CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND RESULTS

u INTRODUCTION

3 SAMPLE OF T H E STUDY

u VARlABLES SELECTED EWH Tff E STUDY

u SUMMARY OF ANALYSES MADE

u TENABIL17T OF THE HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND RESULTS

5.1 INTRODIICTION

The major objective of the study was to determine the effectiveness ot'

Information Processing Models (JPM) on students' achievement in Geog,raphv.

Experimental methad was adopted to test the efyectiveness of Information Processing

Models by comparing it with that of Conventional l'eachiny Learning Method

(TTLM) co~nmonly adopted in Secondary Schools of Karala The non-equivalent

pretest-posttest control group design was selected for t h e study.

Fol this purpose three separate models from the Inf'ormatiorl

Processing Family were selected. The three models selected from the Information

Processing Family were Concept Attainment h/lodet (CAM). : idvan~:e Organizer

Madel (AOM) and Inquiry Training Model (11'M) Those taught through the Concept

Attainment Model (CAM) was treated as the Experimental Group I IExptl.l): those

through Advance Organizer Model (AOM) was the Experimental Group I I (Exptl II)

and those through Inquiry Training Model (ITM) was treated as the Experimental

Group I11 (Exptl Il l) . As has been stated earlier. those taught through the

Conventional Teachlng Learning Model (CTLM) was formed the Control goup.

5.2 SAMPLE O F THE STUDY

A sanlple of 638 students for the experiment was selected from e~ght

schools by giving representation to gender of the students, locale of residence and

marlagement of schonls. The details are given in Table 5 1 .

Table 5. I

Distribution of sample popul~tiuri iri t e r n ~ s of name o f

the school, locale of reside~lce. type o f nianngen~r~~t

and number of students selected

Total

No. of Students Selected

7 0

8 (1

80

ti0

70

6 t

7

Three experimental groups uf 1 59 students ( CAM-exptl I ) , 160

students ( AOM-erptl.11) and 1 59 students ( ITM-exptl I I I ) and a control gruup o t' 1 GO

students (CTLM) were formed.

5.3 VARIAB1,ES SELECTED FOR THE STUDY

The independent variable selected fbr the experirncut was the

instructional method at two levels, namely, the Information Processir~g Models and

S1. No.

I

-

'

5

Sex

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls -.

Boys Muttuctura St .4_rnes G H S Muttuch~ra Government H S.S . Vaikom Government Cj H S \ia~kurn

Type of Management Govt/Private .--

Governmeti t --

Government -

1'1-1~ate - - .

Private - - . . - - -. -

1'riv;ite

of the School

Govt tl S S Ettumarinoor Govt G~rls H S.Ettumannoor St Thomas H S S Pala St Ma~v ' s G H S Pala Huiy ~ h u s l B H S

Locale/Rurn" Urban

Rural

Rural

Urban

Urban

Rural

Rural

Urban

Urban

Girls

Bovs

Gtrls

Governmetlt

--

the Conventional Teaching Learning Method. The dependent variable is the

,4chievement in Cieography as determined by the standardised tests scores The etiect

of' extraneous variables like Intelligence, Attitude towards Learning Geogaphy.

Geography Learnirly Environment and Socio-Economic Status was also studied

5.3.1 Major Ca~~nponents of the Dependent Variable

-Phe major components of the deperlderlt variables useti Irl the ptcserll

study were immediate achievement, immediate retention and itnmediate transfer.

Delayed achievement. delayed retention and delayed transfer, where the scores on the

items for retention and transfer together constitute the overall achievement

.4chievement itnrnediate and achievement delayed and the dlltkrence between

imtnediare post-test and detayed post-test were subjected to stat~st~cal analysis.

Heforc the treatment. a terminal behaviour test was adn~~nistered as pretest Atter the

experinlent two posttests were adtninislered One posttest was conducted

immediately after the treatme~lt and was termed as itnmediate post-rest. the second

post-test was administered after three weeks from the termination uf the experime~lt

This w a s known as the delayed post-test Tests were also administered to assess the

extraneous variables like Intelligence, Attitude towards Lxarn~ng Geographv.

Geographv Learnirlg Environment and Socio-Economic Status Scale The scores of'

the dependent and independent variables were subjected to statistical analvsis in order

to find the effect~veness of Information Processing Models over the Conventional

Metllod of teachii~y. A summary of different statistical analys~s of the data made is

given In the follo~v~ng section.

5.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSES MADE

5.4. l Model Categories and Achievement

In order to find out the effectiveness of Information Pn)cessins Motlels

over the C'onventional Method, students' achieverner~t was assosse~l by adrnin~stering

the achievement tests in Geography for standard 1X in the Cotltrol Group (CTl..M)

and Experimental Groups ( C A M , AOM & ITM) before and after the treatments

lliffkrent statistical techniques were applied to compare the achievenlent test score>

obtained

The schematic representation of the variable5 selected for t he

experiment is given rn Table 5 . 2

Table 5.2

Schemata of the Variables Selected for the Study

Variables Seltcted 7

lrldependent Variab tes E-

Treatment Variables

d . . . Instructional ;

Method (Model Cateyories)

Attribute variables for

Expe r~men~a l Control

Scores

----T-

of' Schuol:, of puplls St ~ l r i ~ n t towar d s merit

!

Thc inlportant statistical measures pertaining to central tendenc! and

dispersion such aa mean and standard deviation were computed till- the prytest.

immediate posttest and delayed posttest scores to study the nature of t h y scores ' fhe

statistical techniql~u ANCOVA was used for comparison of the effectiveness ot' the

Information Processlrlg Model and the conventional tnethnd of teaching Cieography i n

the secondat? schools of Kerala. The schematic representation of the stat~stical

techniques used in the study is given in Table 5 .;

'Table 5.3

Schemata of Statistical Tech~~iques used for the Study

1

Central Tendency Dispersion Variance C'ovariance (Arithmetic Mean) (Standard (ANOVA) (ANCOV.4)

Deviation)

I ntcr-action between Standard errors Sigificancc Var,~ables. One-way Errors ot' of' dificrenct. Two-way & Three-way difference bet ween bet ween Analys~s Sample means ( of,) sample ~neans

(Critical Ratio)

5.4.2 I n s f ~ ~ u c t i o ~ ~ a l Method (Model Categories) a d Student Achievcmet~t

I)i.$trihutifln uf' Pr~tc.v.st scores in itclr ievenrent in (;eogrrrpiz~

Betbre proceeding to find out the effectiveness of LLiM i t is necessap

10 study the nature of the achievement scores The nlaxlmum score in the

achievement test uas 40 The mean and standard deviation of pretest scores classified

by school and modt:! categories are given in Table 5 4

Table 5.4

Meall and Variance for Pretest Scores- Classified bv

Values in brackets are standard deviation

School and Model Categories

(iraphical representation of the mean and variance tbr- pretest scores

classified by schuol and model cateyories i s presented in F'ig 5 I

-- -- ('TI ,M

(('ontrol

ITM

(Exptl. 1I1 )

AOM

(Expti. 11)

Model categories

School

CAM

(Exptl. I)

13 6 5

(9 96)

9 10

( 3 08)

(S 2 1 85) 30

18 9q

(9 68)

16 30

( 8 45)

10 85

(4 28)

23 35

( 7 70)

17 b5

(8 73)

I6 24

( 8 67)

160

are mean

-:1-I L 12-

I 4

I-- --7 I-

41

6

7

-

8

--

Total

i--

Y

Values

13 7C) 1 Group) 1 4 i T ---

16 45

( ( 1 81 )

( 2 94)

24 05

( 7 9 1 0 16)

19 40

( 5 54)

1% 05

(9 27)

I0 89

( 4 03)

23 30

(8 75)

22 05

(8 96)

17 26

(9 08)

159

without brackets

( 0 5 : )

r) 30

( 3 I h )

17 84) -- - 8 00

( 2 7 5 ) .-

( h 20 3 5 ) 80

24 40

1 ( 0 W )

74 10 05

( I 0 84)

I j 00

(601)

I 1 60

(.: 7 9 )

3.7 95

( 7 67,)

2 0 ;<

( I 0 lcl) - -

I ; 50

(o 8 5 ) I

10 2 5

(1 74) -

7 2 40

( 6 i X ) --

2 I 00

( 7 (A) ( 4 40) - "--A

17 1.; 17 74

(9 01) ( 0 h5) t values

CAM

I II Ill IV V VI Vtl Vlll

AOM

I I! Ill IV v VI VII Vlll 1

Figure 5.1

Pretest Su~res-Classified by School and Mode l Categories

Comparison o f Pretest Scores of Pupils in the T A M (exptl.1) (;roup and C'TLM

(Control) Group

The mean and standard deviation of the pre-test scores of 1 5'J pupils in thc

C'AM (Exptl Ciroup 1 ) and 160 pupils in the C'TLM (Control) ( i roup wet-e calculated

The Critical Ratio ( C R) was found out and tested tbr significance The data and

results uf test of siy~iiticance of diffierence between inearls are given in 'Tahle 5 5

Table 5.5

Data and Results of Test of Significance of difference betweerl tneaa pretest

scores o f pupils in the CAM (exptl. 1) Group a ~ ~ d CTLM (C:ontrol) Group

S.D Critical Ratio Significar~ce

--

(expt l I ) 1726 908

I'TLM significant (C'untrul 1774 9 6 5

The Critical Ratio (C.R) obtained is not significant at 0 0 1 level. wee

the values for signiticance are 2.58 and 1 96 at 0 01 and 0 O 5 levels r.espectivel!-. t b r

dl' ! 18 This indicates that there is no significant difierence between the mean pretest

scores uf pupils ( r = 0 2 1; p -, 0.01) in CAM (exptl I ) group aud C'-l'l,M (control)

Group Since the mean score o f t he CAM (exptl 1) group and I'-]-[ .hl (control) Ciroup

shows no siynificant difference, i t indicates that the twu groups (CAM and ("7.1 ,hl) do

nor difier signiticar~tlv in the pretest scores. The inference is that the two groups do

not difl'er in their ~ n ~ t i a l academic abilitv of studerits

Comparison of Pretest Scores of Pupils Classified by School in the .40M {eaptl.

11) Group and CTLM (control) Group

The mean and standard devlation of the pretest scores of I hO pupils in the

AOM (expti 11) Group and 160 pupils in the CTLM (control) group here calculated

The Critical Ratio (C R) was found out and tested for s~gnificance The data and

rtsults of test u f s~gnificance of difference between means are given in Table 5 b

Table 5.6

Data and Resiilts o f Test o f Significance o f difference between Inean Pretest

Scores of Pupils in the AOM (exptl.11) Group and C'TLM (control) Group

The Critical Ratio (C.R) obtained is not significant at 0 01 levet. since

the values for significance are 2 . 5 8 and 1 46 at 0.0 1 and 0.05 respectively f'or degrees

of' freedom 3 19. This indicates that there is no significant diff'erence between the

rnean pretest S C O ~ C S of pupils ( t --= 1.47; p . (1.0 I ) in the AOM (csptl 11 ) Groi~p arlri

C'SLM (control) C~roup Since the mean score of the AOM (esptl 11) (-;roirp and

C'TLM (canrrol) C;rr?iips shows no significant dityerence. i t indicates tha t the two

groups (AOM and CTLM) do not differ significantly in the pretest scores She

-- --- --A

Critical Ratio I .eve1 of'

(C-R)

' s~grlificant

.

----

Group

-

AOM

(exptl 11)

C'TL,M

(Control Ciroup)

N

160

160

Mean

1624

1 7 7 4

S. D {(J)

8 6 7

9 6 4

~nference is that the two groups do not differ i n their iiiit~al acadern~c abrlitv oi'

students

Comparison of Pretest Scores o f Pupils Classified by Schuols in the ITM

(exptl.1 l I) Group and CTLM (Control) Group.

The mean and standard deviation of the pretest scores of I T 9 pup~ls in

the ITM (exptl Group 111) and 160 pupils In the CTLM (control Group) were

calculated The ('rrt~cal Ratio(C R) was found out and tested for stgn~ticat~ce 'l'iie

data and results of' the test of wgnificance of drtference betweeti ineatls are glvtin 111

Table 5 7

Table 5.7

Ilata atid Results o f Test of Significance of difference between mean Pretest

Scores of Pupils ill the ITM (exptl.111) Group i~tld CTLM (control) Group

The Critical Ratio (C R) obtamed 1s not significant at 0 0 1 level sjnce

the values for stgn~ficance are 2 58 and 1 96 at 0 0 l and 0 05 levels respect~velv for

degrees of iieedotn ? 18 This ~ndicates that there is tlo srgnlticant d~flererlct: between

t h e mean pretest scores of pupils ( t - O 58; p -. O 01 ) in t h e 11'M (exp l l I l l ) Group and

1

Cmup N I f

1TM 1 5 ' 1

Mean

1 7 1

17 74

(exptl 111)

C'TL.M (Control croup) L

-.

160

S.D (0)

9.01

9 64

-- A

Critical Ratio (C.R)

0 59

- " ."".,? -, .- -- -- I,cIW~I ( ~ f

signi ficrr nce

,l,'ot

~ I ~ ~ I ~ I C L ~ ) I I

--- - --

C'Tl..V ((control) Group Since the mean score of the ITM (rxptl I l l ) Ciroup and

C'TLM (control) Group shows no significant dif-Terence It ir~dicates that the twt)

groups (ITM and C'TLM) do not differ signiticantly in the pretest score3 l'lic.

itlt'erence is that the two groups do not diiXer significantly in theit. in~tial acadenlic

ability of students.

5.4.3 Distribution of Immediate Posttest Scores in Achievenleat

Statistical measures were applied for the immediate postles~ scores 111

achievement for the cotltrol (CTLM) and experitnental (CAM. .4OM and I-I'M)

groups to determine the dependability of sanlple statistics and to compare the

achievement scores of all the four groups in the subsequent analvsls It is give11 In

Table 5 8

The Scores on Achievement (Immediate) of'the students constdered fur

the study when classified bv the school and model categories p~.o~.idt l the fvllowiny

summary statistics

Table 5.8

Mean and Variance for Immediate Posttest Scores-<:lassified by

School and Model Categories

Graphical represer~tation of the lnean and variance f i ~ r Imiucdlate

l'osttest scores classified by school and rnodel categories IS presented 111 I : I ~ 5 ?

I

11

--- --

I l l

--"

I \

---

\

---

\ 'I

\ / I I

--

Vll l

Tota I

N

(frg~ircj.\ I l r h/*crr kc./.\ \h(~rv

CAM

(Exptl. I )

25 80

(4 43 )

26 00

( 3 08)

27 75

(6 37)

27 70

( 5 10)

25 50

(5 41)

24 1 1

(3 30)

25 5 5

(4 14)

3 1 40

( 4 98)

26 74

( 5 07)

159

rmrru~lce)

AOM

(Exptl. II)

1 T 80

(4 9 3 )

29 40

( 2 64)

1 0 90

( 4 82)

30 .;5

( 5 4)

26 CjO

( 3 5 8 )

29 70

( 2 17)

:o 30

( ? 56)

3h 70

( 5 3 6 )

38 7 6

(4 5 1 )

160

2h 90 24 05

25 75

(7 07) ( 2 89) I

i I (15

(0 2; ) (; 7 2 )

30 10 3 h 8 5

75 ;0

(4 10) ( 2 0 )

26 75 30 ;1$

(2 5.3 )

28 1 %

( 3 2 2 ) (.; (19) ----

( 5 5 2 ) (4 $ 2 )

27 10

( 5 0 7 )

CAM

t 11 Ill N V VI VII Vlll 1 I.-.- - 1

AOM 1

I t l I11 IV V VI VtI Vlll i r - - -

ITM 1

I I 1 It I l l IV v VI VII Vtll /

Figurt. 5.2

Immcdhtr I'osttest Scorrs-Classified by School and Modcl Categories

ANOVA for immediate Posttest Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (C'AM,

AOM and ITM) and Control (CTLM) Group Classified by Model C'ategories

with Pretest as Covariate

Aiier introducing the independent variables it was fourid that the

experimental groups were better than the control group in their achievement

Su the investigator concluded tentatively h a t the Informat~on

I'rocessll~g Models were more effective than the conventional teachiny learniny

net hod It was dit'ficult to ascertain whether the difference between the pt-erest and

ilnit~ediate posttest scores resulted from the experimental factor or other variables So

~t became necessan that the scores be analysed using the technique of :lnalysis of'

C'ovariance (ANTOVA) for comparison. ANCOVA uses the principle of partial

correlation with Analysis of Variance. It is particularly appropriate whet] tlie suhject~

in two or more groups are found to differ on a pretest or' other initial kariiihlcs In this

case the effect of' extraneous variables like Intelligence. .bitt~tudc. rouards learn in^

Geography, Geosraphy Learning Environment and SES will he studied In the

difierence in achievement that would have been caused by other extraneous variat~les

are partialled out arid the resulting adjusted means of the posttest scores are cutnpared

.ANC'0\!.4 is a method of analysis that enables the researcher tcl equntt. the pre-

experimental status of the group items of known variables Difference in the initial

status of the groups can be removed statistically. so that they can he compared as

though their initial status has been equated, The use of ANC0jY.A method i s thus

justified for the arlalvsis of the scores of the present study

Table 5.9

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Immediate Posttest scores of

Pupils of the Experimerital (CAM, AOM & ITM) and control (CTLM) Group

classified by Model Categories with Pretest as C'ovaria te

Source o f variation

Pretest

(Covariate)

Between groups

F t - c ~ n the 'l'able 5 9, i t is clear that the obtained F-i alue 1s s~ynificai~t at

0 0 1 level So it can be concluded that the means uf immediate pusttest scores dlflkr

significantly between the model categories taking pretest as covariate In order to

Interpret the result more accurately, it is necessary ttu equate the pre-exper.irnental

status of the groups.

Therefore the adjusted sums of squares and adjusted mean squai-c

variance tor posttest scores were computed using ANCOVA The results of analysis

are given in Table 5 10.

Within groups

SS

3421.38

1645 75.3

* * ,Sigt/;ftc~itt/ ~ t f 0. urtd 0.01 /civ/ -1 13993.932

d f

I

3

633

Ms

342 I 38

ri48578

22 107

F

154.762

3 4 x 1 4

-- . . , -. - -

Significarlce

Table 5.10

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) o f the Immediate Posttest

Scores o f Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & II'M) and C:o~itrol

The adjusted mean of the experiniental yroup is greater. than that cjt'

(CTLM) Group classified by Model Categories with Pretest as Covariate

control group Hence i t i s concluded that '1nfi)rrnation Processing hlodels' i s supel-iol,

Source o f

Variation

Amony means

Within group

Total

to conventional teaching learning method

-.

5067 l I 4 1266 78

13993.94 633 1 2 107 57 : iOz*

1906 I 05 63 7 79 0 2

In order to asc,ertain which model categon! 1s superlor the significance

* * S S j p r / f j ~ ' ~ ~ ~ t / r t / fJ.fl.5 C I ~ I J 0.01 It'l't~l.

of' dift'erence between rwo sample means 1% as calculated using ('ritical Katir~

(C' R - D/oll) where D is the obtained difference between two sample Incalls and rrll is

the standard el-ror of'the difference between two sample means.

Comparison of Immediate Posttest Scores Classified by School in the <:.AM

(exptl.1) Group and CTLM (Control) Group

The mean and standard deviation of the posttest scoi-es (immediate) of

I50 pupils in the ( ' A M (exptl.1) group and I60 pupils in the CTLM (ccm~r-ol) group

were calculated. ?'he Critical Ratio (C.R) was found out and tested fbt. significance

The data and results of the test of significance of difference between rnearls are giver1

in Table s. 1 1 .

Table 5.1 1

Data and Results o f Test of Significance o f Difference between

Mean Posttest Scores (immediate) of Pupils in the

<'AM (exptl. 1) group and CTLM (coatrol) Group

The C'rttical Ratio obtained i s s~yniiicant at 0 0 I level and 0 05 level.

sirlce the values for significance are 2 . 5 8 and 1 96 at O 0 I and 0 05 levels respect ivel~

for df .: 18 T h ~ s indicates that there is s~gnificant difference between the Inean

pusttcst (~mmediate) scores of pupils (t = 3 75, p < 0 01) in the TAM lexpt1.l) goup

S. D

(

5 07

(>.>I

Critical

Ratio {C.K]

; 25

.--1

--

Gruup

CAM

(exptl I )

C'TLhl

(cotltrol g o u p )

L-

----- -

Level of

significance

---. -

S yntfican t

N

IS9

160

Mean

26 74

3,466

and C'l'LM (control) group. The inference is that the students who learned through

CAM excelled than the students in CTLM in achievement Compared with the pretest

scores ( t - 0 2 1, p - 0 0 1 ) the posttest done im~nediately affer the treatment variable

C',4M, the students showed marked difference in t h e ~ r ach~evemen~

Comparison o f lmrnediate Posttest Scores Classified by School in AOM (exptl.11)

Group and CTLM (Control) Group

The Itlean and standard deviatton of posttest (~mrnediate) scores of 1611

puptls In the .40M (exptl II) group and 160 pupils in the CTLM (corltrol) yroup were

calculated l 'he Critical Ratio (C R) was found out and tested fur significance The

data and results of the test of significance between Illearls are givcrl In 7'ahle 5 1 3

Table 5.12

Data and Results of the Test of Significance o f Difference

between Mean Posttest scores (immediate) o f pupils ia

AOM (expt1.11) Group and CTLM (Control) Group

The Critical Ratio obtained is significant at 0 01 level since ~ l i e ialues

for significance are 2-58 and 1.96 at 0.0 1 and 0.05 levels t-espect~\,elv f i l l (11' 3 10 'Phis

-

Group

AOM

(exptl 1 1 )

C'TLM

(control group)

--

S. D

(0)

4 5 1

6 3 I

N

160

160

Crit ical

Ratio (T . R)

6 72.

Mean

2876

24 66

.- -

1,evc.l o f

sigriificar~cc

\

Stg111 ticant

indicates that theru is signrficant difference between the rnearl posttest (~mmetiiate )

scores of pupils ( t h 72, p *, O 01 ) in AOM (exptl 11 j group and <' I'1,M (control)

group The inference is that the students who learned through Advance Orpanizcr

Model excelled than the students who studied under cor~ventional 'Peaching Learning

Vethod in their achievement in immediate posttest scores Compared with the prxlest

scores ( t 1 47, 17 , 0.01 ) in the posttest given iri~incdiately after the trearimer\l

variable Advance Organizer Model, the students showed marked diflrerlct: in their

achievetnent

Comparison of Immediate Posttest Scores Classified by School in ITM (exptl.lll)

Group and CTLM (Control) Group

The mean and standard deviation of posttest (immediate) scores ot' I50

pup~ls in the IThI (cxptl I l l) group and 160 pupils tn the C'TLM (contrtjl) gruup merr

calculated The I'rit~cal Ratio (C R) was found our and tested for s~gn~ficance Thy

data and results of'the test of significance between means are given in Tabte 5 1 3

Table 5.13

Data and Results o f the Test o f Significance o f Difference between Mean Posttest

Scores (immediate) in ITM (exptl.Il1) Group and CILM (C:ontrol) Group

Group

ITM (exptl I l l )

C"1'1 .M (control group)

N

159

160

Mean

2 7 1 0

24 66

S. D

(0)

5 0 7

6 3 l

Criticirl

Ratio ( C . R)

2 5.;

Level of

significance

---

S~gn~ticant

The CI-itical Ratio IC.R) obtairled is significant at O 0 5 level, sincc the

value for s~gnificance is 1 -96 at 0.05 level for df -3 1 8 'I'hts ~ndicates that there 15

significant dityerence between the mean pusttest (immediate) scores ot' pupils ( t --

2 5 3 . p .- 0 05) in ITM (exptl.lI1) yroup and CTLM (control) group ?'he Inference i s

that the students who learned through Inquiy Trainirig Mudel showed ruiirked

dit't'erenct: in their achievement in the posttesl done immediatelv after t l ie treatrl~e~lt

var-iable.

