CHRPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/418/10/10_chapter5.pdf ·...

CHRPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

5.1 Rationale Behind the Use of the IPM

and CM in terms of Objectives

5.2 Pupil - Performance of a Glance

5.3 Interpretation Using Analysis of Covariance

5.4 Comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole

5.5 Analysis of the Entries of the Observation Schedule

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter gives the analysis and interpretation of the data collected

through the adm~nistration of Achievement Tests, Intelligence Test, Attitude Scale and

Observation Schedules of lnformation Processing Models (IPM). The present study was

intended to test the effectiveness of lnformation Processing Models(lPM) when used

according to situations or used in an integrated manner in the teaching of Chemistry in

classes VIII.IX.X. XI and XI1 of the secondary and the higher secondary classes.

5.1 Rationale Behind the Use of the IPM and CM (Conventional Method) in terms of Objectives

Models of Teaching which are chosen to pattern teaching activities have

much to say about the realities which will be admitted to the classroom and the kinds of

life view which are likely to be generated as teacher and leamerwork together. "Information

processing means the way in which people handle stimuli from environment, organise

data, sense problems, generate concepts and solutions to problems and to employ verbal

and non-verbal symbols". (Weil and Joyce. 1978 : 3)

Generally Models of Teaching were classified into two major categories

like lnductive and Deductive Models based on the type of reasoning in which students are

involved. According to Marsha Weil and Bruce Joyce, Information Processing Models

include 1. lnductive Thinking Model (Taba, 1966) 2. lnquiry Training Model (Suchman,

1966) 3. Biological Science lnquiry Model (Schwab, 1964) 4. Concept Attainment Model

(Bruner, 1966) 5. Developmental Model (Piaget, 1960) 6. Advance Organiser Model

(Ausubel, 1963) 7. Memory Model (Lucas).

Out of the different lnductive and Deductive Models, three representative

modeis were selected for the purpose of the present study namely 1. Concept Attainment

Modei (CAM), 2. Advance Organizer Model (AOM) and 3. Inquiry Training Model (ITM).

The following units were selected for the preparation of the lesson plansitranscripts based

on IPM and CM.

'Different Types of Chemical Reactions' Class Vlll

Oxidation, Reduction and Redox Reactions' Class IX

'Chemical Kinetics' Class X

'Surface Chemistry' Class XI

'Nuclear Chemistry' Class XI1

The models that come under IPM namely CAM. AOM and ITM were used

according to situations in the lesson transcripts. Unit tests were prepared and administered

to assess the achievement of pupils belonging to the different groups selected for the

study. '

Each objective of the different models was taken separately so as to locate

it under Blooms', taxonomy of educational objectives. This has enabled the investigator

to evaluate the achievement of the pupils precisely and make each of them amenable to

measurement. This practice is suggested by Eggen et.al (1 979 : 74)

5.1.1 Objectives of CAM and Bloom's Taxonomy

Concept learning has different aspects. So the objectives of CAM contain

different aspects of concept learning; they are 'recognising additional examples',

'generating examples of the concept', ' locating further examples'. 'describing the essential

attributes' and 'defining the concept'. To measure these different facts on concept learning,

the items should be constructed as to tap these different dimensions. (Eggen, 1979 : 79)

These objectives can be tested at different levels of cognitive domain. Bloom

(1 956) has classified both recall and recognition objectives as knowledge level in taxonomy

and it is the lowest level category referring to memory operations.

Recognition items ask a question and provide the student with several

alternatives to choose from. So one of the objectives of CAM - identifying additional

examples -can be written at the recogn~tion level, if the examples are seen before (Eggen,

1979 : 77). Mere repetition of a definition can also be written at the recall level of knowledge

level measurement.

Comprehension level objectives are aimed at a deeper level of understanding

of the generalisation. It can be measured by having students explain the generalisation in

their own words or by having the students identify situation in which the generalisation is

applicable. (Eggen, 1979 : 79) So some of the objectives of CAM - generating examples

locating examples, describing attributes of the concepts and forming the rule of the concept

- can be written at comprehension level of Bloom's taxonomy.

Application level involves a more complex task in which the student actually

uses or applies the generalisation to solve a problem or predict consequences can be

considered as included at this level.

The investigator followed these coversion schemes very strictly while

constructing the test items for the achievement test. The objectives of AOM were similarly

made amenable to measurement through the use of taxonomy of educational objectives

at the cognitive domain.

5.1.2 Objectives of AOM and Bloom's Taxonomy

The developer of AOM, David Ausubel, was a firm believer in the importance

of concept goals. Because of this, process goals are largely discarded. If taught

interactively, process skills also can be taught with the model. The objectives of this

model are, reminding the students of the whole cognitive organisation asking for a summary

of the major attributes of the learning material, repeating definitions, asking for difference

between parallel subsumers, describing the learning material in their own terminology,

relating the new material to existing knowledge and asking for additional examples of the

concept in the learning material.

Since AOM can be used to teach concepts, the objectives of concept

learning can be realised here also. Moreover the relationships between abstractions can

also be measured. Measuring at the knowledge level would tap students' ability to

remember or recall the relationships between abstractions. (Eggen. 1979 : 300)

At comprehension level, the understanding of students can be evaluated

by asking them to apply the information learned in class to a new situation. (Eggen. 1979

: 301) So the investigator classified some objectives of AOM - giving the summary of

major atiibutes, asking for differences between subsumers, describing the essence of

learning material in their own terminology as comprehension level objectives in Bloom's

taxonomy of cognitive domain.

When the students relate the learning material to actual situations,

application level objectives are realised. So one of the objectives of the AOM - relating the

new material to existing knowledge and apply~ng it in unique situations - was taken in

correspondence with application level in taxonomy of cognitive domain.

5.1.3 Objectives of ITM and Bloom's Taxonomy

The lnquiry training Model contrasts with other models of teaching within

the Information Processing family. The Concept Attainment Model and the Advance

Organiser Model are both concerned with concepts. The lnquiry Training Model helps the

students establish facts, build concepts and then generate theories or explantions that

explain the phenomenon under consideration. This model takes students through the

kind of procedures that scholars use in order to organise knowledge and generate principles

that explain causation. Thus the goals of lnquiry Training are to help students develop the

intellectual discipline necessary to search out data, process it and apply logic to it. The

ITM requires students to question why events happen as they do. and to develop intellectual

strategies that they can use to determine causal relationships among phenomena. Thus

the primary content out come of ITM activities is, the development of 'explanations.'.

Though the model is more process oriented the content out come is also

stressed. As in the cases of CAM and AOM. here too knowledge level questions to

ascertain the recall and recognition abilities of the students are written as the lowest level

of cognitive achievement.

At the comprehension level, the content outcome can be evaluated by

asking questions such as to explain phenomena, to relate facts, to find similarities and

differences, to identify the similar situation where the formulated rule is applicable and to

state the theory of property in their own words etc.

As the ultimate goal of lnquiry Model is to amve at simple linear theory, the theory

of property and finally to amve at a cause and effect relationship, more abstract test items can be

asked so as to check whether those objectives were realised or not. So test items

belonging to the application level of the cognitve domain of the taxonomy can be included

to find out causal relationships. to predict simple linear theory, theory of properties and

also applications of the theory to familiar as well as unfamiliar situations.

5.1.4 Objectives of Conventional Method of Teaching and Bloom's Taxonomy.

The Conventional Method also follows the objectives of Bloom's taxonomy

and they were mesured using the procedure commonly used.

As has been pointed out in Chapter IV experimental method was adopted

for the study and needed data were collected for the purpose. The selected students of

classes VIII,IX.X,XI and XI1 were grouped in to two. Lesson transcripts were prepared

based on units selected for the different classes following IPM (CAM,AOM. and ITM followed

according to situations and relevance ) and CM and the validity of each is established.

The first and second groups of each class were taught through IPM and CM respectively.

An achievement test was administered for the two groups prior to (pre-

test) and after (post-test) teaching the units through these methods. The data pertaining

to the experimental and the control group were subjected to the following statistical

treatments

1. Simple statistics relating to the performance of pupils in the two groups.

2. Analysis of covariance.

3. Tests of significance of the difference between means of the pre-test and

post-test scores in scientific attitude.

4. Simple statistics relating to data on observation schedules.

The data obtained using the observation schedules were processed. This

was done by converting the ratings into scores and comparing these with the maximum

score possible for each schedule. Details regarding scoring and other procedures adopted

are given in Chapter IV - Methodology. Analysis is done under the following heacs.

1. Statistics relating to the performance of pupils' in IPM and CM groups.

a. before experiment

b. after experiment

2. Comparison of performance of pupils in IPM and CM groups.

3. Comparison of effectiveness of the IPM over the CM with respect to.

a. 'Knowledge' level of cognitive achievement

b. 'Comprehension' level of cognitive achievement

c. 'Application' level of cogntive achievement.

4. Comparison of effectiveness of the IPM over the CM with respect to.

a. Intelligence of the pupils

b. Scientific Attitude of the pupils.

5 Comparison of the performance of pupils in Scientific Attitude when t a u n t

through IPM and CM

a. before experiment

b. after experiment

6. Comparison of the scores on Scientific Attitude scale in the pre-test and in h e

post-test when IPM is used.

7. Comparison of the scores on Scientific Attitude scale in the pre-test and in 3 e

post-test when CM is used.

5.2 Pupil -Performance at a Glance

. To compare the effectiveness of IPM over the conventional method of

teaching a pre-test and a post-test were administered for the selected groups under study.

The scores obtained in the pre-test and post-test for the two groups were condensed into

frequency tables to obtain mean, median and standard deviation. This was done to have

a general picture of the performance of students in the two groups in the pre-test and

post-test.

5.2.1 Pupil-Performance of the Two Groups Before Experiment -class Vlll

Table 1, and Table -2 give class, frequency and various statistics cbtained

from the pre-test scores of the two groups of class VIII.

TABLE - 5.1 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATISTICS OF PRE-TEST

SCORES OF THE GROUP TAUGHT THROUGH I P M

1 Total 40 1

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

The arithmetic mean of the scores is found to be 2.9 where as the

maximum score possible is 25. Using the conventional procedure of considering

the average performance indicated by the range, A.M - 1 *S.d andA.M + 1 " S.d. it may

be presumed that the average performance of this group lies between 1.29 and 4.51.

It is quite evident that for a maximum of 25 this is very low. The median obtained

also substantiates the above conclusion.

