of Variance df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx

MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 44.0 1.45 44.00 44.00


Total 186 197.89 158.1 4.14 158.02

0.79


Fyx = 62.000.44 = 70.96


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76

Since the table value of F ratio for df 1/185 is 6.76 at 0.01 level of significance,

the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx =70.96; P<0.01). The significant Fyx

ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the Understanding

level in the experimental and control groups have significant difference. The

significant Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores at the

Understanding Level of students in the experimental and control groups differ

significantly even after they have been adjusted for difference in the pre-test

scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted that MIA has greater effect on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students at the Understanding level

than CMDI.





post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups at the

Understanding level taken separately is given in Table 5.16.


TABLE 5.16


Experimental and Control Groups, with Respect to the

UNDERSTANDING Level, Taken Separately




General Means 94 2.84 4.07 4.07

S Em =0.11

‘t’ =8.45


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60





the Understanding level. It may therefore be inferred that the secondary school

students taught through MIA has better achievement in biology at the

Understanding level than those taught through CMDI.




APPLYING level.


biology of secondary school students with respect to the Applying level, the pre-

test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups at the Applying

level were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary of

analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students in

experimental and control groups at the Applying level, taken separately is given in

Table 5.17.

TABLE 5.17



APPLYING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 475.5 0.05 475.54


Total 187 197.89 822.5

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05

Fy = 87.1

54.475 = 254.28



F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76





significantly.

The table value of F ratio for df 1/186 is 6.76 of 0.01 level. So the obtained

Fy is highly significant (Fy =254.28; P<0.01). Since the F test applied to the final



groups.




adjusted sum of squares for ‘Y’, that is., SSyx was computed and the F ratio (Fyx)


scores of students at the Applying level in experimental and control groups taken



TABLE 5.18


Scores of Students in Experimental and Control Groups with Respect to the



MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 475.5 4.77 475.64 475.64

Within group mean 185 197.84 347.0 -4.49 346.89 1.88

Total 186 197.89 822.5 0.28 822.53

1.37

Fyx = 88.1

64.475 = 253


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx = 253; P<0.01). The significant Fyx

ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the Applying level

in the experimental and control groups have significant difference. The significant

Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores at the Applying level of

students in the experimental and control groups differ significantly even after they

have been adjusted for difference in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively

interpreted that MIA has greater effect on the achievement in biology of secondary

school students at the Applying level than the CMDI.






post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups at the Applying


TABLE 5.19


Experimental and Control Groups with Respect to the





General Means 94 2.84 7.65 7.65

S Em =0.20

‘t’ = 15.93


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60





the Applying level. It may therefore be inferred that the students taught through


MIA has better achievement in biology at the Applying level than those taught

through CMDI.


achievement in biology of secondary school students with Respect to

the ANALYSING level.


biology of secondary school students with respect to the Analysing level, the pre-

test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups at the Analysing

level were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary of

analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students in

experimental and control groups at the Analysing level, taken separately is given in

Table 5.20.

TABLE 5.20



ANALYSING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 1034.5 0.05 1034.47


Total 187 197.89 1760.6

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05


Fy = 90.3

47.1034 = 265.248


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76



at 0.05 level ( Fx =0.05; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X),


significantly.





groups.






scores of students in the experimental and control groups with respect to the

Analysing level, taken separately is given in Table 5.21.


TABLE 5.21


Scores of Students in Experimental and Control Groups, with Respect to the


Source of Variance df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx MSy (Vyx) SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 1034.5 7.04 1034.33 1034.33


Total 186 197.89 1760.6 5.52 1760.41

1.98

Fyx = 92.3

33.1034 = 263.85


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx = 263.85; P<0.01). The significant Fyx

ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the Analysing level


Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores at the Analysing level of



interpreted that MIA has greater effect on the achievement in biology at the

Analysing level than CMDI.






post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups at the Analysing


TABLE 5.22







General Means 94 2.84 6.95 6.95

S Em =0.29

‘t’ = 16.24


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60





experimental group is superior to the control group on the achievement in biology

at the Analysing level. It may therefore be inferred that the students taught through

MIA have better achievement in biology at the Analysing level than those taught

through CMDI.



EVALUATING level.


biology of secondary school students with respect to the Evaluating level, the pre-test

and post-test scores at the Evaluating level of the experimental and control groups

were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary of analysis of


and control groups at the Evaluating level, taken separately is given in Table 5.23 .

TABLE 5.23



EVALUATING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 104.3 0.05 104.26


Total 187 197.89 217

Fx =06.105.0 = 0.05


Fy = 61.026.104 = 170.918


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76





significantly.





groups.



that the SSy have been adjusted for any variability in Y contributes by ‘X’. The



scores of students at the Evaluating level in experimental and control groups,

taken separately is given in Table 5.24.