Comparison o f lmmediate Posttest Scores Classified by School in C A M (exptl.1)

Group and AOM (exptl.ll) Group

The mean and standard deviation of posrtest (immediate scores of 150

pi~pils in the CAM (esptl I ) group and 160 pupils i n the AOhl (exptl 1 1 ) r u u p ivel-c

calculated l'he CI-itical Ratio (C R) was found out and tested fhr signiticance 'The

data and results of the tests of significance between means are given 111 Table 5 14

Table 5.14

Data and Results of the Test of Significance o f Difference between Meall Posttest

Scores (immediate) in CAM (exptl.1) Group and AOM (exptI.II) Group

-

Croup

CAM

(exptl I)

AOM

(exptl 1 1 ) -

N

159

160

Mean

26 74

2 8 7 6

S. I) (0)

5 07

4 5 2

Critical Ratio (C.R)

? 74

Level of s i g n i f i c a ~ ~ r ~

S ~ ~ n ~ t i c a n t

-. -- 1

The Critical Ratio (C.R) obtained is significant at 0 0 I le\.el. since the

values for significance are 2.58and 1.96 at 0 0 1 and O Oti levels respectively. ii,r

degrees of freedoin (df) 3 18 This indicates that there i s s~gniflca~ir difference

between the mean posttest (immediate) scores of pupils (t- 3 73. p - (1 U I ) in :\Oh1

(exptl. l l ) group and CAM (exptl.1) group. The inference is that the studet~ts who

learned through Advance Organizer Model showed marked dif'ference in their

achievement than the students who learned in Corlcept Attain~nent \lode1

Thc above anatysis leads tu the coriclusiun that between the t ~ v o

treatment vanables. the Advance Organizer Model is rnore effict ive than the Concept

Atta~timent Model in t h e learning of Geography in standard IX

<:omparison o f Immediate Posttesc Scores Classified by School i r r the C'AM

( e~pt l . I ) Group and ITM (exptl.lll) Group

The tnean and standard deviation of posttest (irn~nediate) scores ut' I 59

pupils in the CAM (exptl I ) group and 159 pupils in the ITM (exptl 111) group were

calculated The C't.~tical Ratio (C .R) was f b u t ~ d out and tested for significance The

data and results of ' the tests of significance of ditt'erence between nieanh al-e gtvctl 111

Table 5 I 5

Table 5.15

Data and Results of the Test of Significance of Difference between

Meall Posttest Scares (immediate) in the CAM (expti.1)

Group and ITM (exptl.llI) Group

The Critical Ratio (C.R) obtained is nut significant. since the values till-

significance are 2 58 and 1.96 at 0.01 and O O C levels respectively for df ; 17 Tho

obtained C' R value ( t = C) 79; p :. 0.05) shows that the C'Ahl yroup arid L'L'M gwup du

not dii'f'er significantly in their achievement in the posttest (immediate) in Cieography

I t may therefore he concluded that the students who learned in ('uncept .Attainment

Model (('.AM -exptl.l) and those in the Inquir]lm Trainins hlodel (ITM esp t l I l l arc

equally good in performance. Both models seem to he yood 111 ~ e a c h ~ n g I;eogi-aphv

No marked difference is noted between the mean scores obtained by the pupils \vho

belong to r A M (esptl I ) and ITM (exptl.111) groups

Group

C AM

(exytl I )

Il'M

(exptl I l l )

N

159

159

Mean

26 74

2719

S.D

(0 )

5 07

007

Critical

Ratio (C.R)

0 79

Level of'

significance

Not sign~ficant

Comparison of Immediate Posttest Scores Classified by School in the GUM

(exptl.11) Group and ITM (exptl.111) Group

The mean and standard deviation of posttest (immediate) scores of 160

pupils in the AOM (exptl.ll) group and 159 pupils in the ITM (exptl.111) group were

calculated. The Cr~tical Ratio (C.R) was found out and tested for significance The

data and results of the tests of significance of ditierence between rneans are given in

Table 5 16.

Table 5.16

Data and results of the Test of Significance o f Difference between Mean Posttest

Scores (immediate) in the AOM (exptl.tl) Group and ITM (exptl. i l l ) group

The Critical Ratio (C R) obtained is stgnificant at 0 01 level. since the

values for significance are 2.58 and 1 96 at 0 01 and O 0 5 b e t s respectrvely for

degrees of freedom 3 I8 This indicates that there IS significant difference between the

mean posttest scores (immediate) of pupils ( t = 2 91, p . 0 01 ) in AQM (exptl 11)

uruup and ITM (extpl Ill) group. The inference is that the studerlts who learned L

Level o f

significance

S~gnificant

Group

AOM

(exptl. 11)

IT M

(exptl.lIl)

Mean

28.76

27.19

N

\60

159

S. D

( )

4.52.

5.07

Critical

Ratio (C.R)

2 9 1

through Advance Organizer Model showed marked difference over the students who

learned in Inquiry Training Model

The above analysis leads to the conclusion that between the two

treatment variables, viz., Advance Organizer Model (AOM) and l nqu~ry Training

Model. the first one is more effective in learning Geography for standard IX

5.4.4 Model Categories and Delayed Posttest Scores (Delayed Achievement)

Statistical measures were applied for the delayed posttest scores in

achievement tbr the control (CTLM) and experimental (CAM, AOM and 11-M)

groups to determine the dependability of sample statistics and to compare the

achievement scores of all the four groups in the subsequent analysis

Distribution of Delayed Posttest Scores in Achievement

The achievement in delayed posttest was analysed statistically to find

the effectiveness of lnformation Processing Models with that of Conventional

Teaching Learning Method

Table 5.17

Mean and Variance for Delayed Posttest Scores -Classified by

School and Model Categories

Graphical representation of the rnean and variance for delaved posttest

scores classified by school and model categories are given in Figure 5 3

(Exptl. 1)

AOM

(Exptl. 11)

23 -35

(3 83)

24 75

( 3 14)

30 90

(4 40)

28 85

( 4 36)

23 00

(4 -36)

2 5 90

(3 7 7 )

26 00

(3 04)

26 25

(4 42)

2 C j 13

(4 51)

160

L

? -

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

N

IFigurus nt hnrcket.r show

20 90

(3 86)

21 25

( 3 0 2 )

24 75

(7 93)

22 85

(3 79)

21 5 5

(4.33)

19 21

(2 20)

20 20

(3.65)

26 5 5

(4 52)

22.18

(4 93)

I59

variur~ce,)

ITM

(Exptl. 111)

2 2 40

( 3 73)

21 10

( 3 19)

25 3 5

(3 89)

28 5 5

(.? 6 7 )

21 50

( 3 72)

20 70

(2 7 5 )

23 42

( 4 41)

20 90

( 4 12)

22 98

(4 56)

I 59

CTLM

(Control)

31 35

( 2 7;)

I5 30

( 2 4;)

20 80

( 3 5 1 )

22 90

( 2 8 3 )

17 20

( 2 3 1 )

16 20

( 2 29)

I 6 3 5

( 3 74)

17 0 5

( 7 65)

18 49

( 3 95)

160

. . . . . . ... -. . -

CAM

AQM

I 11 I l l IV V VI VII Vlll

! ITM

I 1 1 Ill IV v VI VIt Vlll

Figure 5.3

I)elayed Posttus t Scores-Classified by School and Model C 'ategorics

From Table 5.17, the distribution of delayed posttest is tnade clear

The delayed achievement scores for subjects classified by tr~odels and school

categories show marked difference.

The ANOVA results are presented in Table 5 18

Table 5.18

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) o f the Delayed Posttest Scores o f

Pupils of thr Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) GI-oup

classified by the Model categories with Pretest as Chvariate

Source of variation SS d f Ms Significance

Term examination 1879.43 1 1 1879.431 112 h l 1

(Covariate)

Frurn the table value it is clear that the111 mean scores differ

significantly between the groups. The obtained F value ( F value, 1 12.6 1 1 ) is

signifcant at 0.01 level between model categories compared with the pretest as

covariate. Therefore it can be concluded that the experimental groups (CAM. AOM

& ITM) and control group (CTLM) differ significantly in its delayed pusttest scores

Compared with the pretest, the posttest scores differ significantly

Among the model categories also there is significant difference between the pretest

and delayed posttest scores.

Between Groups

Within Grouph I

* * . s t g ~ ~ i f i c j ~ ~ ~ ~ t uf 0.01 uud 0.05 Ie\?cl

5 109.593

10564.556

3

633

1703,196

16690

102.051 * I

The total sums of squares. adjusted mean square i,ariance for delayed

posttesl scores and I- ratio were calculated ?'hey are presented In Table 5 10 along

with the result of analysis of covariance

Table 5.19

Summary of A~ialysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) o f the Delayed Posttest Scores

of Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Coritrol (L'TLM) Group

The adjusted mean square variance ( F ratlo) is s~gnifican~ at 0.0 I level

(F-\,slue I 04 69)

The difference between the adjusted posttest scores among the

experimental grorrps (CAM, AOM & ITM) and control groups (CTLM) in delayed

achievement test in Geography is significant This leads to the conclusion that

Information I'rocessing Model is a better rnettlud fol- effective lear~rlirlg thari the

conventional Method (CTLM)

Comparison of Delayed Posttest Scores in CAM (expt1.l) Ciroup and CTLM

(Control) Group

Tile mean and standard deviation of posttest scores (l lelaved) of 1 5 0

pup~ls in the CAhl (expt1.l) group and 160 pupils 111 the CTLM (control) group were

classified by Model categories with Pretest as Covariate

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within groups

Total

* * .5'/gt11 f i c ~ ~ t t t ( { I 0.0 1 ~ ~ t t d 0. U.5 /cw/

Sum of Squares

6989.02

10564 56

17553 5 8

Degrees o f freedom

4

6-33

637

Mean squares

1747 20

I 0 04

27 5b --

-

F- ratio

104 69**

calculated The C'ritical Ratio (C.R) was found out and tested for s ~ g n ~ f i c a n ~ c 't 'hu

data and results ot ' the tests of significance ut' difference between rncans are g i i e ~ l HI

Table 5 20

Table 5.20

Data and results of the Test o f significance of difference between Inearl posttest

scores (delayed) in CAM (expt1.I) Gro~lp and CTLM (control) Group

The Critical Ratio (C R) obtained is significant at 0 (31 level. since the

values for significance are 2.58 and 1 96 at O 01 and O 05 levels respectively for

degrees of freedom .; 18. This indicates that there i s siynificant difl'er-cnce between the

mean posttest scores (Delayed) of pupils ( t -; 7 -38: p . 0.01 ) in ('.Ah4 it'xptl. I) group

and C"PLM (contrul) group. In the posttest scores (immediate) the sigll~ficancc of'

difference between rnean scores of CAM (exptl I) group and CT1.M (control) g o u p IS

; 22 In delayed posttest it is 7.38. In the pretest i t is 7 38 111 the pretest scor-es the

C' R i s 0 2 1 It rriay therefore be concluded that the Concept :Ittainment Model is

cood in teaching Cieogaphy. The marked difference between the pretest scores. - posttest scores (immediate) and posttest scores (delayed) reveals thal the Infbrrnation

Groul)

c: AM

(exptl I )

C7'LM

(control yrtlup)

N

159

160

Mean

22 18

18.49

S. D

4.93

3.95

Critical

Ratio (C.R) -

7 38

Level o P

significnnrt

O 01

-

processing capabll~ty of students leads to the improvement of thew yeneral ~ntellcctual

ability to master ir~forrnat~on and retain it for lotlger periods

Comparison of Delayed Posttest Scores Classified by School in :\OM (exptl.ll)

Group and CTLM (Control) Group

Thc mean and standard deviation of pusttest scnl-es (Delaved) ot' I h0

pupils 111 the AOM (exptl 11) Group and 160 pupils In the CT1.M (control) yr.oup i4tir.t.

calculated The C'titical Ratlo { C R) was found out and rested fin slgnificancu I'he

data and results nf the tests of significance of difference between means are gtien 111

Table 5 2 1

Table 5.2 1

Data and results of the Test of significarlce of difference between mean posttest

scores (delayed) in AOM (expt1.Il) Group and CTLM (control) group

The critical ratio obtained ( t - I 5 0 2 , p , 0 0 1 ) is significant at 0 O l

level. slnce values for significance are 2 5 $ and 1.96 at 0 0 1 and 11 05 levels

respectively for df -3 I9 This indicates that there is signiticant difference between the

Group

AOM

(euptl 1 )

C'TLhl

(control yroup)

T

Critical

Ratio (C.R)

1 5 02

N

160

160

Level of

significance

r ) 0 1

J

Mean

2613

I 8 4 9

S.D (O)

4 5 1

3 9 5

rlleatl posttest scores (delayed) of pupils in AOM (cxptl 11) yroup and ('-1.1 .hl

(control) group

For the posttest scores (irnrnediate) the sigtlificance of differ-cr~ce

between the mean scores of AOM (exptl.11) group and C'TLM (control) group 1s 6 7 1

( t = b 7 2 : p . - - 0 0 1 )

I n the pretest scores the C.R for the AOM (exptI 1 1 ) gr-oup and C-1'L.hf

(control) group 1s 1 47 ( t = 1 -47: p 0.0 1 )

The marked difference in the pretest scores. posrtcst score3

(immediate). posttest scores (delayed) indicates that Advance Organizer M ode1 is

eflective in strengthening the coynitive structure and enhancing thy retcnt on uf new

infbrmation.

Comparison o f Delayed Posttest Scores Classified by Schoul in ITM (exptl.lil)

Group and CTLM (Control) Group

The ]near1 and standard deviation of the posttest scores (Delayed) of

159 pupils In the ITM (exptl.ll1) group and 160 pupils in rhe C'TLM (control) gl-ouy)

were calculated, 7'he Critical ratla (C R) was found out and testod l i j r sigtliiicance

The data and resul~s of the test of significance of difference between means are g~ven

in Table 5 32

Table 5.22

Data and results of the Test of significance of difference between mean pusttest

scores (Delayed) in ITM (exptl. 111) Group and CTLM (corltrolf Ciroup

The C r ~ t ~ c a l Ratlo obtained ( t - 9 38. p 0 0 1 ) 1s s~gn~ficant at (1 0 l

level, since ~ a l u e s for significance are 7 58 and 1 Of) at (11 0 1 and 0 0 levels

--

Group

ITM

(exptl I l l )

CTLhl

(control gr.oup) --

respectively for dl' 3 18. This indicates that there is signrficant dlt'ference butween the

N

I59

160

Mean

2299

1 8 4 9

mean posttest scol-es (delayed) of pupils in ITM (exptl.111) group and ('Tl,iZ?I (control)

In the posttest scores (immediate) the s~gnifrcatlce of' difTe~,enct.

between the mean scores of 1TM (exptl.II1) group and C'TLM (control) group 1s 2 5;

signifirarrce

a-.

S. D

(0)

4 i h

3 9 5

In the pretest scores the C .R for the ITM (exptl. l I I ) group 'ind T1'LhZ

Critical

Ratio (C'.R)

0 -3 8

(cor~trul) group is 0.59 ( t = 0 59; p :> 0 01)

The glaring difference between the pretest scores. postlest scores

(immediate) and posttest scores (delayed) indicates that l n q u q Training hlodel helps

students develop the intellectual discipline and skills

Comparisor~ of Delayed Scores Classified by Schools ill CAM (exp11.l) Groul~ and

AOM (exptl.11) Group

The mean and standard deviation of the posttest scol-es (delaved) uf

159 pupils in the CAM (exptl.1) group and 160 pupils in the .4OM (exptl 11) group

were calculated. The Critical ratio (C.R) was found out and tested for sign~ticance

The data and results of the test of signiticance between ineans are given In Table i 2 3

Table 5.23

Data and results of the Test of significance o f difference between rliean posttest

scores (Delayed) in CAM (exptl.1) Group and AOM (exptl.ll1) Group

The Critical Ratio obtained ( t = 7 45, p . 0 0 1 ) I S s ~ g r l ~ f i c a r ~ ~ at C) 0 I

level, since values for s~gnificance are 3 58 and 1 96 at 0 01 and 0 05 lebels

respectively t'or df 3 l X This indicates that there is significant drfference hetween the

mean posttest scvtes (delayed) of pupils in C.AM (exptl 1) group and jiOM (cxptl \ I )

yroup

---

Group

('..ZM

(exptl I )

AO hl

(exptl 1 1 )

N

159

160

Mean

2 2 1 8

26 13

S. D ( )

49-<

4 5 1

Critical Level of

Ratio (C.R) signifieancc

7 4s 0 0 1

I n the pretest scores (immediate) the significance of diff'erence

between the mean scores of CAM (exptl.1) group and AOM (exptlLI1) yraup is 3 74 { t

= 3 74, PC-: 0 01).

The above analysis leads to the conclusion that between the two

treatment variables the Advance Organizer Model is more effective In the posttwr

(immediate) the Advance Organizer Model is more effective rhan the Concept

Attainment Model in the learning of Geography in Standard IX

Comparison o f Delayed Posttest Scores Classified by School in C A M (exptl.1)

Group and ITM (exptI.lI1) Group

I'he mean and standard deviation of the posttest scores (Delayed) of

159 pupils in the C'AM (exptl 1) group and 159 pupils in the ITM (expti 111) group

- >

were calculated I'he Critical Ratio was found out and tested for significance. I he

data and results of the tests of significance of di f i rence between inearls are given in

Table 5.24

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

Posttest Scores in CAM (exptl.1) Group and ITM (exptl.111) Ciroup

Group

C.4M

(exptl. 1)

17'M

(exptl. Ill

N

159

I59

Mean

22. I8

22.99

-- -

Level of

significance

Not agnificant

Ad

S.D

4.93

4.56

Critical

Ratio(C.R)

1 53

The Critical Ratio (C. R) obtained is not significant, slrlce the values for

significance are 7.58 and 1.96 at 0.01 and 0.05 levels respectivel~ fjlr df i 17 The

obtained (C.R) value ( t = 1.53; p > 0.0 1 ) shows that the ('AM (exptl I ) yroup and ITM

group (exptl.ll1) group do not differ significantlv in their achievernerlt in the delaved

post test scores in Geography. It may therefore be concluded that the students who

learned in Concept Attainment Model (CAM- exptl I) and those i n the lnquin.

Tra~ning Model (ITM- exptl.111) are equally good in pert'ormance Hotli models seem

to be good in teaching Geography. No marked difference is noted between the mean

scores obtained by pupils who belong to the above said treatment groups

Comparison of Delayed Posttest Scores Classified by School in AOM (exptl.11)

Group and ITM (exptl.111) Group

The mean and standard deviation of rhe delayed posttest scores of 160

pupils in the .40M (exptl.11) group and 159 pupils in the ITM (exptl I l l ) group were

calculated. The Critical Ratio was found out and tested for significance The data

and the results of the test of significance of difference between means are given in

Table 5 35

Table 5.25

Data and Results o f the Test o f Significance of Difference between Mean Posttest

Scows {delayed) in the AOM (exptl.11) Croup and ITM (exptl-111) Croup

Group Critical

Ratio (C-R) Mean

I ,wel o f

significance

S. D ((3)

AOM

(exptl 11)

The Critical Ratio obtained (I = 6.1 6. p .- 0 0 1 1 i s significant at 0.0 1

level. since values for significance are 2.58 and 1.96 at 0 0 1 and 0.05 levels

respectively for df .< 18. This indicates that there is significant difference betweeti the

mean posttest scores (delayed) of pupils in AOM (exptl. 11) group and 1TM (exptl.111)

group

In the posttest scores (immediate) the significance of difference

between the mean scores of AOM (exptl.11) group and ITM (exptl LII) group is 2 9 I (

t = 2 9 1 , p q 0 . 0 1 )

The above analysis leads to the conclusion that between the two

treatment variables viz.. Advance Organizer Model and Inquiq Train~ng Model. the

first one is more effective in learning Geography for standard 1X

Table 5.26

Summary o f Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) o f the Difference in I~rlnlediate and

Delayed Posttest Scores o f Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ]I'M) and

It I S evident from Table 5 36 that the dift'erence betweel l immcdiatu

Control (CTLM) group classified by Model categories with Pretest as C'ovariate

posttest and detaved posttest scores for subjects classified by model categories with

pretest as covariate shows differences among the model catesorles ('ompared with

-- -

F- ratio

1 1 X8J*

16546*

-. --

posttest scores the achievement difference scores were significa~l~ ; ~ t 0 05 l e ~ c l ( F -

* .Y~pr~f i iv r t r t < I / 0.0j It'vel

Source of Variation

Term Exatnination (covariate )

Between Groups

Within GI oups

value = I 1 88)

df

1

?

63:

SS

139 234

957440

12209374

Among the model categories the difference in achievement between

M S

729 314

210147

- I 9 2 8 8

experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) Groups and control groups (C'TLM) was

significant at 0.05 level (F-value = 16.55)

Table 5.27

Summary of A~lalysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) o f the Difference io I~~rr~el i iate and

Delayed Posttest scores of pupils of the Expe~.irneatal (CAM, AOM & ITM) and

Control (CTLM) group classified by Model categories with Platest as Covariate

Source of Variation

The adjusted sums of squares. and adjusted meall square variance for

achlevetnetlt diffei-ence were computed. The F-ratiu for the adjusted mean score is

giver1 i i ~ 'l'able 5 17 ( F value = 15..38). The significant F-ratiu ~ndicates that afit.1

adjusting the initial differences between the model categories, tlie final lnearl scol-es 01'

students in the experimental group (CAM, .40M & ITM) differ significantly Hence

it can be concluded that Information Processing Models apprclach IS superior to

conventional teachiny learning approach in the teaching of Geography

5.4.5 Interaction Effect of Model Categories, Region and Gender on

Achievement- Pre-test, Immediate, Delayed, Difference in Inirnediate and

Delayed Achievemerit

The mean and variance for pretest scores, immediate pllsl test scores.

delayed posttest scores were computed by classifying the scores of pretest on the basis

Among Means

With~n groups

Total

of tnudel cateyories, region and yende~

Sum o f Squares

* * S~gt~r#ic.~r!~~ L I I I i . fJ I L O ~ 0 0.5 kve l

118666

12209 37

133296 04

Degrees o f freedom

Mean V- ratio

squares I 1 4

6.3 3

63 7

10 388

21 03

Mean and Variance for Pretest Scores-Classified by Model Categories, Region

and Gender

The effect of model categories, region and gender on immediate. delayed

and difierence between immediate and deiayed scores was studied using one-way.

two-way and three-way Analysis of variance and Covariance w ~ t h pretest as cuvariate.

Table 5.28

Summa? of Scores on Pretest of Students considered for the study, when

Classified by the Model, Region and Gender categories

* \ .~r i~~t . . \ i l r hr-crck.ket.s LII'L' .st~r~~Ljrnd dev~ atian

The graphical representation of the mean scores on pretest of students

classified by the model, region and gender categories in given in Figure 5 4

ha ode1 I 1 I I 1 I

- - - -. A -. *

1V

Urban

16-58

(9.30)

1793

( 8 00)

17 25

( 8 . 6 5 )

Rural

16.60

(8,47)

1693

( 8 . 5 3 )

16.76

(8.45)

Rural

1762

( 8 . 5 9 )

1697

( 7 84)

17.29

( 8 17)

Rural Rural

1633

( 8 1 I )

1770

( 8 7 2 )

17 01

( 8 4 0 )

CTrban

I

( 7 . 6 7 )

1630

( I 0 06)

15 .73

(8.91)

I!rhatl

1505

( 7 04)

1890

( I 1 37)

I ( > 98

( 9 8 2 )

Boy

Girl

Total

\.'rban

l 6 h 5

( I0 0.3)

30.30

( 10 70)

18 46

(1076)

16.24

(8.267)

crr-e nreou ~wirrt. .~

17.13

(0 01)

17.26

( 0 . 2 4 )

20.05

( 9 22)

18.67

(9.28)

* i ) ~ r / t r ~ ' s

17 7 3

(Cj 65) 2

17 96

( 8 97)

~r*ithorr/ hrzrckut.~

ALL

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

BOYS I

I

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

GIRLS

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

i 1

Figure 5.4

I'retcst Scnros-Classified by Model Ca tegorius, Region and I; ender

Table 5.29

Summary of Scores on Pretest of Students Considered

for the Study, When classified by the Gender and Model Categories

Model

Gender

Girl

Table 5.30

Summary of Scores on Pretest o f Students Considered for the

Study when Classified by the Region and Mode1 Categories

Kural

--

Llrban

l'otal

0 i111re.s it] hruckut.~ jtldrcatu stlrt~di~rd cle ~i tut tot t )

1

16 67

( 9 2 8 )

17 25

(8.65)

17.96

( 8 97)

11

I6 76

( 8 4 5 )

15 73

(890)

16 24

(8.67)

111

17 29

( 817 )

16 98

(9.81)

17 13

(9 00)

IV

--

17 01

( 8 40)

18 48

( I 0 7 6 )

17 74

(9 6 5 ) -

Table 5.31

Summary o f Scores on Achievement (Immediate) of Students Considered

for the Study when Classified by the Model, Region and Gender Categories

Model I 11 TII 1V 1

The mean and variance of the immediate posttest scores classifred by

model categories. region and gender are given in the following tables. In order to

determine the main and interaction effects of each ~ndependent 1;ariable on the

( 5 2 8 ) (488) (410) ( 4 7 0 ) (431 ) ( 5 4 7 ) 1

Urban

2 5 8 8

( 5 01)

26 73

(4 81)

26 81

Rural

dependent variable, the one-way, two-way and three-way analysis are made

Rural

30.00

(2 93)

26.80

(4.50)

28.40

BOY

Girl

Total

In Table 5 .3 I , the summary of immediate posttest scures classified hy

Urban

3 0 1 5

( 3 91)

28 08

( 5 57)

29 1 l

2485

(3 77)

28 45

( 5 93)

26 67

model categories. region and gender are given In Table 5 32. the scores o t ~

Rural

2 7 4 4

(2 94)

24 43

(4 91)

2 5 01

immediate achievement classified by gender and model categories alone. In hble

Rural

- 31 18

( 3 48)

26 23

(6 93)

23 70

Urban

2840

(5 5 1 )

28 50

( 5 0 )

28 45

5 3 3 , region and model wise distribution of immediate posttest scores are given

Urban

2 5 8 0

(7 57)

25 45

( 5 28)

1 5 6.3

A graphicaj representation of the immediate posttest scores classified

by model categories, region and gender i s given in Figure 5 5

Table 5.32

Scores on Achievement (Immediate) of Students Considered for the Study,

when Classified by the Gender and Model Categories

Table 5.33

Summary of Scores on Achievement (Immediate) o f Stude~~ts Considered

1V

23 -49

(G.-<O)

3 84

( b t 3 )

24 66

(6 3 1 )

for the Study, when Classified by the Region and Model Categories

fliil~res hraukels indica/r s~ur~Jur'J deviufiutr)

11 1

27 92

(4.42)

26 46

(5.57)

27.19

(5.07)

I I

30.08

(3.43)

27 44

(5.07)

28 76

(4.52)

I

Roy

Cjirl

Total

25.87

(4.53)

27.80

(5.44)

26.74

(5.07)

Rural

Urban

I ;)I#/

I;

26 67

(528)

26.8 1

(4.88)

26.74

(3.0 7)

11

28 40

( 4 1 0 )

29 1 1

(4 89)

28.76

(4.32)

Ill

15 91

(4 -3 1)

26 45

( 5 47)

27.19

(-5.oU)

-

IV

7 3 70

(601)

25 4.3

( 6 49)

34.66

((1 30)

Table 5.34

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Immediate Posttest scores of

pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CT1.M) Groups

classified by Model Categories Region and Gender with pretest as Cyovariate

(One-way, Two-way and Three-way classification)

Source o f Variation

Pretest (Covariate)

Between groups

hlodel

Region

Gender

?-way interaction

Model x Region

Model w Gender

Region K Gender

3-way interactions

Model x Region K Gender

Within Group

SS

3421.377

2000.687

1650.017

319.694

34.957

796.629

95.975

594.160

106.597

409.892

409,892

12430.461

D f

1

5

3

1

I

7

3

3

1

3

3

621

MS

342 1.377

400.137

550.006

319.694

34 957

1 14.090

3 1.992

198.U53

106 597

136,631

130 63 1

20.017

F

170 925

19990

27 477

15971

1 736

5 700

1 598

0894

5 3 2 5

h 826

6 1526

Significance

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The immediate achievement scores of the post test of the total sample

considered together bv taking pretest as a covariate give the data and results in the

Table 5 32

From Table F, it is seen that d f 11621 F at 0 05 i s 3 85 and F at U 01

level is 6 66 The obtained value (F value 170 93, p O 01) 1s significant at O 01

level. Compared with the pretest the immediate posttest scores are sign~ficant

Considering the pretest scores the model categories exen a significant ir~fluence on

the immediate posttest scores. The significant F ratio revealed this fact

From Table F df 5/62 1

F at 0.05 lcvel - - 2.22

F at O 0 1 level - - 3.04

The obtained value is 19.99, it is significant at 0.0 t level ( F value

19 99; p *: 0 01).

