chapter 4 - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/460/12/12...significant difference...

Chapter 4

ANILYSfS AND IRISCUSSION

11' Section 4.1 Cornparisan QC Various Personality Traits of High

and LOW Achievers.

Cornpartson af the Eamil y Interaction Pattern and its

Cornpanenta of High and Low Achievers.

Corn parlaon af the, Academlo Ac hievamant Motivatian

of High and Law Achievers

Cornpariaon of tha Study Habits and its

Components of High and Low Achievers

Camparison crf the Teacher Effectivaness and Hs

Components at High and Low Achievers

The Association of Various Sacio Remagraphic

Variabtes with High and Low Achiavera

The Details of the Predictar Variables of High and

Lew Academic Aehievarnent

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the

data. All the details are presented below with appropriate tables

and the respective discussions, under seven broad sections.

Section 4.1 gives a detailed account of the statistical difference of

various personality traits of high and low achievers with respect to

gender. Section 4.2 highlights the statistical difference of the family

interaction pattern and its components of high and low achievers

with respect to gender. Section 4.3 explains the statistical

difference of the academic achievement motivation of high and low

achievers with respect to gender. Section 4.4 depicts the statistical

difference of the study habits and its components of high and low

achievers with respect to gender. Section 4.5 covers the statistical

difference of the assessment of teacher effectiveness of high and

low achievers with respect to gender. Section 4.6 describes the

association of various socio demographic variables with high and

low achievers. Section 4.7 gives the details of the predictor

variables of high and low achievers.

Section 4.1

The first major hypothesis formulated was, there would be

significant difference between high and low achievers on various

personality traits. A total of 14 personality traits were tested under

14 separate minor hypotheses. The analysis that has been carried

out with the 14 personality traits shows that certain traits are

significantly predominant with academic high achievement. The

traits that were tested are schizothymia, scholastic capacity, ego

strength, phlegmatic trait, submissiveness, desurgency, super ego

strength, threctia, horria, zappia, untroubled adequacy, group

adherence, integration and ergic tension. These traits are named

so when the scores fall in the lower pole. But when the scores are

high the traits change to affectothymia, high scholastic capacity,

high ego strength, excitability, dominance, surgency, stronger

super ego, adventurous (parmia), sensitive (premsia), reflective

(coasthania), guilt prone, self sufficiency, high self image, and high

ergic tension. The means and standard deviations (S D) of each of

the personality trait factors are given below. Each of it is followed

by F table, which gives the statistical details of the respective

personality trait that was tested.

Table 4:l:l:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor A (Schizothymia) with respect to Gender.

Personality Trait

Factor

Academic Achievement Statistics

Level

1 Mean 1 9.55 1 11.51 1 10.58

1 High 1 SD 1 2.52 1 2.56 1 2.71

Low

Mean

SD

N

1 Mean

Total SD 2.49 2.69 2.63 1 N 1 5 5 118 1 273

A ncik'ysis cmd Interpretfl f ion 167

Table4:I:l:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor A (Schizothymia) with respect to Gender.

The table 4:1: 1:B shows that the obtained F value for the

level of achievement is statistically significant at -05 level. This

means that there is a significant difference between high achievers

and low achievers on the personality factor A. The mean values on

table 4:l: 1 : A show that the high achievers has a greater mean

value than the low achievers in factor A. A high score in factor A

indicates affectothymic (A+) personality, which is characterized as

an outgoing, warmhearted, easy going, and participating nature.

Where as a low score in factor A indicates schizothymic (A-)

personality. This leads to the conclusion that the high achievers

have a more outgoing, warm hearted, easygoing and participating

nature compared to the latter. The second main effect, viz., gender

is also statistically significant at .001 level (vide table 4.1.1 : 6). This

means that there exists a statistically significant difference between

P value

0.04

0.00

0.04

Personality Trait

Factor

ul \

'h a .- .-

E 5. 2 2 .EJ 8 ', 3

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

27.90

96.65

27.27

1744.81

29386.00

Degrees of

freedom

I

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

27.90

96.65

27.27

6.49

F value

4.30

14.90

4.21

male students and female students in factor A. Here female

students are found to have a higher mean score indicating that they

are more affectothymic than the male students. The F value

obtained for the interaction effect is also significant at -05 level.

This means that the effect of gender upon personality trait factor A

depends upon the level of achievement and vise versa. That is in

table 4:l: l:A, the interaction effect is revealed by the fact that

gender difference in affectothym ia (as revealed by the ma in effect

of gender, discussed previously) is more pronounced in the high

achievement group than in the low achievement group. To be more

specific, the high achieving females are found to be significantly

more affectothymic than their male counterpart, while such gender

difference is not pronounced in the low achievement group.

Shaughnessy (1 993) reported that factor A+ is a significant

predictor of success, which goes in favor of the present finding.

Contradictory to this a study by Khurshid and Fatima (1 984) reported

that A - (reserved) characteristic is more associated to high

educational attainment. The finding of this study goes alone with the

report of Shaughnessy (1993) and this may be due to the fact that a

large number of high achieving females have reported the

affectothymic quality. This is evident from the gender analysis. The

interaction effect also clearly gives the similar finding. Usually the

females of today, are well educated and more socialized. As literacy

.- - .. - rate has gone up this change has been considerably taken place in

our society. Along with this the culture aspect of females being

affectionate, warm hearted and participating has also played a role.

Analysis and Interpretation 169

Table 4:l: 2:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor B (Scholastic capacity) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 2:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor B (Scholastic capacity) with respect to Gender.

Personality Trait Factor

B (High

Scholastic capacity vls

low Scholastic capacity).

Total

10.5 2.49 89

9.76

2.59

1 84 10.00

2.58 273

Academic Achievement

Level

High

Low

Total

Gender Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD

N

Mean

SD N

Male

9.86 2.14

42 9.57

2.8

113

9.67

2.54

155

Mean squares

24.24

43.03

7.26

-- 6.43

F value

4.30

14.90

4,2

Female 1 1 -06

2,67 47

10.00 2.43 71

10.47 2.56

118

P value

0

0.00

0.04


B (High Scholastic capacity vls low

Scholastic capacity),

Source

Achievement

Gender

1 "teraction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

24.24

43.03

7.26

1730.35

29 106 .OO

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Table 4:l: 2:B shows that the F value for the effect of

achievement groups is significant at .05 level which means that

there is a statistically significant difference between high and low

achievers on the personality factor B. A high score in factor B

indicates a higher scholastic mental capacity (B+), which is

characterized as a more intelligent & bright personality. Where as a

low score in factor B indicates lower scholastic mental capacity (8-)

The mean values on table 4:l: 2: A show that the high achieving

group has a greater mean score as compared to low achieving

group which means that the high achieving group has more

intelligence when compared to low achieving group. The second

main effect, viz., gender is also statistically significant at .001 level

(vide table 49: 2:B). This means that there exist a statistically

significant difference between male students and female students

in factor A. Here female students are found to have a higher mean

score indicating that they have more scholastic capacity than the

male students. The F value obtained for the interaction effect is not

statistically significant. This means that the effect of gender upon

personality trait factor B does not depend upon the level of

achievement and vise versa. The analysis using factor B has

shown that high achievers have higher scholastic capacity as

compared to low achievers. It is a common sense fact and which

has also been substantiated earlier by different researchers that

intelligence plays a crucial role in academic achievement. By

assessing the scholastic capacity, the authors really mean to asses

the crystallized and the fluid intelligence of an individual. It is also

seen that there is a significance difference between females and

Analysis and Jnterpretation 171

males in this fact, the females score more than the males. The

finding of the study is consistent with the findings of the earlier

reports. Khurshid and Fatima (1984) have reported that B+

characteristic is more associated to high educational attainment.

Bohn (1973) reported that GPA was found to be more associated

to industriousness and intelligence.

Table4:l: 3:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor C (Ego strength) with respect to Gender.

Total

13.78

2.52

89

12.46

3,03

184

12.90

2.94

273

Persona'ity Trait Factor

C

(High ego strength vls

low ego strength).

Gender Academic Achievement

Level

High

Low

Total

Male

14.12

2.65

42

12.17

3.00

113

1267

3.03

155

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Female

13.51

2.39

47

12.93

3.04

7 1

13.16

2.81

118

172 Ch upter 4

Table4:1:3:B: ThesummaryoftwowayANOVAofhighand low achievers in the personality trait factor C (Ego strength) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 3:B shows that the obtained F value between the

achievement groups is statistically significant at 0.00 1 level. A high

score in factor C indicates higher ego strength (C+) personality,

which is characterized as an emotionally stable & calm personality.

Where as a low score in factor C indicates lower ego strength (C-).

High achieving group has greater mean score value than the low

achievers, which leads to the conclusion that the high achievers

are more emotionally calm, stable and faces reality appropriately

than the low achievers. This study also show that there is no

significant difference between the gender groups in factor C.

Similarly, there is also no significant level of interaction among the

achievement levels and the gender groups. The high achievers

have shown high ego strength as compared to the low achievers.

This may be due to the fact that they are more mature, calm and

emotionally stable. It is also seen in some of the earlier studies that


C

(High ego strength vls

low ego strength).

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

94.25

0.34

27.59

221 0.60

47763.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

94.25

0.34

27.59

8.22

value

11.47

0.04

3.36

p value

0.001

0.84

0.07

A nrrlysis and Interpretation -

173

this stability is highly related to the intelligence level and which may

in turn result in better academic performance and vise versa.

Findings regarding the achievement groups are supported by the

earlier studies. A study by Eison (1982) and another study by

Cooper, Boss and Keith (1974) also concluded that factor C is a

significant discriminator between high achievers and low achievers.

However, a contradictory finding was reported by Stewart and

Valentino (1 976) where their results indicate that the emotionally

disturbed adolescents (1 1-1 8 years) who are low in ego strength,

tense, guilt prone, sensitive, shy and submissive tend to

demonstrate higher academic achievement.

Table4:t: 4:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor D (Phlegmatic trait) with respect to Gender.

Personality

Trait Factor

D

(Excitability vls Phlegmatic

Trait).