TABLE 5.24





MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 104.3 2.23 104.24 104.24


Total 186 197.89 217 1.95 216.92

0.78

Fyx =61.024.104 = 170.885


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx = 170.885; P<0.01). The significant

Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the Evaluating

level in the experimental and control groups have significant difference. The

significant Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores at the

Evaluating level of students in the experimental and control groups differ

significantly even after they have been adjusted for difference in the pre-test

scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted that MIA has greater effect on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students at the Evaluating level than

CMDI.






post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups at the Evaluating


TABLE 5.25







General Means 94 2.84 1.13 1.13

S Em =0.11

‘t’ = 13.08


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60




experimental group is superior to control group on achievement in biology at the

Evaluating level. It may therefore be inferred that the students taught through MIA


have better achievement in biology at the Evaluating level than those taught

through CMDI.



CREATING level.


biology of secondary school students with respect to Creating level, the pre-test and

post-test scores at the Creating level of the experimental and control groups were

subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary of analysis of


and control groups at the Creating level, taken separately is given in Table 5.26.

TABLE 5.26



CREATING Level, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.05 56.4 0.05 56.43


Total 187 197.89 179.7

Fx = 06.105.0 = 0.05

Fy =66.043.56 = 85 .5



F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76

The obtained Fx and Fy ratios were tested for significance. The table value of

F ratio for 1/186 is 3.89 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even at

0.05 level (Fx =0.05; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X), Fx

falls far short of significance at 0.05 level, it is clear that the means do not differ

significantly.


Fy is highly significant (Fy =85.5; P<0.01). Since the F test applied to the final (Y)

scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance, it can be tentatively


groups.




adjusted sum of squares for Y, that is SSyx were computed and the F ratio (Fyx) was


of students at the Creating level in experimental and control groups taken



TABLE 5.27





MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 0.05 56.4 1.64 56.33 56.33


Total 186 197.89 179.7 6.60 179.49

0.82

Fyx = 67.033.56 = 84.074


F at 0.05 level = 3.89

F at 0.01 level = 6.76


the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx = 84.074; P<0.01). The significant Fyx

ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students at the Creating level


Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test scores at the Creating level of



interpreted that MIA has greater effect on the achievement in biology at the

Creating level than CMDI.




experimental and control groups were computed at the Creating level and the

difference between the adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for significance. The data for

adjusted means of post-test scores of students in experimental and control groups

at the Creating level, taken separately is given in Table 5.28.

TABLE 5.28







General Means 94 2.84 0.70 0.70

S Em =0.12

‘t’ = 9.20


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.97

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.60




adjusted ‘Y’ means of the experimental group than the control group indicates that


the Creating level. It may therefore be inferred that the students taught through

MIA have better achievement in biology at the Creating level than those taught

through CMDI.

The summary of analysis of covariance of pre-test and post-test scores of

students in experimental and control groups with respect to different objectives of

Cognitive domain is given in Table 5.29.

TABLE 5.29

Summary of Analysis of Covariance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test) Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students with respect to Different Objectives of Cognitive Domain, Taken Separately

Objectives Groups Source of Variation df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx MSyx SDyx Fyx

Level of Significan

ce Among group mean 1 0.05 13.8 0.81 13.79 13.79

Remembering

Experimental group and Control group


0.58 40.56 P<0.01

Among group mean 1 0.05 44.0 1.45 44.00 44.00

Understanding



0.79 70.96 P<0.01

Among group mean 1 0.05 475.5 4.77 475.64 475.64

Applying



1.37 253 P<0.01

Among group mean 1 0.05 1034.5 7.04 1034.33 1034.33

Analysing



1.98 263.85 P<0.01

Among group mean 1 0.05 104.3 2.23 104.24 104.24

Evaluating



0.78 170.885 P<0.01

Among group mean 1 0.05 56.4 1.64 56.33 56.33

Creating



0.82 84.074 P<0.01


The summary of adjusted means of pre test and post-test scores of students

in experimental and control groups with respect to different objectives of Cognitive

domain is given in Table 5.30.

TABLE 5.30

Summary of the Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Students in

Experimental and Control Groups with respect to Different Objectives of

Cognitive Domain, Taken Separately

Objectives Group N Mx My Myx t

value

Level of Significa

nce Experimental

94 2.85 3.7 3.74

Remembering Control

94 2.82 3.2 3.20

6.37 P<0.01

Experimental

94 2.85 4.6 4.55

Understanding Control

94 2.82 3.6 3.59

8.45 P<0.01

Experimental

94 2.85 9.2 9.25

Applying Control

94 2.82 6.1 6.06

15.93 P<0.01

Experimental

94 2.85 9.3 9.3

Analysing Control

94 2.82 4.6 4.61

16.24 P<0.01

Experimental

94 2.85 1.9 1.87

Evaluating Control

94 2.82 0.4 0.38

13.08 P<0.01

Experimental

94 2.85 1.2 1.24

Creating Control

94 2.82 0.1 0.15

9.2 P<0.01

From the analysis of total and objective wise achievement scores of

students in the experimental and control groups, by using the statistical technique


of analysis of covariance it becomes apparent that MIA is more effective than the

CMDI on the achievement in biology of secondary school students.

