statistical analysis1
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
1/36
Statistical Analysis
Table 1 Language Spoken at Home
Bilingual English Only
Language @ home Frequency Percent Frequency PercentEnglish & Filipino 5 13.20 3 7.50
Filipino & Ilocano - - 1 2.50
Filipino & Pampango 4 10.50 4 10.00
Filipino Only 9 23.70 6 15.00
Ilocano 1 2.60 1 2.50
Pampango 10 26.30 18 45.00
English, Filipino, &
Pampango
4 10.50 - -
English, Filipino, &
Waray
1 2.60 - -
Filipino & waray 2 5.30 - -Ibanag 1 2.60 - -
Missing Data 1 2.60 7 17.50
Total 38 100.00 40 100.00
Table 1 shows that majority of the students in the bilingual
instruction group or 25 out of the 38 students uses Filipino as
their spoken language at home. It is the top spoken language at
home, followed by Pampango dialect where 18 students use it as
their spoken language at home. Among the 38 students, 10 of
which use English language at home. Aside from these three (3)
languages, other languages use at home by five (5) other
students was Waray (3), Ilocano (1), and Ibanag (1).
For the students of the English only instruction group, the top
language uses at home was Pampango dialect with 22 respondents
or 55% followed by Filipino language with 14 students. There
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
2/36
were only three (3) students that use English language at home
and two (2) students use Ilocano language at home.
Moreover, the table shows that the bilingual group uses two (2)
more languages at home as compared with the English only group.
Table 2 Students Preferred Reading Material
Bilingual English Only
Reading Materials HP MP LP HP MP LP
Reference books
(English Only) 9 25 4 2 34 4
Reference books
(English & Filipino 11 22 5 10 26 4
Pocket books (English
Only) 5 20 13 0 17 23
Pocket books (English
and Filipino) 5 23 10 8 16 16
Magazines and Comic
books (English Only) 13 15 10 6 19 15
Magazines and Comic
books (English and
Filipino) 11 22 5 13 21 6
Other preferred reading
materials (English
Only) 8 11 3 3 8 1
Other preferred reading
materials (English &
Filipino) 5 12 3 4 10 0
Legend: HP Highly Preferred
MP Moderately Preferred
LP Least Preferred
The table for the students preferred reading materials shows
that the majority of the preferences of the students of the
bilingual instruction group in all the listed reading materials
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
3/36
were moderate. This is almost the same with the students
preferences of the English only instruction group except for the
pocket books (English only) were majority of them least prefers
it.
The other English only reading preferences of the 22 students of
the bilingual instruction group were: dictionary with 9 highly
preferred 9 moderately preferred and 2 least preferred; Bible
with 2 highly; 1 moderately and 1 least preferred; and Junior
Britannica were 1 student preferred it moderately. In the
English only instruction group, there were 12 who prefer other
English only reading materials. Seven (7) students preferred
newspaper were one (1) is highly preferred, five (5) prefer it
moderately, and one (1) least preferred it. The other reading
materials were encyclopedia (1-highly preferred); automotive
books (1-highly preferred); Bible (1-moderately preferred);
horoscope book (1-moderately preferred); and national geographic
(1-moderately preferred).
There were 20 students from the bilingual group who prefer the
other English and Filipino reading materials. Their reading
preferences were Almanac/Encyclopedia (1-highly preferred and 2-
moderately preferred); Newspaper (4-moderately preferred and 1-
least preferred); Dictionary (3-highly preferred, 6-moderately
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
4/36
preferred, and 2-least preferred); and Bible (1-highly
preferred). Among the 40 students in the English only
instruction group, 14 prefer other English and Filipino reading
materials and these are Newspaper ( 2-highly preferred and 6-
moderately preferred); Automotive book (1-highly preferred);
Almanac (1-moderately preferred); Bible (1-moderately
preferred); Dictionary (1-highly preferred); and Fables (2-
moderately preferred).
