Chapter 4 Correction Using

CHAPTER IV

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of data means critical examination of the tabulated data to determine the

inherent facts and characteristic of the object under study. This, in turn, will help in determining

the patterns of relationships among the variables relating to it.

Data Analysis embraces a whole range of activities of both the qualitative and

quantitative type. It is usual tendency in educational research that much sue of quantitative

analysis is made and statistical is made and statistical methods and techniques are employed.

Kaul defines data analysis as “studying the organized material in order to disorder inherent facts.

The data are studied born as many angles as possible to explore the new facts”. (Sharif Khan,

2009).

“Analysis of data in a general way involves a number of closely related operations,

which are performed with the purpose of summarizing the collected data and organizing these in

such a manner that they answer the research questions”. (C.R.Kothari, 1989).

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Analysis of data is one of the basic steps of research process. It is one of the processes

of collection, analyzing and interpreting the numerical data. It is studying the tabulated material

in order to determine the inherent factors or meaning. It involves breakdown of existing complex

factor into simple parts and putting the parts together in new arrangements for the purpose of

interpretation.

The analysis and interpretation of data represent the application of deductive and

inductive logic to the research process. The data are often classified by division into, subgroups

and are then analyzed and synthesized in such a way that hypothesis may be verified or rejected.

According to Gay (1976) “Analysis of the data is important as any other components of the

research process”.

In general process of analysis of research data, statistical methods as contributed a great deal,

simple statistical calculation finds a place in almost any research study dealing with large or even

small group of individuals, while complex statistical computations from the basis of many type

of research. It mayn’t be out of place, therefore, to enumerate some stastistical methods of

analysis used in educational research.

FUNCTIONS OF DATA

I. To obtain the significant results.

II. To make the raw data meaningful.

III. To evaluate parameters.

IV. To test the null hypothesis.

V. To draw some inferences or make generalization.

In this chapter percentage‘t’ test, ANOVA, and correlation co-efficient are executed.

TABLE 4.1

LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS

Low Average High

N % N % N %

20 6.7 272 90.7 8 2.7

It is inferred from above table 6.7%, 90.7%, 2.7% of IX standard students have low,

average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence

HYPOTHESES TESTING

Hypotheses 1-4

Level of Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students with respect to back ground variable

TABLE 4.2

LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

WITH RESPECT TO BACK GROUND VARIABLE

S.NO Variables Category N Low Average High

N % N % N %

1 Gender Male 151 13 8.6 135 89.4 3 2.0

Female 149 7 4.7 137 91.9 5 3.4

2 Locality of

school

Rural 121 5 4.1 113 93.4 3 2.5

Urban 179 15 8.4 159 88.8 5 2.8

It is inferred from the above table, 8.6%, 89.4%, 2% of male IX standard students have low,

average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.

4.7%, 91.9% 3.4% of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of

Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.

4.1%, 93.4%, 2.5%, of rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Intrapersonal

Intelligence respectively.

8.4%, 88.8%, 2.8%, of urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of

Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.

Hypotheses 5-10

There is no significant difference between A) Boys and girls B) Rural and Urban school C) Days

scholar and Hosteller F) Nuclear family and joint family High school students in their

Intrapersonal Intelligence.

TABLE 4.3

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND

URBAN SCHOOL C) DAYS SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR FAMILY

AND JOINT FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL

INTELLIGENCE

Back ground

variables

Category N Mean S.D Calculated

‘t’ value

Remark

at 5%

level

Gender Boys 151 21.34 5.45 2.14 S

Girls 149 22.89 7.05

Medium of

Instruction

Tamil 245 22.02 6.82 0.73 NS

English 55 22.49 3.45

Locality of School urban 121 22.83 5.65 1.67 NS

Rural 179 21.63 6.73

Nature of

Accommodation

Days

scholar

220 22.18 6.20 0.29 NS

Hosteller 80 21.93 6.70

Nature of family Nuclear 211 22.62 7.22 2.85 S

Joint 89 20.91 3.16

(At 5% level of significance, the table value is 1.96)

It inferred from the above table that the calculated‘t’ value (2.14) is greater than the table value,

the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between boys and girls

students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculated‘t’ value (0.73) is less than the table value,

the null hypothesis is accepted and there are significant difference between Tamil and English

Medium high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

With regard to Locality of School, the calculated‘t’ value (1.67) is less than the table value, the

null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural of high

school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculated‘t’ value (0.29) is less than the table

value, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Days scholar

and Hostel high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

With regard to Nature of Family, the calculated‘t’ value (2.85) is greater than the table value, the

null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family

of high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

Hypothesis 11

There is no significant difference among Boys, Girls, and Co-Education high school students in

their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

TABLE 4.4

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE

Source of

Variation

Degrees of

freedom

Sum of

Squares

Mean Square

Variance

Calculated

‘F’ value

Remark at

5% level

Between 2 164.31 82.16 2.05 NS

Within 297 11905.06 40.08

(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (2.05) is less than the table value

for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among boys,

girls, and co-education high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

Hypothesis 12

There is no significant difference among boys, girls, and co-education high school students in

their intrapersonal intelligence.