5.7. Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the Achievement in

Biology of Students in Experimental and Control Groups having different

Learning Styles

Individual differences have been seen to play an important role in students'

successes and failures. Learning styles are used to characterize how one prefers to

learn about something. It is the way a person processes, internalizes, and studies

new and challenging material. The cornerstone of Learning style theory is that

most people can learn and each individual has his own unique ways of mastering

new and difficult subject matter (Dunn, 2000).

Kolb’s model of learning suggests a learning process with four stages in a

continuous cycle: Concrete experience, Reflective observations on those

experiences, Abstract conceptualizations developed from those reflections, Active

experimentation on those conceptualizations. Depending on the relative emphasis

or preference along these coordinates four learning style types were identified by

Kolb (1984): Converging, Assimilating, Diverging, and Accommodating.


biology of secondary school students having different Learning styles, the

investigator administered the Kolb’s learning style inventory on both the

experimental and control groups. On the basis of the scores obtained from the

inventory, the students were categorized into four groups of learning styles, viz.

Converging, Assimilating, Diverging, and Accommodating in both experimental


and control group. In order to compare the effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

achievement in biology of students having different learning styles, it was essential

that the achievement scores of various learning style groups of both experimental

and control groups be compared and analyzed. Thus the pre-test, post-test and gain

scores of students have the different Learning styles of both experimental and

control groups were subjected to the statistical analysis.

The pre-test, post-test and gain scores obtained by students in the

experimental and control groups having different learning styles were condensed

into frequency tables and then calculated the mean and standard deviation. The

values of statistics calculated are given in Table 5.31.

TABLE 5.31

Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-test, Post-test and Gain Scores of

Different Learning style Groups in Experimental and Control Groups

Experimental Group Control Group Learning

Styles PRE

TEST POST TEST

GAIN PRE TEST POST TEST

GAIN

Mean 2.87 33.75 30.94 2.81 17.34 14.53

Diverging

SD 1.04 5.06 5.03 1.1 3.84 3.88

Mean 2.74 28.11 25 2.85 16.38 13.54

Accommo-

dating SD 0.81 4.51 4.64 1.34 3.31 3.55

Mean 2.5 28.23 25.5 2.74 18.84 16.11

Assimi-lating

SD 0.86 4.98 4.9 0.93 4.19 4.42

Mean 3.29 27.67 25 2.93 19.87 16.93

Conver-ging

SD 1.15 4.51 4.85 0.88 5.13 5.01


Ex Gr Post- test Co Gr Post- test

35

30

25

20Marks

15

10

5

0D As Ac Co

Learning Styles

FIGURE 5.6 The Comparison of Mean Post-Test Scores of Students Having

Different Learning Styles in the Experimental and Control

Groups


achievement in biology of experimental and control group students

having DIVERGING learning Style


biology of secondary school students having Diverging learning style, the pre-test

and post-test scores of experimental and control group students having Diverging

learning style were subjected to analysis of covariance. The summary of analysis

of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students in experimental


and control groups having Diverging learning style, taken separately is given in

Table 5.32.

TABLE 5.32


of Experimental and Control Group Students Having DIVERGING

Learning Style, Taken Separately


Among group mean 1 0.118

4245.052

0.118

4245.052

Within group mean 74 71.920

1744.106

0.971

23.569

Total 75

72.039

5989.158

Fx = 9718994.011844.0 = 0.123

Fy = 569.23052.4245 = 180.112


F at 0.05 level = 3.98

F at 0.01 level = 7.01


of F ratio for 1/74 is 3.98 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even at

0.05 level (Fx =0.123; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X),


significantly.






groups.


The final (Y) scores were corrected for difference in initial (X). For that the

SSy have been adjusted for any variability in ‘Y’ contributes by ‘X’. The adjusted

sum of squares for Y, that is, SSyx were computed and the F ratio (Fyx) was


of experimental and control group students having Diverging learning style, taken


TABLE 5.33


Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students Having DIVERGING



Among group mean

1 0.118 4245.052 22.421 4184.710 4184.71

Within group mean

73 71.920 1744.106 86 1641.270 22.483

Total 74 72.039 5989.158 108.421 5825.981

4.741

Fyx = 483.22

71.4184 =186.126


F at 0.05 level = 3.98

F at 0.01 level = 7.01



significance, the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx =186.126; P<0.01).

The significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students

having Diverging learning style in the experimental and control groups have

significant difference. The significant Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the

post-test scores of students having Diverging learning style in the experimental

and control groups differ significantly even after they have been adjusted for

difference in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted that MIA has

greater effect than the CMDI on the achievement in biology of students having

Diverging learning style.



experimental and control groups having Diverging learning style were computed

and the difference between the adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for significance. The

data for adjusted means of post-test scores of students having Diverging learning

style in experimental and control groups, taken separately is given in Table 5.34.

TABLE 5.34

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Experimental and Control

Group Students Having DIVERGING Learning Style, Taken Separately



Control Group 38 2.7632 17.42 17.467

General Means 38 2.803 24.91 24.895


SED between adjusted mean = SDyx 2N

11N

1+

= 4.7416381

381+ = 1.087

Obtained difference between means =32.4 – 17.42 =14.98

Calculated ‘t’ value = DSE

means Ybetween Difference

= 087.1

98.14 = 13.781


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 1.99

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.64




experimental group is superior to control group on the achievement in biology. It

may therefore be inferred that MIA is more effective than CMDI on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students having diverging learning

style.



having ACCOMODATING learning style.


biology of secondary school students having Accommodating learning style, the


pre-test and post-test scores of students having Accommodating learning style in

the experimental and control groups were subjected to the statistical analysis of

covariance. The summary of analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-

test) scores of experimental and control group students having Accommodating

learning style, taken separately is given in Table 5.35.

TABLE 5.35


of Experimental and Control Group Students having ACCOMODATING



Among group mean 1 0.039 1047.116 0.039 1047.116

Within group mean 24 30 418 1.25 17.4166

Total 25 30.039 1465.116

Fx = 25.1039.0 = 0.0312

Fy 4166.17

116.1047 = 60.122


F at 0.05 level = 4.26

F at 0.01 level = 7.82

The obtained Fx and Fy ratios were tested for significance. The table value of F

ratio for 1/24 is 4.26 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even at 0.05

level (Fx =0.0312; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X), Fx



significantly.





groups.




adjusted sum of squares for ‘Y’, that is, SSyx were computed and the F ratio (Fyx)


scores of experimental and control group students having Accommodating learning

style, taken separately is given in Table 5.36.

TABLE 5.36


Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students Having

ACCOMODATING Learning Style, Taken Separately


Among group mean

1 0.039 1047.116 -6.364 1038.575 1038.575

Within group mean

23 30 418 -17 408.367 17.755

Total 24 30.039 1465.116 -23.364 1446.942

4.2136


Fyx = 755.17575.1038 = 58.49


F at 0.05 level = 4.28

F at 0.01 level = 7.88



significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students having

Accommodating learning style in the experimental and control groups have


post-test scores of students having Accommodating learning style in the

experimental and control groups differ significantly even after they have been

adjusted for difference in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted

that MIA has greater effect than the CMDI on the achievement in biology of

secondary school students having Accommodating learning style.


The adjusted means of post-test scores (Y means) of students having

Accommodating learning style in the experimental and control groups were

computed and the difference between the adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for

significance. The data for adjusted means of post-test scores of students having

Accommodating learning style in experimental and control Groups taken



TABLE 5.37

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Experimental and

Control Group Students having ACCOMODATING Learning Style,

Taken Separately



Control Group 13 2.846 16.385 16.4065

General Means 13 2.808 22.7325 22.7322

SED between adjusted mean = SDyx 2N

11N

1+

= 4.2137131

131+ = 1.6527




= 6527.1

695.12 = 7.6814


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 2.06

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.78







achievement in biology of secondary school students having Accommodating

learning style.

5.7.3. Comparison of effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the

Achievement in biology of secondary school students having

ASSIMILATING learning style.


biology of secondary school students having Assimilating learning style, the pre-

test and post-test scores of experimental and control group students having

Assimilating learning style were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance.

The summary of analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of

students having Assimilating learning style in experimental and control groups,


TABLE 5.38


of Experimental and Control Group Students having ASSIMILATING



Among group mean 1 1.29 900.658 1.29 900.658


Total 37 29.40 1713.816


Fx = 7808.029.1 = 1.652

Fy = 5877.22658.900 = 39.874


F at 0.05 level = 4.12

F at 0.01 level = 7.42



0.05 level (Fx = 1.652; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X),


significantly.





groups.






scores of experimental and control group students having Assimilating learning

style, taken separately is given in Table 5.39.


TABLE 5.39


Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students having

ASSIMILATING Learning Style, Taken Separately


MSy (Vyx)

SDyx

Among group mean 1 1.29 900.658 -34.0789 804.527 804.527


Total 36 29.40 1713.816 -58.921 1595.731

4.753

Fyx = 6.22

5276.804 = 35.598


F at 0.05 level = 4.12

F at 0.01 level = 7.42



significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students having

Assimilating learning style in the experimental and control groups have significant

difference. The significant Fyx ratio also shows that the means of the post-test

scores of students having Assimilating learning style in the experimental and

control groups differ significantly even after they have been adjusted for difference

in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted that MIA has greater

effect than the CMDI on the achievement in biology of students having

Assimilating learning style.