Total

8.96

2.59

89

8.58

2.42

1 84

8.70

2.48 ,. 273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Male

9.31

2.61

42

8,73

2.57

113

8.89

2.56

155

Female

8.64

2.57

47

8.44

2.14

7 1

8.46

2,32

118

Table 411: 4:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor D (Phlegmatic trait) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 4:B shows that the F values for the achievement

groups, gender and interaction effect are not statistically significant

for factor D. A high score in factor D indicates an excitable (D+)

personality, which is characterized as an excitable, impatient,

demanding and overactive nature, where as a low score in factor D

indicates a phlegmatic temperament (D -). A very low score in

factor D (D-) indicates a phlegmatic temperament, which is

characterized as stoical, complacent, deliberate, and not restless.

Whereas, a high score in factor D indicates excitability, which is

characterized as demanding, impatient, attention getting,

overactive, prone to jealousy, self assertive, distractible and shows

many nervous symptoms. Though there is no statistically significant

difference between any of these groups, the mean values show

that all these groups are showing an average level of reflection of

these characteristics, which are specific to this trait.

P value

0.18

0.10

0.67

F value

1.84

2.74

0.182


D

(Excitability V/S Phlegmatic

trait).

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Mean squares

11.26

16.76

1.11

6.1 1

Sum of Squares

11.26

16.76

1 . I 1

1643,75

22348.00

Degrees Of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Analysis ~ n d Interpretution 175

Table4:l: 5:A: 'rhemeanandSDvaluesofhighandlow achievers in the personality trait factor E (Submissiveness) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 5:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor E (Submissiveness) with respect to Gender.


E (Dominance vls

Submissiveness).

The table 4:l: 5:B shows that the obtained F value for the effect

of achievement is statistically significant at -001 level. This means that

there is a significant difference between high achievers and low

Total

1 1.44 3.06 89

9.72 2.79 1 84

10.28 2.99 273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender

P value

0.00

0.00

0.67

Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Male 10.52 2.78 42

9.17 2.69 113 9.54 2.77 155


E

(Dominance vls Submissiveness).

Female 12.26 3.10 47

10.59 2.74 7 1

11.25 2,99 118

Mean squares

134,03

146,33

1.40

7.78

F value

17.23

18.81

0.179

Source

Achievement

Gender

l nteraction

Within Error

Sum of squares

134.03

146.33

1.40

2092.37

Degrees of

freedom

1

I

1

269

273 Total 31266.00

176 Chap fer 4

achievers on the personality factor E. A high score in factor E

indicates dominance (E +), which is characterized as assertive,

independent aggressive & stubborn. Where as a low score in factor E

indicates submissiveness (E -). The mean values in table 4:l: 5:A

show that the high achievers have a greater mean value than the low

achievers. This leads to the conclusion that the high achievers has a

more assertive, self-assured, independent minded, stern,

unconventional, headstrong and admiration-demanding nature

compared to the latter. The second main effect, viz., gender is also

statistically significant at -001 level (vide table 4.1.1 : B). This means

that there exists a statistically significant difference between male

students and female students in factor E. Here female students are

found to have a higher mean score indicating that they have more E+

characteristic than the male students. The F value obtained for the

interaction effect is not statistically significant. This means that the

effect of gender upon personality trait factor E does not depend upon

the level of achievement and vise versa. In the present study high

achievers and females show high score on this trait. The high

achievers have shown more competitiveness, assertiveness, and

dominance, as compared to the low achievers. This may be one of

the reasons that they go ahead surpassing others by calculative

movements and timely actions. The females being more competitive,

and assertive than the males is yet another finding which shows the

empowerment with the rise of women and the effect of the related

activities and attitudes that has been imparted in them. Cattell and

Schierer (1 961 ) reported that at the elementary level, achievement is

positively correlated with docility, but in higher classes the correlation

At~uljwis rrnd Interpretation 177

changes to high score with dominance. Further they state that the

mode of expression of this traits in girls appear to be somewhat

different from that of boys. A high score in this trait by girls show that

they feel free to participate, they readily raise group's problems and

they criticize group defects. This finding is consistent with the earlier

reports by Kumar (1983) and Davis (1966). Both of them have

reported that dominance is a characteristic that differentiates the high

achievers from low achievers. This is supported by a latter study by

Khurshid and Fatima (1 984). But a contradictory study was reported

by Pandey (1 973) where he reported that good students were humble

and submissive where the dropouts and poor achievers were

assertive, stubborn and independent.

Table4:l: 6:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor F (Desurgency) with respect to Gender.

Personality

Trait Factor

(Surgency vls Desurgency

-..--"-A -,

Total

7.36

I .47

89

6.88

1.91

184

7.04

1.79

273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Male

7.1 9

1.40

42

6,90

2.1 1

113

6.98

1.95

155

Female

7.5 1

1.53

47

6.85

1.56

7 1

7.1 1

1,57

118

Table 4:l: 6:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor F (Desurgency) with respect to Gender


Table 4:l: 6:B shows that the obtained F value between the

achievement groups is statistically significant at .05 level. The

mean values on Table 4:l: 6: A show that the high achievement

group has a happy go lucky nature. A high score in factor F

indicates surgency (F+), which is characterized as a happy go

lucky, impulsively lively, & enthusiastic personality. Where as a low

score in factor F indicates desurgency (F-), which is the opposite

pole of the same personality trait. A study by Cooper, Boss and

Keith (1 974) reported that this factor is a significant discriminator

between high and low achievers. The F values for gender as well

as the interaction effect for factor F are not statistically significant.

Though there is a significant difference between high and low 6

achievers in this trait, the obtained scores for both the groups fall in

the average range. However, a slightly higher score by the high

achievers show that they have a tendency towards surgency.

F

(Surgency v/s Desurgency).

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

13.36

1.01

2.10

857.45

14391.00

Degrees Of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

13,36

1.01

2.10

3.19

F value

P value

4.19

0.32

0.66

0.04

0.57

0.41

Analysis und Inlerprelation 179

Origins of this trait show that, surgent people have generally had

an easier, less punishing, more optimism-creating environment.

They are alert, quick, expressive, and cheerful - and reflect the

group well. It is seen that the high achievers are more enthusiastic,

heedless, and surgent as compared to the low achievers. The

finding is an expected one because it acts as a propelling force that

make one to work hard and yield more, in spite of any- other

obstacles, troubles or inadequacies.

Table 4:l: 7:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor G (Super ego) with respect to Gender.

Total

8.18

2.39

89

8.65

2.53

184

8.50

2.49

273

Personality

Trait Factor

G

(Stronger super ego vls Weaker super

ego).

Gender Academic Achievement

Level

High

tow

Total

Male

8.71

2.22

42

9,04

2.50

113

8.95

2.42

155

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Female

7.70

2.44

47

8.01

2.46

7 1

7.89

2.45

118

Table 4:l: 7:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor G (Super ego) with respect to Gender.

Personality Trait

Factor

Table 4:l: 7:B shows that the F value is not significant for the

achievement groups, where as between the gender groups the F

value is significant at .001 level. The interaction effect is not

statistically significant. A high score in factor G indicates stranger

super ego strength (G +), which is characterized as conscientious,

persevering, staid, & rule bound. Where as a low score in factor G

indicates weaker super ego strength (G-). Between the gender

groups male students scored a greater mean value as compared to

the female students and thus shows that the male students have

stronger super ego strength. Earlier study by Cooper, Boss and

Keith (1974) reported that factor G is a significant discriminator

between high and low achievers. Khurshid and Fatima (1984) also /'

reported that high achievement is highly associated with G+ ie.

conscientious, persevering and staid. Factor G depicts the regard

for moral standards, the tendency to drive the ego and to restrain

G

(Stronger super ego vls Weaker super

ego).

Source

1 Total 2 1 3 8 1 . 0 0 1 273 1 I

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Sum of Squares

6.06

61 -32

0.005

1600.17

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

Mean squares

6.06

61.32

0.005

5.95

F value

P value

1.02

10.31

0.001

0.31

0.001

0.98

Analysis and Tnferpretafion 181

the id, which are most frequently regarded as marks of the super

ego. Here the mean values show that though there is no

statistically significant difference between high and low achievers,

this trait is fairly well developed for both the groups and is

characterized as determined, responsible, emotionally disciplined,

has sense of duty and concerned about moral standards and rules.

However, the statistically significant higher score by the male group

places them as persevering, determined, responsible, emotionally

disciplined, consistently ordered, dominated by sense of duty and

concerned about moral standards and rules. The super ego talks

about the conscientious part of one's personality. It also shows the

level of persistence, in are culture novelty and conscientious are so

purposefully imbibed. And this is reflected significantly in the

percentage analysis. It is proven in this study that males are more

persistent and this may be due to the fact that males are forced

more to find out the way in life than the females and for that reason

he has to struggle hard.

Table 4:l: 8:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor H (Threctia) with respect to Gender.


H (Parmia vls Threctia).

High

Mean


Level

gi Total

Statistics Gender 1 Total

Table 4:l: 8:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor H (Threctia) with respect to Gender.

Male 10.52 3.31 42

The F table 4:1:8:8 shows that there is a statistically

significant difference at .001 level between the high and the low

achievers in factor H. A high score in factor H is labelled as parmia

Female 10.32 2.96 47


H

(Parmia vls Threctia).

10.42 3.12 89

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

102.28

1,04

6.70

1941.56

26674.00

Degrees Of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

102.28

1.04

6.70

7.21 8

F value

14.17

0.14

0.93

P value

0.00

0.70

0.34

A ntclysis and Inlerpretntinn - - - - - - . -, 1 83

(H +), which is characterized as venturesome, socially bold,

uninhibited and spontaneous. Where as a low score in factor H

threctia (H -) is characterized as shy, restrained, diffident and timid.