Frequency

(9

15

23

2

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.D

Values

Obtained

2.9

3.15

1.61

TABLE - 5.2 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATISTICS OF PRE-TEST SCORES

OF THE GROUP TAUGHT THROUGH C M

Using the same procedure as explained under Table 1, the mean score of

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

9 - 1 1

the group lies between 1.29 and 6.35 which shows that the performance is very low

5.2.2 Pupil Performance of the Two Groups - After Experiment -Class Vlll

Total 40

Frequency

(9 15

15

8

2

Table - 3 and Table- 4 give class, frequency and various statistics obtained from

the post-test scores of the two groups of class Vlll

TABLE - 5.3 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATISTICS OF POST TEST


statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

3.82

3.50

2.53

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6 - 1 0

11-15

16 - 20

21 - 25

Total (N) 40

Frequency

(0 1

18

9

7

5

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obta~ned

12.73

11.05

4.94

The mean score of the group lies between 7.79 and 17.67. This roughly

indicates a performance that could be rated as above average. The mean score of the

post-test is definitely higher than that of the pre-test. However, precise statistical conclusion

in this regard will be attempted later after applying analysis of covariance.

TABLE - 5.4 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATlSCTlCS OF POST-TEST

SCORES OF THE GROUP TAUGHT THROUGH C M

I (class) I I Calculated

1 0 - 5 I Mean

Statistics Score

1 6-10 I 19 I Median

f Values

Obtained

11 - 15

The mean score of the group lies between 4.23 and 10.27. This roughly

indicates a performance that could be rated as below average. Howeverthe mean score

of the post-test is higher than that of the pre-test.

5.2.3 Pupil -Performance of the Two Groups Before Experiment - Class ix

Total (N) 40

7

Table - 5 and Table - 6 give Class, frequency and various statistics obtained from

the pre-test scores of the two groups of class IX.

S.d



Values

Obtained

2.57

2.77

0.47

Total (N) 40

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

f

18

22

0

The mean score of the group lies between 2.10 and 3.04 This ~nd~cates a

performance that could be rated as below average.



The mean score of the group lies between 1.85 and 3.29 whicr shows that

the performance is very low.

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 -5

6 - 8

5.2.4 Pupil - Performance of the Two Groups After Experiment - Class IX

Table - 7 and Table - 8 give class, frequency and various statisncs obtained

from the post-test scores of the two groups of class IX

Total (N) 40

f

18

22

0

TABLE - 5.7 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATISTICS OF POST-TEST

- SCORES OF THE GROUP TAUGHT THROUGH I P M

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

2.57

2.77

0.72

Values

Obtained

16.1

16.67

3.33

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6 - 10

11-15

16 - 20

21 -25

Total (N) 40

f

0

1

16

17

6

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

The mean score of the group lies between 12.77 and 19.43. This indicates

a performance that could be rated as fairly above average.



The mean score of the group lies between 8.96 and 15.00 which shows a

performance that could be rated as above average. However precise statistical conclusion

will be attempted later after applying analysis of covariance.

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6 -10

11 - 15

16 - 20

5.2.5 Pupil - Performance of the Two groups-Before Experiment - Class X

Table - 9 and Table -10 give class frequency and various statistics obtained from

the pre-test scores of the two groups of class X

Total (N) 40

f

0

17

15

8



Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

( Total (N) 40 1

Values

Obtained

11.98

11.5

3.02

Scores

(Class)

0 -2

3 - 5

6 - 8

9 -1 1

f

7

24

7

2

Statistical Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values Obtained

4.38

4.12

2.07

The mean score of the group lies between 2.31 and 6.45. This indicates a

performance that could be rated as below average.


SCORES OF THE GROUP TAUGHT THROUGH THROUGH C M

The mean score of the group lies between 2.33 and 3.97 which show that the

performance is very low.

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

5.2.6 Pupil-Performance of the Two Groups-After Experiment - Class X

Table - 11 and Table - 12 give class, frequency and various statistics obtained

from the post-test scores of the two groups of class X.

Total (N) 40

f

10

30

0



Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

3.15

3.50

0.82

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6 - 1 0

11 -15

16 -20

21 - 25

Total (N) 40

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

f

0

8

17

12

3

Values

Obtained

14.3

12.61

4.05

The mean score of the group lies between 10.25 and 18.35. This r oughly

indicates a performance that could be rated as fairly above average. The mean score of

the post-test is definitely higher than that of the pre-test.



/ Total (N) 40 1

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6 - 10

11 -15

16 - 20

The mean score of the group lies between 7.76 and 12.20 which indicates a

performance that can be rated as high. However precise statistical conclusion

will be obtained after applying analysis of covariance.

5.2.7 Pupil-Performance of the Two Groups - Before Experiment - Class XI

f

1

29

9

1

Table -1 3 and Table -14 gives the class frequency and various statistics obtained

from the pre-test scores of the two groups of class XI.



Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

9.98

8.78

2.22

Scores (Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

Total (N) 60

Statistics Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

f

12

48

0

Values Obtained

3.08

3.63

0.83

The,mean score of the group lies between 2.25 and 3.91 which shows a very

low performance of the group



The mean score of the group lies between 1.79 and 4.07 which also shows a

very low performance of the group.

Scores

(Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

5.2.8 Pupil-Performance of the Two Groups -After Experiment Class XI

table - 15 and Table - 16 gives the class frequency and various statistics

obtained from the post-test scores of the two groups of class XI.

Total (N) 60

f

23

35

2

TABLE 5.15 FREQUENCY AND VARIOUS STATISTICS OF POST-TEST


Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

2.93

3.10

1.14

Values Obtained

16

17.53

3.59

Total (N) 60 -


Mean

Median

S.d

Scores (Class)

0 - 5

6 - 1 0

11 - 15

16-20

21 - 25

f

0

5

17

32

6

The mean score of the group lies between 12.41 and 19.59. This roughly indicates

a performance that could be rated as fairly above average.



The mean score of the group lies between 8.57 and 12.35 which also shows a

high value for the performance of the group.

Scores

(Class )

0 - 5

6 - 1 0

12-15

16 - 20

5.2.9 Pupil- Performance of the Two Groups - Before Experiment - Class XI1

Table - 17 and Table - 18 give the class frequen cy and various statistics obtained

from the pre-test scores of the two groups of class XI1

Total (N) 60

f

0

34

25

1



Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

10.46

9.94

1.89

Scores (Class)

0 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 8

Total (N) 60


Mean

Median

S.d

f

31

29

0

Values Obtained

2.57

2.93

0.98

The mean score of the group lies between 1.59 and 3.55 which shows that the




The mean score of the group lies between 1.49 and 7.71 which shows that the


5.2.10 Pupil-Performance of the Two Groups -A f te r Exper iment - Class - X I

Values

Obtained

4.60

4.00

3.1 1

~abl 'e -1 9 and Table - 20 give the class, frequency and various statistics obtained

from the post-test scores of the two groups of class XI1

Total (N) 60

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Scores

(Class)

1 - 3

4 - 6

7 - 9

10 - 12



f

28

19

4

9

Scores

(Class)

0 - 5

6- 10

11 -15

16 - 20

21 - 25

Total (N) 60

f

0

25

15

16

4

Statistics

Calculated

Mean

Median

S.d

Values

Obtained

13.15

12.16

4.25

The mean score of the group lies between 8.90 and 17.40 which shows

that the performance of the group is above average. The mean score of the post-test is

definitely higher than that of the pre-test. However precise statistical conclusion in this

regard will be attempted later after applying analysis of covariance.



The mean score of the group lies ;n between 5.33 and 16.93. This roughly

indicates that the performance could be rated as high.

5.3 Interpretation Using Analysis of Covariance

Values Obtained

11.13

10.00

5.80

It was already stated that Analysis of Covariance was the statistical

technique adopted by the investigator for arriving at valid and reliable conclusions. This

analysis was made to compare the effectiveness of IPM over CM for the groups studying

in the classes of VIII.IX,X and XI and XI!. This was attempted with respect to the scores

obtained for the test as a whole, for each of the three cognitive components namely.

Knowledge Comprehension and Application, for the groups belonging to high and low

level of Intelligence and Scientific Attitude under each major group. An attempt was made

Total (N) 60 -


Mean

Median

S.d

Scores (Class)

0 - 4

5 - 9

10-14

1 5 - 19

20 - 24

f

8

16

22

6

8

to compare the changes in Scientific Attitude occured when IPM and CM techniques of

teaching were used.

The details of these analysis are presented below

5.3.1.1. Comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole -Class Vlll

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F ratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores of the experimental group and control group were computed.

The data are presented in Table - 21

TABLE - 5.21 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES

FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

From Table df 1/78

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

The obtained Fy value (33.66) is higher than the table value (6.96) for df

1/78 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level. The total sum of squares and adjusted mean

square variances for post-test scores were computed. The data are presented

in Table - 22.

MSx(Vx)

19.01

4.85

S S ~

599.51

1389.48

1988.99

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

599.51

17.81

df

1

78

79

SSx

19.01

377.98

396.99

TABLE - 5.22 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE

PRE-TEST AND POST - TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

AND CONTROL GROUPS

937.84 Fy.x = - 5.75 = 163.1 From Table, df 1/77

source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

Since the obtained (Fy.x) value (163.1) is greater than the table value i6.961,

the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level

df

1

77

78

5.3.1.1 .I. Comparison of Adjusted Mean Scores :

The adjusted means for the post test scores of students in the experimental

group and control group were computed. The data are given as Table - 23

SSx

19.01

377.98

396.99

TABLE - 5.23 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST-TEST OF

STUDENTS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROL GROUPS

SSY

599.51

1389.48

1988.99

Sxy

-106.76

598.1 5

491.39

Groups

Experim'ental

Control

General Means

Mx

2.9

3.88

N

40

40

SSy.x

937.84

442.91

1380.75

MY

12.73

7.25

3.39

MSy.x

937.84

5.75

Myx(Adjusted)

13.50

6.48

9.99

SDy.x

2.40

SED = 0.54 From Table D df 77

t at 0.05 level = 1.99

ta t 0.01 level = 2.64

Minimum difference of adjusted means required for

significance at 0.01 level = 0.54 * 2.64

= 1.42

Difference obtained = 7.02

Since the difference between adjusted means (7.02) is greater :han the

minimum difference required (1.42) for df. 77, this is sifnificant at 0.01 level. It means that

the experimental group differ significantly in their achievement. Since the adjusted mean

score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group, the experimental

group is superior to the control group in their performance in the post-test. It may therefore

be concluded that the students taught through the Information Processing models have

better achievement than those taught through the conventional method.

5.3.1.2 Comparison of IPM and CM - withrespect to the 'Knowledge' Level - Class Vlll

The total sum of squares, mean square variance and F - ratios of the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to knowledge level questions, of the two groups

were computed. The data are presented in Table - 24.