The adjusted means of post-test scores (Y means) of experimental and

control group students having Assimilating learning style were computed and the

difference between the adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for significance. The data for

adjusted means of post-test scores of students having Assimilating learning style in

experimental and control groups are given in Table 5.40.

TABLE 5.40

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Experimental And

Control Group Students having ASSIMILATING




Control Group 19 2.737 18.8 18.637

General Means 19 2.553 23.69 23.69

SED between adjusted mean = SDyx 2

11

1NN

+

= 4.753191

191+ = 1.542

Obtained difference between means =28.58– 18.8 =9.78



= 542.178.9 = 6.342


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 2.02

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.71







achievement in biology of secondary school students having Assimilating learning

style.

5.7.4. Comparison of effectiveness of MIA and CMDI on the


having CONVERGING learning style.


biology of secondary school students having Converging learning style, the pre-test

and post-test scores of experimental and control group students having Converging

learning style were subjected to the statistical analysis of covariance. The summary

of analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students

having Converging learning style in experimental and control groups, taken


TABLE 5.41

Summary of Analysis of Variance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test) Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students having CONVERGING

Learning Style, Taken Separately Source of Variance df SSx SSy MSx(Vx) MSy(Vy)


512.533 1.2003 512.533


Total 29 31.4670 1250


Fx = 08095.12003.1 = 1.1104

Fy = 338.026533.512 = 19.359


F at 0.05 level = 4.20

F at 0.01 level = 7.64


of F ratio for 1/28 is 4.20 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even at

0.05 level (Fx =1.1104; P> 0.05). Since the F test applied to the initial scores (X),


significantly.





groups.






scores of students having Converging learning style in the experimental and

control groups, taken separately is given in Table 5.42.


TABLE 5.42


Scores of Experimental and Control Group Students having CONVERGING



MSy (Vyx)

SDyx


512.533 24.8 519.8243 519.824


Total 28 31.4670 1250 8 1247.966

5.1930

Fyx = 9682.268243.519 = 19.2754


F at 0.05 level = 4.21

F at 0.01 level = 7.68


significance, the obtained Fyx ratio is highly significant (Fyx =19.2754; P<0.01).

The significant Fyx ratio shows that the means of the post-test scores of students

having Converging learning style in the experimental and control groups have


post-test scores of students having Converging learning style in the experimental

and control groups differ significantly even after they have been adjusted for

difference in the pre-test scores. So it can be tentatively interpreted that MIA has

greater effect than CMDI on the achievement in biology of students having

Converging learning style.



The adjusted means of post-test scores (Y means) of students having

Converging learning style in the experimental and control groups were computed

and the difference between the adjusted ‘Y’ means was tested for significance. The

data for adjusted means of post-test scores of students having Converging learning

style in the experimental and control groups, taken separately is given in Table

5.43.

TABLE 5.43

Data for Adjusted ‘Y’ Means of Post-test Scores of Experimental and

Control Group Students having CONVERGING Learning Style, Taken

Separately



Control Group 15 2.933 19.867 19. 745

General Means 15 3.133 24.00 24.00

SED between adjusted mean = SDyx 2

11

1NN

+

= 5.1930151

151+ = 1.895





= 895.1266.8 = 4.362


‘t’ at 0.05 level = 2.13

‘t’ at 0.01 level = 2.95




experimental group is superior to control group in academic achievement. It may

therefore be inferred that the MIA is more effective than CMDI on the

achievement in biology of secondary school students having Converging learning

style.

The summary of analysis of covariance of pre-test and post-test scores of

students having different Learning styles in experimental and control groups,


TABLE 5.44

Summary of Analysis of Covariance of X (Pre-test) and Y (Post-test) Scores of Experimental and Control Group students having different Learning Styles, Taken Separately

Learning Styles Groups Source

of Variation

df SSx SSy SSxy SSyx MSyx SDyx Fyx Level of

Significance

Among group mean

1 0.118 4245.052 22.421 4184.711 4184.711 Diverging


Within group mean

73 71.921 1744.106 86 1641.270 22.483

4.742 186.126 P<0.01

Among group mean

1 0.039 1047.116 -6.364 1038.575 1038.575

Accommodating


Within group mean

23 30 418 -17 408.367 17.755

4.214 58.49 P<0.01

Among group mean

1 1.29 900.658 -34.079 804.528 804.528

Assimilating


Within group mean

35 28.11 813.158 -24.842 791.204 22.6

4.753 35.598 P<0.01

Among group mean

1 1.200 512.533 24.8 519.824 519.824

Converging


Within group mean

27 30.267 737.467 -16..8 728.142 26.968

5.1898 19.333 P<0.01


The summary of adjusted means of pre-test and post-test scores of

students in experimental and control groups having different Learning styles,


TABLE 5.45

Consolidated Result of the Adjusted Means of Post-test Scores of

Experimental and Control Group Students having Different

Learning Styles, Taken Separately

Learning Styles Group N Mx My Myx t value

Level of Signifi cance

Experi-mental 38 2.842 32.4 32.323 Diverging

Control 38 2.763 17.42 17.467 13.775 P<0.01 Experi-mental 13 2.769 29.08 29.058 Accomm-