Table 3 Students Proficiency Level in the Pre-test and Post-test
Bilingual English Only
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Starting out 9 4 23 12
Beginner 25 24 14 17
Advance beginner 4 9 3 4
Total 38 37 40 33
Table 3 shows that majority of the students proficiency level
in the pre-test and post-test of the bilingual instruction group
were beginner while in the English only instruction group
majority of the students proficiency level during the pre-test
was startling out and in the post-test it was beginner. The
table also shows that one (1) student in the bilingual
instruction group did not took the post-test and seven (7)
students in the English only instruction group who did not took
the post-test either.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
5/36
Among the nine (9) students of the bilingual instruction group
with a proficiency level of starting out in the pre-test, three
(3) students levels up to beginner, two (2) students to advance
beginner and one (1) of the is the one who did not took the
post-test. In the pre-test result of the English only
instruction group 23 were starting out, seven (7) of which
levels up to beginner and one (1) to advance beginner. Five (5)
of these 23 students did not took the post-test.
In the beginner level, four (4) out of the 25 students of the
bilingual group in the pre-test levels up to advance beginner
while one (1) of the students level down from beginner to
starting out. Two (2) of the 14 students of the English only
instruction group levels up from beginner to advance beginner
while another two (2) students levels down from beginner to
starting out.
Each one (1) of the students of the bilingual and English only
instruction groups with an advance beginner level in the pre-
test levels down to beginner in the post-test.
Bilingual
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
6/36
The result of the pre-test on Parts of Speech, Vocabulary
enhancement, and Reading Comprehension of the bilingual
instruction group shows that the highest score was 51 and the
lowest was 7 indicating a range of 44. The graph shows that the
average score of the 38 students was 23.76.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
7/36
The histogram of the students score in the post-test of the
bilingual instruction group shows that the scores were not
normally distributed. This is evidently shown in the graph that
two of these scores were outside the normal curve. These scores
were 102 and 103. In the post test, 103 is the highest score
and 19 is the lowest score. The students average score was
45.62 with a standard deviation of 17.695 indicating that the
scores were spread out.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
8/36
English Only
The histogram of the students score in the pre-test of the
English only instruction group shows that one (1) of the score
is not within the normal curve. This implies that this score is
an outlier or extreme value. The highest score is 59 while the
lowest score is 6 bringing a range of 53. The graph also shows
that the average score of the students in the pre-test was 17.58
with a standard deviation of 9.698.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
9/36
The post test results show that average score of the English
only instruction students was 27.18 with a standard deviation of
10.904. The highest score among the 33 students was 47 and the
lowest score was 6.
Altogether, the students score in the pre-test and post-test
among the bilingual and English only instructions indicates a
non-normal distribution.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
10/36
Practices:
Reading Practices
The students of the bilingual instruction group show that most
of them practices silent reading and guided reading with a
frequency of 20 and 19 respectively. There were only 6 and 4
students who practice the echo reading and think aloud.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
11/36
Most of the students of the English only instruction practices
the silent reading, guided reading, and speed reading with a
frequency of 27, 24, and 24 respectively. There were only 7 and
5 students who practice the think aloud and echo reading.
Table Students Reading Practices of the Bilingual and English
Only Instructions
Bilingual
Instruction
English Only
Instruction
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Echo Reading 6 7.80 5 5.20
Guided Reading 19 24.70 24 25.00
Shared Reading 16 20.80 9 9.40
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
12/36
Silent Reading 20 26.00 27 28.10
Speed Reading 12 15.60 24 25.00
Think Aloud 4 5.20 7 7.30
Total 77 100.00 96 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1: 2.08 1: 2.91
The table shows that the English only instruction group applies
more reading practices than the bilingual instruction group
wherein, the ratio of the student in the bilingual instruction
to the reading practices is 1:2.08, while of the student in the
English only instruction is 1:2.91. This means that the
students in the bilingual group applies two (2) practices on the
average, while most of the English only instruction students
applies three (3) reading practices. Moreover, it shows that
the silent reading is the most practiced and the think aloud and
echo reading is the least practiced among the two groups.