However, between the gender groups there is no statistically

significant difference found. Similarly, the interaction effect is also

not statistically significant. The mean table shows that the high

achievers score more in this factor. A high score in factor H is

labeled as parmia. This quality is shown more by high achievers

which is characterized as venturesome, likes meeting people,

active, responsive, friendly and has emotional as well as artistic

interests. Quite a number of physiological measures have been

shown to correlate with H. There is evidence that H is substantially

a constitutional factor and is connected with greater threat

reactivity to the autonomic nervous system. The term threctia (H-)

is meant to summarize the essential threat responsiveness, while

parmia (H+) is for "parasympathetic predominance" ie. a thick

skinned immunity to threat. An earlier study by Khurshid and

Fatima (1984) reported that a higher score on this trait is related to

high academic achievement and the current finding is consistent

with this report. It is seen that high achievers take more

responsibility and they are adventurous as compared to the low

achievers. Probably it is this readiness and flexibility that helps

them to stand out in their achievement, than being kept oneself shy

and timid.

Table4:t:g:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor I (Horria) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 9:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor I (Horria) with respect to Gender.

Total

9.79 2.38 89

9.14 2.66 1 84 9.35 2.59 273


I (Premsia vls

Horria).

The F table 4:l: 9:B shows that there is no statistically

significant difference between the achievement groups. he difference between the gender groups is also not statistically

significant. The interaction effect is also not statistically significant.


Level

High

Low

Total

Personality Trait

Factor

I

( Prernsia vls Horria).

Mean squares

15.64

20.11

17.03

6.462

Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Source

Achievement

Gender

1 nteraction

Within Error

Total

F value

2.42

3.11

2,64

Gender

P value

0.12

0.08

0.11

Sum of squares

15.64

20.1 1

17.03

1 738.23

25693.00

Male

9.76 2.50 42

8.71 2.2 113 8.99 2.69 155

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

t

269

273

Female

9.81 2.30 47

9,83 2.43 7 1

9.82 2.37 118

Antrlysis and Interpretation - -, - -. .- . . . -, . - - . - - - - . , - - - 185

A high score in factor I am labeled as premsia which is

characterized as tender minded, dependent, overprotected and

sensitive. Where as a low score in factor I is called horria, (I-),

which is characterized as tough-minded, self reliant, realistic and

has no nonsense performances. The factor I- or a low score on I is

labeled as horria and I+ is labeled as premsia. High score shows a

definite pattern of fidgety, clinging, insecure, seeking sympathy,

artistically fastidious, imaginative in inner life and in conversation,

acts on insensitive intuition, attention seeking, hypochondria cal

and anxious about self. Where as, I-, horria is the manifestation of

the opposite pole. Here, though there is no statistically significant

difference between the mean values, all the groups possess an

average reflection of the trait.

Table4:l: 10:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor J (Zappia) with respect to Gender.

(Coasthania vls Zappia).

Trait Factor

High

Mean

SD N

Academic AEh ievement

Level

Low

Gender Total

Female

Mean

SD

N

Total

Mean

SD

N

Table 4:l: 10:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor J (Zappia) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 10% shows that the personality trait factor J

zappia does not differ statistically, between the high and the low

achievers. However, there is a statistica t ly significant difference

between male and female students on this trait at -05 level. A high

score in factor J known as coasthania personality (J+), which is

characterized as doubting, obstructive, individualistic, intentionally

estrained, reflective and unwilling to act in nature. Where as a low

score in factor J called zappia (J-) is characterized as vigorous,

goes readily with group, zestful and given to action personality.

The mean values show that this trait is manifested more by the

female students. The interaction effect is also not statistically

significant. Coasthania is characterized as one who acts

individualistically, guarded, wrapped up in self, neurasthanically

fatigued and evaluates coldly. And in the present study it is

observed more among the female students. This factor is also

known as Hamlet factor.

P value

0.88

0.05

0.41

Personality Trait

Factor

J

(Coasthania ~ 1 s Z a ~ ~ i a ) .

Source

Achievement

Gender

interaction

Within Error

Total

F value

0.02

3.92

0.69

Sum of Squares

.I9

31.53

5.53

2165.16

24820.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

0.1 9

31.53

5.53

8.05

A nrr Iysis and Interpretation 187

Table4:l: 1 l :A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor o (Untroubled adequacy) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 1l:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor o (Untroubled adequacy) with respect to Gender.


0

(Guilt proneness vls

Untroubled adequacy).

Table 4:l: I I :B shows that there is a statistically significant

difference between high and low achievers on personality trait

factor 0, at .05 level. The mean values show that this quality has

--

Total

11.45 3.01 89

10.19 2.85 184

10.60 2.96 273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender


0

(Guilt proneness vls

Untroubled adequacy)

statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Male

1 1 -24 3.08 42

9.59 2.72 113

10.04 2.91 155

Mean squares

67.49

55.80

19.37

8.09

Female

11.63 2.96 47

11 . I4 2.81 71

1 1,34 2.87 118

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

F value

8.34

6.90

2.39

P value

0.00

0.01

0.12

Sum of squares

67.49

'55.80

19.37

21 76.34

33058.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

188 Chapter 4

been exhibited more by the high achievers. A high score in factor 0

indicates a guilt prone (0+) personality, which is characterized as

apprehensive, worrying, depressive and troubled natured. Where

as a low score in factor 0 indicates untroubled adequacy (0-),

which is characterized as placid, self assured, confident and

serene. Also there is a significant difference at .05 level between

the male and the female students. Mean values show that the

female students show more of this quality when compared to the

male students. However, the interaction effect is not statistically

significant.

Conclusively, O+ quality has been displayed more by the

high achievers and the female group. A high score in factor 0 or

O+ shows that these people feel over fatigued by exciting

situations. They are unable to sleep through worrying, is easily

down hearted, and especially remorseful and guilty. Such students

over react to difficulties and need constant encouragement. The

high achievers and females show more apprehensiveness, self-

reproaching nature and insecurity. It is this nature that forces them

to be up to date with their responsibilities and to be careful with

their relationships. This in turn benefits them with achievement if

operated in a positive way.

A nalysis and interpretation 189

Table 4:l: 12:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor Q2 (Group adherence) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 12:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor Q2 (Group adherence) with respect to Gender.

Personality

Trait Factor

QZ

(Self sufficiency vls

Group adherence).

-

Total

9.99

2.42

89

10.01

2,32

184

10.00

2,35

273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender

P value

0.90

0.91

0.33


Q2

(Self sufficiency vls

Group adherence).

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Male

10.17

2.46

42

9.90

2.40

113

9.97

2.41

155

Female

9.83

2.40

47

10.17

2.21

7 1

10.03

2.28

118

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Mean squares

0.08

0.07

5.35

5,57

F value

0.02

0.01

0.96

Sum of Squares

0.08

0.07

5.35

1498.37

28804.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

190 Chanter 4

4:l: 12:B shows no significant F values on achievement,

gender and interaction. A high score on this factor that is, Q2+

indicates self-sufficiency, resourcefulness and preference of own

decisions; where as a low score on this factor that is, Q2- indicates

group dependency, and the tendency to join and follow the group.

A high score in factor Q2 indicates self-sufficiency, which is

characterized as resourceful, and prefers own decisions. Where as

a low score in factor Q2 indicates group adherence, which is

manifested as group dependent, are joiners and follows the group.

These characteristics are expressed in an average level by

both high and low achievers. Similarly, the female and male groups

also express average level of these qualities.

Cooper, Boss and Keith (1974) reported that Q2 is a

significant discriminator between high and low achievers. Khurshid

and Fatirna (1984) have also reported that Q2+ is a better predictor

of academic achievement. However, the current finding could not

substantiate this.

Table 4:l: 13:A: 'The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor Q3 (Integration) with respect to Gender.

Table 4:l: 13:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor Q3 (Integration) with respect to Gender.

Personality

Trait Factor

Q3

(High self concept vls

Low integration).

Personality Trait

Factor

Q3

(Self concept vls Low

integration).


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Source

Achievement

Gender --- -

Interaction

Within Error

Total

.-

Total

10.99

2.79

89

10.33

2.94

1 84

10.54

2.90

273

Gender

Male

10.40

2.64

42

9.75

2.98

113

9.93

2.90

155

Sum of squares

12.55

98.86

2.14

21 39.86

32630.00

Female

11.51

2.84

47

1 1.24

2.64

7 1

1 1.35

2.71

118

Degrees Of

freedom

1

1 -

1

269

273

Mean squares

12.55

98.86

2,14

7.96

F value

1.58

12.43

0,27

P value

0.21

0.00

0.61

Table 4:l: 13:A shows that there is no statistically significant

difference between high and low achievers in factor Q3. But the

male students and female students differ statistically at .05 level, in

this trait. A high score in factor Q3 indicates high self-concept (Q3+),

which is characterized as controlled and self disciplined personality.

Where as a low score in factor Q3 indicates low integration ((23-),

which is characterized as undisciplined, has self-conflicts, follows

own urges and is careless of the protocol. The mean values show

that, the female students show more of this quality as compared to

the male students. The interaction effect is also not statistically

significant.

This factor has been aptly called the 'gyroscopic' factor,

producing steadiness and purpose in personality. A child with a high

Q3 score (Q3+) expresses as self controlled, striving to accept

approved ethical standards, ambitions to do well, concerned with his

or her social image, considerate of others, foresighted, disposed to

reduce and control expressions of emotions and conscientious. In

the present study female students expresses these qualities more as

compared to the male students. This shows that females are more

compulsive and be haves as though they follow their self-image

thoroughly. This is highly related to the cultural brought up that

happens with the sex role typing.

/

Cooper, Boss and Keith (1974) reported that this factor is a

significant discriminator between high and low achievers. Khurshid

and Fatima (1984) also reported that Q3+ is a better predictor of

Annlysis and Interpretation 1 93

academic achievement. However, these earlier findings are not

substantiated by this study.

Table 4:l: 14:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the personality trait factor Q4 (Ergic tension) with respect to Gender.

Table4:l: 14:B: Thesummaryoftwoway ANOVAofhighand low achievers in the personality trait factor Q4 (Ergic tension) with respect to Gender.

Personality

Trait Factor

Q4

(High ergic tension vls Low ergic tension).