Taking the one-way interaction of model categorres and pretest. the

immediate achievement score is significant compared with the pretest scores

Frorn Table F df 3/62 1

F at 0 05 level - - 2.6 1

F at 0.0 1 level - - 3 .80

The obtained value is 27.48. It i s significant at 0 0 I tevel (F value =

27 48: p - 1 0.01).

Considering the region alone. the one-way interaction of' irnn~ediate

posttest scores of the rural and urban pupils separately. there is significant difference

between the immediate posttest scores and pretest scores

From Table F, df 1 /62 1

F at 0.05 level - - 3.85

F at 0.0 1 level - - 6.66 ( F value 15.97, p - O 0 1 ).

The obtained value is significant at 0.01 level (F value = 1 9: p - 0 0 1 )

Considering the Gender category, the difference between the pretest

and postt est and the obtained F-value is not signif cant

From Table F, df 1/62 1

F at 0.05 level - - 3.85

F at 0.0 1 level - - 6 66. ( F value 1 75, p --, 0 O l )

It can be co~icluded that in the immediate posttest scores. boys and

girls do not differ much when the scores are compared with pretest scores

Considering the two-way interactions between Model categories and

Region. Model categories and gender, Region and Gender the ~nteraction effect is

given in Table 5,34

The significant F ratio among the groups indicates that coilsidering all

the variables and their totat interaction on immediate posttest scores 1s sigt~rficant.

Frorn Table F, df 7/62]

F at 0 05 level - - 2.03

F at 0.0 1 level - - 2.68

The obtained value 5.70 is significant at 0 01 level (F value 5 70; p L,

0 01).

Taking only variables such as Model categories and reylon alone. the

vb~ained value i s riot significant ( F value I 611. p . 0 O t ). The rut-al and UI-ban

~nteraction with immediate posttest scores does not differ much

Coniparing the pretest scores. boys and girls dlf1't.r much in the11-

posttest scores co~~sidering the rnodel categuries. Anlong the f i ~ u r rllociel categories

bovs and girls difi5er in the immediate achievement scores

Considering the combined influence of three variables V I Z . . blodel

categories. Region and Gender, the immediare post test scores art: siyn~ficant at 0 01

level

I t i s seen frotn Table F, df 3/63 1

F at 0 05 level -- 2 61

F at 0 01 level .- - 3 .80

The obtained value 6.83 is significant The combined influetice of

Modcl categories. Kegion and Gender exerts sigtliticant itliluence on rhe immediate

posttest scores. when compared with the pretest scores

To get the adjusted mean scores. Al~alvsis of C o ~ a r ~ a n c e i i calcul;lted . . I he data and results are given in Table 5 35

Table 5.35

Summary o f Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Immediate Posttest

scores o f Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM di ITM) and C:ontrol (CTLM)

Groups Classified by Mode1 Categories, Region and Gender with Pretest ;IS

Covariate (One-way, Two-way and Three -way Classificatio~l)

Among Means 6630 59 Ih 314 31 .. --

Within groups 12430 46 h2 1 20 0 1

Source o f Variatiorr

The total sum of squares, mean square variance and F ratios were

cornputed

I t is seen from Table F, d f 16/62 1

I at 0.05 lecel - - 1.14

F at 0 O l level - - 2.0 1

The obtained F ratio was siyniticant (F ratio -20 70. p . 0 O I ) which

leads to the conclusion that adjusting the interaction effect of reylun and yender the

rnodel categories affect the immediate achievement oft he students

Sum of Squares Degrees o f freedom I squares 1 F- ratio 1

Table 5.36

Summary o f Scores on Achievement (Delayed) of Students Considered for the

Study when Classified by the Model, Region and Gender Categories

A yraphical representation of the delayed posttest scores i;lass~fied by

Model

model categories. region and gender i s given in Figure 5 . 6

I I1

Urban

3 3 0 0

(6 17)

21 88

(3 90)

2344

( 5 1 6 )

Rural

I t l

Rural

2595

(2 87)

24 6-3

(464)

2 5 2 9

(3.89)

Roy

G~r l

Total

-- ---- I \'

Urban

2 7 8 3

(4 8 9 )

36 10

( 4 87)

2696

( 4 9 3 )

I S 7 2

( 3 03)

74 0 5

( 5 0s)

2 1 0 1

(4(,9)

I I

26 13

(4 5 1 )

s t ~ ~ ~ j d ~ ~ r d ~ P I , I U I ~ O I I

Rural

2203

( 3 86)

31 20

(3 88)

7 1 0 1

( 3 8 7 )

22 18

(4 93)

Rural

" -

1618

(i Oh) -

17 < #

( 2 4s)

1 0

( ( 7 8 5 )

Urban

2 7 2 7

(4 61 )

75 38

(4 78)

2 4 i T

(480) -

* I ktilte\ i~ t)rucke~.$ ( I I - L ~

CIrbau

1 8 0 5

(4 s;)

27 08

( 2 87)

3 1 0 h

( 4 2 8 )

22. 09

( 4 56)

18 30 1

( i 9 1 ) I --

i

ALL

I MODEL I MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 I

- .

BOYS

MODEL I MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4

GIRLS

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 I I

Figure 5.6

1)elaycd I'osttest Scores-Classified by Model Cyategories, Region and Gender

Table 5.37

Summary of Scores on Achievement (delayed) o f Studerits C:orlsidered

for the Study when Classified by the Gender and Model Categories

Table 5.38

Bov

Gi 1-1

Total

The Scores on Achievement (Delayed) of Students Considered for the

I I I 111

21.38 26 89 1 2 63

5 12) (4 10) (4 27)

22.96 25 -36

(4.62) ( 4 78) ( 4 8.7) ( 3 5 0 ) .-

22.18 26 13

(4 93) ( 4 5 1 ) (4.56) {; O i ) .----- . -

Study, when Classified by the Region and Model Categories

0 ~/ I /L* . \ - 111 b r ~ ~ k e i . s i t ~ d i c ~ i t ~ ~ .~fm~dard ~ k \ ~ u t i o ~ t ~ I

I

(I irlrrc.1 I I I hr-crckef.5 ~tldicate \tcn~dcrr.d L f ~ ) i , ~ c r / r o r l l

I I

25 79

( 3 89)

26 92

(49.3)

26 I.?

( 4 3 I )

Rural

Urban

Total

L

21 91

(4 69)

22 44

( 5 1 6 )

22 18

(4 (13)

1 1 1

21 61

( 3 8 7 )

24 35

( 4 8 0 )

1 2 '19

(4 5 6 )

-- - -

I t '

- - -- 10 0;

( 2 85)

20 (MI

(4 28) -- -*

I X 49

(-? 0 5 )

Table 5.39

Summary of Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores o f

Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups

classified by Model categories, region and gender with pretest as Chvariate

(One-way, Two-way and Three-way classificatioa)

Source of Variation

Pretest I Covariate)

Between groups

Model

Region

Gender

?-way interactiot~

Model Reginn

Model Gender

Region Getldet

.;-way interactions

Mode' R~"JII *

Within Grilup

SS

1879.431

5845.846

5107.830

697.004

39 725

428.672

108.-387

3161139

4 132

362932

G e n d e ~ 3 6 L 9 3 2

9036.70

d f

1

5

3

1

1

7

.?

-3

1

3

3 I 120 977 I tl .i 14 I * ; - "+

621 14 5 5 2

MS

1879,431

1169.169

1702.610

607 004

39 725

h123'1

36 129

105.<80

4.131.

170977

F

i29154

80335

11700-i

47 Xi>#

2 730

4 2 0 8

2 4x3

7 2 4 7 .-

284

S . i I . 1

Signiticance

* c

* *

* *

+

9 0 - --

*

*

* . -. . . --

It is seen from Table 5 . 3 9 that the mean scores nf delayed pusttest

scores for subjects classified by Model categories, Region and Gender ui th pretest as

covariate show sigrlificant difference in the obtained F value

Frorn 'fable F. for df 1/62 1

F-value at 0.05 level - - 3 85

F-value at O O I level - - 6 66

The obtained value is significant at U O I level (F value 17'1 I t ; . p .

0 0 1 ) . Compared with the pretest scores the delaved pnsttest sctlres s h o ~ ve? hiyh

ditfercnce 'The Information Processing Models are superior t o conventional

Teachins Learnins method in the retention effect and delayed ach~evemen~

.4tnong the model categories and region and gender- catesories. the

Information Processing Models exert significant influence.

It i s seen from Table f at df 1162.1

F -value at 0 05 level = 2 .2 1

F value at 0 0 1 level - - 3 04

The obtained value is significant at 0 01 level (I: value 80 ;i. p ,

0 o l )

In the ANOVA results of the utle-way ir~teraction of r~iudel categories.

region and gender, the delayed posttest score is significant at I1 0 I level cornpared

with the pretest scores

Taking model categories alone the F i.alue i s sign~ficant

Frorrl Table F df 3162 1

F-value at 0 05 level - - 3 h l

F value at 0 01 level - - .; 80

Thc obtained value of 1 17 0; shows that the delayed posltest score3

among difkrent model categories are significantly difikrent from the scores of pretest

scores ( F value 117.03, p 0.01).

In the localitylregion the interaction etyect of delayed posttcst scores is

sign~ticant The obtained value 47.90 shows that the difference In rural and urban

students is significant in the delayed posttest scores

Ft-om Table F it is seen, df 1162 1

F value at 0.05 level - - 3 85

F value at 0 0 1 level - 6.66

The obtained value is significant (F-value 47.90, p 0 0 I )

Considering the Gender difference there is no signiticant difference

betwee11 the bovs and girls in the delayed posttest scores coitipa~-ed with the pretest

scoi-es

From Table F, it i s seen df 1/62

I: value at 0.05 level .-- - 3 85

F value at 0.01 level - - 6 htj

'I'lie obtained value is not sig~iificanr (F value 2 77. p , 0 0 5 )

I t can be concluded that in the delayed posttcst scorcs the boys arid

girls secure similar scores compared with their pretest scores.

Considering the two-way interactions between model categories and

resion. model categories and gender and between region and gender the ANOVA

results and data are given in Table 5 39 The Table value of F at df 7 i t 2 I I S 2 0; and

2 O X I-espectively

The combined intluence of model categories. reyion a n d gende~. the

[near1 scores among the _rroups exerts significant ~ntluence on the delilved pusttesr

scores But in the two way interactions between nlodel categories and reglun together

there i s no significant ~nfluence on delayed postrest scores ( F value 2 48. p - 0 (1 I )

But In the model categories and sender. there i s s~gtiitica~lt intluence

on delayed posttest scores ( F value= 7.24; p . 0.05 )

In the case of the combined intluence of region and ge11dc.1- there 15 no

signiticar~t diiference in the delayed posttest scores ( F value 3 8. p , 0 05 I

The three-way irlteractions between rnodel categories. region arld

gender the coinbtrled influence of these three variables on the delayed achievetilent i s

significant (F-value 8 -3 I , p -: 0.0 1 )

T h ~ s leads to the conclusion thar these three val-iables t.xrrt a

significant influence on delayed posttest scores by taking pretest as a covar~ate

To get the adjusted mean scores analysis of covariance was calculated.

The data and rxsults are seen in Table 5.40.

Table 5.40

Sunlmaly o f Analysis o f Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Stores of

Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups

The rota1 sun1 of adjusted rneari squares. mean square va1.ianct.s and 1:

classified by Model categories, region and Gender, with Pretest as Covariate

ratios were calculated using ANCOVA.

Source o f Variation

Among Means

W ~ t h ~ n groups

F m ~ ~ i -l'ilble F fbr df 16162 1

F at O 0.5 l e ~ e l - - 1 14

F at O 01 lecel 2 01

The obtained F value is signiticant (F value 3 0 5 8 . p , 0 01) whlch

Sum o f Squares

8516 88

9036 70

leads to the cunclusion that after adjusting the interactinn eeects of 1-eyion and gelider..

the model categories influence the delayed posttest scores of the students

Degrees o f freedom

16

02 I

Total

* * L S ~ g t ~ l f i c ~ ~ t ~ i (r i 0 0 1 c1t1.d 0.03 l e \ ~ /

Mean F- ratio

squares - ,.- --

I 4 5 5

t- 6 ; 7 17553 58 27 <(>

i-.

Table 5 4 1

Summary uf Analysis o f Variance of the Difference in Achievenlerit Scores af

Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and C:onirol (CTLM) C' ~ r o u p s

Classified by Model Categories, Region and Gender with Pretest as C'ovariate

Source o f Variation

Pretest (Covartate)

Between groups

Model

Kegion

Gender

?-way interactiori

Model Region

Model Gender b

Region r Gender -

.;-way Interactluns

Model x Region Gender

Within Group

SS

229.224

1178.060

953.490

72.605

149.213

218.260

32.958

116,550

68.755

670.784

670 784

11098.810

df

1

i

.

1

1

7

3

.<

1

3

3

621

M S

329223

2;5792

3 7 8 .0

72 605

149.213

31180

10.i18b

-38 850

6 8 7 5

723 5c15

22.; i 95

17 872

F

12820

l 3 l t l . ;

17-78.;

4-06?

8 2 4 9

1 7 4 5

h l 5

2 1713

j 8 4 7

I2 1 I I

1 2.5 1 1

, . - - -. -

Significance - ---

* - -

I

-- .

* - -

.-- *

.--

* ( 0 50)

*

*

--A

The total sum of squares. the ad,justed mcan square imar.lances and I'

ratio were calculated by using analysis of covariance The data and results al-e give11

in Table 5 42

Table 5.42

Sumn~ary of A~ialysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the differer~cr irk

Achievement Scores of Pupils of the Expel-imental (CAM. AOM & ITM)

and Control (CTLM) Groups Classified by Model Categories,

Region and Gender with Pretest as Covariate

Source of Variatiorl

The achievement differences between the immediate posttcst sctlres

and delayed posttest scores of the total sample were subjected to the : \~ ia lys~s ut'

L'anance and .4nalys1s of Covariance by taking pretest as a covariatt. Thc data and

results of the analys~s o f variance are given in 'Table 5 4 1

The one-way. two-way and three way interaction viz ~rlodel

categories, region and gender were found out.

The significant F-value for the total sarrlple by tablrlp pre-test as a

covariate and ~t~odel categories, region and gender as categories indtcates the

combined intluence of these three variables on the achievemenr drtkre~icu of' the

pupils in Geography (F value = 12.83; p .; 0 0 1 )

Among Means

Within groups

Total

Sum of Squares

2297 23

11098 81 .- -

13396 04

Degrees or freedom

Mearl squares F- ratio i I 16

62 1

637

14; S X -. 8 r w *

17 $7 1- 2 1 03

Xn~ony the groups the F valuc 1s 1 3 10 whicli I > a lso sigliiticar-11 l't11s

leads t o the conclusion that the difference in mean scores betweell iiiunediatt. aiid

delayed posttest scores

( F t,alue 1.3 19; p .: O O I ) is siynific;uit at 0 0 I Jevel

Takrng one-way interaction of model categories the 1.' ~ - a l u c 1 5

significant Cu~npared with the pretest scores the achlevel-[lent d~ft'erence i:,

significant among model categories (F value - 17 78. p , 0 0 I )

The influence of region is significant ( I - value 4 0 1) 0 05)

Taking the gender variable alone the obtained value i s signifrcatit ( F ialirt. - 8 ;i. 11

0 0 l )

In the achievement difference the two -way intt'racllons between

rnodel categories and reyion, model categories slid yender and reyon and gctlder.

t;imultanet~usIy. al-e not significant. I t is therefore corlcluded that I h u cr)lnhined

influences of model categories and region do not exert an! itltluence on the

achieilemeut difli.rence between immediate ar~d delaved posttest scores ( F ~ i i l u e --

1 75 . p , 0 0 5 )

111 the case of tnodel categories and r,egloti. the combitled Influence 13

tlol siyniiicant 0; \.due = 62. p -,. 0 05).

l'llt. dif'f'ere~~ce in achievement scores arnons inodel ct?lesorle> and

gender is also not siyniticant (F value = 2 17. p - , 0 0 5 b

I n the three-way interactions beticeetl ]nude! caresor,ies. region and

gender tile ciiffe1-ence is significant ( F value 3 847. p 0 115) I t i s ther-etbre

concluded that the combined intluence of model categories. rcyiun and sendel- t t ~ e

achievement differer~ces between the immediate and (jelaved posttest sCo1,t.s 3r.u

significant compared with the pretest scores

F1-on) table F, it is seen df 16/62 1

F at 0 05 le\:el 1.14

r. at 1) 0 1 level - 2 01

The obtained F value significatlt ( F value = 8.03. (1 , 0 O l ) which

l~idicates the significant influence o f model categories after adjust~rly the intluencu ot'

region and gender un the achievement ditt'eretlct: uf immediate and delayed pusttest

scores compared with the pretest scores.

5.4.6 Instructionat Strategies and Intelligence

l'he ar~alysis of the Immediate posttest scures. delaved post test scor.es

and the achievement difkrence of the students betwcen the irnrlletiiate and delayed

posttest scores in the three model categories and in one teacher-centred t raditiorlal

method g o u p revealed the effectiveness of the Inforniatio~~ 1'rocessin.g flodt.lh

approach over the traditional approach. But one cannot say whetl1t.r the s~gni t icai~t

ditTerence in the actlievetnent scores of the expurirnental group oi,er. tlic c o ~ i l r o l gt.(7up

I S due to the eeect iveness of model categories alone The eft'ectiveness of' any ne\\

approach shuuld be assessed on the basis of the other extraneous variables u h ~ c l i

influence thc dependent variable in a s~gnificant way Consider-iny research studich.

learning principles and learning theories. intelligence exerts a significant ~ n t l u e n c ; ~

i~por l the achlevernenr at'the students. The ahaw reason justifies the need fur he

analvsis of the scot-es of 1Q of the students as a covatxite in a (Hie-hay. tho-icay and

three-way Analvsis of Variance and Analysis of C'ocariance

For this a standardised Non-Verbal Group Test of' Inteliigencc w:ds

adm~nistercd to the total sample The mean and standard d e v i a t ~ o ~ of the intelligence

test scores \%ere fi)ui~d out I t was ciassified by tvpu of school and Model cateyor-1e5.

according to ses. locaie were found out. The .\NOVA and .4I\ji'Ol'.4 01' the

immediate delayed and achievement difference of the posttest scot-es un ;~chiet.cment

in Geography were calculated with intelligence score as n covariatt.

Distribution of lr~telligence Scores of Pupils-Classified by Type of School and

Model Categories

The statistical measures of mean and standard dev~at~on for the hon-

Verbal Group Test of intelligence were computed. 'Che scores or~ Intelligence Test u!'

' ' jr1es studcnts considered for the study. were classified by the school and nod el c a t ~ h c

The data is presented in Table 5.43

The Scores on lntelligence of students considered t i j r the study when

classified by the school and Model categories provide the folluuing surnman

statistics

Table 5.43

Mean and Variance of Intelligence Scores

Classified by School and Model Categories

The graphical representation of mean ~ntellise~ice scores clabsified

school and model cateyories i s presented in Figure 5 7

CTLM

(Control)

44 40

( 0 9.3) - 3.; 55

(8 5 3 )

(13 15

( 7 94) - 36) 85

tL) 19)

-1; 65

(J 68)

] 4 5 5 5

CAM AOM

(Exptl. 11)

45 00

( l o 88

52 60

(8 96)

5 1 00

(10 31)

50 45

( 7 95)

5 5 0 5

( 1 1 55)

1 X 10

1

2

1

J

4

5

ITM

(Exptl. I )

4.3 00

(12 83

40 05

(8 4(1)

61 0 5

I7 75 )

50 30

( 7 $ 6 )

47 70

(7 8 3 ) - 4b8q

(Exptl. 1)

46 40

I 1 84)

53 35

(7 21)

57 5 5

(6 30)

49 25

8 SO)

50 1 s

(7 41)

44 95 6

7

8

Total

N

(I irlrrc, 5 in hr-~rckcjt.\

( b 83)

57 40

(9 62)

51 60

(8 83)

51 40

(9 89)

160

~ C I ~ L I I I I I I I J

(7 96)

49 85

(10 39)

61 75

(8 12)

51 69

(9 97)

159

c r w .\tcrntd~lrd

( 8 80 )

5 2 i 7

( 10 5(7)

51 8 5 $8 10

(9 05 )

(1047) (1050)

CAM

L ----- 1 AOM

80 1 1 1 O l -

L- -- J

-.