TABLE 4.5

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE

Source of

Variation

Degrees of

freedom

Sum of

Squares

Mean Square

Variance

Calculated

‘F’ value

Remark at

5% level

Between 2 218.36 109.18 2.74 NS

Within 297 11851.02 39.90


It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (2.74) is less than the table value for

(2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among

government, aided, private high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.

Hypothesis 13-18

There is no significant association between father’s Education, Father’s Occupation, Mother’s

Occupation and Mother’s Monthly Income of high school students in their Intrapersonal

Intelligence.

TABLE 4.6

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHER’S EDUCATION,

FATHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION

AND MOTHER’S MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR

INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE

Back

ground

Variables

Category Low Average High Calculated

χ2 value

Remark at

5% level

Father’s

Education

Illiteracy 7(10) 135(132) 4(4) 15.22 S

SSLC 8(6) 76(77) 1(2)

HSC 3(3) 45(44) 0(1)

UG and above 2(1) 16(19) 3(1)

Father’s Coolie 7(9) 121(120) 4(4) 3.12 NS

Occupation Business 2(3) 38(38) 2(1)

Private 5(4) 61(61) 1(2)

Government 6(4) 52(53) 1(2)

Mother’s

Occupation

Coolie 2(4) 55(54) 2(2) 5.99 NS

Business 8(7) 100(100) 2(3)

Private 2(3) 41(42) 3(1)

Government 4(3) 45(45) 0(1)

Mother’s

monthly

Income

Below Rs.5000 4(4) 55(55) 2(2) 3.82 NS

Rs.5000-10000 7(6) 84(84) 2(2)

Rs.10000-20000 4(5) 76(73) 0(2)

Above 20000 5(4) 57(60) 4(2)

Father’s

monthly

Income

Below Rs.5000 7(6) 86(88) 4(3) 5.92 NS

5000-10000 2(3) 49(46) 0(1)

10000-20000 4(5) 68(67) 2(2)

Above 20000 7(5) 69(71) 2(2)

Mother’s

Education

Illiteracy 7(9) 125(121) 2(4) 5.92 NS

SSLC 5(5) 65(63) 2(2)

HSC 5(4) 53(53) 1(2)

UG and above 3(3) 32(34) 3(1)

(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated χ 2 value (15.22) is greater than the table

value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant association between

father’s education and Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students.

As the calculated χ 2 value (3.12) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s Occupation and Intrapersonal

Intelligence of high school students.

As the calculated χ 2 value (5.90) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Mother’s Occupation and Intrapersonal


Calculated χ 2’ value (5.99) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted

and there is no significant association between Mother’s monthly Income and Intrapersonal



and there is no significant association between Father’s Income and Intrapersonal Intelligence of

high school students.


and there is no significant association between Mother’s Education and Intrapersonal


Hypotheses 19-20

TABLE 4.7

LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Low Average High

N % N % N %

50 16.7 214 71.3 36 12.0

It is inferred from the above table 16.7%, 71.3%, 12.0 of IX standard students have low average,

high level of Self Confidence.

TABLE 4.8

LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF IX STANDARD STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO

BACKGROUND VARIABLE

S

.NO

Back

ground

variable

Category N Low Average High

N % N % N %

1 Gender Male 151 26 17.2 109 72.2 16 10.6

Female 149 24 16.1 105 70.5 20 13.4

2 Locality of

school

Rural 121 14 11.6 83 68.6 24 19.8

Urban 179 36 20.1 131 73.2 12 6.7

It is inferred from the above table 17.2%, 72.2%, 10.6%, of male IX standard students have low,

average, high level of Self Confidence respectively.

16.1%, 70.5%, of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self Confidence

respectively.

11.6%, 68.6%, 19.8%, of Rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self

Confidence respectively.

20.1%73.2%, 6.7%, of Urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self

Confidence respectively.

Hypothesis 21-25

There is no significant difference between a) boys and girls b) rural and urban school c) Tamil

and English d) Rural and Urban e) Days Scholar and Hosteller f) Nuclear and Joint Family

Students in their Self Confidence.

TABLE 4.9

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND

URBAN SCHOOL C) TAMIL AND ENGLISH D) RURAL AND URBAN E) DAYS

SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR AND JOINT FAMILY IN THEIR SELF

CONFIDENCE

Back ground

Variables

category N Mean S.D Calculated

‘t’ Value

Remark

at 5%

level

Gender Boys 151 57.21 10.18 0.75 NS

Girls 149 58.13 11.22

Medium of

Instruction

Tamil 245 57.01 10.83 2.42 S

English 60 60.58 9.67

Locality of School Urban 121 61.05 10.05 4.70 S

Rural 179 55.38 10.55

Nature of

Accommodation

Days

Scholar

220 58.71 10.44

2.78 S

Hosteller 80 54.79 10.94

Nature of Family Nuclear 211 57.22 11.09 1.17 NS

Joint 89 58.72 9.70

(At 5% level significance, the table value is 1.96)

It inferred from the above table that the calculated‘t’ value (0.75) is less than the table value, the

null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Boys and Girls students

in their Self Confidence.