B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Echo Reading 6 5 -6.83 -11 75.13 46.65 121
Guided Reading 19 24 6.17 8 49.96 38.07 64
Shared Reading 16 9 3.17 -7 -22.19 10.05 49
Silent Reading 20 27 7.17 9 64.53 51.41 81
Speed Reading 12 24 -0.83 8 -6.64 0.69 64
Think Aloud 4 7 -8.83 -9 79.47 77.97 81
Total 240.26 224.84 460
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
13/36
r = 0.75
The Pearson correlation value of 0.75 indicates that there
exists a strong positive association between the reading
practices of students from the bilingual and English only
instruction. This means that the higher the frequency of the
students reading practices on the bilingual instruction, the
higher also the frequency of the students reading practices on
the English only instruction, or the other way around.
Correlations
bilingual English Only
bilingual Pearson Correlation 1 .758
Sig. (2-tailed) .081
N 6 6
English
Only
Pearson Correlation .758 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .081
N 6 6
Generally, there is no significant difference between the
reading practices of the bilingual and the English only
instructions.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
14/36
Comprehension Enhancement
The students of the bilingual instruction group exhibit the
following frequency for the following comprehension enhancement
practices: reading for content information (20); comparing and
contrasting (17); predicting outcomes (15); and language
learning experience (12).
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
15/36
The students of the English only instruction group show the
following frequency for the following comprehension enhancement
practices: language learning experience (32); reading for
content information (26); comparing and contrasting (11);
predicting outcomes (11); and others (1).
Bilingual
Instruction
English Only
Instruction
Frequen
cy
Perce
nt
Frequen
cy
Percent
Comparing andContrasting
17 26.60 11 14.30
Language learning
experience
12 18.80 32 41.60
Predicting outcomes 15 23.40 7 9.10
Reading for content
information
20 31.3 26 33.80
Others - - 1 1.30
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
16/36
Total 64 100.00 77 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1 :
1.73
1 :
2.33
The table shows that the English only instruction group applies
more comprehension enhancement practices than the bilingual
instruction group. It also shows that the language learning
experience is the most comprehension enhancement practiced by
the students in the English only instruction group. On the
other hand, it is the least comprehension enhancement practiced
by the students in the bilingual instruction group. Moreover,
the table shows that the ratio of the student in the bilingual
instruction to the comprehension enhancement practices is
1:1.73, while of the student in the English only instruction is
1:2.33. This means that the students in the bilingual group
applies one (1) or two (2) practices on the average, while the
students in the English only instruction group applies on the
average two (2) or three (3) comprehension enhancement
practices.
B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Comparing and
Contrasting
17 11 4.2 -4.4 -18.48 17.64 19.36
Language learningexperience
12 32 -0.8 16.6 -13.28 0.64 275.56
Predicting outcomes 15 7 2.2 -8.4 -18.48 4.84 70.56
Reading for content
information
20 26 7.2 10.6 76.32 51.84 112.36
Others 0 1 -12.8 -14.4 184.32 163.84 207.36
Total 210.4 238.80 685.20
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
17/36
r = 0.52
The Pearson correlation value of 0.52 indicates that there
exists a weak positive association between the comprehension
enhancement practices of students from the bilingual and English
only instruction. This is evidently shown in the chronological
arrangement as to the most applied practices among the
comprehension enhancement activity.
Correlations
Bilingual English
Bilingual Pearson Correlation 1 .520
Sig. (2-tailed) .369
N 5 5
English Pearson Correlation .520 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .369
N 5 5
Generally, there is a significant difference between the
comprehension enhancement practices of the bilingual and the
English only instructions.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
18/36
Vocabulary Enhancement
The students from the bilingual instruction groups apply six (6)
vocabulary enhancement practices. These are the use of
dictionary, etc. (25); instructional read aloud (20); direct
instruction (17); spelling links (12); systematic teaching (12);
and word in thought (9).