Q4

(High ergic tension Low ergic tension)'

Total

9.66

2.71

89

9.13

2.59

184

9.30

2.64 273


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD N

Mean SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

F value

2.27

0,27

2.57 -.-

Gender

P value

0.13

0.60

0.11

Sum of Squares

15.67 -

1.89

17.73

1854.28

25503.00

Male

10.05

2.70 42

8.98 2.68

113

9.27

2.72

155

Female

9.32

2.70 47

9.35

2.44

7 1

9.34

2.53

118

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

I

269

273

Mean squares

15.67

1.89

17.73

6.89

-

Table 4:l: 14:B shows that there is no statistically significant

F value found between the achievement levels and the gender

groups. Also there is no statistically significant difference found for

the interaction effect. A high score in factor Q4 indicates high ergic

tension, which is characterized as tensed, frustrated and over

worried nature. Where as a low score in factor Q4 indicates low

ergic tension, which is characterized as relaxed, tranquil, torpid and

unfrustrated.

Children and adults scoring high on Q4 describe themselves

as irrationally worried, tensed, irritable and are in turmoil. They feel

frustrated and are sensitively aware of being criticized by parents

for untidiness, fantasy and neglect of good goals. However, both

high and low achievers, and the male and the female groups have

shown a very limited reflection of this factor.

Section 4.2

The second major hypothesis formulated; for the study was,

there would be significant difference between high and low achievers in

the family interaction pattern and its components. A total of 6

components were tested under 6 separate minor hypotheses and an

additional one using the additive score. The means and standard

deviations (S D) of the total score and of the components are given

below. Each of it is followed by the F table, which gives the statistical

details of the family interaction pattern and its components of high and

low achievers that were tested.


Table 4:ll: 1:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Family Interaction Pattern with respect to Gender.

Table 4:ll: 1:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Family Interaction Pattern with respect to Gender.

Family interaction

pattern

Total

Table 4:ll: 1: B shows that there is statistically significant

difference between the achievement groups at -01 level. Also it is

Family interaction

pattern

- - - -. -.

Total

203.1 5

34.95

89

229.54

33.63

1 84

220.93

36.21

273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Male

206 -64

43.18

42

235.29

37.49

113

227.53

41.01

155

Female

200.02 25.57

47

220.38

23.98 7 1

21 2.27

26.48

11 8

P value

0.00

0.02

0.35

Source

Achievement

Gender

' interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

3531 0.14

681 6.87

1010.39

304220 -72

13682309.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1 -

1

269

273

Mean squares

35310.14

6816.87

1010.39

11 30.93

F value

31.22

6.03.

0.89

found that between the gender groups the difference is significant at

.05 level. However, the interaction effect is not statistically

significant. A high score than the normal range in family

interaction pattern indicates poor quality, where as a low score

indicates better quality. The normal range being 160 - 228.The

mean values in table 4:ll: 1:A show that the total mean score for

the high achieving group is within the normal range.

However, the total mean score of the low achievers

exceeds the normal range and hence shows a slightly deviant

family interaction pattern. This means that most of the low

achievers are from families where the quality of the interaction is

very poor. The perceived family interaction pattern of the male

and the female students are also found to have statistically

significant difference. However, the mean values for the male

students, female students and the total mean are all within the

normal range.

Earlier study by Deal, Wampler and Halverson (1998) had

reported that high achieving girls are influenced by the affective

quality of family interaction. This has been substantiated by the

present study where the high achieving girls were the group who

has reported the better quality family interaction. They have also

reported that the boys's academic performance is highly

influenced by the quality of parental relationship. A similar finding

has been observed here, where among the 4 groups, the low

achieving boys have reported the worst family interaction pattern.

The family interaction pattern is a dynamic sequence of exchange

A nnly sis and Int~rprelirlion 197

of several messages between the family members. The study of

the family interactions will yield some of the basic reason that

influences the children in certain specific ways. ,Here the low

achievers have reported to have a poor quality family life when

compared to the high achievers. If a person's high intelligence is

to be realized the child has to be relatively free of concerns, so

that he can continue to take information about the world and to

stimulate other people to talk in ways that enable him to learn

from them. If a child's family life fulfills its needs, his energy is

released for learning more. But if he is tied up in neurotic conflicts

in his family, helshe will not have the zest for taking the

information and proper processing of it.

Table4:ll: 2:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Reinforcement Pattern with respect to Gender.

Family interaction

pattern

Reinforcement

-. . . - - - - - - -

Total

18.27 4,95 89

19.92


Level

High

--

Gender Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean

Male

19.02 6.1 1 42

20.34

Female

17.60 3.54 47

19.27

Table 4:ll: 2:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Reinforcement Pattern with respect to Gender.

Achievement 1 130.94 1 1 1 3 0 9 4 1 6 . 0 8 001

Family interaction

pattern Source

Gender

1 Within Error 1 5789.43 1 269 1 21.52 1 I

Reinforcement pattern

I Total 1108632.00 1 273 1 I 1

Sum of squares

91.65

Table 44 : 2:B shows that there is a statistically significant

difference at -01 level between the high and low achieving students

on the reinforcement pattern, they receive from their families. The

normal score range is 15-24. And a high score an reinforcement

pattern indicates poor quality, where as a low score indicates better

quality. There is also a significant difference at 0.05 level between

the male and the female students in the same dimension. However,

the interaction effect is not statistically significant.

Interaction

The mean values show that both high and low achieving

students receive a fairly normal kind of reinforcement from their

family. However, the high achieving group receives better

reinforcement than the low achieving group. The male and the

female siudents also differ statistically in the way they perceive the

reinforcement. The males have reported a better level of

Degrees of

freedom

1

1.90

Mean squares

91.65

1

F value

4.26

P value

0.04

1.90 0.09 0.77

A nnlysis and Interpretfltinn 199

reinforcement when compared to the females. However, both the

groups were found to reserve a reasonably normal level of

reinforcement.

Table4:ll: 3:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Social Support System with respect to Gender.

Table 4:ll: 3:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Social Support System with respect to Gender.

Family interaction

pattern

Social support system

Total

19.90 5.07

89

24.51

6.11 1 84

23.01

6.18

-273


Level

High

Low

Total

P value

0.00

0.05

0.31

Family interaction

pattern

Social support

1 system

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Gender

Sum of squares

1 1 08.00

123.24

33.99

8873.03

154881 .OO

Male

20.26

6.42

42

25.36

6.44

113

23.98

6.80

155

Female

19.57

3.49

47

23.15

5.32

7 1

21.73

4.98

11 8

Degrees of

freedom --

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

1108,OO

123.24

33.99 - -. -

32.99

-.

F value

33.59

3.77

1.03

200 Chapter 4

Table 4:ll: 3:B shows that there is a statistically significant

difference at ,001 level, between high and low achievers in the

social support system in their family. Also there is a statistically

significant difference between the gender groups at .05 level.

However, the interaction effect is not statistically significant. A high

score on social support system indicates poor quality, where as a

low score indicates better quality and the normal range is 14 - 24.

The mean values in table 4:ll: 3:A shows that high

achievers have reported a better social support system than the

low achievers. Also it is seen that the mean value obtained for the

low achieving group exceeds the normal range and thus indicates

a poor quality of social support system. Regarding the gender

groups male and female students report a normal level of social

support system. And between the groups females received a

better social support system compared to males. Conclusively,

the low achievers especially the low achieving males reported

poor and inadequate social support than the normal. These

families are unable to manipulate properly the internal and

external social milieu for its existence and growth. This indicates

that the primary, secondary, and tertiary support systems are

weak when compared to the normal families.

Table 4:ll: 4:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Role Pattern with respect to Gender.

Table 4:ll: 4:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Role Pattern with respect to Gender.

Family interaction

pattern

Role pattern

Table 4:ll: 4: B shows that there is statistically significant

difference at .001 level between the high and low achievement groups


Level

High

Low

Total

Family interaction

pattern

Rolepattern

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

F value

15.20

0.60

0.45

.- , -

Total

49.57

10.93

89

54.97

9.77

1 84

53.21

10.46

273

Gender

P value

0.00

0.44

0.50

Sum of squares

1572.8

61.87

46.95

27830.58

802648 -00

Male

49,64

13.45

42

55.71

10.97

113

54.06

11 -96

155

Female

49.51

8.22

47

53.79

7.40

71

52.08 7.99

118

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

1572.8

61.87

46.95

1 03.46

in the role pattern. A high score in role pattern indicates poor quality,

where as a low score indicates better quality. The normal range is 38 - 57. The gender groups have not shown a statistically significant

difference between each other. The interaction effect is also not

statistically significant. Table 4: 11: 4:A shows the mean values obtained

for the role pattern of each of these groups. This table shows that

though high and low achievers differ statistically, both these groups

have reported that the role pattern in their family assumes a normal

function. However, the high achievers have given a quality report.

pmilarly though it is found that there is statistically significant difference

'between the gender groups, both the groups have reported a normal

kind of role pattern in their families. However, female students perceive

it in a better way when compared to the male students.

The highest mean value is observed for the low achieving

males, which is followed by the low achieving group. Looking at the

data independently shows that the low achievers reported conflict in

role-playing and methods of social control in the family. This in turn

disturbs the children and put them in severe conflicts, which affects

their information processing system. Parental inadequacy in role-

playing is a common problem that usually persists among these

groups. In certain cases these children are forced to take up the roles

of other family members, in addition to their own role performance. This

is an additional burden on them. When the role is not clearly defined ,

and carried out the child can not find its parents, a source of solace and

support as parents expectations are unrealistic, relationship with the

siblings is unhealthy and quarrel some. They will also have disturbed

relations with the community

Table 4:ll: 5:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Communication Pattern with respect to Gender.

Family interaction pattern

Communication pattern

Table 4:ll: 5:B shows that there is a statistically significant

difference at .001 level between the high and low achievers in the

Table 4:ll: 5:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Communication Pattern with respect to Gender.