MSYPJY)

1.01

1.92

Source Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSY

1.01

149.97

150.98

MSx(Vx)

8.45

1.63

df

1

78

79

SSx

8.45

126.75

135.2

8.45 Fx = -= 5.18 From Table, df 1/78

1.63 Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

F at 0.01 level = 6.96

The obtained Fxvalue (5.18) is higher than the table value (3.96) fordf 1/78

and hence is significant at 0.05 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square varinaces for post-

test scores were computed. The data are presented in Table - 25.

TABLE - 5.25 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE PRE-TEST

AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS WITH RESPECT TO KNOWLEDGE LEVEL

2.59 Fyx = - = 4.63 From Table F, df 1177

0.56 Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

Since the Fy.x value (4.63 ) is greater than the table value (3.96) the

difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.05 level.

5.3.1.2.1 Comparison of Adjusted Mean Scores

MSy.x

2.59

0.56

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The adjusted means forthe post-test scores of students in the experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are given as Table - 26.

SDy.x

0.75

SSx

8.45

126.75

135.2

df

1

77

78

SSY

1.01

149.97

150.98

Sxy

2.93

116.18

119.01

SSy.x

2.59

43.48

46.07

TABLE - 5.26 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WITH RESPECT TO

KNOWLEDGE LEVEL OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SED = 0.17 From Table df 1177

t at 0.05 level = 1.99

tat 0.01 level = 2.64

Minimum difference required

for significance at 0.01 level = 0.17 x 2.64

= 0.45


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Since the difference between adjusted means (0.83) is greater than the

minimum required (0.45) for df-77, this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the

N

40

40

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievement with respect to

'knowledge' level questions. Since the adjusted mean score for the experimental group is

greater than that of the control group, the experimental group is superior to the control

Mx

2.43

1.78

2.11

group in their performance in the post-test with respect to 'knowledge'level. It may therefore

be concluded that students of class Vlll who were taught through IPM are better than

those taught through the convent~onal method with respect to 'knowledge' level of cognitive

My

3.73

3.5

3.62

achievement

My.x (Adjusted)

4.03

3.20

5.3.1.3 Comparison o f IPM and CM - w i t h respect t o the 'Comprehension' level -class Vll l

The total sum of squares mean square variance and F - ratio for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to comprehension level questions. of the two groups

were computed. The data are presented in Table - 27

TABLE - 5.27 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES FOR THE

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

5.52 Fx = - = 14.15 0.39

From Table, df 1/78

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

F at 0.05 level = 3.96

Fa t 0.01 level = 6.96

The obtained Fx value (14.15) and Fy value (43.71) are greater than the

table value (6.96) for df 1/78 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level.

df

1

78

79

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for post-

test were computed. The data are given in Table - 28.

TABLE - 5.28 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE PRE-TEST AND

POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS WITH

RESPECT TO COMPREHENSION LEVEL

SSx

5.52

30.37

35.89

258.3 Fy.x = - = 30.21

8.55 From Table df 1/77

Fa t 0.05 level = 3.96

F at 0.01 level = 6.96

MSY(VY)

369.8

8.46

SSY

369.8

660.15

1029.95

SDy.x

2.92

MSY(VX)

5.52

0.39

SSyx

258.3

658.13

916.43

MSyx

258.3

8.55

SSY

369.8

660.15

1029.95

Ssx

5.52

30.37

35.89

Source of Variation

Among means

Within Groups

Total

SXY

-71.66

7.83

-63.83

df

1

77

78

Since the obta~ned Fy.x value (30.21) is greater than the table value (6.96)


5.3.1.3.1 Comparison of Adjusted Means:

The adusted means for the post-test scores of students in the experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are given as Table -29.

TABLE - 5.29 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WITH RESPECT

TO COMPREHENSION LEVEL OF STUDENTS

IN THE TWO GROUPS


t at 0.05 level = 1.99

ta t 0.01 level = 2.64

Minimum difference required for

significance at 0.01 level = 0.65 x 2.64

= 1.90


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (1.9) for df 77. this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievement with respect to

'comprehension' level questions. Since the adjusted mean score for the experimental

group is greater than that of the control group, the experimental group is superior to the

N

40

40

Mx

0.4

0.93

0.67

MY

7.18

2.88

5.03

My.x (adjusted)

7.25

2.81

control group in their performance. It may therefore be concluded that the students taught

through IPM are betterthan those taught through the CM with respect to 'Comprehension'

level of cognitiive achievement.

5.3.1.4 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to

'the 'Application' level -Class Vlll

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and Fratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to application level questions, of the two croups


TABLE - 5.30 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES FOR

THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

0.2 Fx = - = 1.48 From Table df 1/78

0.14 F 0.05 level = 3.96

18.08 Fy = - = 26.08 Fat 0.01 level =6.96

0.69

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The obtained Fy value (26.08) is greater than the table value (6.96) for

df 1/78 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level.


test scores were computed. The data are presented in Table - 31.

df

1

78

79

SSx

0.2

10.55

10.70

SSY

18.08

54.13

72.21

MSx(Vx)

0.2

0.14

MSy(Vy)

18.08

0.69


POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS WlTH

RESPECT TO APPLICATION LEVEL.

F at 0.05 level = 3.96

Source of

variation

Among means

Within Groups

Total

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

df

1

Since the obta~ned Fy.x value (29.54) is greater than the table value 6.96),

SSx

0.2

19'7 = 29.54 Fy.x = - From table df 1/77 0.67

77

78


SSY

18.08

Sxy

-1.9

5.3.1.4.1 Comparison of Adjusted Means

10.55

10.70

The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the expermental

SSy.x

19.7

and control groups were computed. The data are given as Table - 32

54.13

72.21

TABLE - 5.32 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WlTH RESPECT TO

.i: APPLICATION LEVEL OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

MSy.x I Vyx

19.7

SDy.x

9.82

5.4

3.5

From Table df, 77

SED = 0.18 ta t 0.05 level = 1.99

tat 0.01 level = 2.64

51.37

71.07

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

0.67

MY

1.83

0.88

1.36

My.x (adj-sted)

2.05

1.0-

N

40

40

Mx

0.01

0.18

0.09

Minimum difference required for significance at 0.01 level

= 0.18 ' 2.64

= 0.48



minimum required (0.48) for df, 77, this is significant at 0.01 level. Since the adjusted

mean score for the experimental group is greater than the control group, the experimental

group is superior to control group in their performance in the post-test. It may therefore be

concluded that the students taught through IPM are better than those taught through the

conventional method with respect to 'Application' level of cognitive achievement.

5.3.1.5 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores of

High Intelligence Categories Class Vlll

The total sum of squares mean square variance and F ratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores of the high intelligence categories of the expenmental and control

groups were computed. The data are presented in Table - 33



From Table.df 1/20 704.18

Fx = - = 127.34 Fat 0.05 level = 4.35 5.53

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

F at 0.01 level = 8.10

SSY

249.75

1368.57

1618.32

df

1

20

2 1

MSx(Vx)

704.18

5.53

SSx

704.18

110.50

814.68

MSy(Vy)

249.75

68.43

The obtained Fx value (127.34) is greater than the table value (8.10) for df

1/20 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variance for post-test

scores were computed. The data are presented in Table - 34.


POST-TEST OF THE EXPERTIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

UNDER THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES

From Table, df 1119

Fy.x = 1394.34 = 159.35 Fat 0.05 level = 4.38 8.75

F at 0.01 level = 8.18

Since the obtained Fy.x value (159.35) is greater than the table value

(8.18) the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.

Source of variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


SSY

249.75

1368.57

1618.32

The adjusted means for post-test scores of students in the expermental

and control groups were computed. The data are given as Table - 35

df

1

19

20

TABLE - 5.35 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE

CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS - -

SSx

704.18

110.50

814.68

Sxy

-147.64

364.50

216.86

SSy.x

1394.34

166.26

1560.6

Msy.x

1394.34

8.75

MY

16.66

9.9

13.28

Mx

3.5

7.5

5.5

Groups

Exper~mental

Control

General Means

SDy.x

2.96

Myx (adjusted)

23.26

3.30

N

12

10

From table, df 19

SED = 1.27 t at 0.05 level = 2.09

ta t 0.01 level = 2.86


= 1.27 ' 2.86

= 3.63



minimum required (3.63) for df - 19, this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievements in the high

intelligence level. Since the adjusted mean score for the experimental group is greater

than that of the control group, the experimental group is superior in their performance in

the post-test. It may therefore be concluded that the students taught through the IPM are

betterthan those taught through the conventional method in the high intelligence categories.


the Low Intelligence Categories Class Vlll

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F - ratios for the

pre-test and post-test scores of the low intelligence categories of the experimental and

control groups were computed. The data are presented in Table - 36



Within Groups

Total

SSY

1 15.44

MSx(Vx)

2.17

23

24

MSY(VY)

115.44

SSx

2.17

Source of Variation

Among Means

df

1

17.60

19.77

86

201.44

0.77 3.74

From Table df 1/23 2.17

Fx = - = 2.88 0.77

F at 0.05 level = 4.28

Fa t 0.01 level = 7.88

The obtained Fy value (30.87) is greater than the table value (7.88) for df 1/23

and hence it is significant at 0.01 level.


test scores were computed. The data are presented in table - 37


POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS UNDER THE

LOW INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES

From Table df 1/22 62.7

Fy.x = - = 33.35 F at 0.05 level = 4.30 1.88

F at 0.01 level = 7.94

Since the obtained Fy.x value (33.35) is greater than the table value (7.94)

for df 1122, the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level


Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total



SDy.x I

1

1 1

SSY

115.44

86

201.44

SSy.x

62.7

41.3

104.0

Sxy

15.83

28.05

43.88

MSy.x

62.7

1.88

df

1

22

23

SSx

2.17

17.60

19.77

TABLE - 5.38 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES UNDER THE LOW

INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS IN THE


SED = 0.55 From Table df, 22

tat 0.05 level = 2.07

tat 0.01 level = 2.82

Minimum difference required for significance at

0.01 level = 0.55 x 2.82

= 1.55


Group

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (1.55) for df. 22, this is significant at 0.01 level. It means ;hat the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievement. Since the acjusted

mean score of the experimental group is greater than the control group, it may be concluded

that the students taught through IPM are superior than those taught through CM in the low

intellgence categories.

. - 5.3.1.7 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores - Higher : i

Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale - Class Vlll

N

13

12

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F. ratios forthe pre-

test and post-test scores of the pupils possessing high scientific attitude of the

experimental and control groups were computed. The data are presented in Table - 39.

Mx

1.92

1.33

1.63

MY

8.38

4.08

6.23

Myx (Adjusted)

7.92

4.55


EXPERIMENTAL AND THE CONTROL GROUPS

26.13 Fx = -

3.06 = 8.54 From Table df 1/27

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

F at 0.05 level = 4.21 363.13

Fy = - 9.97

= 36.42 Fa t 0.01 level = 7.68

The obtained Fx value (8.54) and Fy value (36.42) are greater than the

table value (7.68) for df 1/27 and hence are significant at 0.01 level.

df

1

27

28


scores were computed. The data are presented in Table-40.