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
19/36
The students from the bilingual instruction groups apply six (6)
vocabulary enhancement practices. These are the direct
instruction (23); spelling links (23); instructional read aloud
(21); word in thought (18); systematic teaching (16); and use of
dictionary, etc. (15).
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
20/36
Bilingual
Instruction
English Only
Instruction
Frequen
cy
Perce
nt
Frequen
cy
Percent
Direct
instruction
17 17.90 23 19.80
Instructional
read aloud
20 21.10 21 18.10
Spelling links 12 12.60 23 19.80
Systematic
teaching
12 12.60 16 13.80
Use of
dictionary, etc.
25 26.30 15 12.90
Word in thought 9 9.50 18 15.50
Total 95 100.00 116 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1 :
2.57
1 :
3.52
The table shows that the English only instruction group applies
more vocabulary enhancement practices than the bilingual
instruction group. It also shows that the use of dictionary,
etc. is the most vocabulary enhancement practiced by the
students in the bilingual instruction group. On the other hand,
it is the least vocabulary enhancement practiced by the students
in the English only instruction group. Moreover, the table shows
that the ratio of the student in the bilingual instruction to
the vocabulary enhancement practices is 1:2.57, while of the
student in the English only instruction is 1:3.52. This means
that the students in the bilingual group applies two (2) or
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
21/36
three (3) practices on the average, while the students in the
English only instruction group applies on the average three (3)
or four (4) vocabulary enhancement practices.
B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Direct instruction 17 23 1.17 3.67 4.29 1.37 13.47
Instructional read
aloud
20 21 4.17 1.67 6.96 17.39 2.79
Spelling links 12 23 -3.83 3.67 -14.06 14.67 13.47
Systematic teaching 12 16 -3.83 -3.33 12.75 14.67 11.09
Use of dictionary,
etc.
25 15 9.17 -4.33 -39.71 84.09 18.75
Word in thought 9 18 -6.83 -1.33 9.08 46.65 1.77
-20.69 178.84 61.34
r = -0.198
The Pearson correlation value of -0.197 indicates that there
exists a little association between the vocabulary enhancement
practices of students from the bilingual and English only
instruction.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
22/36
Correlations
bilingual english
bilingual Pearson
Correlation
1 -.197
Sig. (2-tailed) .708
N 6 6
english Pearson
Correlation
-.197 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .708
N 6 6
Generally, there is a significant difference between the
vocabulary enhancement practices of the bilingual and the
English only instructions.
Table 1 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Difference for the Bilingual
Instruction
Student Pre Post sign Difference rank Signed rank
A1 26 50 + 24 23.5 +23.5
A2 26 42 + 16 14 +14A3 18 32 + 14 11.5 +11.5
A4 42 49 + 7 5 +5
A5 14 32 + 18 16 +16
A6 31 52 + 21 20 +20
A7 32 61 + 29 27.5 +27.5
A8 23 47 + 24 23.5 +23.5
A9 22 41 + 19 17 +17
A10 25 37 + 12 9 +9
A11 45 44 - 1 1.5 -1.5
A12 46 102 + 56 36 +36
A13 25 30 + 5 3.5 +3.5
A14 26 31 + 5 3.5 +3.5
A15 9 43 + 34 31 +31
A16 18 - Discard
A17 16 41 + 25 25 +25
A18 14 36 + 22 21 +21
A19 21 50 + 29 27.5 +27.5
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
23/36
A20 22 48 + 26 26 +26
A21 43 103 + 60 37 +37
A22 38 30 - 8 6 -6
A23 21 37 + 16 14 +14
A24 12 55 + 43 35 +35
A25 26 67 + 41 34 +34A26 30 62 + 32 30 +30
A27 17 57 + 40 33 +33
A28 27 43 + 16 14 +14
A29 15 24 + 9 7 +7
A30 24 54 + 30 29 +29
A31 51 52 + 1 1.5 +1.5
A32 20 34 + 14 11.5 +11.5
A33 19 31 + 12 9 +9
A34 14 51 + 37 32 +32
A35 7 19 + 12 9 +9
A36 9 32 + 23 22 +22A37 10 30 + 20 18.5 +18.5
A38 19 29 + 20 18.5 +18.5
SUM 688
AVERAGE 18.59
Null Hypothesis (Ho): there is no significant difference between
the students performance in the pre-test and post-test.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): there is significant difference
between the students performance in the pre-test and post-test.