Level

High

P value

0.00

0.16

Family interaction

pattern

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SO

Communication pattern

Source

Achievement

Gender

N

Mean

Total 1 SD N

l nteraction

Within ~ r ro r ) I

Total

Total

53.21

9.06

89

58.68

9.59

Gender

F value

17.59

1.99

Sum of squares

1549.69

175.74

1 84

56.80

273

9.75

Male

53.60

9.43

42

59.73

10.67

113

58.07

10.67 155

Female

52.87

8.80

47

57.00

7,32

7 1

55.36

8,16 118

59,49

23703.39

909621 .OO --- -

Degrees of

freedom

I

1

Mean squares

1549.69

175.74

0.68 1

269

273

0.41 59.49

88.1 2

204 Clz ap fer 4

communication pattern. A high score in communication pattern

indicates poor quality, where as a low score indicates better quality.

The normal range is 42 - 60. The F value has also been found

between the gender groups and it is found insignificant. The

interaction effect is also insignificant.

The mean values for these groups in table 4:ll: 5:A shows

that the mean values of the achievement groups are within the

normal range. However, the high achievers have a comparatively

better communication pattern in their family, than the low achievers.

The mean values of the gender groups show that both male and

female students have reported a normal communication pattern in

their families but the females have rather a better experience in this

dimension than the male students.

The highest mean value is observed for the low achieving

male group that is followed by a high score in the low achieving

group. Through these values fall in the normal range, some of the

children in these groups have reported that they have pathological

communication pattern existing in their families. This acts as a

disadvantage for them to proceed with internal and external

interactions. They frequently showed interpersonal disturbances and

significant amount of energy goes waste in resolving the disputes

and conflicts that arises out of faulty communication style.

Deal, Wampler and Halverson (1 998) have reported that high

achieving girls are influenced by the marital communication style. A

similar finding has been identified in this study where, among the

Analysi,~ and Interpretation 205

four groups of high achieving males, high achieving females, low

achieving males and low achieving females; the high achieving

females had reported a better communication pattern in their family.

Table 4:ll: 6:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Cohesion with respect to Gender.

Family Academic Gender interaction Achievement Statistics

i at tern Level Male Female Total

Mean 28.86 26.40 27.56 High SD 9.78 6.58 8.29

N 42 47 89 Mean

Cohesion 34.11 29.77 32.43

Low SD 7.60 5.72 7.23 N 113 71 184

Mean 32.68 28.43 30.85 Total SD 8.54 6.28 7.92

N 155 118 273

Table 4:ll: 6:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Cohesion with respect to Gender.

Family Sum of

Degrees Mean interaction Source

F P

pattern squares Of squares value value freedom

Cohesion

Achievement -

1092.25 1 1092.25 20.03 0.00

Gender ~~~. .

676.69 1 676.69 12.41 0.001 ~

Interaction 51.89 1 51.89 0.95 0.33

Within Error 14667.58 269 54.53 ~ ..

Total 276799.00 273 - -- .-

206 Chapter 4

Table 4:ll: 6:B shows that the cohesion pattern differs

significantly at ,001 level between the high and the low achievers.

The significant difference between the male and the female

students is also at ,001 level. A high score on cohesion indicates

poor quality, where as a low score indicates better quality. The

normal range being 20-27. However, the interaction e is not

statistically significant.

The mean values in table 4:ll: 6:A shows that only the high

achieving females have reported a normal level of cohesion in their

families. When comparing the two achievement groups it is evident

that high achievement group has a comparatively better cohesion

level than the low achievers. Regarding the gender groups the

female group report a better cohesion level than the male students.

It is also evident from the table that low achieving male students

are coming from families where there is less cohesion. Low

achievers especially low achieving males reported to experience

talk of cohesion in their families as compared to the normal

families. They may be experiencing unconcerned apathetic

disinterest and some of them come from families where there is

mutual resistance, active hostility. Some of them experience once

conflict among family members on common objectives.

A nalysis and Interpretation 207

Table4:ll: 7 : A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Leadership Pattern with respect to Gender.

Table 4:ll: 7:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Leadership Pattern with respect to Gender.

Family interaction

pattern

Leadership pattern

Table 4:ll: 7:B shows that the two achievement groups have

significant difference at -001 level in the leadership pattern. The

Total

34.63

7.01

89

39.02

7.76

1 84

37.59

7.79

273


Level

High

Low

Total

Gender

P value

0.00

0,05

0.46

Family interaction

pattern

Leadership pattern

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Male

35.26

7.94

42

40.04

7 -90

113

38.75

8,17

155

Female

34.06

6.09

47

37.39

7.30

71

36.07

7.01

118

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of Squares

967.64

217.68

30.99

1 501 2.66

402254 -00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

I

269

273

Mean squares

967.64

217.68

30.99

55.81

F value

17.34

3.90

0.56

gender groups also differ significantly at .05 level. A high score in

leadership pattern indicates poor quality, where as a low score

indicates better quality and the normal range is -27 - 40. The

interaction effect, however is statistically insignificant. The mean

values show that the low achieving males have reported a less

quality leadership pattern. Considering the achievement groups the

high and the low achievers though differ statistically, have reported a

normal level of leaders hip pattern. However, high achievers have

reported a comparatively better leadership pattern than the low

achievers. The gender groups' mean values show that females

experience a better defined leadership pattern than the male

students. In a normal family power structure is clear, where the

father is ascendancy followed by the mother and lastly the child. If a

family lacks well-defined leaders hip pattern, the child lacks clarity

and flexibility in thinking, in judgment and in making decisions.

Section 4.3

The third major hypothesis formulated was that there would be

significant difference between high and low achievers in the academic

achievement motivation. The mean and standard deviation (S D)

obtained by the two groups in the academic achievement motivation

is given below. It is followed by the F table, which gives the statistical

details of the academic achievement motivation of high and low

achievers.

Ancclysis and Interpretation 209

Table 4:lll: I :A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Academic Achievement Motivation with respect to Gender.

Table 4:lll: 1:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Academic Achievement Motivation with respect to Gender.

Total

142.29

17.14

89

131.16

21 -86

184

134.79

21,07

273

Academic achievement motivation


Level

High

Low

Total

Academic achievement motivation

1 Interaction 69723 1 2i9 4 697.23 1 1.74 1 0.19 1 Within Error 107824,95 400.84

. . - . . -A - - -

Total 5080539.00 273 -

F value

14.04

8,08

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

P value

0.00

0.01

Source

Achievement -

Gender

- - -

Gender

Sum of Squares

5627 -64

3240.32

Male

140.19

19.58

42

126.96

23.26

113

130.55

23.03

155

Female

144.17

14.59

47

137.83

17.62

71

140.36

16.71

118

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

Mean squares

5627.64

3240.32

Table 4:lIl: 1 :B shows that there is statistically significant

difference between high and low achievers in academic

achievement motivation at .001 level. A high score on academic

achievement motivation questionnaire (AAMQ) indicates better

motivational level. The mean scores show that the high achievers

score more on AAMQ than the low achievers. Similarly, there is

significant difference at .01 level between the male and the female

students in the academic achievement motivation. The mean

values on table 4:lIl: 1:A shows that the female students score

more than the male students. However, the interaction effect is

not statistically significant.

Conclusively these tables indicate that the high achievers and

the female students show better motivational levels when compared

to their respective counterparts. It is the intrinsic force that propels

one to act beyond any limits. This force acts as a catalyst, which

energizes the individual to meet the net result in academic

achievement.

Earlier studies also reported similar findings with respect to

achievement levels and the academic achievement motivation.

Nagpal and Wig (1975) reported that low achievers were

inadequately motivated. Oxford (1993) also reported that of the

many factors, student's motivation was by far the most significant

determiner, followed by learning strategies used. The year 1997 has

seen two similar studies by Albaili and Mc Lean where they pointed

out that motivation was the most powerful discriminating factor

A nalysis and Interpretation 21 1

separating the low, average and high achieving students. Bellow

(2001) reported the latest finding where they asserted that increased

level of motivation was related to higher academic achievement.

Section 4.4

The fourth major hypothesis formulated was there would be

significant difference between high and low achievers on the study

habits and its components. A total of 8 components were tested

under 8 separate minor hypothesis and an additional one using the

additive score. The means and standard deviations (S D) of the total

score of study habits inventory and the scores of the components

are given below. Each of it is followed by the F table, which gives the

statistical details of the study habits and its components of high and

low achievers.

Table4:IV: 1:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Study Habits with respect to Gender.

Study habits

Total

Total

58.55

7.48

89

53.39

55.07


Level

High

Low

Tota t

Gender Statistics

Mean

SD N

Mean

SO N

Mean

SD

N

Male

57.98

7.92

42

52.03

9.1 5

113

53.64

9.20

155

Female

59.06

7.1 0

47

55.56 7.47

7 1

56.96

7.50

118

Table 4:IV: 1 :B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Study Habits with respect to Gender.

Study habits

Total

I Achievement 1 1312.91 / 1 1 1312.91 1 19.42 / 0.00 1 Source

able 4:IV: l :B shows that there is a significant difference

between the high and the low achievers in the study habits. It is

significant at .01 level. The gender groups also differ significantly at

-05 level in the study habits. However, the interaction effect is not

statistically significant.

Sum of squares

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Table 4:IV: I :A shows that high achieving group has a higher

mean score as compared to the low achieving group and thus conveys

that high achievers have better study habits as compared to the low

achievers. Between the gender groups females have a higher score

and thus have better study habits as compared to the male students.

To concise it, high achievers and females have better study skills.

Kovach, Fleming and Wilgos h (200 1 ) reported a significaht

positive correlation between studentsJ grades and their study habits.

In another study Srivastava (1997) concluded that study habits are

strongly related to academic achievement. This has been observed

Degrees Of

freedom

314.40

88.19

18186.17

848381

Mean squares

1

1

269

273

F value

314.40

88.19

67.61

P value

4.65

1.30

0.03

0.25

Analysis and Interprettition 2 13

similarly with the higher age groups (mean age 21) by Al - Hilawani

and Sartawi (1997). Regarding the gender group Panda (1992) found

that boys have better study habits than girls. But this is contradictory

to the current finding.