ITM --1

-- . - ._

1 -

I II Ill IV v VI VI1 Vlll

Figure 5.7

In tclligencc Seorcs-Classified h! School and i lodcl (:ategorich

The arithmetic mean of the scores on intelligence r ~ l ' studer~ts belol~gil~g

to the CAM (esptl.1) Group i s 5 1 69 and the standard deviation is L1.97 The

Arithmetic mean of AOM (exptl.11) Group is 51 40 and standard deviation is L1 8')

The 1I'M (exptl. Ill) Group obtained an arithmetic mean of 50.57 ( 1 0 42) and t h a ~ of

the control group i s 49 7 1 and standard deviation is 10 50 This shows that the

intelligence scores of four model categories do not difier tr~uch hur v a y c ~ l l y sliyhtlv

It means that the intelligence scores of students in four nlodel categories are almost

s~milar

But by merely comparing the four model groups one cannot be

conclusively said that four groups were not differed significantly In the tnean scores

on intelligence

Comparison o f Intelligence Scores in the CAM (exptl. I) Group and C.:fLM

(Control) Group

The mean and standard deviation of the intelligence scores of pupils of

159 pupils in the CAM (exptl.1) and 160 pupils in the CTLM (control) _rroup were

calculated. The Critical Ratio (C.R) was found out and tested for sipificanct: The

data and results of the test of significance between means are given in 'I-able 5 44

Table 5.44

Data and Results o f Test of Significance of Difference between Mean Intelligence

Scores of Pupils in the CAM (expt1.l) Group and CTLM (control) Group

The critical ratio obtained is significant at O 05 level (E' R I 90. p , -

U 0 5 ) . So i t can be concluded that there is significant difYet-ence heriveen ('.Ah1

(exptl . l ) and CTLM (control) in terms of intelligence This difkrence it; i n f'avuut of

CAM (exptl. L )

Cumparison of intelligence scores classified by school and model

categories In the .40M (exptl 11) Group and T'TI..M (control ~ T O L I P ) i w ~ . e calcc~lated

Thc data and results of the test of significance of diflercnce between

mean intelligence scores are given in 'Table 5 45

Group

(exptl I )

C'I'L,M (Control y'uup)

Mean

5 1 7 0

49 71

N

159

160

S.D (0)

9 9 7

10 50

C'ritical Ratio (C.R)

1 90

Level o f significance -1

- I

Table 5.45

Data and Results of Test o f Significance of Difference betweell Meal1 IQ Scores

o f Pupils ill the AOM (exptl.11) Group and CTLM (control) Group

The cntical ratio obtained is not significant at O 0 5 and 0 01 level

(C R = 1 48, p . U 05) So it can be concluded that there rs nu s~gn~ticant dityerence

between . 4 0 M (exptl I I ) and CTLM (control) Groups

Comparison o f Intelligence Scores Classified by Schools and Model I:ateguries in

the ITM {exptl.lll) Group and CTLM (control) G r o ~ ~ p

The mean and standard deviation of the I($ hcclres In the ITM

(exptl 111) Group and Control (CTLM) Group were calculated 'Ptw significance of

difference between means is given in Table 5 46

--- Level o f

signiiicance --

Wc>t sigtlificat~t

Group

(exptl 11)

CTLM (C:ontrol group)

TY

IhO

160

S. D (0)

9.89

10.50

Mean

5 1 40

49.71

Critical Ratio (C-H)

1 38

Table 5.46

Data and Results of Test of Significance of difference between Meau IC) Scorrs ol'

Pupils in the ITM (extpl.LI1) Group and CTLM (control) group

The critical ratio obtained is not significant (C.R 1 89. p , 0 0 5 ) S o

Group

ITM

(uxprl. f l I )

CTLM (Control group)

~t can be concluded that there is no significant d~fference between Il 'hl (e.uptI.III) and

C'TLM (control) groups

Table 5.47

N

I59

160

Summary of A~lalysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the immediate posttest scores of

Mean

5057

49.7 1

S. D ( ~ 1

10.47

10 50

pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTI,M) Groups

Critical Ratio Ixvel of siprlificance

I ,St)

classified by Model Categories with Intelligence as Covariate

Kut s i ~ n ~ f i c a n t

----- -, i

* * L S ~ p ~ j f i c ~ ~ ~ ~ t 'it 0.03 / i w / llttd 0.0 I It> I Y /

1 i

MS

39 19 470

-370 9 ~ 3

22134

d f

1

3

6.3.3

Source of Variation

Intelligence(covariate )

Hetween Groups

Withtn Groups

F- ratio -1 1 1 884** i 17 03 I * * i

SS

391 9 470

I 130.888

14010.683

Table 5.48

Summary o f Analysis o f Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Immediate Yosttest

Scores o f Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and control (CpI'lAM)

Groups classified by Model Categories with Intelligence as Covariate

I --- -

Source o f I Degrees o f Sum of Squares F- ratio

Variation freedom squares -

A~nony Means 5050 36 4

Within groups 14010 69 6 -3 ; 32 1.3 - -.

I olul 1 Y t l f i l . fij 43 - _"Y V.?

Frwn Table F. it is seen, for df 416.?3 inter pol at^ r alue of

F at 0.05 level - - 2.39

F at 0 0 1 level - - 3 , 3 5

Since the F-ratio is greater than the table value ilt' 0 0 1 l e ~ el ( 3 7 5 1 . i t IS

significant ( F ratto = 57 04; p 0.01) The sign~ticant t ratio tijl- the adlusted

irnrnediate posttest scores of the pupils in the experimental ( ( 'AM. .40M and ITM)

31-uups and that of'the control (CTLM) group differs signiticantlv after they have been

adjusted for the differences if any, in the intelligence scores

Table 5.49

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores of

Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups

Classified by Model Categories with Inteltigenre as C:ovariatt. I

Source of Variation

l~~teilipence (covariate )

Betweet) Groups

I I 1 I I --- * * . Y ~ p ~ i f i ' c , t i t ~ t crr 0.03 ILJVL.I ~ I J 0.0 I kc\'~'/

J Within Ciroups

From Table i t is seen F. for d f 113

SS

1973 426

4406 805

F at 0.05 level - - 10 I . ?

1401068X

F at 0 0 I level -. - 34.12

d f

1

The F-ratio obtained for the delaved pretest scores was tested for

633

siyniticance. The ohtained value is greater than the table value (F-L-alue - 1 I 1 80. 11

M S

1973 32h

1468 065

22.134 I---- 1

0 01). So further analysis is necessary to tind out which means d~f'fer- sigr-iiticantty

F- ratio

l l 1 X O I * * .---

8 ; 22 I * *

from the other

The total sums of squares, ad,justed mean square vartatlce for delaved

posttest scores and f: ratio were calculated. They are presented 111 Table 5 30 along

with the result of covariance

Table 5.50

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Yosttest Scures

o f Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AQM & ITM) and Control (C'I'LM)

Groups classified by Model categories with Intelligence as Covariatt

Source o f Variation

Among Means

Within groups --

From Table F, for df 41633

Sum of Squares Degrees of freedom

'Total

lnterpolate value of

F at U 05 level LL 2.37

Meall F- ratio squares T- ---

6380 32

1 173 26

17553.58 / 637 1 27.56 i

F at O 0 1 level - -. 3 35

Since the F-value is greater than the table value at 0 .0 1 level. i t is

4

6 -3 -3

significant at 0 01 level (F - 90.37; p < 0 01) The s~gnificant F ratlo f i ~ r the adjus~ed

"(?"" 11,) ;j"+*

17 05 - -- . --

delayed posttest scores of the experimental (('AM. AOM & ITM) and control

(C'1'L.M) group dif'fr significantly after they have been adjusted fbr the diikrences in

the intelligence scores

ANOVA for difference in Immediate and delayed Posttest scores classified by

Model categories with Intelligence as Covariate

The scores of 638 students were divided with tour 111odel c.ntegoi.ies

and administered ~mmediate and delayed post tests. The differences in their

ach~evement scores in immediate and delayed posttests were subjected to 4nalvsis of'

Covariance ( ANCOVA) to find out whether there existed any sisrlificant relatiotl in

the effectiveness of the four methods considering ~ntelligence as a cvvariate

Before proceeding to ANCOVA. the scores are sutljected lo

ANCOVA. The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F' ratio for the

differences in achievement scores of immediate and delayed posttest scores of the

three esperllnental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and one control group (C'Tl .hl) considering

intelligence as a covariate were found out. Table 5.5 l shows the data and result ot'

analysis of variance

Table 5.5 1

Summary o f Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) of the Difference 111 Im~nediate and

Delayed Posttest scores of pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM ITM) and

From Table F, it i s seen for df, I / ;

Control (CTLM) Group classified by model categories with Intelligence as Covariate

F at 0 05 level - - 10 13

Source uf Variation

Intelligence (covariate)

Between Groups

Within Groups L

F at O 0 1 level - - 34 12

-

SS d f M S F- ratio

330 600

1080.370 3 360 12.; I 0 O2U*

1 1985 067 63.; 1 8 '13 4

The F ratios for the four sets of scores were subjected tu the test of

* ,S~,qr~~ficmtt ( / I ~ 1 . 0 j IP IWI

significance The table value of F for df 113 value is 10.I.3 at 0 0 5 level and 34 12 at

0.01 level The obtained value of F ratio is significant at 0 05 level F value = 17 4h. p

.I 0.05) This indicates that the four groups (CAM. .40M. ITM and C'TLM) diffel-

siyniticantly in the diRerence in the immediate and delayed post-test scor-es

Since the F values are significant. the rnean scores of' differences in

achievement must be adjusted for the intelligence scores and only then car1 one say

whether the groups differ very much in their diEerence in immediate and delayed post

test scores in achievement. So hr ther analysis is necessary to finti out which means

differ siynjticantly tiom the others

The total sums of squares, adjusted mean square barlance for- the

differences in immediate and delayed post test scores and F r a t ~ n were calculated

They are presented in Table 5.52 along with the result of Analysis of C ' O L ~ T I ~ I I C ~

Table 5.52

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Difference in

lmmediate and Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimental

(CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups Classified

by Model Categories with intelligence as Covariate

Source of Variation

. b o n g Means

Within groups

* * Sigttffic~~tu cl! 0. (13 uttd 0.01 level.

* Siptif icu~ti r r f 0.05 Icwl

From 'Table F, it seen for df 4/63? interpolated value ut'

SS

1410.07

- Total

F at 0.05 level = 2.39

1198507

F at 0 1) 1 level = 3.35

df

4

13396.04

633

lClS

352.74

637

F- ratio

18 6.<**

1893

2 1 03

19020*

Since the F value i s greater than the table value, it i s sign~iicilnt a1 0 , O 1

level 18 63. p - 0 , O I ) . The significant F ratio for the adfuted scores ol. the

differences in imtr~ediate and delayed post test scores of puplls (11.M) and cirntrul

(TTLM) gruups differ significantly after they have been adjusted ti)]- the ditTel-uncrs if

any. in the intell iger~ce score

Table 5.53

The Scores on Intelligence of Students Considered for the Study,

when Classified by the Model, Region and Gender Categories

Graphical representation of the mean scores un Intell~gence classrfied

by model, rey~on and sender is presented in Figure 5 8

T

M ode1

Boy

Girl

1'01 ai

*I-igttrc~h

I I I I l I I I I \ ,

ttural

47 4h

( 9 5 0 )

55 0 5

(9 6 6 )

I 7t)

(10 43)

Rural

53 75

(948) )

5 2 . 3 3

(10 1 I )

53 04

(9 75)

Urban

5 5 45

( 7 0 2 )

47 83

(10 28)

5 1 64

(9 5 5 )

Urban

5 1 80

(952 )

47 73

( 9 8U)

49 76

(9 82)

5 1 70

( 0 9 7 )

\ v~ i l~o tc / hr-rrcket.) rrru

5 1 40

(9 89)

mew! ~~olllrre.+

Rural

40 53

(1001)

llrhar~

55 80

0

-

Rural

30 4X

(XhO) - -

4'1 78

(9.09)

49 66

('1 49)

Iirb;in

-

52 85

( 1 2 4 5 )

47 I5

(10

5 1 4% 50 18 39 14

( 1 1 26) rC> ;2 ) ( 1 1 60)

50 37 40 7 I

(10 42) ( l o 50) -

ALL

54 t

I RURAL I :: l-:~--fic-~; m--

48 I URBAN

46 r - -7 - -7-

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL t 2 3 4

-- -- -- 1

BOYS 1 I

60 " ' El RURAL

45 URBAN

40 -7 - -- I MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL !

1 2 3 4 1

- . -- - -- I

J

GIRLS 1

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL

Figure 5.8

Intelligence Scores-Classified by Model Categories. Hegiun and Lender

Table 5.54

The Scores on Intelligence of Students Considered for the Srudy,

when Classified by the Gender and Model Categories

Table 5.55

Bov

G~r l

1. otal

The Scores on Intelligence of Students C:oasidered for the Stedy.

when Classified by the Region and Model Categories

I*/p~rr.e.r wrfholrt hrcrukt.f.3 crre m c ~ u ~ rstr/rrr).$

I

55 51

(920)

51 89

(10 72)

5 1 70

( 9 9 7 )

I I

52 23

(945)

5 0 5 3

(1029)

5 1 30

( 9 8 7 )

-

I v

-- 50 I'd

(9333) --

40 2.1

( 1 1 (70

iCC171

( 10 50)

111

52 71

(1042)

48 46

(10 0 5 )

5 0 5 7

(1042)

I+ig~rrt~.t w~thortl hrcrckei.~ are mucr/t ~ t rhre .~

I

-- 1

I v

5 1 10

( 1 0 7 7 ) --

48 2'1

(10 08)

4g71

( I l l S o ) - . J

I1

53 03

( 9 7 5 )

49 7h

(9 8 3 )

5140

(9 89)

Kural

I!rban

Total

1 l l

49 06

(349)

51 4%

( 1 1 26)

5 0 5 7

( l o 42)

5 1 76

(1043)

5 1 64

(9 5 5 )

5170

(9.97)

Table 5.56

Summary of Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) o f the Immediate Posttest Scores

o f Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and C o ~ ~ t r o l (("TLM)

Immediate achievement scores of the puptls of rht. total sample

considered toyether considermy ~ntelligence as a covarlate the F valur: obta~ned 15

sl yniiicant ar 0 0 1 level Frum Table df 1/62 1

F at 0 05 level - - 3 85

F at O 0 1 level - - 6 66

Groups Classified by Model, Region and Gender

Source of Variation

Intelllgence (C'ovartate)

Between groups

Model

Re_rlon

Gender

?-way ~nteractions

Model x Regton

Model x Gender

Keglvn * Gender -

;-way lnteractlons

Model Region Gender

W~th tn Group

* * . S I ~ ~ ~ ! I ~ ~ L L I I I / (11 0.05 ~ltld

SS

39 19 470

1521 790

1126259

350904

41 542

790 I99

100 200

639878

48 084

387844

387 844

13441743

U.OI /c\lel

d f

1

5

3

1

7

3

-3

I

3

3

621

M S

39 19 470

304 -is8

375420

350904

4 i 5 4 2

1 12 886

;3400

2133r1?

48 084

129281

129 28 1

20035

F

i 95 63 1

15 I O I

187;8

1 7 5 1 5

Significance

* * -- --

* -.--- ---

T

A-

* ;;;;I -;--j --

1 6 0 7

10hJO

2 400

6 4 5 1

-- -A 6 45.3 *

---

'The obtained value is significant at 0 0 1 level ( F value - 19i.61

p - O 01) which shows that the difference in mean scores among intelligence level is

sign~ficant. So it can be concluded that there is a significant influence of 1Q on

immediate posttest scores.

.Among the niodel categories and intelligence levels there existed

sign~ticant diRerence.

From table F. fur df 5/62 I .

F at 0.05 level - - 1 2 2

F at 0 0 1 level - - 3 04

The obtained value IS significant at 0 01 level (F - 15 19. p ,- O 01

Hence it inav be concluded that intelligence evens a significant influence upon

immediate achievement

Considering the four model catesories alone intelligence cxcrts a

significant influence on immediate achievement

From Table F, for df 1/62 1

F at Of15 level - - 3.85

F at 0 0 1 level - - 6 66

The obtained value is 18 738 F ratio is significant at O 01 level ( F

ratio: 18 74, p c. 0 01 ) Therefore 11 can be concluded that intelligence exerts a

significant influence on immediate posttest scores

Considering the region as a single category the influence vf

intelligence on immediate achievement is sign~ficant From Table F, for df 1/62 I .

F at 0 05 level - - >85

F at 0 0 I level - - 6.66

The obtained value is significant at 0 01 level When combtned

together it does not affect the immediate achievement of the IX standard students in

Geography The performance of rural and urban students in model categories

combined together does not affect the immediate achievement of the pupils.

But the male and female students and model categories taken together

the combined effect is significant (F value 10 65; p i 0.01) 'This leads tu the

conclusion that boys and girls on each model category differ significantly in their

immediate achievement

The combined influence of region and gender is not significant. The

table value for df 1/62 1

F at 0 05 level - - 3.85

F at 0.0 1 level -. - 6.66

The obtained value (F = 2.40; p -- 0.05) leads to the conclusion that the

boys and girls in rural and urban regions do not differ much in their ~mmediate

achievement in Geography (F value =175.52; p % - 0 05) So 11 may be concluded that

locality of students exerts a significant influence on immediate achievement This

leads to the conclusion that the performance of urban and rural children ditfers

significantly in their immediate achievement

But the obtained value for Gender is not significant The obtained F

value is 7.07

From Table it is seen F for df 1/62 1

F at O 05 level - - 3.85

F at 0.0 1 level - - 6.66

This leads to the conclusion that the sex of t h e child exer-ts n o

sisnificant influence on immediate achievernent. l t means that the male and f'eliialt.

children perfbrm in the same way

Considering the two-way interaction between model catesorles and

I-egion; model catesories and Gender the obtained value is signiticant at O 05 level ( F

L-alue = 5.63. p -- O 05).

Fro~n Table F ( i t is seen, F for d f 7/62 1 )

I- at 0 0 5 level . . 2.03

F at 0 0 1 level - - 2 68

The obtained F value ( F = 5 . 6 3 ; p .: 0.0 I )

The interaction of model categories -. and Region and also nod el

categories and gender is also significant.

A significant interaction of model categories. region and render exens

significant inthence 011 immediate achievement But taking model categories ntid

reg~on alone the intluence is nor significant. The obtained F value is nut signiticant (1;

value- 1 67. p 0.05) Considering tnodel categories and gender the influence is

significant (F value - 10 0 5 , p .: 0.05). With a non-significant interacrion of model

categories and region (F value = 1.67) i t may be concluded that model categories and

region exert no combined influence on immediate achievement, which means the nlral

and urban students do not differ inuch in their immediate achievernen~

I t is seer1 from Table 5.56 that the difyereme in mean score atnot13

rnodel categories, Region and Gender taken together. the F value obta~ned is

significant For df 1/02 1, the table value for F at 0 05 level is 3 8 5 . and F at 0 0 I level

is 0.66 The obtained F value is significant at 0.05 level. This leads to the conclusion

that the interaction effect of model categories. region and gender is significant 'I'hus

1 1 may be concluded that model categories, region and gender when corrlbined

together exert a siyniticant influence on immediate achievement scores So further

analysis 1s necessary to find out whether there exists any signiticant difference in the

effectiveness of the four methods considering intelligence as a covarin~e

The total sum of squares, adjusted mean square varia~iue atld F I-atlo

were calculated. The results of analysis are given i t ] Table 5 57

Summary o f Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Immediate Posttest Scores of

Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (C'TLM) (;r+oups

From Table F it is seen df 16/62 1

classified by Model Categories, Region and Gender. with Intelligence as C'uvar.iale

F at 0.05 level - - 1 14

Source of Variation

Aniong Means

Within sroups

Total

F at 0.OI level - 7 01

The obtained value (F value = 20.65, p .: 0 O l ) is greater than table

* * . S I ~ J I I # ; L ~ ~ ~ I ~ r r f 11.05 U ) I ~ 0.01 IL>I'L'I -1

SS

6619 30

12441 74

1906105 I

value. I t shows that the immediate posttest scores of the experimental group ditier

df

16

621

637

M S

413 71

20 04

29.97,

F- ratio

2065** 1 ----I

sieniticantly L from the control group after adjusting the initial ditt'erences In reyon and

gender with intelligence as a covariate.

Table 5.58

Summary of Analysis o f Variance of the Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils of the

Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups classified by

Model categories, Region and Gender with In teltigence as C:ovariate.

Source of Variation SS d f M S F Significance

Intelligence (Covariate) 1 973.426 1 1973 426 1 3 3 1 20

Between groups 5360.776 5 1072 155 72 328

Model 4388615 -3 1462872 98686

Region 724192 t 724192 48855 --

?-way interaction 662,520 7 94.646 6.385

Model . Region

Model r Gender

Region * Gendet

;-way interactions

The delayed achievement scores of the total sample population were

158.309

396.772

Within Group

taken for analysis of variance and Analysis of Covariance. In this corlsolidated studv,

1 I

5 2 770 3

110.014

3 5 1 4 9 5

intelligence is considered as a covariate and the three variables. namely Model

3

- * S I ~ H ! f~ccu~r ut 0.05 /e vt.1

J 9205.362

3 560

1

3

lr

132,257

62 1

8922

110014

117165

14 823

7422

7904

1

* I

categories, Region and Gender are subjected to one way. two way and three-way

analysis

The total sum of squares, mean square variance arlci F ~-atios fiv the

delayed posttest scures were computed.

The significant ratio for the one-way. two-way and three-way analysis

indicates that there is significant difference between the delayed posttest scores III

experimental and control groups. Hence it can be concluded that the 'tnformatiun

I'rocessing Models of teaching' i s superior to curlventior~al Teac hi113 Lea1-ning

Method in the case of achievement and retention eft'ect

For the purpose of correcting the final scores by consideriny the

differences in ~ntelligence scores, the adjusted sums of scures, mean square variance

and F ratio were calculated The data and results are given in Table 5 59

Table 5.59

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Posttest scores uf

pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CT1.M) Groups

classified by Model categories. Region and Gender with Intelligence as Covariate

Among Means 8348.22 Ih ; 5.20**

Within yroups 9205.36 62 I 14 X2 .. --

Source of Variation

Frorn Table F for df 16/62 1

F at 0.05 level -. - 1.14

F at 0 01 level - - 2.0 1

Sum of Squares F- ratio Degrees of freedom

Mean squares

'The obtained F value (35 20) is sreater than Table value (F - 3 5 20.

p U 01). Hence it can be concluded that after adlusting the ~nitial drffercnces in

Reyion and Gender with intelligence as a covariate. the experimental group taught in

Information Processing Models was found superior to the control g o u p taught in

conventional teachir~g learning method

Table 5.60

Summary of Analysis of Variance of the difference in Achicve~nent scares of

pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM b;: ITM) and Control (C'I'LM) Groups

classified by Model categories, Region and Gender with intelligence as Covariate

Source of Variation

intelligence (Covanr-lte)

Between grcx.~ps

Model

Region

Gender -

7-wa!: interactions

Model Region

Model x Gender

Region - Gender

;-way interactions

Model K Region 8 Gender

Within Group

* LSjgt! 1fic~tt11 ({I 0 . O j /C>IV/

SS

330.600

I225 254

1075 850

66 886

78.922

127.169

17.297

98 848

12 634

672.688

672.688

11040.335

df

1

5

3

1

1

7

3

3

1

3

3

621

MS

.3;0.600

245 049

358.617

6 6 5 5 6

78 022

18 I67

766

32 949

11634

224.229

224.229

17 775

F

18 590

1-3 784

20 172

3,762 - - -

4 439

1.022

3 24

I 853

711

12.b33

12 633

Significance .Lj *

---- P

--..- I --

* * 4 - , --

.- - - . . .

---

. - . - - - - -3 - -.

--

--

The achievement difference between the immediate posttest scores and

delayed posttest scores of the total sample was subjected to analysis of variance and

analysis of covariance considering intelligence as a covariate. The ore-wav. twu-wav

and three-way interactions of other variables namely. Model catcgcjries. Ke~ion arlil

Gender were found out

The total sum of squares and mean square variances anlong gl-oups arid

the F ratio were cornputed by considering intelligence as a covariate The ~nfluence

ut'intelligence on tnodel categories is significant

The table value for df 1 I62 1

F at 0 0 5 level - - 1 14

F at O 0 I level - - 2.0 l

The obtained value is significant ( F value = 18 h0, 1, , 0 11 1 ) ~t is

concluded that intelligence exert a significant intluence on achievement atid retent~un

of informatiori

lntelliyence exerts a significant influence among rhc cateyor~es viz

lrlodel group. Region category and Gender category

The significant F ratio indicates the influence of intetliscnce o n

achievement difference in the standard IX Geographv students (F value - 1.3 78. p -

001)

Among the model categories inteilisence exercises a sign~ficant

intluence ( F value = 20.17: p 0.01).

In the achievement difference of the rural and urban pupils 1. r-a~io 1s

3 76. the table value is j.85. I t is not significant at 0.05 level t t is infixred that the

rntelllgence does nut exert a considerable influence on the achievement differer-rce o!.

the niral and urban pupiis In the intelligence level they are found sinlilar

While taking intelligence as a covariate. the gender difference i s

significant (F value = 4.44; pq; 0.05). Intelligence exerts a significant intluence 011

achievement diff'erence between boys and girls

The combined interactions of Model cateyories and Keg~rjn, hlodef

categories and Gender and between Region and Gender. the diKerences are not found

significant consider~ng ~ntelligence as a covariate The inference is that ~ntelligencc

does not play a vital role in the achievement difiierence uf the immediate and delayed

posttest In the case of ~ntelligence all the categories do not show marked difference

Considering ihe three-way interactions ilf Model categvries, Kegion

and Gender amon5 groups and within groups the difference is sign~ficant {l, ialut.

12 6.3. P..- O . O I )

The combined influence of model categories, reyinn and gender

considering intelliger~ce as a covariate affects the achievement difference of the pupils

in Geography

The ad-justed means for the ach~evement diRerencc c ~ f t lw pupils In

geography are calculated by using analysis of covariance with ~ntelligertce as a

covariate. The data and results of analysis are given in Table 5.6 1 .

Table 5.61

Surnmaq of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVG) of the differerlce in

Achievement Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM)

and Control (CTLM) Groups classified by Model Categories,

Region and Gender with intelligence as Covariate

Source of Variation

.4mony Means

Within groups

From the above table, the obtained value t o r F r,atio i s sisniticant a1

0 01 level. Hence 11 is obvious that the two filial means differ significantly after the\

have been adjusted for intelligence difference.