Where:
Z = sum of signed difference
n = number of students
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
24/36
Z = 5.08
The decision rule is
Reject Ho if Z > 1.645; otherwise do not reject Ho.
Because Z = +5.08 > 1.645, reject Ho. Thep-value is
0.000000009. Because thep-value is less than = 0.05, the
null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, without having to assume
that the original population of difference scores is normally
distributed, the students performance in the post-test is
better than their performance in the pre-test.
Table 2 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
0.669 0.717 2
The reliability statistics table provides the Cronbachs Alpha
that is used to assess the internal consistency reliability of
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
25/36
several items or scores that the researcher wants to add
together to get a summary or summated scale score. In this case,
the researcher wants to assess the internal consistency
reliability of students performance score in the pre-test and
post-test using the bilingual instruction. The table also shows
the Cronbachs Alpha (0.669) and an alpha based on standardizing
the items (.717), wherein alpha is based on a correlation matrix
and is interpreted similarly to other measures of reliability.
Although the Cronbachs Alpha is less than 0.70 but, the
Cronbachs Alpha is greater than 0.70, therefore, the
measurement provides a good support for internal consistency
reliability.
Table 3 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Difference for the English
Only Instruction
Student Pre Post sign Difference rank Signed rank
B1 14 10 - 4 5.5 -5.5
B2 15 - Discard
B3 14 38 + 24 29 +29
B4 21 35 + 14 25 +25
B5 11 - Discard
B6 11 - Discard
B7 7 14 + 7 10 +10
B8 11 36 + 25 30 +30
B9 16 20 + 4 5.5 +5.5
B10 9 - DiscardB11 10 32 + 22 27 +27
B12 18 18 +/- 0 Discard
B13 9 22 + 13 23.5 +23.5
B14 16 22 + 6 8 +8
B15 16 15 - 1 1.5 -1.5
B16 19 24 + 5 7 +7
B17 18 29 + 11 19 +19
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
26/36
B18 24 27 + 3 3.5 +3.5
B19 15 23 + 8 12.5 +12.5
B20 6 18 + 12 21.5 +21.5
B21 6 17 + 11 19 +19
B22 10 20 + 10 16.5 +16.5
B23 30 47 + 17 26 +26B24 59 - Discard
B25 14 13 - 1 1.5 -1.5
B26 23 - Discard
B27 22 25 + 3 3.5 +3.5
B28 25 32 + 7 10 +10
B29 13 21 + 8 12.5 +12.5
B30 13 39 + 26 31 +31
B31 17 6 - 11 19 -19
B32 8 40 + 32 32 +32
B33 13 22 + 9 14.5 +14.5
B34 31 38 + 7 10 +10B35 12 - Discard
B36 24 47 + 23 28 +28
B37 26 38 + 12 21.5 +21.5
B38 35 45 + 10 16.5 +16.5
B39 22 35 + 13 23.5 +23.5
B40 20 29 + 9 14.5 +14.5
SUM 473
AVERAGE 14.78
Null Hypothesis (Ho): there is no significant difference between
the students performance in the pre-test and post-test.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): there is significant difference
between the students performance in the pre-test and post-test.
Where:
Z = sum of signed difference
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
27/36
n = number of students
Z = 3.91
The decision rule is
Reject Ho if Z > 1.645; otherwise do not reject Ho.
Because Z = +3.91 > 1.645, reject Ho. Thep-value is 0.00005.
Because thep-value is less than = 0.05, the null hypothesis
is rejected. Thus, without having to assume that the original
population of difference scores is normally distributed, the
students performance in the post-test is better than their
performance in the pre-test.