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS - HIGHER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SSx

26.13

82.63

108.76

Fy.x = 420.53 = 53.1 From Table df 1126 - 7.92 F value at 0.05 level = 4.22

F a t 0.01 level = 7.22

SSY

363.13

269.08

632.21

SDy.x

2.81

MSx

26.13

3.06

MSY

363.13

9.97

SSy.x

420.53

205.87

626.40

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MS.x

420.53

7.92

SSY

363.13

269.08

632.21

SxY

-97.41

72.27

-25.14

df

1

26

27

SSx

26.13

82.63

108.76

Since the obtained Fy.x value (53.1) is greater than the table value (7.22) the



The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the two groups

were computed. The data are given in Table -41.

TABLE - 5.41 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST-TEST OF

STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS-HIGHER CATEGORIES ON

SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SED = 1.05 From table for df 1/26

tat 0.05 level = 2.06

tat 0.01 level = 2.78

Minimum difference required for significance at 0.01

level = 1.05 x 2.78

= 2.92

Difference obtained = 8.78.

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (2.92) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the two groups

differ significantly in their achievement. Since the adjusted mean score for the IPM group

is greater than that of CM group, the IPM group is superior to the CM group in their

performance in the post-test. It may therefore be concluded that the students taught

through IPM are better than those taught through CM on the Scientific Attitude Scale for

the higher categories.

N

16

13

Mx

3.94

5.85

4 89

MY

17.5

10.38

13.94

My.x (adjusted)

18.33

9.55

5.3.1.8. Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores - Lower Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale -Class Vlll

The total sum of squares mean square variances and F-ratios for the low

scientific attitude groups of experimental and control groups were computed. The data

are presented in Table - 42.



F X = - - - 0.13 From Table - df 1/30 0.93

Source of

Variat~on

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

108.78 Fat 0.05 level = 4.17 Fy = - = 41.68

2.61 Fat 0.01 level =756

The obtained Fy value (41.68) is greater than the table value(7.55) and

hence it is significant at 0.01 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square varlance for post-test

scores were computed. Thr data are presented in Table - 43.

df

1

30

31

TABLE - 5.43 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE PRE-TEST

AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS- LOWER

CATEGORIES ON THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SSY

108.78

78.44

187.22

SSx

0.12

27.88

28.00

MSx

0.12

0.93

MSY

10a.78

2.61

Source of Variat~on

Among Means

Within Groups

Total -

SSy.x

117.01

40.69

df

1

29

30

MSy.x

117.01

1.40

SDy

1.18

SXY

-3.69

32.44

SSx

0.12

27.88

28.00

SSY

108.78

78.44

187.22

From Table df 1/29

Fat 0.05 level = 4.18

Fat 0.01 level = 7.60

The obtained Fy.x value (83.57) is greaterthan the table value (7.60) and hence

the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.


The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are given as Table -44.


STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS - LOWER CATEGORIES ON

SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE.


t a t 0.05 level = 2.04

ta t 0.01 level =2.76


0.01 level = 2.76 x 0.42

= 1.16

~ i f f e r e n ~ e obtained = 3.85

Since the difference between adjusted means (3.85) is greater than the minimum

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

required (1.16) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the two groups

differ significantly. The adjusted mean score for the IPM group is greater than

Mx

1.68

1.81

1.75

N

16

16

MY

8.19

4.5

6.35

My.x (adjusted)

8.27

4.42

that of CM group. So it may be concluded that the students taught through IPM

are superior in performance in the post-test compared to the other group

belonging to the low scientific attitude categories.

5.3.1.9 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect tothe Scores of

Scientific Attitude -Class Vlll

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F-ratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to scientific attitude of the two groups were computed.

The data are presented in Table -45.


EXPERIMENTAL AND THE CONTROL GROUPS

644.12 Fx= - = 4.20 From Table df 1/78

153.24

Source of

Variance

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fa t 0.05 level = 3.96 21 1.25 Fy= - - 206.54

- 1.02 Fa t 0.01 level = 6.96

df

1

78

79

The obtained Fx value (4.20) is greater than the table value (3.96) and



scores were computed. The data are presented in Table-46

SSx

644.1 2

11 952.77

12596.89

SSY

211.25

16110.3

16321.55

MSx

644.12

153.24

MSY

211.25

206.54


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

WlTH RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

1724.36 Fy.x = - = 92.60

18.62 From Table - df 1/77

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

The obtained Fyx value (92.6) is greater than the table value (6.96) and

hence the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.

df

1

77

78



were computed. The data are given in Table - 5.47.

SSx

644.12

11952.77

12596.89


SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSY

21 1.25

161 10.3

16321.55

From table, df - 77

SED = 0.97 tat 0.05 level = 1.99

tat 0.01 level = 2.64

Sxy

-368.87

13245.85

12876.98

MY

45.55

42.3

43.93

Mx

27.33

33

30.17

Groups

Experimental

Control

General means

SSyx

1724.36

1433.9

3158.26

My.x (adjusted)

48.7

39.16

N

40

40

MSyx

1724.36

18.62

SDy.x

4.32


0.01 level = 0.97 x 2.64

= 2.56


Since the difference between the adjusted means (9.54) is greater than

the minimum required (2.56) this is significant at 0.01 levlel. It means that the two groups

differ significantly in their achievement with respect to scientific attitude. Since the adjusted

mean score for IPM group is greater than that of CM group, the IPM group is superior to

CM group in scientific attitude. It may therefore be concluded that the students taught

through IPM are betterthan those taught through CM, with respect to scientific attitude.

5.4.1 Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores

of Scientific Attitude when IPM is used -Class Vlll

The performance of pupils taught by IPM in the pre-test and post-test in

scientific attitude were compared and the difference in their performance was tested for

significance by finding the critical ratio (CR) using the formula,

The data and results of test of significance are given in Table - 48.

TABLE - 5.48 RESULTS OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST

AND POST-TEST SCORES OF IPM GROUP

Result of test of Significance

Significant

?

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test L

CR

6.17

Level of Significance

0.01

No. of Students

40

40

Mean

27.32

45.55

SD

11.65

14.57

It can be seen from the table that the cr~tical ratio is greater than 2.58.

Hence it is significant at 0.01 level. It means that there is significant difference in scientific

attitude scores of the pre-test and post-test. Since the mean score of the post-test is

greater than that of the pre-test it can be concluded that IPM is effective in producing

significant scientific attitudinal changes in the pupils.

5.4.2 Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of Scientific

Attitude when CM is used -Class Vlll

The performance of pupils taught by CM in the pre-test and post-test in


significance by finding the critical ratio. The data and results of test of significance are

given in Table - 49.

TABLE - 5.49 RESULTS OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND

POST-TEST SCORES OF CM GROUP

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greater than 2.58.

Hence it is significant at 0.01 level. It means that there is significant difference in scientific

attitude scores of the pre-test and post-test. Since the mean score of the post-test is

greater than that of the pre-test it can be concluded that the conventional method of teaching

is also effective in producing significant positive change in scientific attitude in the pupils.

Result of Test of Significance

sign~ficant

CR

3.12

SD

12.78

13.81

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Level of Sign~ficance

0.01

No.of Students

40

40

Mean,

33

42.3

5.5.1 Analysis of the Entries of the Observation Schedule Class Vlll

The ratings obtained from the observation schedules were converted into

scores and then analysed. The results are summarised in Tables - 50,51, and 52.

TABLE 5- 50 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE

OBSERVATION SCHEDULE OF CAM

The range of scores possible is 18 - 72. The mean score obtained is 46.6.

This is much more than the midpoint of the range, that is 45. This in dicates that the

procedure followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with reference to the

expected procedure.

Teacher No.

1

2

3

TABLE - 5.51 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE

OBSERVATION SCHEDULE OF ITM

Marks Assigned

44

50

46

The range of scores possible is 20-80. The mean score obtained is 61.33.

This is more than the midpoint of the range, that is 50. This indicates that the procedure

followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with reference to the expected

~rocedure.

Mean

46.6

Mean

61.33

Teacher No.

1

2

3

Marks Ass~gned

61

60

63

TABLE - 5.52 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE

OBSERVATION SCHEDULE OF AOM

The range of scores possible is 0 - 56. The mean score obtained is 42.

This is much more than the midpoint of the range that is 28. This indicates that the

procedure followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the

expected procedure.

Teacher No.

1

2

3

5.3.2.1 Comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole -Class IX

The total sum of squares. Mean square variances and 'F - ratios for the

pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups were computed.

The data are given as Table - 53.

Marks Assigned

44

40

42



Mean

42

Fx = 0 From Table df 1/78

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

340.32 = 32.66 Fy= - Fat 0.01 level = 6.96 10.42

MSx

0

0.35

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

340.32

10.42

SSx

0

27.55

27.55

df

1

78

79

SSY

340.32

812.57

1 152.89

The obtained Fy value (32.66) is greater than the table value (6.96). It is

significant at 0.01 level. The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances

for post-test scores were computed. The data are given as Table-54.

TABLE - 5.54 ANALYSIS OF COV ARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

AND CONTROL GROUPS

- -

Fy.x = - 340'32 - - 724.08 0.47

From Table df - 77

From 0.05 level = 3.96

From 0.01 level = 6.96

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The obtained Fyx value (724.08) is greaterthan the table value (6.96) and

so the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.


df

1

77

78



SSx

0

27.55

27.55

TABLE - 5.55 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST -TEST OF

STUDENTS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

SSY

340.32

812.57

1152.89

Sxy

0

146.27

146.27

My.x(adjusted)

13.50

6.48

MY

12.73

7.25

9.99

SSy.x

340.32

35.99

Mx

2.9

3.88

3.39

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

N

40

40

MSyx

340.32

0.47

SDy.x

0.68

From Table df - 77

SED = 0.15 t at 0.05 level = 1.99

ta t 0.01 level = 2.64

Minimum difference of adjusted means required for significance at

0.01 level = 0.15 x 2.64

= 0.40



minimum required (0.40) for df, 77 this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievement. Since the adjusted

mean score of the experimental group is greater than that of the control gorup, the

experimental group is superior in their performance in the post-test. It may therefore be

concluded that the students taught through IPM are better than those taught through CM.

5.3.2.2 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the

'Knowledge' Level - Class lX

The total sum of squares, mean square variance and F-ratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to knowledge level questions of the two groups

were computed. The data are grven as Table-56.



Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

78

79

SSx

0.02

16.97

16.99

SSY

6.62

62.87

69.49

MSx

0.02

0.22

MSY

6.62

0.81

0.02 F x = -

0.22 = 0.09 From Table - df 1/78

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

The obtained Fy value (8.17) is greater than the value (6.96) it is significant

at 0.01 level.


scores were computed. The data are presented as Table - 57.



RESPECT TO KNOWLEDGE LEVEL

6.98 Fy.x = - = 9.56 From Table - df 77

0.73 Fat 0.05 level =3.96

Fat 0.01 level = 6.96

Source

of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The obtained Fy.x value (9.56) is greater than the table value (6.96) and



df

1

77

78



SSx

0.02

16.97

16.99

SSY

6.62

62.87

69.49

Sxy

-0.29

10.55

10.26

SSy.x

6.98

56.31

63.29

MS.x

6.98

0.73

SDy.x

0.86



SED = 0.15 From table - df 77

ta t 0.05 leveI=1.99

ta t 0.01 level = 2.64


0.01 level = 0.15 x 2.64

= 0.39


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Since the difference between adjusted means (0.59) is greater :%an the

minimum required (0.39) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the two groups

differ significantly in their achievements. Since the adjusted mean score of the lP?A group

is greater than that of CM group, the students taught through IPM are superior n their

performance in the post test compared to those taught through CM with resaect to

knowledge levelof cognitive achievement.

5.3.2.3 Comparison o f IPM a n d CM with respect t o the

Comprehension Level -C lass IX

N

40

40

The total sum of squares mean squares variance and F- ratios for*e pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to comprehension questions of the two groups


Mx

1.98

2

1.99

MY

3.55

2.98

3.27

Myx(aqusted

3.55

2.57



0'02 = 0.06 Fx= - From Table, df 1/78 0.34

Fat 0.05 level = 3.96 54.45

Fy= - = 28.25 F at 0.01 level = 6.96 1.93

The obtained Fy value (28.25) is greater than the table value 6.96) and


Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


df

1

78

79

SSx

0.02

26.97

26.99

test were computed. The data are given as table - 60




SSY

54.45

150.35

204.80

54'12 = 27.90 Fy.x = - From table df 1/77 1.94

F at 0.05 level = 3.96

F at 0.01 level = 6.96

MSx

0.02

0.34

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

54.45

1.93

df

1

77

78

SSY

54.45

150.35

204.80

SSy.x

54.12

149.43

203.55

SSx

0.02

26.97

26.99

SXY

-0.82

-4.98

-5.8

MSy.x

54.:2

1 . 9

SDy.x

1.39

The Fy.x value (27.90) is greater than the table value (6.96) and hence the

difference between the scores of the two groups is significant.



and control groups were computed.The data are given in Table -61


COMPREHENSION LEVEL OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SED =0.31 From table .df -77

t at 0.05 level =I .99

tat 0.01 level =2.64

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


= 2.64 x0.31 =0.82

Difference obtained =I .65


minimum required (0.82) for df-77,this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievementsince the adjusted

mean score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control grouplit can be

concluded that the group taught through IPM are better than those taught through the

conventional method with respect to 'comprehension'level of cognitive achievement.

N

40

40

Mx

0.6

0.63

0.62

MY

7.03

5.38

6.21

My.x (adjusted)

7.03

1.65

5.3.2.4 Comparison of IPM with CM with respect to the Application Level -Class IX

The total sum of squares.mean square variances and F-ratios for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to application level questions of the two groups

were computed. The data are presented in Table -62

TABLE 5.62 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES

FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS.

From Table -df-78

Fat 0.05 level =3.96

source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

=36.15 F at 0.01 level =6.96

The Fy value obtained (36.15) is greaterthan the table value (6.96) it is significant

at 0.01 level

df

1

78

79


test scores were computed.The data are given in Table -63

TABLE 5.63 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE PRE-TEST AND


RESPECT TO APPLICATION LEVEL.

SSx

0

0

0

SSY

88.21

190.54

278.75

MSx

0

0

SSy.x

88.21

190.54

278.75

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

88.21

2.44

SSY

88.21

190.54

278.75

MSy.x

88.21

2.47

SXY

0

0

0

df

1

77

78

S0y.x

1.57

SSx

0

0

0

88.21 Fy.x = - =35.71 From table - df -77

2.47 Fat 0.05 level =3.96


The Fy.x value (35.71) is greaterthan the table value (6.96pso the difference

between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.



and control groups were computed.The data are presented in Table -64

TABLE 5.64 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST TEST OF


SED = 0.35 From table -df 77,

ta t 0.05 level = 1.99

tat 0.01 level = 2.64


=2.64 x 0.35 = 0.92


Since the difference between the adjusted means (2.1) is greater than the

minimum required(0.92)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means with the two groups differ

significantly in their achievement with respect to application level questions.Since the

adjusted mean score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group,it

Groups

Expermental

Control

General Means

My / My.x(adjusted) N

40

40

5.68

3.58

Mx

0

0

5.68

3.58

4.63 1

can be concluded that the group of students taught through IPM are superior to CM group

with respect to application level of cognitive achievement.

5.3.2.5 Comparison of IPM and C M with respect t o the Scores o f

High intel l igence Categories -Class IX

The total sum of squares, mean square variances and F-ratios for the

pre-test and post -test scores of the high intelligence categories of the experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are presented in table -65

TABLE 5.65 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL

AND CONTROL GROUPS

0.29 Fx = - = I .36

0.21 From table - df -1 2

F at 0.05 level =4.75

Fa t 0.01 level =9.33

The obtained Fy value (28.33 is greater than the table value (9.33)for df-12


Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


test scores were computed. The data are given as Table - 66

df

1

12

13

SSx

0.29

2.57

2.86

SSY

120.07

50.86

170.93

MSx

0.29

0.21

MSY

120.07

4.24



HlGH INTELLGENCE CATEGORIES

134.71 Fy.x = - =22.97 From table -df -1 I

5.87

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total



The obtained Fy.x value (22.97) is greater than the table value (9.65) for

df-11 ,and hence the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant

at 0.01 level.

df

1

11

12



and control groups were computed.The data are presented in Table -67

SSx

0.29

2.57

2.86

TABLE 5.67 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE

CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSY

120.07

50.86

170.93

SED = 0.96 From table -df 11

t at 0.05 level = 2.20

SXY

-5.85

6.14

0.29

My.x(adjusted)

22.22

15.67

MY

21.86

16

18.93

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

SSy.x

134.71

36.19

170.90

N

7

7

IrlSy.x

134.71

5.87

Mx

3.14

3.43

3.28

Si3y.x

1.81

tat 0.01 level = 3.1 1


=0.96x3.11

=3.01



minimum required (3.0l),this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the experimental

and control groups dlffer sign~ficantly in their achievement. Since the adjusted mean score

for the experimental group is greater tahan that of the control group.the student taught

under IPM are superior in their performance in the post test compared to that of CM group

in the high intelligence categones.

5.3.2.6 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores

of Low intelligence Categories -Class IX

The total sum of squaresmean square variances and F-ratios for the pre-

test and post -test scores of the !ow intelligence categories of the experimental and control

groups were computed. The data are presented in table -68

TABLE 5.68 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES FOR THE


From table - df -12


MSx

0.49

0.32

SSY

84.3

53.2

137.5

MSY

84.3

4.43

SSx

0.49

3.88

4.37

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

12

13

Fy = - 84.3 =19.03 4.43


The obtained fy value (19.03) is greater than the table value (9.33) for df-12



test scores were computed. The data are given as Table -69



LOW INTELLGENCE CATEGORIES

55'58 =15.23 From table -df -1 1 Fy.x = - 3.65

Source of Variataion

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


F at 0.01 level =9.65

The obtained F y x value (15.23) is greater than the table value (9.65) for

df-11 ,and hence the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant

at 0.01 level.

d f

1

11

12



and control groups were computed.The data are given as Table-70

SSx

0.49

3.88

4.37

SSY

84.3

53.2

137.5

Sxy

6.38

7.12

13.5

SDy.x

1.91

SSy.x

55.58

40.12

95.7

MSy.x

55.58

3.65

TABLE 5.70 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES UNDER THE LOW INTELLIGENCE



ta t 0.05 level = 2.20

tat 0.01 level = 3.1 1

Mintmum difference required for significance at 0.01 level

= 1.03x3.11 =3.20



minimum required (3.20),this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the experimental

and control groups differ significantly in their achievement. Since the adjusted mean score

for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group.the experimental group

is superior in their performance.lt may threfore be concluded that the students taught

through IPM are betterthan the those taught through CM in the low intelligence categories.

Groups

Experimental

Control

General means

5.3.2.7 Comparison o f IPM and CM w i th respect t o Scores-Higher

Categories o n Scient i f ic At t i tude Scale - Class IX

Mx

2.38

2

2.19

N

8

6

The total sum of squares.mean square variances and F ratios for the pre-

test and post -test scores of the pupils possessing high scientific attitude ofthe experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are given as table -71

MY

13.63

8.67

11.15

My.x(adjusted)

13.28

9.02

TABLE 5.71 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES FOR


-1 2.66 FX = - = -35.17 From table - df -16

0.36 F at 0.05 level =4.49

204.96 Fy = - =26.45 Fat 0.01 level =8.53

7.75

MSY

204.96

7.75

The Fy value (26.45)is greater than the table value (8.53) and hence it is

significant at 0.01 level.


test scores were computed. The data are given as Table -72

SSY

204.96

123.98

328.94

SSx

-1 2.66

5.77

-6.89

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS - HIGHER

CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

MSx

-1 2.66

0.36

df

1

16

17

320.74 Fy.x = - =73.4 From table -df -1 5

4.37

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

F at 0.05 level =4.54

Fa t 0.01 level =8.68

df

1

15

16

SSx

-12.66

5.77

-6.89

SSY

204.96

123.98

328.94

Sxy

1.54

18.35

19.89

SSy.x

320.74

65.62

386.36

MSy.x

320.74

4.37

SDy.x

2,09

The Fy.x value (73.4) is greater than the table value (8.68) for df-15 ,and





TABLE 5.73 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST-TEST OF STUDENTS

IN THE TWO GROUPS-HIGHER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC

ATTITUDE SCALE


t at 0.05 level = 2.13

ta t 0.01 level = 2.95

Min~mum difference required for significance at 0.01 level

= 1.01x2.95

= 2.98

Difference obatained = 6.67

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means



and control groups differ significantly in their achievements.The adjusted mean score for

the experimental group is greater than that of the control group.lt shows that the students

taught through IPM are superior in their performance compared to those taught through

CM on the Scientific Attitude Scale for the higher categories.