The signiticant F ratio indicates the superiority ot' I n t i ~ m a t ~ o n

Processing Models to the ~onventiona1 Teaching Learning Method

I Sum of Squares

Total

5.4.7 Instructional Strategies and Attitude towards Learning of Geography

I n the educational setting, there are both theoretical and practical

2355.70

1 1040.34

reasons for determinins whether or when students' attitude towards the learn~ns of a

Degrees o f freedom

* * .S~~~tjf icur~t ut 0. (15 kevcl L I~ IL I 0.01 i ~ , i ~ ~ * (

13396.04

subfect is linked significantly with their academic performance It is possible that

16

62 1

b.3 7

students with highly positive attitude towards a subject score higher [narks than the

feilow students with highly negative attitudes. Should this be the case, then it I.;

Mean squares

147 23 8.28 **

17 78

important for teachers to become aware of the influence of attitude of students o n

F- ratio

their academic performance and their succeed~ng behaviours

The research findings reviewed so far indicate that there IS significanr

relationship between students' attitudes towards school subject and their scholastic

performance. I n the present study the effectiveness of Information Processing Models

over Conventional teacher centred Method was studied The ~ntluer~cc of' attitude is

also taken into consideration as an independent variable

For this purpose. the investigator prepared an attitude scalc ti-rr learn~ng

Geography and it 1s standardised by the investigator with psychometric techniques

The scores of attitude scale were subjected to statistical analysis

Distribution o f Attitude Scores o f Pupils-Classified by Type of Schools and

Model Categories

Thc mean and standard deviation of the attitude scores of the 638

students belonging to four model categories and 8 schools were yivcn irl 'I-able 5 h l

'The Scores on Attitudes of Students Considered for the Studv when classified

by the School and rnodel categories provide the following summay statistics.

Table 5.62

Mean and Variance for Attitude Scores-

Classified by School and Model Categories

Graphical representation of mean scores of attitude classified by school and

1

7 -

1

4

--

5

h

7

8

Total

h

I irilct..\ ~t'ifhorrt hru~kers

model categories 1s presented in 5.9

CAM

(Exptl. 1)

158 75

(14 19)

168 55

(12 69)

170 65

(24 37)

164 85

( 1 3 72)

169 45

(21 91)

155 47

( 1 8 70)

153 GO

(4096)

180 70

(19.69)

165

(23 56)

159

cn.u nteml

ITM

( ExptI. I l l )

243 5 0

(335 54)

1 5 9 00

(14 5 5 )

169 75

(23 2 3 )

164 45

(21 95)

160 50

( 13 45)

165 90

{ 1 4 21)

l i l 58

( 1 5 31 )

172 60

(14 7 5 )

173 55

( 1 17 20,

1 5 9

AOM

(Exptl. 11)

I54 75

(20 32)

163 40

( I 7 30)

168 80

(23 57)

168 90

(17 -36)

181 3 0

(31 02)

1 5 5 -35

( 17 36)

157 65

( 1 1 3 1 )

169 40

( 1 3 5 7 )

164 82

(19 6 5 )

160

~,lrllte\

C'TL,M

(Control) --I 174 45

( I l i 2 )

158 50

( I h X O )

173 5 5

( 12 87)

164 3

( 1 $ 4 7 )

I h,! c)O

( \ 2 96)

I 59 60

( 12 29)

I 5 i 0 5

( 19 09)

174 25

( 18 06) -

16q 7.3

(10 5 5 )

I00

AOM

ITM -- - I 200

t I I 1 I i i l iV V VI Vlt Vlll

." 1

Figure 5.9

Attitudc. Scorcs-Classificd by School and Model C'ategorics

Comparison of Attitude Scores classified by Schools and Model Categories in the

CAM (exptl. I ) group and CTLM {Control) group

The mean and standard deviation of the attitude scores of 159 pupils in

the CAM (exptl. 1 ) yroup and I60 pupils in the CTLM (control) group were

computed. The Criticaf Ratio was tested for significance The data and results are

presented in Tabte 5.63

Table 5.63

Data and Results of Test of Significance of difference between mean scores of

attitude of pupils itr the CAM (exptl.1) and CTLM (control) group

The obtained C.R value for the experinlentat (CAM) group and control

group (CTLM) i s not significant (C.R - 0.04: p -, 0.01) The inference taken ti-om the - analysts is that the two groups do not differ much in their attitude scores

Comparison of Attitude Scores Classified by Schools and Model Categories in

the AOM (exptl. 11) group and CTLM (Controt) group

The mean and standard deviation of the Attitude scores of 160 pupils

itt the AOM (exptl.11) and 160 pupils in the CTLM (control) groups were cotnputed

The critical ratio and the level of significance are presented in Table 5.h4

Group

CAM (exptl. 1)

T-1-LM (Control group)

N

159

160

Mean

165.31

165.23

S.D ((3)

23.56

16.55

Critical Ratio IC*R)

0.04

Level of siptifjcunue

hut

s~yniticant

Table 5.64

Data and results of Test o f Significance of difference behueen Mean Attitude

scores of Pupils in the AOM (Exptl. I t ) group and CTLM (Control) Croup

From Table S 64, we can infer that the experimental group ( A O M ) and

control group (CTLM) do not differ significantly in t h e ~ r attltude scores (C ' R - 0 20.

p .001)

Comparison of Attitude Scores classified by Schools and the Model Categories in

the Learning Environment Scores in the ITM (expt1,Ill) group and CT1,M

(control) Group

I'he mean and standard deviat~an of the attitude scores of the pup~ls In

the ITM (exptl 111) group and CTLM (control) group were calculated The crit~cal

ratio was subjected to the test of significance The data and results are preserited 111

Group

.40M

(exptl I!)

CTLM (Control y roup 1

N

159

160

Mean

164 82

I65 23

S.D

(a)

19.65

16 55

Critical Ratio (C . R)

0 20

Level c!f

significitncr .-

.Yrlt

i~gtt~fti~ 1tt1

I

Table 5.65

Data rr~d Results of Tests of Significance of Difference between Mean Attitude

Scores of ITM (exptl.ll1) Group and CTLM (Control)Group

The C . R value is significant at 0.01 levei iC' R =. 4 40, p - 0 0 1

The use of ANCTOVA enabled the researcher to ccluale thc pre-

experimental status of the group and removed the difference 111 initial s t a ~ u s ol' thy

Group

CAM (exptl I )

CTLM (control group)

groups. The ptrforniance of the groups can be compared as though their ~nrtial status

N

IS9

160

Mean

17354

165 23

has been equated

Table 5.66

Summary of Analysis of Variance of the lmnlediate Postrest Scores of

Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTI,M)

Groups Classified by Model Categories with Attitude as Covariate

S.D (n)

1720

16 5 5

C:ritical Ratio

( C . R)

4 40

-

Source of variation

Lcvd of --1 signljicrmcc -4

,Attitude (Covariate)

Between groups

Within groups

SS

76 1

1366.679

d f

L.

* .\-i,q-tt/fic~i~t~l ( i f 0.0.5 / ~ ~ i , c l

17693.608

Significance --

M S

1

3

F

633

76 1

455 560

37 952

027

16.298 Y

Table 5.67

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Immediate Posttest

Stores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) arid Control

F at 0 05 level - - 3 8

(CTLM) Groups classified by Model Categories with Attitude as Covariate

F at 0 0 1 level = 6.66

Source of Variation

Amunr means

Within yroups

Total

The F-ratio for the model categories and attitudes scores were take11

tugether-. the obtained value is significant (F-value 1233, p ;, O ( ! I ) It Indrcates that

* * S ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ U L I ! I I [ i f 0. U j I I ! I L ~ 0.01 IL'w/

Frotn Tabit. F. for df 1/63?

Sum of squares

1367.44

17693.61

19061 -05

the immediate achievement scores of the four model categories of students compared

with the attitude scores the immediate posttest scores were significantlv d i fben t

Table 5.68

df

4

b33

h j 7

Sumniav of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores of

Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM d ITM) and Control (C"TL,M)

Groups classified by Model Categories with Attitude as <:ovariate

Mean squares t.' ratio

34 1.86

27.95

29.92

Source of varlatlon

.4ttitudr f Covartate)

Between groups

Wrthln groups

SS

1 356

4722 427

12829 797

df.

1

3

633

MS

1 356

1574142

211 268

F

067

77665

S~gn~ficance

-

* *

I

The obtalned F ratios were tested for siynificar~ce R! taking rhc

at t~tude score of the 628 students and their delayed pusttest scores taken ti>sethcr the

obtained value is not significant (F-value - 0 67, p , O 01) But the Fy vaiue IS

significant at O O I levet and indicates that among the rnodel categories at least one of

the goups digers srgniticantly in the delayed posttest scores by taklny attrtude as a

covariate

So to interpret more rigoruusly. the data is subjected r o analvsis of

covariance

Table 5.69

Summary of A~~a lys is of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scot-rs

of Pupils af the Experimental (C4M, AOM & ITM) and Control (C'T1,M)

Groups classified by Model Categories with Attitude as Covariate

From Table 5 6'4, it is seen that the obtained Fv .u value IS s~gn~ficant ;it

0 01 l e ~ e l Hence it is obvious that the two final rneans differ sign~ticantlv between

the experimental and control groups

Source of Variation

Among means

Within groups

To taI

* * ,Sig~l(ficcmrr cir 0.05 a ~ d 0.01 Irvt!I

Sum of squares

4723 78

12829.80

17553.58

df

4

033

63 7

--

20.27

37 56

Table 5.70

Summary o f Analysis of Variance of the difference in immediate and ddaycd

Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control

(CTLM) Groups classified by Model Categories with Attitude as Covariate

Source of variation

Attitude (Covar~ate)

Hetween groups

Table 5.71

Within groups

Summary of' Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Difference in

SS

OX 5

1 U I 1 691

Immediate and Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimerltal

(CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups classified by

- 12384,261

d f

1

s 1

I-rum Table 5 71, it is seen that the obtained F-ratio 1s siynifrcant at 0 0 I level

633

Model Categories with Attitude as Covariate

M S

OX 5

3.37 ",;O

Source of Variation

Among rneans

Witlun groups

Total

19564

F

004

17237 ----I

** .s/~r/tlticciw <it 0.05 ~l!ld 0. ui fcl~ei

Sum o f squares

1011 78

12384 26

13.7396 04

Significance i ----I

---

df

4

63 3

1137

-- Mean squares F ratio

-. '52 94

F-- 19 56

21 03

--

The Scores 011 Attitude of Students Considered for the Study,

when classified by the Model, Region and Gender Categories

I I Model 1 C1

Bov

CIl rl

l'utal

Graphical representation of ~nean scores of attitude classifeci b!

165 : I

(23 5 b )

rl~odei. region and gender is presented in Figure 5 10

---- 11 1

Rural

15451

(31 711

17508

(21 34)

164')2

(2x72)

---- * I L l t ~ . i tsffhr~ttl brt~ckvi\ itrt2 mmt! vu/t{e.$ * Y.YI/IIC>.\ 111 hr~tcken ( t r . ~ ~ st~it~dcird deviation

164 82

( 19 6 5 )

11'

Urban

l h96O

(1921)

I h l 8 0

(14 12)

16570

( i 7 2 0 )

Rural

1 5 6 5 0

( 1 4 5 1 )

17535

(1847)

16593

(1404)

173 .i<

( 1 17 20)

Urban

16560

(2070)

t b l 8 3

(1998)

16371

(2030)

16i 2.i

( I 0 T i )

Rural

15892.

(1989)

I6655

(1522)

16278

(1610)

Urban

16438

(1980)

7 0 3 0 8

( 2 3 1 2 ; )

18418

(1042X)

Rural

- 15688

( l h 12)

1085F:

(Ih54)

1027 ;

7

--- -

lirbaa

166U:

( I ~ J O ~ )

l f > r ) 4 <

(14;0}

16774

( I 5 q O )

I ALL

. . . . .- .- - . .

ORURAL '

; W URBAN - ,

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 2 3 4

BOYS

I MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL

I 1 2 3 4

,ORURAL ' : URBAN

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

Figurc 5.10

Attitude Scurus-Classifid by Model Categories, Kegion and Gender

Table 5.73

The Scores on Attitude of Students Considered for the Study.

when Classified by the Gender and Model Categories

Table 5.74

1 3 0 ~

Girl

Total

The Scores on Attitude of Students Considered for the Stud),

when classified by the Region and Model categories

0 ilitti!.s 111 hi-<tckcf.~ it~dicc~/c . V / L J ~ I L I ~ I - J d ~ \ ~ j ~ ~ i ~ o t ~ )

I

162.15

( 3 7 0 5 )

168.44

(19.18)

165 3 1

( 2 3 5 6 )

I I

164.82

(1965)

161 05

(18 33)

t66.5C)

( 2 0 3 0 )

Rural

Urban

Total

---

111

161.68

( 1 8 2 % )

185 26

(163.90)

173 .55

(172U)

/ I ithre.\ I I I hruckei,~ t~rrd~cate .rkrrrdrrl.rj dc.~~~urtun)

I

I6492

(28 72)

165 70

(17.20)

165.32

(2.7 56)

I \'

-,--I 161 3

{ I O O I )

I[>(> ( ? I

(IS 37)

( l ( - , 5 5 )

I V

--

it1273

(16 27)

l h 7 7 4

( 1 5 5 0 )

16'; 23

(16 55)

l I

1659;

(19 03)

16.3 72

(2030)

164 82

(19 6 5 )

111

16278

( I h IO)

184 18

(16428)

173 55

( I 17 20)

Table 5.75

Summary o f Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Immediate Posttesl Scores of

Pupils of the Exllerimental (CAM, AOM & I'TM) and Control (CTLM) Groups

It i s evident from Table 5.75 that the rnean scores nmolig the suhects

classified by Model categories, Region and Gender with Attitude as C'ovariate

taken together the attitude exerts no significant influence 011 \he irntned~ate

Source of Variation

Attrtude (Covar~ate)

Between groups

Model

ficg~cln

Gender

'-way interact~on~

Model * Kegion

Model Gender

Regon * Gender

.;-way ~nteracttons

Model Region Gender

Wtthln Group

* . Y / ~ / l ~ # / ~ ~ ~ l / t l ( / I 0 0-5 It>\ 'J/

achievement o f the students (F value = 0.20. p ', 0 . 0 5 )

But arnong the model categories. a t t~ tude exerts a sigiliticant influer~cu

SS

76 1

1648.170

on immediate achievement (F value = 12.73; p - - O O I )

df

1

5

M S

76 1

-379634

F

0 2(1

1277;

455571

281473

000

12c)132

47310

2 i 3 262

601.30

160 508

160 508

2 5 807

- -

Sig~iificance

1765; , 10907

000

5008

18;;

-

9 O.<O

2 3 3 0

6 220

6 220

1366714

281473

000

904624

141929

699 786

60 130

481 524

48 1 524

16025 969

:q * 4'

-

-- -

a

*

-3

1

1

7

3

3

1

3

3

62 1

The results of one way interaction of rnudel categor-ies. I-eg~on and

gender are given In Table 5 .75 . One way interaction of rnodel catesaries by taliins

attitude as a cvvariate is significatlt at 0.01 levcl (F value -. 17 65 . p , 0 (11 1 The

influence of region also exerts significant intluence ( F value = 1 O I . p ,- (1 0 1 )

The immediate achievement scores of bovs and girls s h u n nno

difierence Both boys and girls perform in a similar way in their achievement

considering attitude as a covariate

The two-way interaction among niodel categories. region and yender

taken together exerts significant influence on immediate achievement ( F value = 5 10.

p , u,o I )

In the separate two-way interactions between model categories and

region, the F value is not significant IF value = 1.83. p --. 0.05) So i t t m v he

concluded that the rural and urban students of different model catesuries showed no

marked difference in thelr immediate achievement with attitude as a co~ariate

But the boys and girls of different model categories showed marked

difierence in their achievement ( F value = 9 04; p .: 0 0 1 )

When the n~ral boys and girls and urban boys and girls are considered.

their achievement ditt'erence is not significant ( F value = 2 3 3 . p - O 05) Phis leads

to the conclusion that reyion and gender exert no significant influence on Immediate

achievement considering attitude as a covariate.

In the three-way interaction between model categor.les, reglor] and

eender. the diff'erence in immediate achievement is significant ( 1 - value 6 22. p - - 0.01 ). So it can be concluded that model categories, region and gender when

combined together exert significant influence on immediate achievement considering

attitude as a covariate

The adjusted mean squares among the means. within grtlups and F

ratio were calculated by using ANCOVA. The dara and results are 3ii t .n in

Table 5-76

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Immediate Posttesi

Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control

The significant F ratio indicates that while the mean squares are

Categories, Region and Gender with Attitude as Covariate

adjusted by using ANCOL'A, the experimental and control groups showed marked

Source of Variation

.Among means

Within yroups

Tot a1

ditierence in their ~mmediate achievement. So i t can legit~~t~atuly he concluded that

'Intbrmation Processing Models' exerts significant influence un ~nimediate

* * , S ; g t t ~ f i ~ ~ t ~ t ( I . Oj ut~d {). 0 1 k\v/

Sum of squares

3035 08

16025 97

19061.05

achievement ( F value = 7 3 5, p < 0 0 1 )

df

1 0

62 1

h.3 7

Mean squares

189 (19

25,8U

29.i12

F ratio

7 i f " * *

Table 5.77

Summary of Analysis of Variance of the delayed Posttest Scores of Prrpils of the

Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM) Groups C:lassified by

The effect of attitude on delayed posttest was studied using one-&a\. .

two-way and three-way ANOVA. The data and results are presented in J'able 5 77

The mean scores of subjects in their delayed achievement shau no

significant difference considering attitude as a covanate ( F value -- 08, p - 0 0 5 )

T h ~ s leads to the conclusion that attitude exerts no significant influence or) delayed

achievement scores.

Model categories, Region and Gender with Attitude as Covariate

Source o f Variation

Attitude (Covariate)

Between groups

Model

Region

Gender

'-way irlteractions

Model = Region

M Gender

Region Gender

3 -way interactions

Model .( Region Gender

Within Group

* S t g l l ~ j l ~ ~ l l f ut 0.05 IL'I'c'I

SS

1.356

5494.002

4723.062

655 618

120.357

544.623

165.033

378,903

014

474.328

474.328

11039271

d f

1

5

-3

1

1

7

3

3

I

3

3

621

Significance

--- +

*

*

*

*

*

1:

* :i

MS

1 356

1098,800

1574.354

655 618

120.357

77 803

5 5 01 1

126..301

0 14

158.109

1 58.1 OY

17777

F

0 76

61812

88.563

36.881

6 771

4 377

3.005

7 105

00 1

8.894

8.894

Classifying the total sample into rrlodel categories, reyion and gender-

the c,ombined intluence is signiticant (F value = 61.82. p =: 0.01 )

But taking the model categories alone attitude exerts s~y~,l~lficant

influence on delaved achievement (F ratio = R8 56. p .- 0.0 1 )

I f the regional differences are taken into ct~ns~deration the rural

students and ~ ~ r b a r ~ students showed marked dif'ference In their delaved achievement

scores ( F ratio = 3h 88. p -: 0 01 ) Attitude exerts a significant influence o n lural anri

urban students in their delayed achievement.

Considering the gender classification boys and girls d i f h in their

achievement ( F valuc = b 77; p .: O 01). Attitude exerts i t s int'tuericc o n t he delayed

achievement of buys and girls.

Takins the two-way interactions between model categories and gender.

and between gender and region the mean squares and F ratio were calculated using

ANOVA ln the first two cases, attitude exerts significant intluen~e on delayed

achievement F value obtained fbr model cateyor~es and region are found significant

( F value - - 3.10; p . U.05). The obtained F value is significant for 111ode1 ciitegorics

and gender ( F value : 7.1 1 ; p < 0.01).

The combined influence of region and gender exerts no significant

inthence on delayed achievement (F value = ,001. p :, 0 05)

While considering the three-way interactions ketween nod el

categories. region and gender, the combined influence of these thr-et: variables on

delaved achievement with attitude as a covariate is found significant (I.' valut. :- 8 Xt).

1' . - 0 01 ) I t leads to the conclusion that these three variables exerl significant

influence o n delayed achievement in Geographv

The adjusted means of the achicvetnent ditlirence of the pupils

eeography are calculated bv usiny analysis of covariance with attitude as a covar~ate -,

The data and the results are given in Table 5 . 7 8 .

Table 5.78

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Posttest

Scores of Pupils of the ~ x ~ e r i m e n t a l (CAM, AOM and ITM) and

Control (CTLM) Groups classified by Model Categories, Region

The significant F ratio indicates that while the meail sclual-es art.

adjusted by using ANCOVA, the experimental and control ytuups showed ma]-ked

difference in their achievement. So it can legitimately be concluded that ' Infortnatio~~

Processing Models' exerts significant influence on achievenlent ( E value - 22.90

p . 0 0 1 )

and Gender with Attitude as Covariate I

Source o f Variation

.Among ineans

Wtthin groups

Total

* * Srp~{jic~utr at 0. 05 wtJ ( I . 01 /~>11r>l

Mean squares

407 13

- 17 78

37 5 6

Sum of squares

6514 .;I

1 1039 27

17553 58

F ratio

1 2 oo**

! df

16

62 1

63 7

Table 5-79

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the difference in Achievement Scores

o f Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (C'I'1,M) C~.oups

The total sum of squares, the adjusted mean square variance and F

classified by Model Categories, Region and Gender with Attitude as i7uvariate

ratio were calculated hv using analysis of covariance. The data and results are y v e n

Source of Variation

Attitude (Covarlate)

Between groups

Model

Reyon

Gender

?-way ~nteractlotls

Model Key~on

Model Gender

Rey~on Gender

.;-hay interact~onh

Model % Reg~on i Gender

W ~ t h ~ n Group

* S~g~~rfrcm~i L I I 0.05 I V I W I

SS

08 85

1208558

l o l l 9 2 3

77 93 1

120457

208 328

26 070

123555

58 282

655176

655 176

11323891

MS

08q

241 712

337308

77 931

120457

2i, 761

8 (Y)O

4 1 1 8 q

5 8 1 8 2

218392

2 l S 392

18235

df

I

5

3

1

1

7

3

3

I

3

3

621

F

00 5

I ; 255

I8498

4 274

6606

I 632

377

2 2 5 0

3190

I1977

1 1 977

Significance -- --I

-- + -

*

+

*

* --

-- -

--

-

The sisnificant F ratio indicates that while the rneatl squares ai-t.

adjusted by usiny ANCOVA, the experimental and control groups showed inarked

ditterence in their achievement. So it can legitimately be concluded that ' Inf~~r~nation

I'rocessing Modets' exerts significant influence on achievement (I: value - 7 10:

p . O U l )

Table 5.80

Surnrnary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Diflereoce in

Achievement Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM)

snri Coritrot (CTLM) Groups classified by Model Categories.

Region and Gender with Attitude as Uovariate

5.4.8 Instructional Strategies and Learning Environment of Students

The performance of the pupils is iniluenced by the learning

environment to which they belong. Students having healthy learnins environment

produce better results in the academic achievement They scow high in their class

tests and ternlinal examinations. The main objective of the present study 15 to t c s ~ the

efiectivet~ess of I nforniation Processiny M odds over the conventional teac tins

Learning Method The influence of Learning environment i s also taken into accourlt

Source of Variation

.4mong ineans

1

Within groups

t

I'otal I

** S~gtt!'fiucrrr/ rr t O . O j mid O.01 /el)el

Sum of squares

2072.15

11323 89

13396 04

df

16

62 1

6 ; 7 I

Mean

129 51

18 24

2 1 0 3

- .