The study habit is one variable that contributes a lot in

determining ones academic achievement. High academic achievers,

especially females reported that they keep better study habits as

compared to the low achievers. The one who keeps better study

habits spends adequate amount of time with academic work, utilizes

better physical conditions while studying, has good reading ability,

has efficient not taking methods, and keeps good learning motivation,

has improved memory, knows better examination taking styles and

has tendency for good health.

Table 4:IV: 2:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in Budgeting Time with respect to Gender.

E .- CI

m E -- u Q, m 'EJ 3 m

Total

7.98

1.42

89

7.07

1.98

1 84

7.37

1.86

273


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Gender

Male

7.93

1.50

42

6.78

2.14 113

7,09

2.05

155

Female

8.02

1.36 47

7.54

1.61

7 1

7.73 1,53

118

214 Chapter 4

Table4:IV: 2:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in Budgeting Time with respect to Gender.

Table 4:IV: 2:B shows that there is a significant difference

between high and low achievers in the way they budget their time.

However, between the gender groups there is no statistically

significant difference. The interaction effect is also not statistically

significant. Table 4:IV: 2: A shows that although the mean scores

indicate that females have a better idea of time management than

the male students, the difference is not statistically significant. The

table also shows that the high achievers have shown a significantly

better time budgeting as compared to the low achievers. Hinrichsen

(1972) and Harris and Trujillo (1 975) proved the effectiveness of

budgeting time in academic achievement.

i! -- CI

m E .- CI Q, ul

2

value

12.15

3.27

2.00

P value

0.001

0.07

0.16

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

39.34

10.60

6.48

870.90

15759.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

39.34

10.60

6.48

3.24


Table4:IV: 3:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Physical Condition with respect to Gender.

Table4:IV: 3:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Physical Condition with respect to Gender.

C 0 .- CI

5 c

- rn 0 .- U) h -E: a


Level

High

Low

Total

c

s C

- (CT

t -.--

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Source

Achievement

Gender

1 nteraction

Within Error

Total

F value

9.83

0,OI

1.01

Total

9.18

1.64

89

8.45

1.76

184

8.69

1.75

273

Gender

P value

0.002

0.91

0,32

Sum of squares

29.28

0.03

3.007

801 -029

21 446.00

Male

9.29

1.55

42

8.35

1.83

113

8.61

1.80

155

Female

9,09

1.73

47

8,61

1.64

71

8,80

1.69

118

Degrees of freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

29,28

0.03

3.007

2.978

216 Chapter 4

Table 4:IV: 3:B shows that there is a significant difference at

.01 level, between the high and the low achievers on the physical

condition. However, the F values are not significant for the gender

groups. The interaction effect is also not significant. Table 4:IV: 3:A

shows that high achieving groups report better utilization of the

physical conditions when compared to the low achieving group.

A consistent finding by Harris and Trujillo (1975) pointed out

that high academic achievers are specific about their physical

conditions in which they study. Hancock (1996) reported an

apparent gender difference in study strategies by grade six onwards.

Table 4: IV: 4: A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Reading Ability with respect to Gender.


Level

High

tow

Total

Statistics 1 Ma,:en

Mean

SD

N

Mean SD

N

Mean

SD

N

9.02

2.42

42

er

Female

9.09

1.94

47

8.25

2.21

7 1

8.58

2.14

118

Total

9.06

2.17

89

8.12

2.43

1 84

8.42

2.39

273

A nnlysis rrnd Interpre f alicr n 2 17

Table4: IV: 4: B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Reading Ability with respect to Gender.

Table 4:IV: 4:B shows that there is significant difference

between the high and the low achievers in the reading ability. The

significance level is at -01. However, there is no statistically significant

difference between the gender groups, and the interaction effect is also

not significant. The mean values in table 4:IV: 4:A shows that high

achievers report a better reading ability than the low achievers.

)r CI .I - .- m a rn C .I

m rn Q) w

A few studies that have reported similar findings are appended.

In a study by Srivastava (1 977), reading ability was found to be strongly

related to academic achievement. Hess (1 997) also reported reading

ability to be a significant contributor of academic success.

Rao, Parvathi and Swaminathan (1983) reported that no

significant difference could be found between the male and the

female students in reading ability.

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

48.70

1.15

-36

1495.93

20928.00

Degrees of

freedom

1

I

1

269

273

Mean squares

48.70

1.15

0.36

5.56

F value

8.76

0.21

0.07

P value

0.003

0.65

0.80

Table4:IV: 5:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Note Taking Style with respect to Gender.

Total

a - )r .c. UJ m E .- Y tu C,

0 C,

0 Z

Table 4:IV: 5:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Note Taking Style with respect to Gender.


Level

High

Low

Total

#

Table 4:IV: 5:B shows that there is no significant difference

between the high and the low achievers in the note taking style.

But, there is a statistically significant difference between the two

a

V)

rn .= z m C,

0 Z

Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Gender

Male

3.90 1.43 42 4.02 1.46 113 3.99 1.45 155

Female

4.51 1.30 47

4.35 1.28 7 1

4.42 1.28 118

P value

0.90

0,OI

0.45

Sum of squares

0.03

12.10

1.08

51 5.53

5281 ,OO

F value

0.02

6.78

0.57

Degrees of freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

0.03

12,lO

1.08

51 5.53

Analysis and Interpretntion 219

gender groups. The significance level is .0 1 . The interaction effect

is also not significant. The mean values in table 4:IV: 5:A shows

that females report a better note taking style than the male

students. Though there is no significant difference found between

high and low achievers on this aspect, the females have shown a

better capacity on this dimension when compared to the males.

This is a commonly seen tendency among the females, that they

are interested in carrying bulk of note books and taking down the

lecture notes. Many of them modify these notes at home with the

help of textbooks.

However, this could not be substantiated by an earlier study

by Rao, Parvathi and Swarninathan (1983), which have reported that

there is no significant difference between the male and the female

groups on the note taking style.

Table4:IV:6:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Learning Motivation with respect to Gender.

C 0 -- u lN > -- C,

E 0) E .-


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Total

7.29 0,91 89

6.42 1.40 1 84 6.71 1.32 273

Gender

Male

7.1 7 0.88 42

6.13 1,49 'I13 6.41 1.42 155

Female

7.40 0.92 47

6.89 1.10 7 1

7.09 1.06 11 8 -

220 Clz trp ter 4

Table 4: IV: 6: B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Learning Motivation with respect to Gender.


between the high and low achievers in the learning motivation at

.001 level. The gender group differs significantly at .01 level. The

interaction effect however, is not statistically significant.

C 0 .- > .- Y

PI . E 1

Table 4:IV: 6:A shows that high achievers report better learning

motivation when compared to the low achievers. Between the gender

groups, females score more than the males and hence show a better

learning motivation. Similar finding has been reported in table 4:lIl: 1: A

and in table 4:lIl: 1: B.

Learning motivation is found to be very high among the high

achievers, especially the high achieving females. This finding is

consistent with the earlier findings in this study using academic

achievement motivation as a single variable. This shows that though the

respondents have answered to two separate questionnaires for the

some variable they were so consistent in responding to the items. This

high level of motivation propels the high achievers and the high

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

35.36

14.47

3.93

403.26

12755.00

Degrees of freedom

1

1

1

269

273

p value

0.00

0.002

0.1 1

Mean squares

35.36

14.47

3.93

1.50

F value

23.59

9.65

2.62

achievement reinforces to maintain the high level of motivation, thus

keeps a vicious circle.

The present finding is supported by the earlier findings. In a study

Srivastava (1 977) reported that learning motivation is strongly related to

academic achievement. Albaili (1 997) had identified learning motivation

as the most powerful discriminating factor that separated the low

achieving students from their high achieving peers.

Table4:IV: 7:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in Memory with respect to Gender.

2 o i E

-

Academic Achievement Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean SO

N

Total

5.17

1.32

89

4.71

1.43 1 84

4.86 1.42

273

Gender

Male

5.36

1.43

42

4.74

1,42

113

4.91

1.44

155

Female

5.00

1.22

47

4.66

1.47 7 1

4.80

1.38

118

Table 4:IV: 7:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in Memory with respect to Gender.


between high and low achievers in memory. The significance is at

0.01 level. However, the two gender groups do not differ significantly

in memory. The interaction effect is also not statistically significant.

i? 0

E I

The mean values in table 4:IV: 7:A shows that the high

achievers have scored better value and thus found to have good

memory when compared to t h e low achievers. This finding is

consistent with the earlier finding by Loranger (1994), where he

reported that successful students differ qualitatively in their

information processing. Memory is a significant factor related to the

academic achievement. Only those who have better memory will be

able to retrieve better and all types of memory plays a significant

role in the academic achievement.

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

F value

6.77

1.44

0.57

Mean squares

13.32

2.83

1.12

1.97

Sum of squares

13.32

2.83

1.12

529.09

6995.00

P value

0.01

0.23

0.45

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273


Table4:IV: 8:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Examination Taking Style with respect to Gender.


Level

High

Gender Total

Female

Low

Mean

Total

11.64

Table 4:IV: 8:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Examination Taking Style with respect to Gender.

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

12.28 11.98

10.63

2.50

113

10.90

2.58

155

QI - 2. CI V)

m E = m C,

c 0 .- CI a c -- E m iz

1 1.45

1.75

7 1

11.78

2.06

118

10.95

2.27

184

11.28

2.41

273

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Emr

Total

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1 --

269

273

Sum of squares

49.80

31.17

-52

1471 -01

36322.00

Mean squares

49.80

31.17

0.52

5 -47

F value

9,11

5.70

0.10

P value

0.003

0.02

0.76

224 Chanter 4

Table 4:IV: 8:B shows that there is a statistically significant

difference between the high and the low achievers at .01 level in the

examination taking style. The gender groups differ statistically at .05

level. However, the interaction level is not statistically significant.

Table 4:IV: 8:A shows that the high achievers score more

than the low achievers and hence have a better examination taking

style. Between the gender groups females have scored more and

has shown a better examination taking style when compared to the

male students. Planning organization, better writing skills and time

management, all acts as determining factors in a good examination

taking skill. Generally, the high achievers have shown better

development of these faculties, which in turn benefits in the

academic scoring.