N

7

11

Mx

3.14

3.09

3.12

MY

21.29

14.36

17.82

My.x(adjusted)

21.23

14.46

5.3.2.8 Compar ison of IPM and CM with respect t o the Scores-Lower

Categories on Scientif ic Attittude Scale -Class IX

The total sum of squares,mean square variances and F ratios for :he pre-

test and post -test scores of the pupils possessing low scientific attitude of the expenmental

and control groups were computed.The data are given as table -74




Fy = - 92'45 =I760 Fa t 0.01 level =8.28 5.25

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total



The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variance for cost-test

scores were computed. The data are given as Table -75

1.25 Fx = - = 4.31

0.29 From table - df -18

df

1

18

19

TABLE 5.75 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE PRE -TEST

AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS - LOWER

CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SSx

1.25

5.30

6.55

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSY

92.45

94.5

186.95

df

1

17

18

MSx

1.25

0.29

MSy

22.45

5.25

SSx

1.25

5.30

6.55

SSY

92.45

94.5

186.95

Sxy

10.75

12.60

23.35

SSy.x

39.16

64.55

103.71

MSy.x

39.16

3.79

SDy.x

1.95

From table -df -17



The Fy.x value (10.33)is greater than the table value (8.40) for df - :7, and



The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the two youps

were computed.The data are given as Table-76

TABLE 5.76 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST -TEST

OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS - LOWER CATEGORIES

ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SED = 0.87 From table -df-17

ta t 0.05 level = 2.1 1

ta t 0.01 level = 2.90


level = 0.87x2.90

= 2.52



minimum required (2.52)for df-17,this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Mx

2.4

1.9

2.15

N

10

10

MY

13.7

9.4

11.55

My.x(adj~sted)

13.1:

9.95

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievements.The adjusteg

mean score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group.So it ma:,

be concluded that the students taught through IPM are betterthan the those taught throucn

CM with respect to the lower categories on Scientific Attitude Scale.

5.3.2.9 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to Scores of

Scientific Attitude Class IX

The total sum of squares,mean square variances and F ratios for the pre-

test and post -test scores wjth respect to scientific attitude of the two groups were

computed.The data are presented in Table 77.


EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS -

36.45 Fx = - = 0.35 From table , df -78

103.03 Fat 0.05 level =3.96

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

1 767.2 Fy = -

133.53 =13.23 Fat 0.01 level =6.96

MSx

36.25

103.03



MSY

1767.2

133.53

df

1

78

79



SSx

36.45

8036.3

8072.75

SSY

1767.2

1041 5

12182.2

TABLE 5.78 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE PRE - TEST

AND POST - TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS WlTH

RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

1247.67 Fyx = - =135.91 From table -df -77

9.18

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fa t 0.05 level =3.96

Fa t 0.01 level =6.96

The Fyx value (135.91)is greaterthan the table value (6.96) for df -77, and



df

1

77

78


were computed.The data are grven as Table-79

TABLE 5.79 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WlTH RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC

ATTITUDE IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSx

36.45

8036.3

8072.75

SED = 0.68

SSY

1767.2

10415

12182.2

From table -df-77

ta t 0.05 level = 1.99

ta t 0.01 level = 2.64

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Sxy

253.8

8832.7

9086.5

Mx

32.05

30.7

31.37

N

40

40

SSy.x

1247.67

706.98

1954.65

MY

47.55

38.15

42.85

My.x(adjusted)

46.81

38.68

MSy.x

1247.67

9.18

5Dy.x

3.03

Minimum difference required for s~gnificance at 0.01

level = 0.68 x 2.64

= 1.80


Since the difference between adjusted means of scores (8.13) is greater

than the minimum required (1.80),this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievements. The adjusted

mean score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group. Hence

it may be concluded that the group taught through IPM is superior in its performance

with respect to scientific attitude compared to the group taught through the conventional

method.

5.4.3. Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of Scientific

Attitude when IPM is used -Class IX

The performance of pupils taught by IPM in the pre-test and post test in


significance by finding the critical ratio (CR).The data and results of test of significance

are given in table -80

- TABLE - 5.80 RESULTS OF TEST OFSIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE MEANS OF PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST

SCORES OF IPM GROUP

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test

No.of students

40

40

Mean

32.05

47.55

SD

11.27

13.25

CR

5.64

Level of Significance

0.01

Result of Test of

Significance.

Significant

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greaterthan 2.58.Hence

it is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that there is significant difference between the scores

of the pre-test and post-test.Since the mean score of the post-test is greater than that of

the pre-test.it can be concluded that IPM is effective in producing significant scientific

attitudinal changes in the pupils.

5.4.4. Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of Scientific

Attitude-when CM is used-Class IX

The performance of pupils taught by CM in the pre-test and post test in


significance by finding the critical ratio (CR).The data and results of test of significance

are given in table -81


BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST

SCORES OF CM GROUP

It can be seen from the table that the CR is greater than 2.58.Hence it is

significant at 0.01 level.lt means that there is significant difference between the scores of

the pre-test and post-test.Since the mean score of the post-test is greater than that of the

pre-test.it can be concluded that CM is also effective in producing significant scientific

attitudinal changes in the pupils.

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Mean

30.7

38.15

N

40

40

SD

8.6

9.21

CR

3.74

Level of

significance

0.01

Result of

the Test of Signifcance.

Significant

5.5.2. Analysis of the Entries of the Observation Schedule - Class IX

The ratings obtained from the observation schedule were converted into

scores and then analysed.The results are summarised in Tables -82,83 and 84

TABLE 5.82 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE OBSERVATION

SCHEDULE OF CAM

The range of scores possible is 18-72. The mean score obtained is

46.6.This is much more than the midpoint of the range (45). This indicates that the

procedure followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with reference to the

expected procedure.


SCHEDULE OF ITM

Mean

46.6

Teacher No.

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

42

48

50

The range of scores possible is 20-80. The mean score obtained is 62

This is much more than the midpoint of the range (50). This indicates that the procedure


procedure.

Mean

62

Teacher No.

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

62

64

60


SCHEDULE OF AOM

The range of scores possible is 0-56. The mean score obtained is 46

.This is much more than the midpoint of the range(28). This indicates that the procedure


procedure.

Teacher No.

1

2

3

5.3.3.1 Comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole -Class X


test and post -test scores of the experimental and control groups were computed.The

data are given as Table-85

Marks Assigned

46

44

48


THEEXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

Mean

46

375.02 Fx = - =145.92 From table , df -78

2.57 F at 0.05 level =3.96

374'12 ~ 3 4 . 0 4 Fy = - Fat 0.01 level =6.96 10.99

SSx

375.02

200.47

575.49

SSY

374.12

857.37

1231.49

. Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

78

79

MSx

375.02

2.57

MSY

374.12

10.99

The Fx value (145.92) and Fy value (34.04) are greater than the table

value (6.96) and hence are significant at 0.01 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variance 'or post-test

scores were computed. The data are given as Table - 86

TABLE - 5.86 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF SCORES OF THE


437.03 Fy.x = - = 55.74 From table -df -77

7.84 F at 0.05 level =3.96


AND CONTROL GROUPS

The Fy.x value ( 55.74)is greater than the table value (6.96 and hence

the difference between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 levtl.


Souice of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


were computed.The data are presented in Table-87

SSx

375.02

200.47

575.49

df

1

77

78

TABLE - 5.87 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST-TEST OF


SSY

374.12

857.37

1231.49

1 control 1 40 1 3.15 1 9.98 1 70.68 1

Groups

Experimental

Sxy

105.96

225.65

331.61

N

40

SSyx

437.03

603.38

1040.41

Mx

4.38

MSy.x

437.13

7.74

SDy.x

2.8

MY

14.3

My.x(adjusted)

13.61


tat 0.05 level = 1.99

tat 0.01 level = 2.64


level = 0.63x2.64

= 1.66


Since the difference betweeen adjusted means (2.93) is greater than the

minimum required (1.66)fordf-77,this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the

experimental and control groups differ significantly in their achievements.Since the adjusted

mean score for the experimental group is greater than that of the control group,it can be

concluded that the group taught through IPM is superior in its performance compared to

CM group.


'Knowledge' Level -Class X


test and post -test with respect to knowledge level questions of the two groups were

computed.The data are presented in Table 88.



SSx

1.8

35.75

37.55

SSY

8.45

72.10

80.55

- Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total -

df

1

78

79

MSx

1.8

0.46

MSY

8.45

0.92

1.8 Fx = - ~ 3 . 9 1 From table , df -78

0.46

Fat 0.05 level =3.96 8.45

Fy =- =9.18 0.92


The fy value ( 9.18) is greater than the table value (6.96) and hence it is

significant at 0.01 level. The total sum of squres and adjusted mean square variance for

post-test scores were computed. The data are given as Table -89


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS WITH


3.82 Fyx = - = 5.23

0.73 From table -df -77


F at 0.01 level ~ 6 . 9 6

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The Fy.x value ( 5.23)is greaterthan the table value (3.96) and hence the



df

1

77

78

SSY

8.45

72.10

80.55



SSx

1.8

35.75

37.55

Sxy

3.9

24.05

27.05

SSy.x

3.82

55.93

59.75

MSy.x

3.82

0.73

SDyx

0.85




tat 0.05 level = 1.99

t at 0.01 level = 2.64


level =0.19x 1.99

= 0.37


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means



and control groups differ significantly in their achievements.Since the adjusted mean score

of the IPM group is greaterthan that of the CM group,the students taught through IPM are

superior in their performance compared to the CM group with respect to knowledge level

of cognitive achievement.

5.3.8.3 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to the

'Comprehension' level - class X

N

40

40


test and post -test scores with respect to comprehension questions of the two groups

were computed.The data are given as Table-91

Mx

2.23

1.93

2.08

MY

3.5

2.85

3.22

My.x(adjusted)

3.40

2.95



7.2 FX = - = 6.26

1.15 From table , df -78

Source of

Var~ation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

fat 0.05 level =3.96

96'8 =22.94 Fy = - Fat 0.01 level =6.96 4.22

df

1

78

79

The Fx value ( 6.26) greaterthan the table value (3.96) and hence significant

at 0.05 level and Fy value is greater than 6.96 and hence significant at 0.01 level



SSx

7.2

90

97.2




SSY

96.8

329.4

426.2

54.12 Fy.x = - = 17.16 From table -df -77

1.94 Fa t 0.01 level = 6.96

MSx

7.2

1.15

SDy.x

2.01

.

MSY

96.8

4.22

SSy.x

69.51

312.15

381.66

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSy.x

69.51

4.05

SSY

96.8

329.4

426.2

Sxy

26.4

39.4

65.8

df

1

77

78

SSx

7.2

90

97.2






were computed.The data are presented in Table-93




t a t 0.07 level = 2.64


0.01 level =0.45x2.64

=1.18


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (1.18) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the experimental

and control groups differ significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean score of

the experimental group is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded

that the students taught through IPM are better than those taught through CM with respect

to comprehension level of cognitive achievement.