For this purpose the investigator hersetf prepared and startdardised a

Geography Learning Environment Questionnaire for the students of Standard IX. The

questionnaire was given to the sample population and scores were subjected t u

statistical analysis

The mean and standard deviation of the Learning Environment Scores

of the 638 students belonging to the four groups (CAM, AOM. ITM and V'l'l..M) were

The mean and standard deviation of scores on Geography Learning

Environment which are classified by the school and model categories are given I I I

Table 5 . 8 l

The scores on Learning Envirvnn~ent of studerlts cutis~dered tbr the

study, when class~fied by the school and tnudel categories provide the follclwing

summay statistics

Table 5.8 1

Mean and variance for Learning Environment Inventory

Scores-Classified by School and Model Categories

A graphical representation of' scores on geography iearnins

environment classified by school and model categories is presented in Figure 3 1 1

(Exptl. I)

1

7,

- .r

4

5

6

7

8

Total

N * fi ~gtlre.~ ~ivfh~tj

C'TL,M

{C:or~trol)

h l 20

(10 44)

58 113

( 5 90)

01 ;O

( [ I 35)

62 b0

( 1 1 t73 )

53 L > O

( I 2 88)

58 7q

(9 25) -

5 5 811

( 9 <7)

0.; 7q

( 10 6 0 )

5 9 4 i

(10 42)

l(10

AOM

(Exptl. 11)

60 75

(7 52)

57 40

( 7 75)

60 3 5

(1:; 47)

7 15

(8 47)

52 90

( 9 21)

51 60

(7 21)

58 20

(7 54)

56 10

(8 12)

56 81

(9 1'1)

I hO

stc~t~durd de

65 95

(8 17)

60 30

( I0 98)

60 40

( 9 84)

57 80

(9 28)

61 20

(6 32)

11 95

( 8 40)

59 20

(9 87)

66 25

I6 84)

60 43

(9 62)

159

brucket.s ~ td i ca te

ITM

(Exptl. 111)

65.05

(6 29)

56 70

(8 0 3 ) -

59 5 5

(9 5 5 )

57 60

( I I 77 )

50 90

(9 75))

59 60

(9 91)

54 53

(9 02)

59 70

(6 62)

57 97

(9 76)

159

\ , I c ~ ~ I [ M I

1 --

CAM - ---I

I

L --_I .- - J

- -- --

AOM 7

L- - -- -- --

-- -- - i

ITM 1

I II Ill IV v VI VII Vlll

-- -

CM

J --- I

Lcr rning Enrimnmcnt Scurcs-C:lassificd h! Scltool and Modcl (.atrgorius

Comparison of Learning Environment Scores Classified by Schools and Mudel

categories in the CAM (expt1.l) and CTLM (control) group

The mean and standard deviation of the environment scores of 1 i')

pupils in the CAM (expti.1) group and 160 pupils in the CTLM (control) yroup were

calculated The Critical Ratio (C.R) was found out and tested f'ot significance The

data and results are given in Table 5.82

Table 5.82

Data and Results of Test of Significance of difference

between Mean Environment Scores of Pupils in thr

CAM (exptl.1) group and CTLM (Control) Group

The Critical Ratio (C.R) obtained ti-om the test ot' s~gnificance o f

Group

CAM

(exptl I)

CTLM

(Control group)

difl'erence between rneans in CAM and CTLhl groups was not s~yniticant (C' K

The result of the analysis indicates that the two yroups do not differ

N

159

160

much in the et~vironmental scores

Comparison of Learning Environment Scores Class~tied by Schools

Mean

60.43

59.43

and Model Categories in the AOM (exptl. 11) group and 160 pupils in the C'TLhl

Critical Level of Ratio

t nl (C. R) significance

9 07

0.83 Not significari t

10 42

(control) group were calculated. The Critical Ratio was also cornputed and tested for

signiticance The data and results are given in Table 5 83

Table 5.83

Data and Results of Test o f Sig~~ificance of

Difference between Mean Environment Scores of Pupils

in the AOM (exptl.11) group and CTLM (control ) gl-oup

The Critical Ratio of the control group is significant ( C ' K - : 7 38 , 17

O 05) at 0.05 level. The environment scores of the control group is significant ivhich

indicates that compared to the AOM (exptl 11) g o u p CTL.M (contl-ol) group had a

better environment for learning Geography than the AOM group

Comparison of Learning Scores CIassified hy School and Model Categories ia

the ITM (exptl.lll) and CTLM (control group)

The mean and standard deviation of the environment scores of 1 5 0

pupils in the ITM (exptl.IlI) group and 160 pupils in the CTLM (control) yroup were

computed The C'rltical Ratio (CR) was found nut and tested for- s~gnificar~ct: The

data and results are given in Table 5.84,

Group

AOM

(exptl 11)

CTLM

(Control group)

N

160

160

Mean

5681

5943

S. D Critical Levtl of Ratio

(0) (C:. K Significance

0 I (1

2 38 S~gnlticant at I) 05 level

1042

Table 5.84

Data and Results of 'rest o f Significance of

Difference between Mean Environment Scores of Pupils

in the ITM (exptl.111) group and CTLM (control ) group

The Critical Ratio obtained for the 1TM (exptl. 111) group and CI'I,M

(control) group does not differ significantly

Group

ITM

(exptl. 111)

CTL.M

(Control group)

The results of the analysis reveal that the learning etlvironn~ent of the

ITM and C'TL-M group is identical and does not differ much hefi~rl: the rr.eatrnent of

Level o f

Significarce S. D (a)

9 76

N

159

160

the experi~nerit

Critical Ratio (C . R)

Mean

57.97

59.42

Table 5.85

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) o f the Immediate Posttest

l o 4 2

Scores of Pupil of the Experimental (CAM, AOM and 1'1-M) and

] , I . < 1 sisn!7anl

Control (CTLM) Groups Classified by School and Model

Categories with Learning Environment as C'ovariate

Source of variation

Environment (Covariate)

Between groups

With~n groups

* .stgr:!ficl~~r I / / 0.0.j /eve/ I SS

73 853

1445 568

17541 626

d f

I

-1 1

633

MS

73 853

481856

27 712

F

2 b h q

17.3888

Significance

*

- .-

In order to compare the effect of Information Processing Models and

of the Conventional teaching Learning Method in the achievement of Geography by

{along Geographv Learning Env~ronment of students as a covar-iate the Analysts of

I'ovariance (ANCOVA) was used to find out whether any significant relat~on existed

between the achievement of students in the experimental and control groups, In the

pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest, achievement difference hetween the

~rnniediate and delayed posttest scores and the (<eogaphy Learning Env~mnrnent

Before proceeding to ANCOVA. the scores were sublected to

.4NO\'A. The totals sums of square mean square variance and F ratios for. the

immediate posttest scores of pupils of the experimental and control groups were

computed The data and the results are presented in Table 5 85

FI-om table F. for df 113

F at 0.05 level - - I0 13

F at 0 O I level - - 34. I ?

I t is seen from Table 5 . 84 that the mean scores on Environment of

students considered for the study, when classified by the school anti model categories

show only a little difference. The difference is not considerable a111011g bch001s

The .4NOV.4 results reported in Table 5 8 establish this further Tht.

difference in mean score among various model categories is significant at 0 0 5 level

( F value = 17.39) This Iead to the conclusion that the means of ir~itnediate posttest

scores of the experimental and control groups diiter significantly amung the four

model categories Therefore it may be concluded that the learning env~t-onnlent exerts

a sisnificant tniluence on immediate posttest scores Since the d~tference 111 mean

scores hetween the schools is not significant ( F value = 2.67, p . 0 01) This leads to

the conclusion that there IS no significant difference in the performa~~ce of pupils who

belor~g to var~ous schools.

The F values were tested 01- s~gnificance Sinw the Fy value 1s

signiticant, the mean of the immediate posttest scores must he adjusted fbr the

diff'erence in Learning environment scores. then only one can say whether model

croups differ very much in the immediate posttest scores in achievement. So further k

analysis is necessar), to find out which means diser signiticantly from the others

The total sum of squares, adjusted mean square banance ftjr the

~~nmediate posttest scores and F ratio were computed They are presented in 'I'nble

5 8 h dong with the result of Analysis of Covariance

Table 5.86

Summary of Analysis o f Covariance (ANCYOVA) of the Immediate Posttest

Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM)

groups Classified by Model Categories with Learning Environment as Covariate

From I'able F , for df 4/633

F at O 0 5 level - - 2.39

F at 0.0 I level - 3.35

Source of Variation

Anioilg means

Within groups

TotaI

Mean squares

.;79 86

29 92

F ratio

1; 71**

Sum of squares

1519.42

17541.63

1906 1.05

df

4

63 3

63 7

Since the F ratio ( 13.7 1 ) i s greater than the table ~ a l u e I 3 3 5 ) at U O I

level. it is significant ( F ratio - 13.7 I ; p .: 0 0 1 ) 'The significant F ratio for- the

immediate posttest of the pupil in the experimental (CAM. AOM a& IThl) and that of.

the control (CTLM) groups differ significantly after thev have been adlusted fix the

diflerences i f any, in the Geography Learning Environment score If F raio i s not

significant, there is no justification for hr ther tesring as none of'the mean differences

will be s~gnificant

Table 5.87

Summary o f Analysis of Variance o f the Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils of the

Experimental (CAM, AOM & LTM) and Control (CTLM) Groups Classified bv

Model Categories with Learning Environment as Covariate

Source of variation

* . S ~ g ~ ~ f t c ~ t t t ~ cr! 0. Oj /eve1

The .4NOV,4 results reported in Table 5.87 show that the mean scores

for subjects classified by model categories and Learning environment have exerted ;i

significant influence on delayed posttest scores

From Table I' for d f 1/3

F ar O 05 level - -. 10.1-3

F at O 01 level - - , 34.12

Environment (Covariate)

Bet ween groups

Within groups

SS

* * . v ~ g t ~ i f i c ~ i ~ ~ t 0. (15 (tud 0.0 1 /e w/

101.752

4915.387

12536.441

d f

1

3

6 3 3

M S F ( ~ i g n i k q

101.752

lb38462

19.805

5 138

82731

.-- *

x *

--2

The obtained value of F ratio is siynificant at O 0 1 levcl (F' valuc

87.73. p - 0.01)

This indicates that the four groups differ significantly in the delayed

posttest scores. This leads to the conclusion that Learning Environment exerts a

signiticant influence upon the delayed posttesr scores. but it does not tell us which

means differ 'The inference is that at least one yroup differ In the mean scores by

taking learning environment as a covariate.

The total sums of squares, adjusted mean square variance for delayed

posttest scores and F ratio were calculated. They are presented in Table 5 along with

the result of Covariance.

Table 5.88

Summary o f Analysis o f Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores

of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and Control (CTLM)

From table F, for df 4/63; interpolated value of

groups Classified by Model Categories with Learning Environment as Cyovariate

F at 0 (35 level - - 2.39

Source of Variation

Among means h.

Within groups

Total

F at O 0 1 level - - 3 35

* * . S / ~ I ? f l ~ ~ l t t l i l l (1.05 ~ltld 0.0 1 te\Y/

Sum of squares

5017.14

12536.44

17553.58

df

3

63;

6.3 7

Mean squares

1254.20

19.81

27 56

F ratio --

O . 3 . ; 3 * *

Since the F value i s greater than the table value at 0 0 1 level. 11 i s

significant at 0.01 level ( F = 63 3 3 ; p < 0.01)

The significant F ratio for the adjusted posttest scores of' t h e

experimental (CAM. AOM and ITM) and control (CTLM) group difl'cr significantly

af'ter they have been adjusted for the differences in the learning environment scores

Table 5.89

Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Difference in Immediate and

Delayed Posttest Scores o f f upils in the experimental (CAM. AOM & ITM)

and Control (CTLM) Groups classified by Model categories with

ANOVA for difference in Immediate and Delayed Posttest Scores-Classified by

Learning Environment as Covariate

Model Categories with Learning Environment as Covariate

Source of variation

Environment (Covariate)

Between groups

Within groups

The scores of 638 students wet-e divided into bur categories and

administered immediate and delayed posttests. The differences in their achieve~nent

* * S~~~llftc~rntr at (1 0 j Ir vrl

SS

2.230

1032580

12361.228

scores in irnnlediate and delayed posttests were subjected to Analysis of C'oiariance

tu find out whether there existed any significarii difkrence between the students

df

1

-7

633

taught in four different methods by taking learning environment as covariate

MS

2 230

344193

19528

F

114

1 7 h 2 6

--- -

I Significance

--

*

Before proceeding to ANCOVA. the scores were sub,jected to

ANOVA. The total sum of squares, mean square variances and 1; ratio were

computed for the experimental (CAM, AOM, 1TM) and control (CI'1.M) groups

Table 5 . . . shows the data and result of analysis of variance

From Table F, for df I/3

F at 0 05 level - - 10.13

F at 0.01 level - - 34.12

The ANOV.4 results reported in Table 5-89 shows significant

difference in mean scores among the four model categories (F value = 17.63. pd:

0 05) So it may be concluded that there is a significant eft'ect of Learning

Environment on Achievement scores.

Since the F value i s siynificant, the means scores of difkrences in

achievement must be adjusted for the Learning Environment scores and only then can

one say whether the yroups differ significantly. So further analysis is necessary

The total sum of squares, adjusted mean square varlance and F ratio

were computed They are presented in Table 5 . 90 along with the result of Analysis

of Covariance.

Table 5.90

Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the Difference in Immediate

Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimental (CAM, 40M & ITM) arid Control

Table F tbr df 4/633 shows interpolated value of

(CTLM) groups Classified by Model Categories with SES as Covltriate

F at 0.05 level - - 2.39

Source of Variation

Among tneans

Within yroups

Total

F at 0 0 1 level - - 3 35

Since the F-value is greater than the table value. i t is signrficant at 0.0 1

* * Sip~j$ficcnlr ol 0.03 mlcj 0. OI Ievrl

Sum of squares

1034.81

12536 44

1 3396.04

level (F = 13 25; p < 0.01 1. It may be concluded that after making adjustment in the

Learning Environment scores the model categories exert significant influence on

df

4

633

63 7

achievement difference.

T

Mean squares

258 70

19 51

-- 2 1 0.;

F ratio

I i 25**

Table 5. 91

The Scores on Learning Environment of Students Considered for the Study

When Classified by the Model, Region and Gender Categories

*J'iffrtrt..s / ) I brackets ure .r.fandard devil t i i o11

A graphical representation of the scores on learning environment of

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

students classified by model categories, region and gender is given In Figure 5 12

Boy

Girl

Total ( 9 3 5 ) (9.90) (8.33) (9.57) (9.53) (9 .72) (1109) ( 4 5 7 )

60.43 56.8 1 57 97 5'1 43

55-67

(9.78)

63,73

(6 98)

59 75

60.35

(10.29)

61.88

(9.57)

61 l l

54.90

(8.01)

54.50

(8.72)

54.70

58.88

(10.95)

58.95

(8.11)

58.91

57 13

(9 71)

55.30

(9.38)

56.20

58.13

(9.24)

6 . 3

(10.05)

59.73

57 28

( 9 3 I )

58.83

(12.69)

58 05

59 70

(7.98)

61 90

(10 93)

60 80

r ---- - - -

ALL

I : RURAL

I IOURBAN '

I

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

i -.

t

BOYS !

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

r - - . -. . . -- - ,

I GIRLS r

I

MODEL MODEL MODEL MODEL 1 2 3 4

Figure 5.12

Learning Environment Scores-C:lassitied by Model

C'ategorics, Region and (iender

Table 5.92

The Scores an Learning Environment of Students Coasidered for t h t

Study. when C:lassified by the Region and Model C:ategories

The Scores on Learning Environment of Students Considered for the Study,

when Classified by the Gender and Model Categories

1 6033 5681 1 5 7 9 7 <(I 43 Total I 19b11 1 (9 9 ) I ( 0 7b) 1 i I 0 4 2 , 1

2 71 - --- l l ! f > l \ >;\ (dl / ~ , / I , ,

- - - _ -- -

Table 5.94

Summary of ,4arlysis o f Variilrlce (ANOVA) of the Imnlediate Posl-test Scores of.

Pupils of the E~prrinie~ital (CAM. AOM & ITM) and Control (( 'T1.M) G r ~ u p s

(--'lassified by Model categories, Regiom ;rod Gender with E~lviro~lrnerlt 21s

The ohta~ned value 1s not signiticant for the follo~king categor~eh

(~endcI' (F- ().;3. p . o ( j I )

i " ' Y Z % i r a r i a t i o n

' - [%a ~nter-actions -.- - k

Model - Regirw

Model (iender

Reyiorl - Gender

; -nay interactions

L2..lodel Keyiori . Gender

Within Group

* ~ ; ~ ~ ) ~ / / c Y I I u LU 0.03 /LVLJ/

-I--

F 1 Siguifirn~lrc 1 I I -4

2 8 6 8 1

i;oo21 I A - -----f I

l $ 4 X i , -i.

-7-- --- I

8 81.4 1 1

I .+

-- ---I

(I.:? I I -- - I

4 700 7

MS

7 5 8 %

3-34801

4 7 i 0 2 2

716 361

SS I d f

7; 853

1674006

1427706

226.962

137 712

666.884

59 655

-158.01

458 0 1

15990 2; 1

1

5

.:

I

907

863 906 --

3

.

1

; .

.

b 2 1

I \ c107

7 -i w I

4.5 I ? 1 783 I

12.; i F g

222 2'f i

( 5

152 684

157.684

25 7-40

8 63.; I I 7---- ----

-1 7 , 3 1 7 1 1 - -7- -- * - --

5 k?.;O 4

I 5 0;o

i ! -2- ------_I

Regon - gender ( F -- 3 3 17. p -, 0 0 1 )

The adjusted mean squares among the means. w~tl'tin grnul, and k I a t lo

were calculated b\ using .AUCOV:I The data and I-esults are y ~ e n rn Table 0;

Table 5.95

Summary of Analysis of Covariarlce ( ANC'OVA) of the Immeriiate

Posttest Scores of Pupils of the Experimental (CAM. AOM # I T W )

and C'oatrol (CTLM) Groups Classified by Model C'ategories.

'The siy~lificant F ratio indicates that while thu mean 3qilar.es art.

Region and Gender with Environment as Cuvariate

adjusted by using 4NCOVA. the experi~nental and control Froups showed mashed

source o f k ' a r i a t io~

means .A~non,

Within yl-oups

Tnta t

-

diff'erence in their inlnlediate achievement So it car1 be legitimatelv concluded that

Infurmarion Processins Models exens significarlt intluerict. o r 1 ~mmudiatt.

*' , ~ / ~ ! I I # I C L I ~ I I 0. O j L I ~ I ~ 0, 0 1 /LJ \ I > /

A

s u m q Y I s ~ ~ ratio

3070.82

15990 23

19061 05

I (3 1 I 0 3 -----

h l l

63 7

2 5 75

- '0 cj1_

'I'able 5.96

Sumrna~r: of .Andpis of Valiance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils

of the Expel-imental (C'AM, AOM & ITM) and Control (C'T1.M) Groups Classified

by Model C:atego~-ies, Region and Gender with Envil-onment as <'ova~*iate

Keglon Gender 00 1 1 00 I

.;-ha!, interactiur~s 423.461 i I l l 7 980

1 Model Keyion Gender 423 462 :i I 4 1 1 5 4 7 v X c ) ;

Withi11 Ciroup 10972.879 621 17670

* L5'ig/tl/t~.(l!~f ( [ I 0.0-5 /L>\ILJ/

I- Source of \'ariati011

Eii\.ironment (('ovariate) -

Hetiwen yroup:,

Model

1 Kegiorl I 1 Gender

2-n-a\ ir~teractiur~s

Fr-0111 the above I'able. it is ebidenr that except tijr region and ser~der

all other \,ariablcs are si~nificant. The F ratio regtun gender I S tivt .;ignilicanr

SS

l O I 7.52

5546578

4849108

4 5 . j 18

03 550

8 . 9 0

I i -- Mudel a Region

Sigaifirance

.< I 0 9 0 2 7 8 1 , - ..

.i , 11163h9 91-177

I 5-45 .: I 8 - 7 0 8 0 2

1 u j 5 5 0 5 2 0 4 ! - - -- 7

155995

7 7 0 7

2lodel Cie~lder -353 166

-- -. - --1 3 1 17 7 2 2 6 hh2 i

-1 . I iI3Crh

-- -. -, .

2 0 1 3

The ad,justed mean squares among the nlearls. bi~hin yroul, a ~ ~ c l 1: t;tt~n

\+ere calculated hv using ANNOVA The data and I-csults art. y ~ c r l in -1'ahli. ~7

Table 5.97

Summary of .Analysis of Covariance (ANCOC'A) of the Delayed Pusttest

Scores o f Pupils o f the Experimental ('.AM, AOM d4 ITM) and

C'otltrol (C'TLM) Groups Classified by Model C';ttegories.

Region a ~ l d Gender with E I ~ iro~~nlent as C'ol ariatv - -

I 1 1 Source o f Variation I Sun, o f squares I d l I Venn squarrs C ratio 1

10972 84 i Within groups

4mong means

The significant F ratio indicates that uhile the Illcan srlilare.; arc

adjusted b?, usins 4hCOL'A. the experitnental and control groups shoucd niarlied

dittieret~cc in tbeir delaved achievement So 11 can be legiti~~lateli concluded thar

Int'ormar~on Processing Alodels exerts si~nificanr ~nfluence 011 delatid ;ii.hieicnlent

(l: i,alue 21 28. p 0 01)

- - - bS80 74

I -- I 0 41 l 30

Table 5.98

Summary of .4nalysis o f Variance (ANOVA) of the Difference i l l Achievemet~t

Scores of Pk~pils of the Experimental (C.431, AOM & ITM) and

C'ontrol (CTLM) Groups Classified by Model Categories.

Region and Gender with Enviru~inlei~t as Covariate

;- i \aj ~nteract~ons 650 297 216 766 1 I SL)2 ! 1 ], J = Reyon Gender 650.297 3 16 706 1 I 832 , .-

U'ithm Group 11319925 421 18730 i -

- + .Y~g~r~f !ct i t t~ l f ( 0.0j Iel~t31

Fin111 Table F. for df 1 6 2 I

Source of \:ariation

F at 0 Of; lecel - - 3 8 5

SS df'

The obtained value is not significant tor' the follo\\ing categtmes

En\ i~-otlnlerit (C'uvariate) --

I Ber~been ~ruul?s

J

Region

Gender

11 ode I - gender (F - 2 . 3 2 3 , p * - 0 01)

h.1S A -

F

2.230

1711110

I01 7 288

68 671

112876

17' - - -1 0

342713

.330 OQb

68671 --

I1187h

.- - --

Significance

I

3

3

1

1

7 1 1 -- ."

\;?XK

18.602

3 7 h 7

61(!1

-4

. -.

- .. -. - - : 7 - -. Y -1

--p --Pi

[-he ad j i~s ted meat1 squares anlong the means. M ~t IIIII ~ i ~ o u p arid 1' I at i t )

\rt.~-c. calculated hy us ing 4LC'OVA The data anci result> arc gr\ en 111 1 nhlc i l ' ( J

Sumalaq of h~lalysis o f Covariance (,4NCO\-A) of the 1)ifferetlce io

.4chievemeat Scores of Pupils of the Experinierltal C'AM. .\O!bI iY: ITM)

and Control (CTLM 1 Groups CIlassified b?- Nlodel C'ategories.

T i le s~gt i i f icant F ratto ~ndlcates that irhilc tlie tilean hclual.c.3 arc

Regiorl and Gender with Et~vironn~er~t as Covariate

a(!iiisted b\ usiny .+ZNTO\,'.4. the experi!ilei~tal and con1 red yroups hhoii eci 11iarked

di t tk~-enze i n t tleii. a c h w e~nen t So ~t can t ~ e l e g ~ t 1111a1el~ c o ~ ~ c l u c l c d t har I r~fi>r lnatlon

?

Source of Variation

-

Amon? mean3

Pt occss~ t lg Models exerts slgniticant i n t l i~e i i cu r j i l a c h ~ t v e ~ i ~ e n t ( I \ ;~ luc 7 -! 1 -.

Sun1 o f squares ,

--- 2076.1 I

5.4.0 .\cademic .4chievement and Socio-Ecotloo~ic Status

- 1 - h ~ students 111 a ~iormally distributed class be long l r ) d ~ t f i.er11 \rlcic\-

ectmconlic statila levels Generally. the maioriti ht ~ident s helull9 to I tie a \ t.r;lgt. 01

beion a\;erage socio-economic status Students in rhe high ~ o c i o - ~ . c t ) n o t l l ~ ~ stat115

-. .-A - ! F ~.atio

- - -1

wit t1i11 ~ i - o i i p s

I - -,.- - -l-r>ral

--.

(if

t 0: 1

I 21 O <

-- . .-...A -

%lea 11 SttuiIres

* * .St ,yt t / f j i ' i r t t / rrl O. 03 r l t l d 0.01 / c ~ l . ( ~ /

.--+--

1 h 1 2 ~ 1 ?h

usualb gel adequate home environment and necessary learning ~naler~als l-fence the

art. fourld to score hiyb in achievement tests

1'0 lest the efTectiveness nf 1nf~~r.marion Processing Models owl thc

rraditio~~al teacher centred method. the effect ut' socio-rconomlc status nn the pr-ctest

and posttests ot'tht. pupils ill their achievement i s also t o be consider.ed

FOI- this. the Socio-Economic Status Scale developed and standardised

h!, .A %air (updated in 1998) was administered to the total sample helon~~r ls r t ) I hc

four model ca~egories

The scores on SES of students cor-isidel-ed fim the stud\,. ishen

classified by the school and rnodei categories provide the ti)llouincr surnl-nar\

statist ics

Table 5* 100

Mean and Variance for SES Scores-Classified b?. School and Model {'ategories

1. I ~ I I ~ V 5 \ I ,~r/?ow h~+( ~ e k ~ ~ 1 I ~ I L / I L J L ~ ~ c t t ~ ~ t t t \ I I /W \

1, /g{t/.rJ r \ I ~ I / ~ I I I hrctc,krr$ ~ ~ t ~ l r c ~ r l e 1 I C I I ~ ~ / ~ I I . L / ~ / L ' ~ ' / L I I I I ) I I

4 y.aph~cal representation ot' rlle 111ean scores of Sf-.S classified b!

I 1

-

7

I 'L

I- i

k-

I otal

L

school and model cate~ories is presented in Figure 5 I3

CAM

(Exptl, I )

54 75

( 13 00)

4-3 25

(9 500

5 1 10

(13 00

57 50

(13 52)

47 50

( I I 30)

51 25

AOM 7- 1

IThl I (.I.L,51

(9 -58)

5 1 25

(9 5 5 )

59 50

( 1 5 12)

5 1 24

(12 95)

1.59

(Exptl. I I ) (Exptl. i

5 I bL1 4h 2 5 1 I 7 1

44 I t ,

( I 4 0 7 ) ( 7 711)

; I 7 5 47 2 5

( 6 4 I14 )

36 7 5

( 4 (14)

46 00

(16c) I )

FJ 75

( t l 5 8 )

l t30

4c) 21

( I I 04)

58 00

( 111 5 6 )

58 75

( I i 38)

61 25 F 8 7;.