Table4:IV: 9:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in Health with respect to Gender.


Level

Mean 1 3.34 1 3.82 1 3.52

Total

Mean

SD

N

3.43

0.84

155

3,76

0.55

118

3.57

0,74

273

A nnlysis and Interpretation 225

Table4:IV: 9:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in Health with respect to Gender.

Table 4:lV: 9:B shows that in the health aspect there are

no significant difference between the two achievement groups.

Between the gender groups there is a statistically significant

difference at 0.01 level. The interaction effect is also significant

at 0.01 level.

The means (vide 4:IV: 9:A) show that the females report a

better health condition when compared to the male students.

Though there is no significant difference between the high and the

low achievers in health aspect, the interaction effect is statistically

significant. This means that the effect of gender on the health

aspect depends upon the achievement level. That is, the

interaction effect is revealed that, (vide table 4: IV: 9:A) the

gender difference in health is more pronounced in the low

achievement group than in the high achievement group.

5 - I

F ' value

1.07

6.95

6.17

P value

0.30

0,01

0.01 --

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Sum of squares

56

3.60

3.20

139.39

3633.00

Degrees of

freedom -

1

1

1

269

273

Mean squares

0.56

3.60

3.20

0.52

Health is something, which every one prefers for a smooth

functioning. Here the low achieving females have reported a

better level of health when compared to the other groups. To be

more specific, the low achieving females are found to be healthier

than their male counterpart, while such a gender difference is not

pronounced in the high achieving group. Bronzaft (1 996) reported

that the academic high achievers rated their physical and mental

health as good or excellent.

Section 4.5

The fifth major hypothesis formulated, was, there would be

significant difference between high and low achievers on the

teacher effectiveness and its components. A total of 3

components were tested under 3 separate minor hypotheses and

an additional one using the additive score. The means and

standard deviations (S D) of the total score and of the

components are given below. Each of it is followed by the F table,

which gives the statistical details of teacher effectiveness and its

components of high and low achievers.

Table4:V: 1:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Teacher Effectiveness with respect to Gender.

Table 4:V: l:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Teacher Effectiveness with respect to Gender.

Total

31 3.82

42.24

89

309.85

55.23

1 84

311.15

51.32

273

II) rr, a c Q) > .- c. 0

g t s 0 m Q, f i

U1 ln g Q) > .- Z

g 8 r 0

I-


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

P value

0.97

0.00

0.78

Source

Achievement

Gender --

Interaction

Within Error

Total

-- -

Gender

Mean squares

4.31

56062.54

187.65

2433.99

--

Male

296.57

43.99

42

298.63

60.98

113

298 -07

56.75

155

F value

0.00

23.03

0.08

Sum of squares

4.31

56062.54

187.65

654743.47

271 45967.00

Female

329.23

34.26

47

327.72

38.73

7 1

328.32

36.87

118

Degrees of freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Table 4:V: l :B shows that teacher effectiveness does not

differ statistically between the high and the low achievers. However,

there is a statistically significant difference between the male and

female students in teacher effectiveness. The female students report

high effectiveness (vide table 4:V: I :A). It is also found that there is a

significant interaction effect that exists among the achievement

groups and the gender groups. The finding is consistent with a study

that has been conducted by Lester (1982) where he reported that

there was no evidence that subject's evaluations of teacher

effectiveness is affected by their course performance. However,

majority of the students report a contradictory finding. Papandreou

(1995) reported that teacher effectiveness is viewed differently by

good and poor students; the higher the academic performance of the

students, the higher the degree of the recognition of the forms of

effective teaching. Wright (1997) reported that the teacher effects

are dominant factors that affect student's gain. Phye (1 984) reported

that low performers rated the teacher significantly lower than did the

high performers and they have based their judgments on different

characteristics.

Analysis (in il Interpre fution 229

Table4:V: 2:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Personal Characteristics of the teacher with respect to Gender.

Table 4:V: 2:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Personal Characteristics of the teacher with respect to Gender.

Q)

5 * 0 tn 0 .- Y u, .- z 6 -r % g z 2 c 0 - CU c 0 E 2

Table 4:V: 2:A shows that the high achievers report a better

perception of the personal characteristics of the teachers when

Total

55.12 8.03 89

53.84 10.14 184

54.26 9.51 273

Academic Achievement Level

High

Low

Total

Gender

a 5 * 0 U)

u, -- & ti =

2 : 5 - tm

:

compared to the low achievers. However, this difference is not

Statistics

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Mean SD N

Male 53.02 7.92 42

52.23 10.81 113

52.45 10.09 155

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

statistically significant (vide table 4:V: 2: B). A significant difference

Female 57.04 7.71 47

56.39 8.42 7 1

56.65 8.1 2 178

P value

0.55

0.001

0.95

Sum of squares

30.57

984,44

-31

23369.88

828450 .OO

between the male and the female students in their perception

Degrees of freedom

1

1

I

269

273 -

Mean squares

30.57

984.44

0.31

86.88

F value

0.35

11.33

0.004

230 Chapter 4

regarding the personal characteristics is observed at .001 level (vide

table 4:V: 2:B). The female students report better personal

characteristics of their teachers (vide table 4:V: 2:A): The interaction

effect among these groups is also not statistically significant.

Though significant difference could not be found between the

high and the low achievers, the mean values show consistency with

the earlier findings. A recent study by Radmacher and Martin (2001)

proved the importance of the teacher's personal characteristics. To

be more specific, Ortiz (1997) reported that, teacher's personal

characteristics are related to academic engagement. Another study

by Schmidt and Moust (1995) proved a causal model of the

influence of the tutor behavior on the student achievement.

Table 4:V: 3:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Professional Characteristics of the teacher with respect to Gender.


Level

High

Low

Total

Statistics

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Total

161.24

22.05

89

158.28

29.97

184

159.24

27.63

Gender

Male

152.29

23.35

42

151.94

33.10

113

152,03

30.70

Female

169.23

17.47

47

168.37

20.67

7 1

168.71

19.38

Table 4:V: 3:B: The summary of two way ANOVA of high and low achievers in the Professional Characteristics of the teacher with respect to Gender.

Table 4:V: 3:B shows that the high achievers report better

professional characteristics of the teachers when compared to the low

achievers. However, this difference is not statistically significant. The

mean values also show that female students report a better

professional characteristics of their teachers as compared to the male

students. This difference is statistically significant at -0 1 level. The

interaction effect among these groups is also statistically significant.

This means that the effect of gender upon the perception of the

professional characteristics of their teachers depends upon the level of

achievement and vise versa.

Karsenti and Thibert (1998) have listed the professional

characteristics of an effective teacher and have also stated that this

enhances the achievement motivation that in turn affects the

achievement level.

+ o tn 0 .- c. M -- L

S 0 Q)

52 - rn c 5 0 .- V) V)

2 e e

Mean squares

21.72

16377.33

3.98

702.76

Source

Achievement

Gender

1 nteraction

WithinError

Total

F value

0.03

23.30

0.01

P value

0.86

0.00

0.01

Sum of squares

21.72

16377.33

3.98

189042.04

7 1 30423.00

Degrees of freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Table 4:V: 4:A: The mean and SD values of high and low achievers in the Teacher Student Relationship with respect to Gender.

Table4:V: 4:B: Thesummaryof two way ANOVAof high and low achievers in the Teacher Student Relationship with respect to Gender.

Q .- c cn c 0 .- u cer - t! Y c a fl 3 CI ~n

b c 0 rn a F

Table 4:V: 4:A shows that there is no statistically significant

difference between the high achievers and the low achievers in their

perception about the teacher student relationship. This finding is


Level

High

Low

Total

n .- x th s 0 -- Y Ca - E Y c Q, = 3 CI cn L a3 C 0 m Q) k

Total

97.44 16.26

89

97.74

19.66

1 84

97.64

18.59

273

Statistics

Mean SD

N

Mean

SD N

Mean

SD N

Source

Achievement

Gender

Interaction

Within Error

Total

Mean squares

150.41

5994.72

150.35

326,49

Gender

Sum of squares

150.41

5994.72

150.35

87824.98

2696732.00

Male

91.26

18.84

42

94.46

21 -39

11 3

93.59

20.72

155

F value

0.46

18.36

0.46

Degrees of

freedom

1

1

1

269

273

Female

102.96

11.11

47

102.96

15.27 71

102.96

13.71

118

P value

0.50

0.00

0.50

contradictory to the earlier findings by Ellsworth and Mona han ( I 991 ),

Ross (1992) and Hutto (2001). Ellsworth and Monahan (1991)

analyzed and reported a significant difference . in academic

achievement using a human centered, systems approach to education.

Ross (1 992) also reported that achievement was higher when teacher

student contact is more. Hutto (2001) appraises the importance of

teacher's personal knowledge of each student. This table also shows

that the female students reported a better perception of teacher student

relationship as compared to the male students. This has been found to

be statistically significant at .00 level. However, the interaction effect is

also not statistically significant.

Section 4.6

The sixth major hypothesis formulated was, that there would be

significant relationship between high and low achievers with various

socio demographic variables. A total of 26 variables were tested. The

chi square values with regard to high and low achievers with various

socio demographic variables are given below.