With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculated‘t’ value (2.42) is greater than the table

value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant difference between Tamil and

English Medium high School students in their Self Confidence.

With regard to Locality of School, the calculated‘t’ value (4.70) is greater than the table value,

the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural High

School students in their Self Confidence.

With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculated‘t’ value (2.78) is greater than the table

value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Days Scholar

and hostel High School students in their Self Confidence.

With regard to Nature of Family, the calculated‘t’ value (1.17) is less than the table value, the

null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family

high school students in their Self Confidence.

Hypothesis 26

TABLE 4.10

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE

Source of

Variation

Degrees of

freedom

Sum of

Squares

Mean square

Variance

Calculated

‘F’ Value

Remark at

5% level

Between 2 1582.13 791.06 7.15 S

Within 297 32866.63 110.66


It is inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (7.15) is greater than the table

value for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among

boys, girls, and Co-Education high School students in their Self Confidence.

Hypothesis 27

TABLE 4.11

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square Calculated Remark at

Variation freedom Squares Variance ‘F’ Value 5% level

Between 2 2512.38 1256.19 11.68 S

Within 297 31936.38 107.53

(At 5% level of significance, the tale value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘F’ value (11.68) is greater than the table

value for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among

Government, Aided, Private High School students in their level of Self Confidence.

Hypothesis 28-33

TABLE 4.12

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHER’S EDUCATION,

FATHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION, MOTHER’S OCCUPATION

AND MOTHER’S MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR

SELF CONFIDENCE.

Back

ground

variables

Category Low Average High Calculated

‘χ’

Value

Remark at

5% level

Father’s

Education

illiteracy 28(24) 105(104) 13(18) 9.86 NS

SSLC 13(14) 63(61) 9(10)

HSC 4(8) 33(34) 11(6)

UG and

above

5(4) 13(15) 3(3)

Father’s

Occupation

Coolie 24(22) 97(94) 11(16) 6.33 NS

Business 8(7) 30(30) 4(5)

Private 10(11) 48(48) 9(8)

Governmen 8(10) 39(42) 12(7)

t

Mother’s

Occupation

Coolie 11(10) 43(42) 5(7) 6.82 NS

Business (18) 81(79) 10(13)

Private 10(8) 28(33) 8(5)

Governmen

t

4(8) 38(38) 7(6)

Mother’s

monthly

Income

3000-5000 8(10) 47(44) 6(7) 10.47 NS

6000-10000 16(16) 68(68) 9(11)

10000-

20000

15(13) 59(57) 6(10)

Above

20000

11(11) 40(47) 15(8)

Father’s

Income

3000-5000 (16) 75(69) 3(12) 13.83 S

6000-10000 (9) 39(36) 6(6)

10000-

20000

(12) 47(53) 13(9)

Above

20000

(13) 53(56) 14(9)

Mother’s

Education

illiteracy 21(22) 99(96) 14(14) 8.06 NS

SSLC 9(12) 55(49) 5(5)

HSC 13(10) 35(42) 11(7)

UG and

above

7(6) 25(27) 6(5)

(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)

It inferred from the above table that the calculated ‘χ2’ value (9.86) is less than the table value

for 6 df the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s

Education and Self Confidence of high School Students.

As the calculated ‘χ2’ value (6.33) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Father’s Occupation and Self

Confidence of high School Students.

As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (6.82) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Mother’s Occupation and Self

Confidence of High School Students.

As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (10.47) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is a significant association between Mother’s Monthly Income and Self

Confidence of High School students.

As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (13.83) is greater than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis

is rejected and there is a significant association between Father’s Income and Self Confidence of

High School students.

As the calculated ‘χ 2’ value (8.06) is than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected

and there is no significant association between Mother’s Education and Self Confidence of High

School Students.

Hypothesis 34

TABLE 4.13

SIGNIFICANCE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTRAPERSONAL

INTELLIGENCE AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

N ƩX ƩY ƩX2 ƩY2 ƩXY Calculated

‘ γ’ Value

Remark

at

5%level

300 6633 17300 158725 1032082 379335 0.155 S

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0,155) is greater than the table

value (0.113) for 298 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship

between Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of High School Students.

Hypothesis 35

TABLE 4.14

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE

AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH RESPECT

GENDER AND LOCALITY OF SCHOOL

Categor

y

N ƩX ƩY ƩX2 ƩY2 ƩXY Calculate

d ‘ γ’

value

Remark

at

5%level

Boys 151 3222 8638 73238 509782 182608 0.204 S

Girls 149 3411 8662 85487 522300 196727 0.133 NS

Urban 121 2762 7387 66914 463193 169370 0.109 NS

Rural 179 3871 9913 91811 568889 209965 0.347 S

With respect to boys, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.204) is greater than the table value (0.159) for

149 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between

Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school boys students.

With respect to girls, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.133) is less than the table value (0.159) for

147 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between

Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school girls students.

With respect to urban students, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.109) is less than the table value

(0.159) for 119 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship

between intrapersonal intelligence and self confidence of urban high school students.

With respect to rural students, the calculated value of ‘γ’ (0.347) is greater than the table value

(0.177) for 117 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between

Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of rural high school students.

Documents

Chapter 4 Correction Using