1 1 1 5 3 )

5 0 7<

(1495 )

47 6 i

,,,,I I ( 1 1 7 4 1 i 159 L i O U _ 1

---

11020) 1 -

( 7 121 I ( I 4 0 S ) 1 40 so

AOM

t - ;m:t]-o; 1. -.- ...,-, " ' -'I '- --- -- ,-

I l i 111 IV v VI VII Vlll

ITM

-7-

L 1V V VI VII Vtll

Figure 5.13

SES Scores-Classified by School and Model Categories

Comparison o f SES Scores Classified b?. Schools atld Model C'ateguries in the

C:AVl (exptl. I ) Group and CTLM (control) Group

The nlean and standard dev~ation of the SES scor.e> of t 50 ptlpils III tht,

('.AM (ekptl I) and IhO pupils In the CTLXI .~coritrol s ruupj \%ere calculated T l ~ t .

C'r~tical Ratlo found our and tested for slgnificarlce The data arid r e~u l t s ot' test3

of hiyniticance uf ditference between means are yi\ en III 1 able 5 I 0 I

Table 5.101

Data and Results of Test of Significance of Difference between klenn SEh

Scores of Pupils io the CAM (exptl. 1) group and C'T1,M (control) Group

1-he cntical ratio obtained 1s siynlticant at 0 0 5 I e i c l So i t i a n lit.

cc-hncluded that there is significant difl-eretlce betnee11 ('?\I t n p 1 1 1 1 and I I'Lhl

{ cvntr ol ) yroup 111 te! ms of' SES scores

C'ompnrison of SES Scores Classified by Schools and Model C'ateguries in the

hOM (exptl. 11) Group and CTLM (Control) Group

'fhc itlean and standard dellation of the SEA scorch oi' tile ~ 4 0 4 1

(esprl 11 ) SI-oup and CTLM (control) ~ r o u p ~~c1.t. calculated -1'hc siynificance of'

ditference b e t w e n the means is given in Table 5 I 0 2

C; rou p i N Mean

51 24

47 88

( ' A M

(exptl 1 )

CTI .M

(C'ontrol group)

s. n C'ritical Ratio

1 2 0 5

2 4.;

159

160

Table 5. I02

Data and Results of Test of Significance of Difference between SES Scores

of Pupils in the AOM (exptl.11) Group and C:'I'LM {co~ltrol) Group

l'hc cntlcal ratio i s significant ar 0 0 I 1ect.l ( C ' K 3 70 p 0 I ) I (

Group

.4OM

(euptl 1 1 )

C'TLM

, (C'ontrol yroup)

can be concluded that there is significant dif'ference betheen ,'iOhl cexptl \ I ) and

Level of N Mearl

Sig~lificance

- -

C"l-1. hl (control) yroup

Comparison o f SES Scores Classified by Schools and Model Categories io the

ITM (exptl. i l I ) Group and CXLM (Control) Group

The difference between the ~neans h a s .itar~sticall\ testeci b i

ca lcu la t i~~y the * t ' I alue For this purpose Critical Ratio ih,as calculated

Table 5.103

Data arid Kesults of Test of Significance o f Difference between SES Scores

of Pupils in the ITM (exptl.1Il) Group and CTLM (cootro!) Group

1 Group N

j i (C‘ontrol ~ r u u p ) I I b o

Critical 1 Level o f

The critical ratio obtained i s not si~niticant at O 0 l Ic\ cl ( ( ' R - o 17. 1:

[ I O l ) Su i t c;i11 be concluded that tl~ert. i s nu sis~iiticat~t ditt i .re~\cc t w t \ \ c c ~ l llic

esperiniental star ux of the group and remo~ ed the irlitial ditfer.encu i ) t - the youp5

Uetijre that I he 1: ratios of the imtnediatt: postrest scnr.es it ere zo~nputed ~ s ~ t y

AhO\ 4 wrrh SE.5 as a co~ar la te The data and I-esultb are ylvetl 111 1 ahle i 104

Table 5.1 OJ

Summar?, of .4tlalysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the lnlnlediate Posttest Scores ol'

Pupils ill the Esperimeatal (CAM, AOM d;: 17'Rl) ;tiid ('oatrol (C'TI,Yl) C;ro~~l)s

C'lassified by Model Categories with Sk:S as C'o\ iiriatr - -- -

- Source o f variatio~l , s S ~ . G T G g 1 i i c i ~ 7 -- --

S I,: S ( ('01 m a t e ) 134-1 179 1.344 I70 i 1 3Ji. x h

I I

F r . o n ~ ' I able 1.'. filr df I !j. t.' at 0 05 lewl - 10 13 anti

1: at 0 0 I level t:

The F r.atios bere tested fclt s~yliticance I 'hu tablc \.itlue\ of' I: aftel.

itlterpolation Ibl- dl' 1 i 3 arc 10 13 at 0.05 lei,el atuf 3-1 12 at 0 !) 1 I t . \ el Tilt. ob~ained

F\ ~ .a lue 1s s~snlficant at 0 0 1 level (Fu = 5 1 ;q. p . (1 01 ) I'h13 .choi\c that a1 least

o n c c\i' the groups anon2 C A M , .40M and C'1'1-JI of' the lnocicl iatttyol-ic.\ d~flkr-\

sign~iicantl:, 111 the inmediate pvsttest scores S111ce t l~e FL ~ a l iltb IC. \1ynlfi~a111 tht'

Ineaii ot' the immediare posttest scores rnusr be ad,jus~ed for the dityel-e11c.c i n socio-

ecotlornic status scores. then onl! one can sa? ichethel- the mc~del ~ r - n ~ l p s d~tYet \cr\

111uch ill the itnrnediate posttest scores in acli~evenient Su ti111 he1 anal!,si 5 is

11ecessar.J. to tind 011t which 111eans differs significantly tium the others

'The total sums of squares. adjusted 111ean squarc \.ar.iancc till- the

i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ e d i a t e post-tes~ scores and F ratio were calculated The? ;ire ~~reset~ted in .I'ahlr

Table 5.IO5

Summa? o f Analysis of Covariance (ANC:O\,'A) o f the Immediate

Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimental (CAM, AO'M & ITM) and

Control (UTLM) Groups Classified by Model C:ategories with SES as (.'ovariate

The obtair~ed value is Sreater than the table u l u u ( 1- - - 2 ; 78.

p 0 0 5 ) Hence it can be concluded that the - Informati011 Prucessiny h;ludt.ts ut'

reachirlg- is Inore eficctive than conventional neth hod of teacl~ing

Source of Variation

4moi13 rliean>

Sun1 of squares

2489 63

df

-1

U ithin sl.oup:,

t T'c~tal I

-- TFr;ZJ YIeaa squ;rres -I--+ 612 4 1

16571 40 h ; i .-- -

3h I3 i , 2.; 7 X " =

I I -- -1

19061 05 0.; 7 '9 0 2 I

I - I i

Table 5.106

Summary of Anrrlysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Posttest Scores of

Pupils of the Experimental (CAM, AORI & ITM) and C:ontrol (<"i'Lkl)

The obtained F ratios were tested t i ~ sigt~iticaliu~ f r o m I-able 1, lbr

Groups Classified by Model Categories with SES as C obariate

dt' l i; at 0 O 5 level = I0 1.:. F at 0.0 1 level == -34 I 2 'l'tle obtained \!alucs of F\ arid f . \

ir ld~cate that therc is significa~it difTerence bet iceet~ thc t lsper~~~nental and con~rv l

Source of \ ariatiotl

S E S (C'ova~ iate)

Retheen gi.oup\

, U'l th~n groups

groups ill their delayed posttest scores with SES a3 co! arlatc

* S I ~ ~ U ~ I C I I ~ I I ~ f t 0 03 /LJI-CI L ~ I I L I (1 01 / ~ > \ ? L ~ I

SS

1260 477

43 14 508

1 1978 595

I Sigu~firaece I

The total sum of squares and adjusted nleari hcluarc \ar ianut till-

I

Deia\,ed posttest scores were cornputed The data al-e presented In 'fablc < I I 0

Table 5.1 07

Summary of Arlalysis of Covariance (A\C7OV.4) of the belaved Posttest Scores

of Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and ('oatral (C'I'L,Yl)

.

6.;;

1260 477 06 C>UcJ Y X - -I

Groups Classified by Model Categories with SES as C:ov;lriate

Source uf variation

4111c>r1g nieans

With111 g o u p s

Tota l

* * , Y / g t t t / ~ ~ ~ t t t t ( [ I 0.0-7 ~ 1 t t i 1 U.01 i t ~ \ ~ / J

. .,

Slim o f

5 f; 34 9cl

1 1978 60

17.53 58

63.;

6; 7

, 1 S 0 2 7 ; 6 5 + ~

. . . -1 27 .St>

I

From 'l'ablc F. fur d f 4/63;.

F at 0.05 level 3 37

F at 0 O l level -, 7 " .- .>?

'Thc F ratio I S significant at O 0 1 le\,cl (I-' -= 7.; 6;. 17 0 o l ) Herice ~t

i s c~bv~ous that the t h o final means difFer sigllificanrly bet* eel1 t hc expcr.~mental alld

cu~~t t -01 groups

Table 5.108

Summary of Analysis of \:ariance (ANOVA) of the Difference in Immediate and

Detayed Posttest Scores of Pupils in the Experimeatat (CAM. .4OM & ITM) and

Control (C'TLM 1 Groups Classified by Model Categories with SES as C'uv;lriate

kr01~i Table F. for df 1:;.

F at 0 05 level - - 10 1.; and

F a1 0 0 1 level - - .?4 12

I'lic s~gnlficant F-ratio (F-calue 1; 10. p . 0 0 5 re\ ealed that nrle ot

Source of variation I SS

the rrlodel caleguries difiered. but further analysis 15 necessar?-

* S I ~ I I I ~ ~ L I I ~ I I C I I 0. 0-5 It) \t~/

- df

I

3

6

S E S (C'ovariate)

, Between groups i

Withi11 grc>ups

1.345

1029 03C

13.365.662

..- 7-- >

YlS F I Sigaifica~~ce I !

- .. ' - i 1 .;-I5

4 1 I

10 5 . P

060 I I

17 55c)

" . .-

I 3 10

I - - -- - 1

'Jhr t o ta l sum of squares. adjusted Illeat1 square i,ar.lancc t i>[- dltti-~,er~ct.

In iinti~ediate and delayed posttest scores anci I-' I-ario %err calculated 'l'lie\ arc

presented In Table 100

Table 5. t 09

Surnmaq o f 14~~alysis o f CIovariance I.4NCOV.A) of the Difference in

Immediate and Delayed Posttest Scores of Pupils in the ExperimentaI

(CAM. AOM & ITM) s ~ l d Control (CTLM) Groups Ckissified b~

Model Categories with SES as C okariate

r- Source o f \ ariation Sum of squares

- --

I030 38

12365 66

Total I .3396 04

v * $ I ~ I / ~ / L L [ / ~ ! c{( 0 Oj (iud 0 01

F at 0 0 1 level -, * - - .7 .> ?

']'he I; ratio is significant at (1 0 1 1ei.t.l (1; 1 I 0 0 I ) Hence 11

cat1 be concluded that the lnfornlation Processiny Model i s more t.f-Yecrile ] t i reach~ng

C;ecryraph?- than the C'onventional Vethod

The scores obtained in the SES scale of students \\ere consolidated and

calc~ilattd the I1iean 3rd variance The data and I-esults arc given 1 1 1 1-ahlc. 5 1 I 0

Table 5.1 10

Mean HIMI Variarice on SES of Students C'oasidered for the Study

whe11 Classified by Model. Region and Gender <:ategories , - - .

I I I I I I

Rural lirbati Rural Urba~l

47 o3 -

38 18 46 38 54 88 -16 0; 45 h8 4 3 44 7<-

I X 71) ( 1 2 .;0) (1230) ( I I

{ 13 $ 1 ) ( I ; 66) ( 1 l 09)

5 1 74 5 1 69 470 63 47 X S

(11 0 5 ) ( 12 88) ( I 1 i 7 ) ( I 1 7-41 1 1. . . . -..I

' I I / I h t . i r ~ ' k r * ~ . i rr1.c .\tiu~~krt.d ~ L ~ \ ' I L I ~ I ( N I

..I Srapliical representatio~l of the hcores on StIS zlassif ied nod el.

r,esiun and serldet- is ~ i \ , e ~ l in Figure 5 14

The tigures yiven in the table show that the yroupa a1-u heteroyeneou!. i l l nat 1ir.e

I- -- t

ALL

. . 1 l l RURAL ,

IPURBAN I - I

1 MODEL 1 MODEL2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4

r - BOYS 1

MODEL I MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4

GIRLS

I MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 I

Figure 5.14

SES Stores-Classified by Mudel Categories. Reghkn and Gender

Table 5.1 1 1

Mean and Variance o n SES of St~lderlts Collsidered for thv

Table 5.1 12

Study, when Classified by Region arid Model C ategoriex

1 I I

Meat1 and Variance on SES o f Studerlts Co~isidered for thr

Kut al I

- -

I!rban

Potal

Study. when Classified by the Gender arid Model C:;ttegories

Girl

I C I / / I L J % t t l h t ~ ~ ~ * k i > t \ I I ~ L / ~ C Y ~ I L / %tL~tlcfilt-i/ L / L ~ I ~ I ~ I I I O ~ I )

57 I5

51 34 Total

(12 95)

(1.; 5 2 )

5 I .24

(1395)

'I-able 5 I 1 1 and Table 5 1 12 t v e the Inean and \,ariancu 01' SES .jcores

clabsified h! 1-erio11 and n~odel categories and yeiider and t~~ildel catcgu1.w.

( I ; 1 1 )

5 1 69

respectively They al-e subiected to funher a~ialysis Ii11- interpretat i o n

( 1 7 8 5 ) ( 1 1 5 7 ) ( I 1 74)

( 0 5 0 )

47 h5

I ( l ? 171

4'88 ,

The consolidated one-way. t uo-ua! and three-w a Iiiteract 1011 ni' the

~ndependent variables o n the in~med~ate posttest scores is given 111 Table 5 1 I :

Table 5.1 13

S u ~ n m a v of ,411alysis o f Vnriarlce (ANOVA) uf the Immediate Posttest Scores oL'

Pupils uf' the CIxperimental (CAM. AONI &r ITM) and ( 'o l~ t ro l (("1'1,Nl)

Groups Classified by Model < 'a tepories. Heg io~ l and

Gender with SES as <:o\ariate

S E S ( C ' o ~ a r ~ a t e ) 1.344 I79

Bet~ ieen g~ oups 1300 016

1 4ludel - Keg~c.rtl Gender 1 533 7.37 i ~ l 1 7 7 7 4 4 1 7 4 ! ~ 1 *

U i t hil l Group I 9 1 5 631 7-1 012

* . ~ / ~ I I ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / I I I (11 0 . 0 - 5 ( f t l t l 0 01 /LJ\Y/

* S I ~ ~ I I # ~ C ~ I / ~ / L I I O . O j / P \ Y /

trow -[-able 5 1 13. it call be concluded tha t the onc-ir a \ irltei aclirlrl ut'

rnotiel categul-ies. t-egion and gender taken separately \tit11 SES ;IS ZUL ai-iat t' . l ' l~c~-t ' 1 5

siylif icarlt ditkrence in the immediate postrest scores uf nod el catcgot-ier. te91o11 atld

gerlder

In the t \YO-way interactions. there i s significant ciiit't.r.t.~lct. he1 \.~.et.i1 t hc

model categories arid region. nlodel categories and gender Hut the ditferenct.

bet w e n region and gender is tlot significant ( F u l u c - 7 04. p ( 1 ( I I )

Thc co~t lb~ned influence of nod el c a t e o r ies. I e y l o ~ l a11~1 gerldcht

immediate a c h i e ~ einent is significant ( F valuu --- 7 40. p . 0 0 l )

1 o get the adjusted sum of squal-es. niean variances and I.-\'iil~~e\ tilt'

,A~ialvsis of Co\.ariance was calculated The data and results are given 111 Table 5 I I4

Table 5.1 14

Summary of A~rnlysis of Covariance (ANC:OVA) o f the Immediate

Posttest Scores o f Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM, AOM & ITM )

and C'oatrol (CTLM) Groups classified by Model C'ategories.

The significant F ~ a l u e ( F value - I U 80. p 0 0 1 ~ n d ~ c a t e s that I P M 1 5

superior ro conveioional nler hod of Teaching

The corlsolidared one-wav. t t ~o -M a! a~ici three-M a\ Intt.racrlr>n o f the

indepelldent L arlable on the delaved posttest scores 1s siben irl Tahle I I

Repi011 and Gender with SES i i s C:o\;itriilte

df

10

Within groups 1491 1 34 021 i v

- -. - -. - -. .

Mearm squares F ratio -- -

I 3.50 30 t7 I

-+

24 0 1

h;7 - ' 0 07 I

-- - - - * , - ..

Total

* * .Y{g/~~ft~,~ft!t ill 0. 03 L - U I L ~ 0.~11 /L>\*L>/

i 19061 115

Table 5.1 15

Summary of Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) of the Delayed Postiest Scores o f

Pupils o f the Experimental (CAM. .40M & ITM) and Control (C'1'L.V) groups

Classified by Model Categories, Region and Gender with S F S as C'ovariare

(One-way, two-way and three-way interactiorr) 1

Source o f b'itriation SS d f MS Sipni f ica~~ce - -.

r S F S (C 'o~ar ia te) I260 477 1 1260 477 75 ht~J X X

- - - +

B e t ~ e e n g o u p s 49,1549 5 082.<10 -- --

Model 4333 466 I447 822 $b LNO -- --

Reg~nn $67 210 1 q67 310 34048 -

;; 919 Gender I - ? j c )19 :o;t, - -----

2-\.i a\ ~tltzl-actions 545 054 7 77 865 4 (773 - . .-

hlodel Keylull 22-; 746

Zlodel bender 3 1 7 5 6 8 7 10585(2 h;5J -

Re910n Gendel 273 1 27; O I O , 1

U it hill Group

* . J ' i a y u i f ~ i x ~ ~ ~ t i t i [ j . 0-5 / L > I ~ L ~ /

I-roll1 '1-able 5 I 1 i. it can concluded that the onc-lid!. 1ntt.1-actior1 ut'

model categories. r.egion and gender taken separatel!,. there is s i~n i f i cant dif-%I-e~lce

between thc e\rperirnental and corltrol groups ill the delayed posttes~ scol-es 1% it11 SF.5

as covariate

In the case of gender alone, the obtained value 1s not sign~f icant

In tNo-wa!, analysis also. obtained F-\-,aluc for tht. 111tt.r-actrr,~~ c.tti.ct r r t '

region and :endel- raken together. i t is not siynificarlr t F-jralue - (12. o ( 1 1 1

Bur 111 the three-way analysis (models. resiun and yc1idt.r-1 F - \ i ~ l t ~ e I>

S o i t can be concluded that nirldel categories. r e y n n and gender- l a k o t ~

rogethet-. there IS significanr difierence between euperitiienral and sont1-ol Sl-rjup:,

1 he adlusted sums of squares. mean square \a]-iarlce and 1--ratio (~t ' the tielaved

poatrest \+el-t. cun~puteci The results 01' the allal! si> ar,c yii-en ill I ;ll)lt. + I I o

Table 5.1 16

Summat?: of Analysis of C'ovariance (ANC'OI'.4) of the Delayed Posttest Score< ut'

Pupils o f the Experimental (C'AM, AOM & ITM) and <'ontr+oI (C"r'1.W) Groups

Fro111 the above table. 1 1 call h r seen that the clhta1nc.d F - ~ a l i l u 15

Cylassified by nodel C:ategaries, Region and Geldel. with SES as C'uva~.iate

significant ar 0 01 lt.\.el ( F value = 27 04. p . 0 0 I ) I'he ~ i ~ n ~ f r c a r ~ t 1 ~ a l u e ~ndlintoh

fotal

thar ' Infor~nar~on Process~ng Models of teachir~~' i s supel.lor to L O I I \ e11t ional teachel--

r,~-ierlted method oKteach111g

* * . \ ' I ~ u / I ~ I / / I I 0. O j ~ U I J 0, 01 It>

The influence ot' model categories. regiot? and yt.ndt.1- t ) n tlie

%lean .-

450 q2

-- .

,

.-.-

i

achievement difference between pretest and posttest test SCOT-CA i i a a fr>und o t r r h\-

17553 58 27 5 0 !

-1-.

Sum of squares

7208 36

10.:45 22 --

i I - t i i o-u.a!. arid three-way interaction a ~ ~ a l y s i s ivith St, S ah COL ar-la\c

df

, I t~

0 2 I

The data are presented in Table 5 1 17

Table 5.1 17

S u n ~ m a ~ y o f Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) of the Diffel-ewe ia Achievement scores

of Pupils o f the expetimental (CAM, AOM & ITM) and C:antrol (C'TL.M) Gr.oups

~'lassified by Model Categories, Region and Getldet. with S t 3 as C'o\'ar*iate

Model Gender 1 - - - - - . - - 1

I

- -- -

Source of l'ariation

S E S (Covar~ate)

Between groups . . -- -

Vodel

3-wav ~nteract ions 658,733 __C --..-

Model Region a l i e ~ ~ d e r 658.77; -, - -

Within Group 1 I

* * .Y~gt~ificirt~t (11 (1 0-7 ( { t d O . O / /c~\*c/

From Table 5 117. it is clear t\iat {he rota1 inflilencc r ) l ' 5 E \ on

acIlle\~enic.tlr diiYet-ence i s nor significant (F-value =- 0 X. p i) O I

-1'hu arlalysis of covariance for the achie\,elnenr d~f'erence heti\ ecn tlie

immediate and delayed posttest scores of rhr: experimental and contr-01 y.ol~p.; ar-c

rriveli in Table 5 1 18 -

.-- .

Reyon 84 895 1 84895 Ah74

Gender 144 704 I 1-44 704 7 967 1

. ,

I ?-&a\. interacnons 200 793 7 j 28 (785 1 5 7 0

-- _I.----

--

SS

1 345

1255 305

1046943

Df

I

5

3

I Sigoifica~lce I MS k'

1 -3.15

23 1 061

348981

074

1 3 872

1.121.;

i

--/

I X

I . - - -

X

Table 5.1 18

Sumniaq of A~lalysis of C:ovariance (.4NCO\:A) o l the Difference in

,Achievement Scores of Pupils of the Experin~erital (CAM. /.\0%1 bi IPbI 1

and Control (CTLM) Groups Classified by Model C:;ttegories.

Tot a1 13 ;96 04

... , --. .- . . . . - - - .