Table 4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
0.667 0.702 2
The reliability statistics table provides the Cronbachs Alpha
(0.667) and an alpha based on standardizing the items (0.702).
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
28/36
In this case, the researcher wants to assess the internal
consistency reliability of students performance score in the
pre-test and post-test using English only instruction. Although
the Cronbachs Alpha is less than 0.70 but, the Cronbachs Alpha
is greater than 0.70 thus, the measurement provides a good
support for internal consistency reliability.
Generally, the students score in the pre-test and post-test for
both bilingual and English only instruction shows a good support
for internal consistency reliability. Moreover, there is
significant difference between the pre-test and post-test
performance of students for the bilingual and English only
instructions. (PERSONAL VIEW OR ANALYSIS/IMPLICATION and
strengthen the results using related literature)
Table 5 Statistical Data for Bilingual and English onlyInstructions
Bilingual English Only
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
N 38 37 40 33
Mean 23.76 45.62 17.58 27.18
Standard Deviation 11.07 17.70 9.58 10.74
The data shows that the bilingual instruction has the highest
average rating in the pre-test and post-test. Though the
bilingual instruction performs well both in the pre-test and
post-test as compared with the average scores of the English
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
29/36
only instruction, it is also the group wherein the scores are
more dispersed. This means that the scores in the pre-test and
post-test of the bilingual group were more spread-out than the
English only group. This is evidently shown by the bilingual
students score in the post-test, wherein the lowest score is 24
and the highest score is 103 which give a range of 79 as
compared with the English only group scores with a range of 41
having a lowest score of 6 and highest score of 47.
Methodology
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
30/36
The design for conducting this study was descriptive correlational design, under the non-
experimental type of research. Descriptive correlational design studies the relationship of two or
more variables which aim to examine the relationships that exist in given situations (Burns and
Grove, 2001). The purpose of descriptive studies is to observe, describe, and document aspects
of a situation as it naturally occurs and sometimes to serve as a starting point for hypothesis
generation of theory development (Polit and Beck, 2004). Correlational studies, on the other
hand, examine relationships among variables and the examination can occur at several levels.
The researcher can describe, predict, or test the relationship among variables (Burns and Grove,
2001).
Such design was employed because the researcher wanted to determine whether there is a
significant difference between the variables being studied. It describes the scores of the
maritime students in the pre-test and post-test for the English proficiency level. These would
determine whether they are related or not.
The advantages of a descriptive correlational design are that it is straightforward,
inexpensive, and can be done quickly. It may also be an important preliminary research for
further studies that do attempt to determine the relationship between variables. Moreover, it is
an efficient means to collect a large amount of data about a problem, which is necessary to
determine a large number of interrelationships in a relatively short amount of time. Furthermore,
it is often strong in realism and therefore has an intrinsic appeal for solving practical problems
(Polit and Beck, 2004)
Some limitations of such design are that it determines only the correlation of variables
and not its causation, it cannot assume that the groups being compared are similar before the
occurrence of the independent variable. Thus, pre-existing differences may be a plausible
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
31/36
alternative explanation for any group differences on the dependent variable (Polit and Beck,
2004).
Sampling Frame
The sampling frame for any probability sample is a complete list of all the cases in the
population from which sample will be drawn (Saunders et al. 2003). There are 3 Bachelor of
Science in Maritime Technology sections at the Jose C. Feliciano College, but because two (2)
sections will only be used the researcher made used of the fish bowl strategy.
Purposive sampling on the other hand, is an improvement of convenience sampling
where the researcher applies his/her experience and judgment to select cases
which are representative or typical (Fogelman, 2000). It is also selecting a sample
that will yield the best understanding of whatever they wish to study and a typical
sample is one that is considered or judged to be typical or representative of that
which is being studied (Fraenkel J. & Wallen N. 2004). This sampling technique was
used by the researcher in the choice of sections. In the selection of section the
purposive sampling was utilized wherein the sample sections were selected from all
the sections of the first year maritime students. The sample sections consisted of 3
sections.