N

40

40

Mx

1.7

1.1

1.4

MY

6.95

4.75

5.85

My.x(adjusted)

6.82

4.88


'Application' Level - Class X


test and post -test with respect to application level questions of the two groups were

computed.The data are presented in Table- 94.



2.45 Fx. =- 0.39

= 6.28 From table , df -78

Fat 0.05 level =3.96 42.05

Fy = - =10.26 4.10 F at 0.01 level =6.96

The Fkvalue ( 6.28)is greater than 3.96 and hence it is significant at

0.05level. The Fy value (10.26) is greater than 6.96 and hence significant at 0.01 level.

The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variance for post-test scores were

computed. The data are given as Table -95

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATION LEVEL

df

1

78

79

SSx

2.45

30.35

32.80

SSY

42.05

320.15

362.20

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

2.45

0.39

SSY

42.05

320.15

360.20

MSY

42.05

4.10

df

1

77

78

Sxy

10.15

30.45

40.60

SSx

2.45

30.35

32.80

SSy.x

22.35

289.6

311.95

MSy.x

22.35

3.76

SDy.x

1.94

From table -df -77


Fa t 0.01 level =6.96



5.3.3.4.1 Compar ison of Adjusted Means



TABLE 5.96 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST-TEST OF

STUDENTS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS.


t at 0.05 level = 1.98

ta t 0.01 level = 2.63

The minimum difference required for significance at

0.05 level = 1.98 x 0.43

=0.84



minimum required (0.84), this is significant at 0.05 level.lt means that the experimental

and control groups differ significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean score of

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means L

Mx

0.48

0.13

0.31

N

40

40

MY

3.83

2.38

3.1 1

My.x(adjusted)

3.66

2.56

the experimental group is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded

that the students taught through IPM are superior to the CM group with respect to the

application level of cognitive achievement.


High Intelligence Categories-Class X


test and post -test scores of the high intelligence categories of the experimental and control

groups were computed.The data are given in Table - 97.



24.38 Fx = - = 7.84 From table , df -1 2

3.1 1 Fat 0.05 level =4.75

199.34 Fy = - = 49.46 Fat 0.01 level =9.33

4.03

The Fx value ( 7.84)is greater than 4.75 and hence significant at 0.05

level.The Fy value (49.46) is greaterthan 9.33 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level.The

total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variance for post-test scores were


MSx

24.38

3.1 1

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

159.34

4.03

SSx

24.38

37.33

61.71

df

1

12

13

SSY

199.34

48.37

247.71



HlGH INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES.

111.73 Fy.x = - = 25.63 From table -df -1 1

4.34

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fat 0.05 level =484




df

1

11

12




SSx

24.38

37.33

61.71

TABLE 5.99 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HlGH

INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS

IN THE TWO GROUPS

SED = 1.13 From table -df-1 1


SSY

199.34

48.37

247.71

Sxy

6971

4.

73.71

SSy.x

111.73

47.94

159.67

Mx

6.67

4

5.33

MY

20.5

12.88

16.69

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

MSy.x

111.73

4.36

My.x(adjusted)

20.36

13.02

N

6

8

SDy.x

2.09



0.01level = 1.13x3.11

= 3.51

difference obtained = 7.34

Since the difference between the adjusted means (7.34)is greater than the

minimum required (3.51) it is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean score for the experimental group

is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that those students

taught by IPM are better than those taught by CM in the high intelligence categories.

5.3.3.6 Comparison of IPM and CM with respectto the Scores of

Low Intelligence Categories-Class X

The total sum of squares,rnean square variances and F ratios for the pre-

test and post -test scores of the low intelligence categories of the experimental and control

groups were computed.The data are given in Table -100



From table - df -14

fat 0.05 level =4.60

FY = - - 62 - 9.67 Fat 0.01 level =8.86 6.41

MSY

62

6.41

MSx

3.46

1.5

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

14

15

SSx

3.46

20.98

24.44

SSY

62

89.75

151.75

The Fy value ( 9.67)s greater than the table value (8.86) for df-14 and

hence it is significant at 0.01 level

The total sum of squares and mean square variances for post-test scores

were computed. The data are given as Table -101



UNDER THE LOW INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES.

46.03 Fy.x = - = 6.8

6.76 From table -df -1 3

F at 0.05 level = 4.67

Fa t 0.01 level =9.07

The Fy.x value ( 6.8 )is greater than the table value (4.67) and heme the


Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


Sxy

14.63

6.25

20.88



df

1

13

14

TABLE - 5.102 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES UNDER THE

LOWINTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS.

SSy.x

46.03

87.89

133.91

SSx

3.46

20.98

24.44

MSy.x

46.03

6.76

SSY

62

89.75

151.75

SDy.x

2.6

My.x(adjusted)

11.71

8.03

MY

11.85

7.89

9.87

Mx

3.71

2.78

3.25

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

N

7

9


t at 0.05 level =2.16

ta t 0.01 level =3.01


0.05 level = 1.31 x 2.16

= 2.83


Since the difference between the adjusted means (3.68)s greater than the

minimum required (2.83) it is significant at 0.05 level.lt means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.The adjusted mean score for the experimental group is

greater than that of the control group.Hence it can be concluded that the group of students

taught by IPM are superior to CM group in the low intelligence categories.

5.3.3.7 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores of Higher

Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale-Class X


test and post -test scores of the pupils possessing high scientific attitude of the experimental

and control groups were computed. The data are given in Table -103



Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

15

16

SSx

28.52

66.54

95.06

MSx

28.52

4.44

SSY

198.48

1 18.46

316.94

MSY

198.48

7.9

Fx = 6.42 From table - df -15

F at 0.05 level =454

Fy = 25.12 Fat 0.01 level =8.68

The Fx value ( 6.42)is greater than the table value (4.54) and hence it is

significant at 0.05 level.TheFy value (25.12) is greater than the table value (8.68)and hen=

it is significant at 0.01 level.

The total sum of squares and means square variances for post-test scores

were computed. The data are given as Table -104


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS HIGHER

CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE.

97.98 Fy.x = - -

7.48 - 13.1 From table -df -14




MSy.x

97.98

7.48

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


SSx

28.52

66.54

95.06

I SDy.x :

2.73

df

1

14

15


were computed.The data are given as Table-I 05

SSY

198.48

118.46

316.94

Sxy

73.93

30.31

104.24

SSy.x

97.98

104.65

202.63

TABLE - 5.105 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST-TEST

OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS -HIGHER CATEGORIES


SED = 1.35 From table -df-14.




0.01 level = 1.35 x 2.98

= 4.02


Groups

Experimental

Control

General means


minimum required (4.02) this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.The adjusted mean score forthe experimental group is


taught by IPM is superiorto CM group on the scientific attitude scale forthe higher categories.

5.3.3.8 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores of Lower

.Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale -Class X

N

10

7

The total sum of squares,mean square variances and F-ratios for the pre-

test and post -test of low scientific attitude groups of the experimental and control groups

were computed. The data are given in Table -106

Mx

6.3

3.71

5.01

MY

18.8

11.85

15.33

My.x(adjusted)

18.21

11.26



Fx = - I 7 From table - df -12


Fy = 4 1 3 Fat 0.01 level =9.33

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Both Fx and Fy value are not significant even at 0.05 level

The total sum of squares and mean square variances for post-test


df

1

12

13



LOWER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE.

SSx

1.53

-1.17

0.36

Fy.x = 36.99 = From table -df -1 I




SSY

24.38

70.83

95.21

SSx

1.53

-1.17

0.36

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

1.53

-0.09

SSY

24.38

70.83

95.21

df

1

11

12

MSY

24.38

5.9

SSy.x

1257.31

373.88

1631.19

SXY

6.1

18.83

24.93

MSy.x

1257.31

33.99

SI3y.x

5.8


The adjusted means for the post-test scores of the two groups were




SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SED = 3.13 From table -df-1 I,



0.01level =3.13x3.11

=9.73


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Since the difference between the adjusted means (13.34)is greater than

the minimum required (9.73) this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the two groups

N

8

6

differ significantly in their achievements.The adjusted mean score for the experimental

group is greater than that of the control group.Hence it can be concluded that the group of

students taught by IPM is superior to CM group on the scientific attitude scale for the lower

Mx

3.5

2.83

3.17

categories.


Scientific Attitude - Class X


MY

11.5

8.83

10.17

test and post -test scores with respect to scientific attitude of the two groups were computed.

The data are given in Table -1 09

My.x(adjusted)

16.8

3.35

TABLE - 5.109 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES FOR THE


Fx = 0.58 From table - df 78

Fy = 2.68 Fat 0.05 level = 3.96

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Both Fx and Fy values are lower than the table value(3.96) and hence are

not significant even at 0.05 level

The total sum of squares and mean square variances for post-test scores

were computed. The data are given in Table -1 10

d f

1

78

79



RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE.

SSx

59.52

7937.17

7996.69

Fy.x = 30.31 From table -df -77


. , The Fy.x value ( 30.31) is greater than the table value (6.96 ) and hence


SSY

475.31

13821:18

14296.49

MSy.x

930.31

30.69

MSx

59.52

101.76

SDy.x

5.54

Sxy

-168.18

9548.37

9380.19

SSY

475.31

13821.18

14296.49

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

475.31

177.19

SSy.x

930.31

2363.14

3293.45

df

1

77

78

SSx

59.52

7937.17

7996.69


The adjusted means for the post-test scores of the two groups were

computed. The data are given as Table -1 11

TABLE - 5.111 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WITH RESPECT

TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE IN THE TWO GROUPS

SED = 1.24 From table -df-77,

t at 0.05 level =I .98



= 1.24 x 2.63

= 3.26


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (3.26) this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.The adjusted mean score for the experimental group is


taught by IPM is better in their performance with respect to scientific attitude compared to

the CM group..

N

40

40

Mx

28.2

29.93

29.07

MY

42.2

37 33

39.77

My.x(adjusted)

43.24

36.3

5.4.5 Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post Test Scores of Scentific

Attitude When IPM is used -Class X


scientific attitude was compared and the difference in their performance was teste 3 for

significance by finding the critical ratio. The data and results of the test of significance are

given in Table -1 12


BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST TEST

SCORES OF THE IPM GROUP.

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greater than 2.58.Hence


of the pre-test and post-testsince the mean score of post test is greater than that of the

pre-test,it can be concluded that IPM is effective in producing significant scientific attitudinal

changes in the pupils.