Kegion and Gender with SES as Covariate

'l'hc results of the arlalysis of cox al-iarlcct for the a c l i ~ e ~ elnenl d i f fe~- t . t~z~

Source of k'ariation

Among ~neans

j Withingroups

of esperin~ental and control yroups s h o ~ that the mean of' the ach~t.\~cti~t.rit drtt'erellcr

uf' t he IPM group 14a3 sisniticant ( F value - 7 28. p - 0 01 ) klcnct~ i r call be

Sum of squares

21 16 IS

1 I279 86

cot~cluded that the lr-itbrmation Processing (1Ph.l) appruach I S superior- to co~ive~lrlonal

approach in the teaching of Geography

cif

5.410 Observation Schedule for the CAM, A 0 3 1 &. I'I'M

- -7- Yleaa squares I- ratio

I-he InLest~gatur has taken classes tijr the IN''' b~d r l da t c i - r u i l e ~ ~ ~ > 1 r 1

Geuyraphy accord~rlg to the syntax and accepted procedure of Infor~ilat inn 1'1-ucessing

I h ! 137 3h

Models of Teaching Before starting the experiment. the authorities nt' the school

6 2 1

\\ere approached well in advance and the rlar111e and purpose o t ' t t ~ e \ ~ u t i \ \ < t l ~ c dul\

- -

18 1b

esplairled t o the111 'I'he teachers handl in~ Cieo~r-aph! classes in t lle 13'" <randa~,d

I---- 7 1 - X V X

were co~itacted before starting the experiment The lessor^ t~-a~~scr ip th . ~nst r~uct~or~al

materials prepared for each rnodel and the -1'eachin~ :Z~ialys~s C~u id t . ( 0bse1- i a1io11

Schedule) for the ('AM, .4OM and ITM were show11 to them and their suggestions

wel-e invited and doubts were clarified DitTeferellt phases of the model. syntas and

specific procedure and inst~uct ions were explained clearly to the111

The investigator herself handled all the lessons I he head ol' the

institutions and teachers of the subject concerned helped the lnvestigator to canducr

the experiment under ideal conditions

The observation schedule used fol- e v a l u a t i ~ ~ p the teacher's

performance. teaching skill, specific goal and assumptio~ls of each nod el i b a s sit en t cj

the concerned Geography teachers of each sctlool 'l'he 'reaching .411alysis Guide

(obser~ at ion schedule) comprising the Concept .Attainment Model ( C -4 hl 1. Ad\-ancc

Oryanlzer Vodel i.40M) and Inquiry Training Model ( ITM) corltalned 18.14 and 20

questions respectiimely Specific instructions to be fo l lo~ed in each ~nodel categol-!

were given in rhe observatiot~ schedule The quest iot~s were rated o t ~ a 4 point scale

of 4,"; , 7 and I indicatins 'Thoroughly, 'Partially'. 'Missing' and 'Yut needed' The

term *thoroughly signifies that the teacher engaged in the behaviour tu the point

where the students were responding cornfortabl! and tluently The tern1 -i>artially'

denotes some doubt in the students' response as the! respond fully 01- not The tern1

'missing- is used when the teacher did not engage 111 the behaviour. there appears to.

be a loss in students' response on the other hand the term -not needed' indicates r11a1

there is no need for the teacher to engage in appropriate behaviuur hecauxe the

students began t o respond appropriately wit hour beins

Table 5.1 19

The Scores Obtained for the Observation Schedule o f ('.Ar\.l

I I I i l l I

The conce~ned geuyraph! teacllel-.; ale e\pected to respond ru cacli

questiull or stateinelit ill the reacliins 1 1 s Guide (obser\atlnli sclledule) h)

c ~ r s l i ~ i s tlle rel-nl that best describes tlle reacllcls helm\ ioul-

Observarior schedule was analyscd h\ assignins scorch ro each poi111

i n the scale The a\erayt. ofrhe scores was found h\ adding the scol-es of each leacllr~

for eacli niodel

Analysis of the Entries of the Observation Sched~~le of (.AM. .AOR.I & I TV I

l ' he ratinss obtai~ied from the observatio~l sclledulc bere con\-erled into score5

and the averaFe of the scores ohtained for thc ohser\a~ion of I 4 lessons \La5 iourld

The scol-es gi\en b! each teacher were added and then analyscd and the a \ r l a s r ot'rhe

Mean 7 i Teacher Number Scores Obtained

scores v, as fou1id out t o set infor-mation about I he pl-ocedure ti~lloi+eci hi, the teiiulier

'l'lie results are si\ en in table h'o 5 1 10. 5 120 R 5 13 1

1 hc I-arise of possible scores hi. C'rlncrpr .4tta1111nctlt \lode1 ( I 4 \ I 1 I <

18-72 -i'ht. meall scores obtained at-e 5-5 This is much ~norli t h a n ~ h c ~ ~ l i d - p o l n t 01'

tlie ~-anse i c 45 f h i s indicates that the pl-ocedu~,e t'ollo\i-ed In rlic tcachct t~i i : , twetl

r-ared to be sa~isf'aitor.!, w i ~ h respect to the espeuteci p~.ncedur-t.

'The Scores Obtained for the Obsewatior~ Schedule uf .\O]\ll

The Scores Obtained for the Obsenation Schedule of .40%1

r------ --A 7- - - .-

reacher Number Scores Obtained --

1-he range of possible scores for the .Ad\,anct. 01.yar~ize1- +lode1 I -4C)hl) 1 5 14-

$0 I'hr rrlean scores obtained tbr the AOVl 15 45 The mld-pv~nr o t 11lc I-ilnyt. r ~ f '

- 1 I 5 Thc llleatl i alue obtairied from I hc bc.c!~-cb of' r-at~l lg tl\ teac.llc.~-5 r c i t.;iIcrf

tlie fact that the tcacller followed the accepted pl,c)cedu~-e 111 a sa~~stictc>r-\ Illanrler and

the teacher's pertimnanctt was in accordance N-ith tlit- syntax anil specitic goill anci

'l'he Scores Ohtained for the Observatiora Schedulc of ITM

The Scores Obtained for the O b s e l ~ a t i o ~ i Schedule l i ~ r I'I'M

']'be possible range of scores obtained ti>r the lnquin: ' l r - a i l i l ~ l ~ Xlodzl ( 1.1 hl r

is 31-80 '['he niean scores obtained for tT\l i s 0-1 -l-ht. inid-po~nt 01' thc r.aIlgc clt

1Thl i h 5 0 l ' l ~ t . rrluarl d u e obtained from tlw scores ot' ratin? I)\ teacher\ t-eieated

the fact [hat the procedure of the Inquin Tr.ainin2 is str-icrlv ficllo~~vcf ill ~ h c

eupe1.i men t

r 'I'ewcher Number

4

i

h

7 -.

8

Scores Obtained --

0 7

68

0 'l -- i i)

04

-1 (7 ; !

I..--

C:ONSOl,fDATED RES ti I,TS OF ANA I ,YSIS OF (:OVA RIANC:E (ANCIOVA) FOR

- - --- 7 - - -- - - - -- 7- - I -- -- - -- I Model I I Co- Mean

Test Categoq F- r l.cvel of 1

L. ~Q!e%E!!L &. -- - -- variate I variatiori +: " q u m I ratio 1 significance - +-d--

I I Among 7- I -I

I 50h7 i I 1266 78 IPM * Means ( Imrnedtate posttest 0 ( 3 1 i I

Groups Among

IPM x Means 1747 26

Delayed posttest CTLM 1 104 69

Groups 1 'g \ - - 1 - J.,

i 4chrevetnent difyirence 1; 1 I 118600 ' 4 ; 29607 i 1 I P M x I hetikeen itnrned~ate & , prelrst i--h!!?!!!!~ f -- - . - 1 - - 1 1 5 ; g 1 1 C'TLM

001 I 1 delayed posttest I Withfn 1 12?0q ;7 ' o;< 1 9 30

I Groups I - - - L - -- -- - -1 -- -- I - --- I- . :--- - - - L - - - 1 -I -- -- I lPhl *

I

! ! ! Among 1 0 0 ! 16 ' 4 1 4 4 ! , I C'TI,M Immediate pusttest , I Means 1 I - - I - -- ,

Model 1 One-way. trio-rvay 6 ' Pretest : 30 7C1 0 0 1 i

I Reginn three-ivav interact 1u1-15 I With in 12410 1 b 2 31 01 Gruups

Ciender : !

... . - - - ... a . . . - .. j . . .i --- I P M * I Airrnc . 851688 I < ; 2 3 1 \ I ( 'TI . A 1 Ilclaved posttest one-.r+a>. I hleans I

b -- -- I hlodel I iwo-way and three-way Prcrcsr - - -7 - --I i b 58 I 0 01 K e ~ i o n ! itlteractions ! q ~ i b 70 021 14 5 Groups : Gender 1

-. I - - . . . . . ... - .... - - _. - -1 ... -i .- -1 . . ..J

I P

l I

-:

I I

rr

t-

C

YC

,

1 .E

l P

I m

r'l

I r-1

7

j V

II

r'

l

X

,L ;I

w,

; r

l

1 L

I

rr

l

oo

I

I I

r,

- -

I J

--- -+---r-

t

1

i

I-

!

I

.. -

-

--I -

- I

i '-- t+ C

:. -- -+

--

!

i I

I I

TABLE 5.123 CONSOLl DATED DATA AND RESU Ll'S OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSTTEST SCORES

r

Model Category

IPM * CTLM

IPM x C'TLM

lPhl CTLM

l Phl

I I PA1

r - I PA4

I

LJ 0 9

OF PI1PILS

Test Category

Inmediate posttest

Immediate posttest

Immediatt: posttest

l rrirnediate pc~sttest

Immediate posttesr

lrnmediate posttest

CONTROL GROl!PS

D

( M I - M ~ I

26.74 (MI)

24.66 (MI)

28.76 (MI)

24.66 (MI)

29. I 9 (MI)

24 66 (M2)

26 74 ( M I )

28 76 (MI)

26 74 (MI)

27 1 9 ( M z )

28 76 ( M I )

27 19 I M z j

IN THE EXPERIMENTAL

CIomparing Groups

C'AM (exptl.1) &

CTLM {control yroup)

AOM (exptl. I[) &

CTLM (control group)

[TM (exptl 1 1 1 ) &

CTLM (control yroup)

CAM (exptI.1) &

BtOM (euptl 11)

( 'AM lexptl t j Rr

1'I'M (evptl 1 1 1 ) j

CR

-3.25

6 72

2 53

3 73

0 70

2 '11

AND

N

159

1 60

160

IhO

159

I 00

1 5'1

1 60

I59

1 5 9

Level o f significance

0 01

0.0 1

0 01

0 01

Not sigrliticant

0 01 AOM ( e ~ p t l [ I) &

ITM (euptj 1 1 1 )

t (10

159

TABLE 5.124 CONSO1,IDATED RESIII,TS OF ANAI,YSIS OF \:ARI.-INC7E (ANOt'A) FOR POST TEST

SCORES OF PIJPILS IN T H E EXPERIMENT.41, A N D C'OIVTROL, CROIJPS

Model

I ! I 229 22 I 1 88

I 1

I I

diRerence I P A j - (' l l .hl ,Al~~clng rneans 1 44 I i l ~ I

I

Test C'a tegor?, Source af Variation

Amc~ng means

Arnung means

Within groups

Amnng means

Among rneans

LL'ith111 ~ I O L I ~ S

Sum of Sqrlares

3421 38

1h4S 75

l.?O9.< 04

1879 3.3

i 100 59

I0504 $6

(pretest as covariate)

IPM CTL,M

IPhl C'TLM

A~nong means 1 -- 779 22

d f

I

1 .)

633

I

-3 5

6.; .:

Pretest * Immediate pasttest

Models immediate achlevenient

Pretest Delaved posttest

Model * delilvsd a c h i e ~ erllerit

Pretest ach~cvement

Mean Squares

342 1 38

548 58

22 l l

i 579 4.3

17U.; 20

16 (19

F-ratio

154 76

24 81

I12 0 1

102. 0;

Level o f significance

0 01

0 01

0 I)!

0 01

c~~

L -

Table contd .....

Model

(with pretest as covariatej On lnlrnediate

posttest

Immediate posttest

Immediate posttest

1

Irnmediat e Onc-ikay. '1-wo-way and I pclsrtest Three-$tat. t i I j i l l i l j 46 1 111 1 1 2 0 1:) 2 I I

Test <:a tegory

lmnied~ate posttest

Three-wav in teractinn ~rnnlediate posttesr

Models gender

Region r gender (total)

Models Region

Models - gender

Source o f

Two-way Interaction

--

Reg~on Gender

Model Region Gender

Variation

Models * region

Among nieans

Among means

Among means

Sum o f

;Zrnon~ rnea 11s

Among means

Squares

798 63

95 98

594 16

d f

I Oh (If

40r) 80

Squares

7

3

3

significance Mean

I

3

1 14 09

31 09

198 05

F-mtio

J

100 611

176 (1.3

Level o f

5 70

1 60

0 01

Not srynificant

0 8 9 1 0 01

5 < 3

6 83

- 0

0 0 5

0 01

I

Table curitd

I Model Test <:ateeon: 1 Source o f 1 sun1 of 1 df I Mean

I 1 ., +

Categop Variation 1 Squares 1 1 Squares 1 I I I

Delayed I One-way. Two-way B I i i i i ~ i i l ~ groups ' ( 0 7 1 b l i 1 i ;i pustlest 1 Three-way interactions I I

One-way interaction Pretest F achievement

Amc)rly nieans 229.22 I -- 770 22 with pretest as difference covariate

One-way Model region & interaction gender * achievement Arnong means 1178 96 5 235.79

(total) diflerence I

One-way interaction Models * achievemen[ Among tneans i15.3 4Ll .) .;I783 1 (Models) dift'erence

I 4

One-way Region achievement

interactions Among rrieans 72 b1 I 72.6 1 diff'ererice

(Region) I 1

F-ratio ( Level of ] / significance

Table contd

F-ratio

12 51

d f

-1 1

621

Level of significance

0 01

1

Sum of Squares

6711 78

11098.X1

Mean Squares

7 2 3 (10

17 87

Source of Variation

Among nieans

Withitlgroups

M ode1 Category

Three-way interactions Achievement d i ffer-ence

Achievement difference

Test Categoiy

Model Regiun * Gender

One-way, Two-way Pr ~hree-way.

TABt,E 5.125 CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANC'E (ANOVA) FOR POSTTEST

SCORES OF PlJPILS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROlJPS

~nteractian 1 lnielligencc - ~rnmediarr I I Ixvlth I -Inlong rnearlh 10; (13

posttest 0 ( I ( I I I ~ ~ I / I ~ ~ : C ~ as 1

ucn.arlate) I I r I L - I 1

- - - A --- 1- I

1 I I I I I 7 4 0 1

0 O l I

(Intelligeace as covarirte) Model Test C'aiegoq Source o f Sum of d f

Uategory Mean

Squares _ _ _ 1 1 -

3919 47

-3 76 96

22 13

1973 4.3

1468 97

17 (15

-330 00

IPM * C'TLM

IPM C'TLI1.1

1Ph.I C'TL.M ,

F-ratio

177 08

17 03

I 1 1 80

8 ; 22

Inteiiiyence 'rest rmrnediate posttest

Models ~rnrnediate posttest

Intelligence Test delayed posttest

Madcls * delayed posttest

Intelligence Test ach~evelnent difterence 1

1,evel of significance

0 01

0 01

0 01

0 01

Among rrieans

Arnong rneans

Within groups

Aniong means

Anlong means

Wll l l ln grc,ups

.4mong ~-neans

L> 14 1 4

3919 47

1130 89

140 I0 69

1973 43

4406 90

, 73 20

i 3 0 60

1

3

b33

1

3

I

Table contd ...

;24a(tc.!s regions Arnony mcn~is I00 10 3.; 4 0 interactinns

Model Category

1 One-way interaction (total) with

intelligence as covariate

One-way interaction (models) (intelligence) One-way interaction (Region) (intell~gence)

One-way interaction (Gender)

Test (:a tegoq

Mudels. Region &r sender ~ntermediate posttest

(separate1 y )

Models H immediate posttest

Region irr~lnediate posttest

Gender x immediate posttest

df

ti

-3

I

f

S o ~ ~ r c e of Variation

Aniong rneans

Among means

.4mong means

,4111ong means

Mean Squares

304 36

3 7 1 42

3 50 <I0

3t 54

Sum o f Squares

152 1.79

1 126 26

.< 5(1 00

31 4

F-ra tio

I 5 19

18.74

17 52

2 07

Level of significance

0 01

0.01

0 01

1lOt

siynrticarlt

N f ~ J

'r l

TABLE 5.126 C70NSOI,IDATED RESIILTS OF ANALYSIS OF V.4RIANC:E (ANOVA) FOR POSTTEST

SCORES OF PLJPILS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

Model Category

One way interaction (Models)

Region

Gender

Two-way interactluns Models

region

Models gender I

1 Rcglon = 1 I mmed~at e posttest I gender 1

:Attitude as F-ratio

17 65

10 91

000

I X i

9 03

,Inlims nirins 0 1 i 1 lio 1 3 1 \n t I i

* -7 .) s~gn~ficant

Test Ca tegary

I mmedrate posttest

I n~mediate posttest

I nirnediate posttest

Inlrued~ate posttest

l mlnediate posttest

covariate) Level of

significance

001

0 01

Not significant

%Ot

s~gn~ticant

0 01

Source o f Variation

Aniong means

Among means

Among means .. -

.Anions inicarls

,41non~ means

'ad 1-1 D

Sum o f Squares

1366 71

281 47

000

141 9;

699 70

d f

3

1

I

1

1 1

I

Mean Sq~~ares

455.57

28 1 47

000

17 3 1

23.3 262

TABLE 5.127 C'ONS0I,IDd4TED RESCLTS OF A N A L Y S I S OF \'.4RIANC:E (ANOVA) FOR POSTTEST

SCORES OF PCJPILS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROtJPS

I Region 1 Itnrnetliate post test 1 .\mans meal15 5 0 0 ( 1 I . I I I 50 (>(>

cender i

i - 1

(Environment as covariate)

84J

,

Level o f significance

0 01

0 01

Not significant

sign~ticant Yor

F-ratio

18 48

8 81

0 01

1 78

Mean Squares

475 92

226 96

0 91

45 90

d f

3

1

1

-1 1

Sum of Squares

1427 77

326 96

0 91

137 71

Source of Variation

Among means

Among means

Among nieans

.41nong means

Model Category

One way interaction

(total)

Region

Gender

Twu-wal iiiteractions -- -- Mudcls

region

Test C'ategoq

lnlnlediate posttest

lrnrnediate posttest

Immediate posttest

I~nniedrate pc~st test

TABLE 5. i 28 ('ONSO1,IDATED RESIILTS OF ANALYSIS OF VA RIAN('E

( A N o V ~ ) FOR POST rEsT SCORES OF PIIP1I.S IN THE EXPERIMENTA j , a ~n ,.- - - -- . I q U twNT

Model Category

'01. CROIJPS

Test Ca tegor,

--- XI

- One waj:

interaction (Models)

Reyioti

Gender

T w o - r n --

interactions hlodels .:

region

Models gender

Soc~rce o f Vimria tion

Immediate posttest

lrrin~ediate posttest

lrnn~ediate posttest

I

t mniediate posttcst

Immediate posttest

ares

I

Sum of

F-mtio Level - -

1 Region - I

Squares

I 7----- -C-------

i Among means 1143 61

df ,/ p\lrsn (SES 3s F0Variste

I I i I I nimediatr postirsr 1 \ , ~ ~ ( x l ~ jl,ra,i,, / gendet, I 4 00 ; I I

I f r - , .... L.

7 .)

I

I

Among niearls

,4 171 u ri= nleans

I :11110ng 111eilrls 2-23 8 1

Aman? ~ncanx 1 5 x0 5,) I

213 23

38 51

I " y U

- i8 1-20

213 23

38 51 'Not

" ~ n i f i c ~ , ~ 2; 'LJ

0 05 I

, ( -; 1 i 9; 5.7

1 1 6 0

1

15 88

8 ,88

78 27

slRnifican ce

(201

0 01

-; 20

5.5 TENABILI'TY OF THE HYPOTHESES

The ma,jor objective of the study was to compare the efftctiveness 01'

Informatron Processing Models with that of the conventiollal 'I'eaching method in

teachtns C'Jeograpl~y The hypotheses fvrmulated for the study ar-e tested for tenabilir!

in relation to t h e tindinys

Hypothesis I

There i s no significant difierence between the achievement in

Geography oi'the pupils taught by t h e Infi7rmatir7n Processing hltodel (1Ph.l) and that

ut'the pupils taught by the Conventional Method ofteaching.

The result of the experiment clearly iridicated that tl-it. II'M is Inore

effective than C'onvenrional Teaching Method in teaching geugraphy The tindings

are yiven below.

1 Students taught tn the information Processing Models of teachins scored

higher in the immediate posttest In Geography t h a r ~ those under the

Conventiunal Teaching Learnins Method

The t; \,slue obtained from the analysis of cr~var iancc ( .INC'OL'.4) of the

llnmediate posttest scores of the pupils in the experimental (<'.AM. AOhl & ITM)

groups and control (CTLM) group with pretest as covariate is significant at O 0 1 level

(Fy w. for 4/h;.3 -= 57.30. p.-0 01 ) Hence I! can be concluded that Informaticln

Prtxessing Models nf Teaching is superior to Conventional Method of teachrns

2 Studer~ts raughr in the Information Processing Models of* Teach~ns scived

higher in the de la~ed posttest scores in Gengraphv that) those under the

Conventional Method of Teaching. The F ratio obtained In tlic analysis of'

covariance of the delayed post test scores of the pupils in the experiniental

(TAM. . 4 0 M & ITM) groups and control group (C"l'l .hl) with prelest as

cocariare is significant at 0 01 Level (Fy .x for 4/i133= 104 h0. p,- (3 0 1 ) \ v h ~ c h

may be due to higher achievement scores obtained fbr the expel-imental

group. I t was tested for significance of difference between the means of the

posttest scores (Delayed) of the pupils in the experimental Group (C'4M.

AOM & ITM) with control group (C'TL.M) and found to be s i ~ n ~ f i c a n t

.3 Students in the Information Processing Models of Teachin2 scored higher in

the ditt'erence in achievement scores between the immediate and dclaved

posttest scores In Geography than those under rhe C'onventlonal Method of

teaching The F value obtained froni the ar~alvsis of cuvar-1a11c.e ( ANC'O\'.4)

of the difference in achievement between the immediate and delaved posttest

scores of the pupils in the experimet~tal (CAM. . 4 0 M & ITM) group and

CTLM (control) group with pretest as covariate is srsniticatlt at 0 0 I level

(Fy u for 3!h;3= 15-38. p<0.01).

The null Hypothesis i s not accepted on the basis c ~ f the ahcwe t i n d ~ n ~ s

On the other hand the Information Processing hlodels i s fcj'ound be ven effective in

'reaching Geography

Hypothesis I I

There is no significant differerlce between thc adlievernent in

Geography of the pupils taught by three separate models betong~ng to the Infort~lation

Processing Modeis and that of the pupils taught by the (.o~~vent~onal Trach~ng

Learning Method

The result of the experiment clearly indicates that the p~iplls taughr

through Information Processrng Models scored higher than I 'onventlunal Teachlrl9

Learning Method In Teaching Geography

The tindings are given below

a The result of the test of significance of difference between the means of the

post test scores (Immediate) of the pupils in t h e CAM (evptl I ) and (' rL.hl

(control) groups was signrticant (C R value=; 25. pq-0 0 1 1

b The result of the immediate pnsttest scores of thc puptls ~n the AOh1

(exptl 1 1 ) and CTI,M (control) group %as siynlticant ( C' R tillue = 0 72.

p a 0 1 )

c Students under the Experimentai group 111 (1-JM} scored hyher In the

~rntned~ate achievement test in Geography than thust: under the c t~n ten t~c \na l

teach~ng Learning Method (C R va/ue=7 5 3 . p a O 0 5 )

d The result of the test of significance of ditfererlce between the l-nesns of the

delayed post test scores of the pup~ls In the C.4M (euptl I} a ~ l d I"P1,h.l

(control) group was significant (C R Value=7 38 . p. 0 O I

e The result oi' the test of s~gnificance of di tkrence between t h e delaved post

test scores nf the p u p ~ l s in the AOM (esptl 11) and C'?'l.hl (cor~trol) - rirvtip

was s~gnificant (C R value = 15 92, pc- 0 0 1

f The result of the delayed post test scores of the pupils in the 1Th.l (exptl 1 1 1 )

and CTIJM (ct~ntrol) gruup was slgnlficant ( C R l 'a lue-0 ;8 . 1). 0 0 I )

The nulI Hypotheses is not accepted on the basis ot'the above tindings 011 the

other hand the rnodel categories belonging to the Information Processing Models is

fbund tu be very etkctive in Teaching Geography

Hypothesis I l l

There i s 110 significant difference between immediate and delayed

achievement of the experimental and control groups

The results of the experiment clearly indicate that the perfurmar~ce in

Geogr-aphy of the experimental yroup rs siynificarltly higher than r h a ~ of' the control

groups in the immediate and delayed achievement The findings arc given belou

Students belonging to the Informatiun Processing Models of 'l'eaching

scored higher in the difference in achievement between the immediate and delaved

posttest scores In Geography than those under the conventional method of teaching

Students in the Information Process~r~y Models of Teaching scored

higher in the difference in achievement scores between the immediate and delayed

post test scores in Geography than those under the Conventional Method of teaching

The F value obta~ned from the analysis of covariance (.4NCO\;..2) of rhe d~fference in

achievement between t h e immediate and delayed post test scores of the pupils in the

experin~ental (CAM. AOM & ITM) group and CTLM (control) yroup with pretest as

cot,ariate is significant at 0 01 level (Fy.x for 41633- 15 38. p ~ - 0 0 1 )

The rlull Hypothesis is not accepted on the basis of the above findrng:,

O n the other hand the mean scores show that the expenmental gr-oul, 1s in an

advantageous pos~tion in the achievement of Geography that1 the control group

Hypothesis IC'

The main and interaction efyects of independent variables o n the

dependent variable are not significantly higher in the experimental yroup than that ot'

the control group

The results of the experiment clearly indicates that t!ic I K I ~ I I I artd

interaction effect of the independent variables on the dependent tariables are

sisnificantly higher in the experimental group than that of thc control group The

findings are given below,

Students belonging to the Infnrrnatlon Processit~g Models of Teaching

scored higher in the achievement difference between the immediate and delayed post

tesr scores 111 Geography than those under the conventional '1-cachins 1,earnlng

method (CTLM) group considering the combined intluence nt' model categol-ies.

region and sender with pretest as covariate

The F ratio obtained from the analysis of covariance (.4NSI?L'A) of the

difference in achievement scores of the pupils ITI the experimental (C'AII . .40U &

ITM) yroup and (Control) CTLM group by considering the combined infuence of

model categnrles. region and gender with pretest as covarlatt. is crynificant at 0 0 I

lei-el (Fv , x for 16i621 = 8 03. pd -0 01)

The null Hypothesis is not accepted on the bass of the a b o ~ x tindings

On the other hand the main and interaction effect of independent ~a r l ab le are higher

in the experimental Sroup than that of the control yroup