The Credibility of Research Findings
In order to reduce the risk of obtaining incorrect answer to research questions emphases
on two particular research designs has to be considered: reliability and validity (Chisnall, 1997).
Reliability is the extent to which research results would be stable or consist if the same
techniques were used repeatedly. Validity is the ability of a chosen instrument to measure what
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
32/36
is supposed to measure. Moreover, the way the measuring is conducted and how the information
is processed affects the reliability.
Reliability is about the results of the investigation, which has to be reliable. If nothing
changes in a population between two investigations in the same purpose, it is reliable.
COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION
For expressing the degree of relationship quantitatively between
two sets of measures of variables, it is usually take the help
of an index that is known as coefficient of correlation. It is a
kind of ratio which expresses the extent to which changes in one
variable are accompanied with changes in the other variable. It
involves no units and varies from -1 (indicating perfect
negative correlation) to + 1 (indicating perfect positive
correlation). In case the coefficient of correlation is zero it
indicates no correlation between two sets of measures.
Product Moment Method of Computing Coefficient of Correlation
This method is also known as Pearson Moment method in the honour
of the English statesman Karl Pearson who is said to be the
inventor of this method. The coefficient of correlation computed
by this method is known as Product Moment coefficient of
correlation symbolically represented by r.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
33/36
The basic formula for the computation of r for the ungrouped
data by this method is
Where xand yrepresent the deviation of scores in the tests X
(Pre-test) and Y (Post-test) from the means of each distribution
of the students from the bilingual and English only instructions.
The Pearson correlation was used for the comparison on the
teachers level of satisfaction on their respective
administrators leadership practices. This is to test if there
is a relationship between the ratings of teachers for
archdiocesan and non-archdiocesan. The correlation coefficient
measures the strength of a linear relationship between two
variables (archdiocesan and non-archdiocesan). The correlation
coefficient is always between -1 and +1. The closer the
correlation is to +/-1, the closer to a perfect linear
relationship. The interpretation of correlations is as follows:
Correlation value Interpretation
-1.00 to -0.60 Strong negative association
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
34/36
-0.59 to -0.20 Weak negative association
-0.19 to +0.20 Little or no association
+0.21 to +0.60 weak positive association
+0.61 to +1.00 Strong positive association
The standard deviation measures the variation of scores
about the mean (average) score, and can be defined as the root
mean squared deviation.
With many data points, or when putting data into a
spreadsheet, the SD definitional formula becomes cumbersome. The
shortcut method to compute SD requires only three memory
registers [in a calculator] (N, X, and X2), instead of a
separate memory register for every individual score. Also, the
shortcut method eliminates intermediate rounding errors created
when the deviations of scores about the mean are not integers.
The shortcut formula follows:
SD =X
2
N
(X
N
)2
where (X N)2 equals the sum of the squares of the raw scores,
X2 N equals the mean of the raw scores, , and N equals the
total number of raw scores.
The standard deviation measures the variation among scores. If
scores cluster about the mean, a small SD results. If scores
spread out father from the mean, the SD will be larger.
For data that approximate a normal distribution (bell-
shaped curve), the SD estimates the proportion of scores falling
above and below the mean, regardless of distribution type and
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
35/36
absolute magnitude of the mean. The spread of data follows the
68-95-99 Rule.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test requires that the differences are
approximately symmetric and that the data are measured on an
ordinal, interval, or ratio scale. ( Berenson, Levine &
Krehbiel, 2006)
References:
Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics by Yogesh
Kumar Singh. Copyright 2006 New Age International (P) Ltd.,
Publishers. ISBN : 978-81-224-2418-8. (page 304 -307)
References:
Chisnall, Peter M. 1997. Marketing Research. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Cooper, D.R. and Emory, C. W. (1992). Research Methods. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,
Inc.
Saunders, Mark N.K. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students, 2nd Ed, Financial
Times/Prentice Hall.
Trochim, William M. (2006), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994), How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. (2004).Nursing research: Principles and methods. (7
ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2001). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, &
utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis1
36/36