Table 4:VI: 1 The summary of the chi square values of social demographic variables with regard to high and low achievers

class

-

Socio demographic

Variable

Medium of education

Categories

8'"

9'

I oth

Total

13

14

l5

16

Total

English

Malayalam

Total

Achievement Level Total

61

127

85

273

67

120

72

14

273

28

245

273

High 25

( I 9.9)

25

(41.4)

39

(27.7)

89

34

(21.8)

37

(39.1)

17

(23.5)

1

(4.6)

89

17

(9.1)

72

(79.9)

89

Low 36

(41.1)

102

(85.6)

46

(57.3)

184

33

(45.2)

83

(80.9)

55

(48.5)

13

(9.4)

184

I I

(18.9)

173

(1 65.1)

184

Chi square value

18.417

16.99

11.22

value P

< .OOl

<.001

c.001

A ntclysis cind interpretation 235 -. . . , - --

Father's education

Father's occupation

Mother's education

Primary

Secondary

Higher secondary

Technical

Graduate

Postgraduate

Professional

Total

Daily wage

Self employed

Govt . employee

Professional

Total

Primary

Secondary

Higher secondary

92

118

15

O1

17

01

01

245

217

24

21

I 0

272

93

107

27

16

(31.5)

44

(40.5)

11

(5.1 )

01

(0.3) 10

(5.8)

01 (0.3) 01

(0.3)

84

55

(71.0)

12

(7.9) 14

(6.9)

08

(3.3) 89

14

(31 -3)

37

(36.0)

16

(9.1)

32.57

29.76

45.23

76

(60.5)

74

(77.5)

04

(9.9) 00

(0.7)

07

(11.2)

00 (0.7) 00

(0.7) 161

162

(146)

21

(1 6.1 )

07

(14.1)

02

(6.7) 183

79

(61.7)

70

(71 -0)

11

(17.9)

--. .-

<.001

<.001

<.001

----

Mot her's occupation

Type of school

Technical

Graduate

Postgraduate

Total

House wife

Daily wage

Self employed

Govt. employee

Tota t

Aided boys

Aided girls

Aided coed

Govt. girls

Govt. coed

01

(0.3)

13

(5.0)

01

(0.3)

82

76

(81.5)

02

(2.9)

07

(2.9)

04

(1.6)

89

29

(27.1)

27

(1 9.2)

20

(21.5)

09

(9.5)

04

00

(0.7)

02

(10.0)

00

(0.7)

162

174

(I 68.5)

07

(6.1)

02

(6.1)

01

(3.4)

I 84

54

(55.9)

32

(39.8)

46

(44.5)

20

(19.5)

32

Total

(24.3)

1 84

(1 1.7)

89 273

01

15

01

244

250

09

09

05

273

83

59

66

29

36

14.47

12.62

c.05

<.05

r

A nalysis and Inferprrtilfio~z 237

<. 05

c.05

c.05

c.05

Size of the class

Tuition

Ordinal posit ion

Academic background of

the family

20-30

31 -40

41 -50

Total

Yes

No

Total

First born

Middle born

Last born

Total

Grand parents

Parents

Siblings

None

Total

23

(20.2)

32

(43.7)

34

(25.1)

89

60

(52.2)

29

(36.8)

89

32

(30.6)

I I

(1 8.3)

46

(40.1)

89

I 0

(8.5)

74

(68.1)

05

(1 0.1)

00

(2.3)

89

39

(41.8)

102

(90.3)

43

(51.9)

1 84

loo

( I 07.8)

84

(76.2)

1 84

62

(63.4)

45

(37.7)

77

(82.9)

1 84

16

(17.5)

135

(140.9)

26

(20.9)

07

(4.7)

1 84

62

134

7

273

160

113

273

94

56

123

273

26

209

31

07

273

9.89

4.22

5.66

8.37

Gender

Chronic physical ailments

Type of family

Religion

155

118

273

38

235

273

200

40

33

273

133

117

23

273

Male

Female

Total

Yes

No

Tota I

Nuclear family

Joint family

Extended

Total

Hindi

Christian

Muslim

Total

4.94

4.04

5.28

I .88

--

c.05

<. 05

NS

NS

42

(50.5)

47

((38.5)

89

07

(12.4)

82

(76.6)

89

72

(65.2)

07

(13.0)

I 0

(1 0.8)

89

42

(43.4)

42

(38.1 )

05

(7.5) 89

113

(104.5)

71

(79.5)

I 84

31

(25.6)

153

(1 58.5)

I 84

128

(1 34.8)

33

(27.0)

23

(22.2)

1 84

91

(89.6)

75

(78.9)

18

(15.5)

184

Analysis cmll Znterpretntion . 239

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Number of siblings

Residential area

Grandparent's role

Family environment

School environment

No sibs

1 sib

2-4 sib

5-9 sib

Total

Urban

Rural

Total

Yes

No

Total

Healthy

Medium

Unhealthy

Total

Healthy

Medium

Unhealthy -

Total

5

(3.3)

58 (55.4)

24 (28.4)

02

(2.0) 89

34 (28.0)

55 (61 -0)

89

29 (29) 60

(60) 89

48 (47.3)

38 (39.8)

03

(2.0) 89

55 (54.4)

33 (31 -0)

01

(3.6) 89

5

(6.7)

'I2 (1 14.6)

63 (58.6)

04

(4.0) A 84

52 (58.0) 132 (I 26.0)

1 84

6o (60) 124

(124) 184

97 (97.7)

84 (82.2) O3

((4.0) 1 84

(1 12.6)

62 (64.0)

I 0

-- (7.4) 1 84

10

170

87

06

273

86

187

273

89

184

273

145

12*

06

273

167 -

95

1 I

273

--

'

2.55

2.75

0.00

0.96

2.97

240 Chapter 4

Co curricular activities

Meta cognition

Parental expectation

Role of

P T A

Parental interaction

Yes

No

Total

Yes

No

Total

High

Medium -

None

Tota I

Yes

No

Total

Yes

No

Tota I

160

113

273

125

148

273

200

72

01

273

215

58

273

46

227

273

56 (52.2)

33 (36.8)

89

44 (40.8)

45

(48.2)

89

66 (65.20)

23

(23.5)

00

(0.3) 89

69

(70.1)

20

(1 8.9)

89

18

(15.0)

71

(74.0)

89

I .O'l

0.71

0.5

0.12

1.07

1 04

(1 07.8)

80

(76.2)

1 84

81 (84.2)

A 03

(99.8)

I 84

I 34

(134.8)

49 (48.5)

01

(0.7) I 84

146

(1 44.9)

38 (39.1)

I 84

28

(31.0)

156

(1 53.0)

1 84

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

#

The association of achievement with regard to various socio

demographic variables is found out through chi square test.

Conclusively, vide table 6: 1, it is seen that some of the variables are

very strongly associated (at -001 level), some are strongly

associated (at .05 level), and some are not significantly associated.

The variables that were proved to have a significant relationship with

the achievement groups at -001 level were the class of the student,

age of the student, medium of education, father's education, father's

occupation, and mother's education. The variables that have shown

a significant relationship at .05 level were mother's occupation, type

of school, size of the class, tuition, ordinal position, academic

background of the family, I gender, and chronic physical illness. A few

variables such as type of family, religion, number of siblings,

residential area, role of the grandparents, family environment, school

environment, parental expectation, role of P. T. A, and parental

interaction with the school were not statistically related to high and

low achievers.

A few of the studies on selective variables have quoted to

substantiate the findings of the present study. A study by Nagpal

and Wig (1975) has reported that poor achievers were older. Folger

(1 989) reported that reduction in class size improves achievement.

Folger and Breda (1989), also reported that small class students in

all type of schools have scored significantly higher. In another study

by Nagpal and Wig (1 975), it was concluded that poor achievers had

less well-ed ucated parents.

242 Chnpter 4

Further, Orme (1975), reported that bright students came

from smaller families than the dull students. Reiz, et al (1995),

stated that successful students had supportive adults in their

lives. Kifer (1 975) reported that rewarding environment provided

by the home is related to high achievement. A similar finding was

reported by Rivera (1997), that family environment was a

significant predictor of academic achievement. This was again

supported by the finding of Niebuhr (1995) where he reported that

family environment has a stronger direct impact on academic

achievement. Niebuhr (1995) also reported that school climate

has a stronger impact on academic achievement. Reiz, et al

(1 995) reported that successful students have participated in extra

curricular activities. Stewart and Landine (1 995) reported that a

model of meta learning influences learning outcomes. Bellow

(2001) has reported that parental expectations were related to

higher academic achievement. This was preceded by a study of

Ford (1 993). He concluded that family's achievement orientation

is very influential in determining the academic outcomes. Finn

(1998)' has reported that research has not consistently linked

parent's in-school activities and engagements and the student's

achievements.

Section 4.7

The seventh major hypothesis formulated was that the

academic high achievement and academic low achievement can be

predicted from a set of predictor variables. This part of the analysis

has been utilized to predict the best predictors of academic high

Ancilysis ccit -- d Interpretation 243

achievement and academic low achievement from a set of predictor

variables. In the prediction of academic high achievement and

academic low achievement the following predictor variables were

selected. They are:

1. Age

2. Medium of education

3. Father's occupation

4. Mother's education

5. HSPQ B total

6 HSPQ H total

7. Learning motivation

8. Social support.

Discriminant analysis was employed to predict the relative

effect of each predictor variable to predict the predictor variables

separately for academic achievement. The whole analysis was

completed using the software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Sciences- Einspruch, 1998). The function that was yielded through

the analysis is given below. The input data were the means and

standard deviations.

'The investigator has made an attempt to identify the best

predictor variables for academic achievement. The relative

predictive efficacies of the predictive variables were studied using

discriminant analysis. The discriminant functions of each of the

variables are given in the following table.

Table 4:Vll: 1 The discriminant functions of the predictive variables.

The table shows that low age in the respective class, medium

of education in English, high status of father's occupation, highly

educated mother, high score on HSPQ factor B ie, better scholastic

ability, high score on HSPQ factor H ie, high activity level and

responsiveness, high learning motivation, and a good social support

are indicative of high academic achievement.

Variables

Age of the student

Medium of education

Father's occupation

Mother's education

HSPQ B total

HSPQ H total

Learning motivation

Social support

The accuracy of the prediction is also analyzed using

percentage analysis, which is given below in table 4:VI: 2.

Function

-0.422

-0.402

0.262

0.41 1

0.249

0.225

0.377

-0.379

Table 4:Vll: 2: The percentage analysis to establish the accuracy of prediction.

Achievement

High Count

High Percentage

Predicted Group

Table 4:VI: 2 shows that 58.4 % of the high achievers were

predicted accurately as high achievers. And 89.1 % of the low

achievers were predicted accurately as low achievers.

Membershi.p 1 Total 1 r , i g , Low

chapter 4 - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/460/12/12...significant difference...

Documents