odating Control 13 2.846 16.385 16.407 7.681 P<0.01 Experi-mental 19 2.368 28.58 28.743 Assimi-

lating Control 19 2.737 18.8 18.637 6.342 P<0.01 Experi-mental 15 3.333 28.133 28.255 Converging

Control 15 2.933 19.867 19.745 4.362 P<0.01

From the analysis of pre-test and post-test scores of students in

experimental and control groups, having different learning styles, by using the

statistical technique of analysis of covariance it becomes apparent that MIA is

more effective than CMDI on the achievement in biology of secondary school

students having different learning styles.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Marks

Post- test Post- test

Experimental Group Control Group

Learning Styles

D

As

Ac

Co

FIGURE 5.7 The Comparison of Mean Post-Test Scores of Students

Having Different Learning Styles in Experimental and

Control Groups

5.8 Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA on the Achievement in Biology of

Students in Experimental Group having Different Learning Styles

To compare the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in biology of

secondary school students having different Learning styles in the experimental


group, the pre-test, post-test and gain scores of students having different Learning

styles of the experimental group were subjected to the statistical analysis.

TABLE 5.46

Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-test, Post-test and Gain Scores of

Experimental Group Students Having Different Learning Styles

Experimental Group

Learning Style

PRETEST POSTTEST GAIN

Mean

2.87

33.75

30.94

Diverging

Std. Deviation

1.04

5.06

5.03

Mean

2.74

28.11

25 Accommodating Std. Deviation

0.81

4.51

4.64

Mean

2.5

28.23

25.5 Assimilating Std. Deviation

0.86

4.98

4.9

Mean

3.29

27.67

25 Converging Std. Deviation

1.15

4.51

4.85


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Marks

D As Ac Co

Learning Styles

PRETESTPOSTESTGAIN

FIGURE 5.8 The Comparison of Mean Pre-Test, Post-Test and Gain

Scores of Experimental Group Students Having

Different Learning Styles

Analysis of Variance


secondary school students having different learning styles in the experimental group,

the pre-test and post-test scores of students having different learning styles in the

experimental group were subjected to the statistical analysis of variance. The

summary of analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of


experimental group students having different learning styles, taken separately is

given in Table 5.47.

TABLE 5.47

Summary of Analysis of Variance of ‘X’ (Pre-test) and ‘Y’ (Post-test) Scores of Students Having Different Learning Styles in the Experimental Group,

Taken Separately

Source of Variance

df SSx SSy MSx(Vx) MSy(Vy)

Among group mean 3 6.945 701.51 2.315 233.837

Within group mean

90 86.970 2086.32 0.966 23.181

Total 93 93.915 2787.83

Fx = 966.0315.2 = 2.396

Fy = 181.23837.233 = 10.087


F at 0.05 level = 2.71

F at 0.01 level = 4.01





significantly.





interpreted that there is significant difference among the ‘Y’ means of the four

different Learning style groups in the experimental group.

This indicates that there is significant difference in the means of post- test

scores among the four different Learning style groups. However it does not

necessarily imply that all the means are significantly different from each other.

Here visual inspection of the Figure 5.9 may suggest that they are all significantly

different. Since visual inspection is not scientific, the Post hoc test (Bonferroni

Test) was applied.

Experimental Group -Post- test

D, 33.75

As, 28.23

Ac, 28.11

Co, 27.67

DAsAcCo

FIGURE 5.9 The Comparison of Mean Post-Test of Students Having

Different Learning Styles in the Experimental Group


5.8.1 The Bonferroni Test

Post hoc tests are used to determine where the significant differences lie after

the null hypothesis has been rejected in ANOVA. Since the F test applied to the

final (Y) scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance (Fy =10.087;

P<0.01), it can be tentatively interpreted that there is significant difference among

the means of post-test scores of the four different Learning style groups. But it is

not clear where do the differences lie.

The Bonferroni test used an F ratio to test for a significant difference between

any two different Learning style groups. It used the value of ‘k’ from the original

experiment to compute ‘df’ between treatments. Thus, ‘df’ for the numerator of

the F ratio is ‘k – 1’; where ‘k’ is the number of groups and the critical value of the

Bonferroni test (F ratio) is the same as was used to evaluate the F ratio from the

overall ANOVA.

Thus the Bonferroni test requires that every post-test satisfies the criteria

used for the overall ANOVA. The procedure is to start testing using the biggest

mean difference and continue testing until a non-significant difference is produced.

The summary of the Bonferroni test analysis of the means of post-test scores of

students having different Learning styles in the experimental group, taken



TABLE 5.48

Summary of the Bonferroni Test Analysis of the means of Post-test Scores of

Students Having Different Learning Styles in the Experimental group,

Taken Separately

LS (I) LS (J) Mean Difference (I-J)

F ratio

Significance level

D As 5.52* .000

Acc 5.64* .001

Co 6.08* .000

As D -5.52* .000

Acc .12 1.000

Co .56 1.000

Acc D -5.64* .001

As -.12 1.000

Co .44 1.000

Co D -6.08* .000

As -.56 1.000

Acc -.44 1.000

* The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.

5.8.2 Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in

biology of experimental group students having different learning styles.

A. Comparison between diverging and assimilating learning style groups.

The table value of F ratio for df 3/90 is 2.71 at 0.05 level and 4.01 at 0.01

level. The obtained Fy is highly significant (Fy =5.52; P<0.01). Since the F test

applied to the final (Y) scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance, it


became apparent that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of the

Diverging and Assimilating learning style groups.

B. Comparison between diverging and accommodating learning style

groups.

The table value of F ratio for df 3/90 is 2.71 at 0.05 level and 4.01 at 0.01 level.

The obtained Fy is highly significant (Fy =5.64; P<0.01). Since the F test applied to

the final (Y) scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance, it became

apparent that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of the

Diverging and Accommodating learning style groups.

C. Comparison between diverging and converging learning style groups.




became apparent that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of the

Diverging and Converging learning style groups.

The obtained values of Fy of all other group comparisons are not significant

even at 0.05 level (P > 0.05). This indicates that the other groups are more or less

equivalent on their achievement in biology.

The table value of F ratio for df 3/90 is 4.01 at 0.01 level. The calculated F

values of Diverging learning style group in comparison with Assimilating,

Accommodating and Converging learning style groups are 5.52, 5.64, 6.08

respectively and are significant at 0.01 level. The significantly greater adjusted

‘Y’ means of the Diverging learning style group than other learning style groups in

the experimental group indicates that Diverging learning style group is superior to


other learning style groups on the achievement in biology. It may therefore be

inferred that the students having Diverging learning style taught through MIA

have better achievement in biology than other three learning style groups such as

accommodating, assimilating and converging groups who were also taught

through MIA.

5.9. Comparison of the Effectiveness of MIA on the Achievement in Biology of

Students in the Experimental Group having Different levels of MI


secondary school students having different levels of MI, the investigator

administered the Multiple Intelligence inventory (prepared and standardized by the

investigator) on the experimental and control group students. On the basis of the

scores obtained from the inventory, the students were categorized into eight

groups, viz. Verbal/Linguistic, Logical/ Mathematical, Visual/ Spatial, Bodily/

Kinaesthetic, Musical/ Rhythmical , Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and Naturalistic.

In order to find out the effect of MIA on the achievement in biology of

secondary school students having different levels of MI, it was essential that the

achievement scores of the above eight intelligence groups of experimental group

be compared and analyzed. Thus the pre-test, post-test and gain scores of eight MI

groups of experimental group were subjected to the statistical analysis.

The pre-test, post-test and gain scores of experimental group students having

different levels of MI were condensed into frequency tables and then calculated the

mean and standard deviation. The values of statistics calculated are given in Table

5.49.


TABLE 5.49

Mean and Standard Deviation of the Pre test, Post-test and Gain Scores of

Students Having Different Levels of MI

in the Experimental Group

Multiple Intelligence

POST TEST

PRETEST

GAIN

Mean 31.10 2.90 27.60 Bodily/ Kinaesthetic

SD 6.28 0.99 5.66

Mean 35.40 2.87 32.87 Interpersonal

SD 3.18 1.06 3.00

Mean 28.08 2.58 25.50 Intrapersonal

SD 4.36 1.08 4.36

Mean 26.23 2.85 23.00 Logical/ Mathematical

SD 3.35 .69 3.44

Mean 27.91 3.00 25.36 Visual/Spatial

SD 5.61 1.55 5.41

Mean 27.91 2.73 25.09 Verbal/ Linguistic

SD 5.79 0.79 5.96

Mean 31.17 2.75 28.33 Musical/ Rhythmical SD 5.13 0.97 5.57

Mean 30.80 3.20 28.20 Naturalistic

SD 4.85 0.92 5.14


POSTEST

PRETEST

Nat MusIntra Log Spat LingType of Intelligence

Inter Bk

40

35

30

25

20Scores

15

10

5

0

FIGURE 5.10 The Comparison of Mean Pre- Test and Post-Test Scores of

Experimental Group Students Having Different Levels of

MI


To compare the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in biology of secondary

school students having different levels of MI in the experimental group, the pre-test

and post-test scores of students having different levels of MI of the experimental

group were subjected to the statistical analysis of variance. The summary of

analysis of variance of ‘X’ (pre-test) and ‘Y’ (post-test) scores of students having

different levels of MI in the experimental group, taken separately is given in Table

5.50.

TABLE 5.50


of Students Having Different Levels of MI in the

Experimental Group, Taken Separately


Among group mean

7

2.641

797.021

0.377

113.860

Within group mean

86

91.274

1990.809

1.061

23.149

Total

93

93.915

2787.830

Fx = 061.1377.0 = 0.355

Fy =149.23860.113 = 4.919


F at 0.05 level = 2.06

F at 0.01 level = 2.74



of F ratio for 7/86 is2.06 at 0.05 level. So the obtained Fx is not significant even at



significantly.




interpreted that there is significant difference among the ‘Y’ means of eight MI

groups.

This indicates that there is a significant difference in the mean post- test

scores among the eight different of MI groups. However it does not necessarily

imply that all the means are significantly different from each other. Here visual

inspection of the Figure 5.11 may suggest that they are all significantly different.

Since visual inspection is not scientific, the Post hoc test (Bonferroni Test) was

applied.


Post- test Mean

Bk

Inter

Intra

LogicalSpatial

Lingul

Musical

Natural

BkInterIntraLogicalSpatialLingulMusicalNatural

FIGURE 5.11 The Comparison of Mean Post-Test Scores of the

Experimental Group Students Having Different Levels of

MI

5.9.1. The Bonferroni test.

Post hoc tests are used to determine where the significant differences lie after

the null hypothesis has been rejected in ANOVA. Since the F test applied to the

final (Y) scores (Fy) falls far beyond the 0.01 level of significance (Fy =4.919;

P<0.01), it can be tentatively interpreted that there is significant difference among

the means of post-test scores of the eight Different MI groups. But it is not clear

where do the differences lie.


The Bonferroni test used an F ratio to test for a significant difference

between any two MI groups. It used the value of ‘k’ from the original experiment

to compute ‘df’ between treatments. Thus, ‘df’ for the numerator of the F ratio is

‘k – 1’; where ‘k’ is the number of groups and the critical value of the Bonferroni

test (F ratio) is the same as was used to evaluate the F ratio from the overall

ANOVA.

Thus the Bonferroni test requires that every post-test satisfies the criteria

used for the overall ANOVA. The procedure is to start testing using the biggest

mean difference and continue testing until a non-significant difference is produced.

The summary of the Bonferroni test analysis of the means of post-test scores

of students having different levels of MI in the experimental group, taken


TABLE 5.51

Summary of the Bonferroni Test Analysis of the means of Post-test Scores of

Experimental Group Students having Different levels of MI, Taken

Separately

(I) MI

(J) MI

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error

Sig.

Inter-personal Intrapersonal 7.32 1.86 0.01

Logical/Mathematical 9.17 1.82 0.01

Visual/Spatial 7.49 1.91 0.01

Verbal/Linguistic 7.49 1.91 0.01


5.9.2. Comparison of the effectiveness of MIA on the achievement in

biology of experimental group students having different levels of MI.

A. Comparison between Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences

groups.




becomes apparent that there is significant difference between the ‘Y’ means of the

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligences groups.

B. Comparison between Interpersonal and logical/ Mathematical

Intelligences groups.





Interpersonal and Logical/Mathematical intelligences groups.

C. Comparison between Interpersonal and Visual/Spatial Intelligences

groups.





Interpersonal and Visual/Spatial Intelligences groups.


D. Comparison between Interpersonal and Verbal/ Linguistic

Intelligences groups.





Interpersonal and Verbal/Linguistic Intelligences groups.

The obtained values of Fy of all other group comparisons are not significant

even at 0.05 level (P > 0.05). This indicated that the other groups are more or less

equivalent on their achievement in biology.


level. The calculated F values of Interpersonal Intelligence group in comparison

with Intrapersonal, Logical/Mathematical, Visual/Spatial and Verbal/Linguistic

Intelligences groups are 7.32, 9.17, 7.49 and 7.49 respectively and are significant

at 0.01 level. The significantly greater ‘Y’ mean of the Interpersonal intelligence

group than other MI groups in the experimental group indicates that Interpersonal

Intelligence group is superior to other Intelligences groups on the achievement in

biology. It may therefore be inferred that the students having Interpersonal

Intelligence group taught through MIA have better achievement in biology than

other MI groups such as Intrapersonal, Logical/ Mathematical Visual/ Spatial,

Verbal/ Linguistic Intelligences who were also taught through Multiple Intelligence

Approach.

analysis and interpretation of data -...

Documents