5.4.6 Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post Test Scores of Scientific

Attitude- When CM is used -Class X

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test


scientific attitude was compared and the difference in their performance was tested for

significance by finding the critical ratio. The data are given in Table -1 13

S D

8.53

14.04

N

40

40

Mean

28.2

42.2

CR

5.41

Level of

significance

0.01

Result of Test

of Significance

Significant



The critical ratio (2.83)is greater than 2.58.and hence the difference between

SCORES OF THE CM GROUP.

the scor'?s of the pre- test and post-testis significant at 0.01 level.Since the mean score of

Scorr!s

Post-Test

post test is greater than that of the pre-test.it can be concluded that CM group too is

effective in producing significant scientific attitudinal changes in the pupils.

5.5.3 .4nalysis of the Entries of the Observation Schedule Class X

N

40

40

The ratings obtarned from the observation schedules were converted into

scores and then analysed. The results are summarised in Tables 114, 115 and 116.

TABLE - 5.114 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE OBSERVATION

SCHEDULE OF CAM

Mean

29.93

37.33


This is niuch more than the midpoint of the range, that is 45. This indicates that the

pr0cedul.e followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the

expectecl procedure.

SD

11.19

12.16

Mean

50

Teacher No

1

2

3

CR

2.83

Marks Assigned

44

46

50

Level of

significance

0.01

Result of Test

of Significance

Significant

TABLE - 5.115 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE OBSERVATION OF ITM

The range of scores possible is 20 - 80. The mean score obtained (61.33)

is more ihan the midpoint of the range (50). This indicates ihat the procedure followed by

the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the expected procedure.

Teacher No

1

2

3


SCHEDULE OF AOM

Marks Assigned

62

60

62


This is more than the mid point (28). This indicates that the procedure Followed by the

teacher ias been rated to be satisfactory with reference to the expected procedure.

Mean

61.33

Teacher No

1

2

3

5.3.4.1 comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole -Class XI


test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups were computed. The

data are given as Table - 117.

Marks Assigned

46

44

42

Mean

44

TABLE - 5.117 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE


Fx = 0.67 From Table df 118

Fy = 110.53 F at 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Source of

Variation

AmongMeans

Within Groups

Total

The Fy value (1 1053)) is greater than the table value (6.96) and hence it is



test scores were computed. The data are given as Table - 118.

df

1

118

119

TABLE - 5.118 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF


AND CONTROL GROUPS

SSx

0.67

118.32

1 18.99

Fy.x = 141.62 From Table df 11 7

Fat 0.01 level= 6.86

SSY

918.54

980.93

1899.47

SDy.x

2.44

MSx

0.67

1.002

SSy.x

838.39

698.29

1536.68

SXY

24.90

182.87

207.77

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

918.54

8.31

Msy.x

838.39

5.92

df

1

117

118

SSx

0.67

118.32

118.99

SSY

918.54

980.93

1899.47

The Fy.x value (141.62) is greaterthan the table value (6.86) and hence the



The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the expenmental

and control groups were computed. The data are presented in Table - 119.

TABLE - 5.119 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE


SED = 0.45 From table df 1 17

tat 0.05 level = 1.98

t at 0.01 level = 2.63

mrnimum difference required for significance at

0.01 level = 0.45 x 2.63

= 1.18



the minimum required (1.18) the difference between the scores of the two groups is

significant at 0.01 level. The adjusted mean of the experimental group is greater than that

of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that the group of students taught by IPM

is superior to the CM group in their performance.

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

N

60

60

Mx

3.08

2.93

3.01

My

16

10.47

13.24

My.x(adjusted) / 15.89

10.58

5.3.4.2 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the 'Knowledge

Level - Class XI


test and post-test of the two groups were computed. The data are presented in Table - 120.



Fx = 0.44 From table - df - 1 18

Fy = 12.91 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The Fy value (12.91) is greater than the table value (6.86) and hence it is



test scores were computed. The data are given as Table 121

df

1

118

119

TABLE - 5.121 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF PRE-TEST

AND POST TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS WITH RESPECT TO KNOWLEDGE LEVEL.

SSx

0.21

56.78

56.99

SSY

6.07

54.92

60.99

- Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSx

0.21

56.78

56.99

df

1

117

118

MSx

0.21

0.48

MSY

6.07

0.47

SSY

6.07

54.92

60.99

Sxy

-1.12

26.03

24.91

SSy.x

7.16

42.95

50.11

MSy.x

7.16

0.37

SD.x

0.61

Fy.x = 19.35 From table for df - 11 7

F at 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fy.x value (19.35) is greaterthan the table value (6.86) and hence the




and control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 122.



SED = 0.1 1 From table df 117

ta t 0.01 level = 2.63

M~n~mum difference required for significance at

0.01 level = 0.1 1 x 2.63

= 0.29


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (0.29) that is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the difference in

achievements between the experimental and control groups is significant. The adjusted

mean of the experimental group is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be

concluded that those students taught by IPM are superior to CM group with respect to

knowledge level of cognitive achievement

N

60

60

Mx

2.3

2.38

2.34

MY

3.98

3.53

3.76

My.x (adjusted)

4.00

3.51

5.3.4.3 Comparison of IPM and C M wi th respect to 'Comprehension'

Level - Class XI


pre-test and post-test scores with respect to comprehension questions of the two groups

were computed. The data are presented in Table - 123



Fx = 4.53 From Table F df 11 8

Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fy = 84.4 F at 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fx value (4.53) is greater than the table value (3.93) and it is significant

at 0.05 level. The Fy value (84.4) is significant at 0.01 level.

MSY

238.01

2.82

>


test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 124. .,,



AND CONTROL GROUPS

SSY

238.01

332.58

570.59

SSx

2.13

55.17

57.30

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

2.13

0.47

df

1

118

119

SXY

22.53

39.42

61.95

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSx

2.13

55.17

57.30

df

1

117

118

SSY

238.01

332.58

570.59

SSy.x

199.79

304.42

503.61

Msy.x

199.19

2.60

- SDy.x

1.61

Fy.x = 76.61 From Table F for df - 11 7

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fy.x value (76.61) is greaterthan the table value (6.86) an0 nence the



The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the excenmental




SED = 0.29 From table- df- 1 17

t at 0.05 level = 1.98

tat 0.01 level = 2.63


0.01 level = 0.29 x 2.63

= 0.76


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required (0.76) it is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean forthe experimental grouo is greater

than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that those students taught

N

60

60

Mx

0.78

0.52

0.65

MY

7.22

4.40

5.81

My.x , aajusted) - , . , ? j

449

through IPM are better in their performance compared the CM group with respect to

comprehension level of cognitive achievement.

5.3.4.4 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to 'Application'

Level -Class XI

The total sum of squares. mean square variances and F-ratros for the pre-

test and post-test scores with respect to application questions of the two groups were

computed. The data are presented in Table - 126



Fx = 0 From Table F df- 118

Fx = 56.67 F at 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fy value (56.67) is greater than the table value (6.86) and hence it is



test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 127.

MSx

0

0

SSY

151.87

316.25

468.12

MSY

151.87

2.68

SSx

0

0

0

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

118

119



AND CONTROLGROUPS

Fy.x = 56.67 From Table F for df - 11 7

F at 0.01 level = 6.86

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total




df

1

117

118

The adjusted means for the post-test scores of students in the experimental and

control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 128.

TABLE - 5.129 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES WITH RESPECT TO -

APPLICATION LEVEL OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSx

0

0

0


ta t 0.01 level = 2.63

SSY

151.87

316.25

468.12

SXY

0

0

0

My.x (adjusted)

4.75

2.5

SSy.x

151.87

316.25

468.12

MY

4.75

2.5

3.63

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Msy.x

151.87

2.68

N

60

60

SDy.x

1.64

Mx

0

0

0


0.01 level = 0.3 x 2.63

= 0.79



minimum value required (0.79) this is significant at 0.01 level.That means that the scores

ofthe two groups differ significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean of the

experimental group is greater that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that

those students taught by IPM are better than the CM group with respect to application

level of cognitive achievements.

5.3.4.5 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores of the

High Intelligence Categories -Class XI


pre-test and post-test scores of the high intelligence categories of the experimental and

control groups were computed.The data are given in Table - 129



Fx = 0.99 From Table F df 18

Fy = 63.02 F at 0.05 level = 4.41

Fa t 0.01 level = 8.28

MSx

1.41

1.43

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSx

1.41

25.79

27.2

MSY

276.03

4.38

df

1

18

19

SSY

276.03

78.92

354.95

The Fx value (63.02) is greater than the table value (8.28) and hence it is


The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for posr-



AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS UNDER

THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES

Fy.x = 106.22 From Table F for df - 17

F at 0.01 level = 4.45

Fat 0.05 level = 8.4

The Fy.x value (106.22)is greater than the table value (8.4 ) Hence t h t


Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total


SSx

1.41

25.79

27.20

df

1

17

18


and control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 131

TABLE - 5.131 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE


SSY

276.03

78.92

354.95

1 Experimental 1 l2 1 3.58 1 4 13 1 20.58

!

SXY

-19.72

27.92

8.2

Groups

SSy.x

303.79

48.69

352.48

N

Control

General Means

Msy.x

303.79

2.86

Mx

8

SDy.x

1.69

MY

20.08

11.83

My.x (adjusted) i

12.5

8.32

12.21 1

I

SED = 0.77 From table - df - 17

tat 0.01 level = 2.9


0.01 level = 0.77 x 2.9

= 2.23


Since the difference between adjusted mean (8.37) is greater than the

minimum. value required (2.23) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that the scores of

the two groups differ significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean of the

experimental group is greater that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that

those students taught by IPM are better than the CM group with respect to application

level of cognitive achievements.

5.3.4.6 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores of the Low

Intelligence Categories - Class XI

The total sum of squares mean square variances and F-ratios for the

pre-test and post-test scores of the h~gh intelligence categones of the experimental and

control groups were computed The data are given in Table - 132



Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSY

57.66

158.9

216.56

df

1

23

24

MSx

2.16

0.52

SSx

2.16

12

14.16

MSY

57.66

6.91

From Table - df - 23

F at 0.05 level = 4.28

Fa t 0.01 level = 7.88

. The Fx value (8.34) is greater than the table value (7.88) and hence it is


The total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for post-test scores

were computed. The data are given in Table - 133.



UNDERTHE LOW INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES


Fa t 0.01 level = 7.94

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total .

The Fy.x value (19.53 )is greater than the table value (7.94) Hence the



df

1

22

23



SSx

2.16

12

14.16

SSY

57.66

158.9

216.56

Sxy

-11.16

24.80

13.64

-

SDy.x

2.21

SSy.x

95.68

107.74

203.42

Msy.x

95.68

4.9

TABLE - 5.134 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HIGH INTELLIGENCE


SED = 0.90 From table - df - 22

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

tat 0.01 level = 2.82


0.01 level = 0.90 x 2.82

= 2.54



minimum value (2.54) it is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean of the experimental group is

greater that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that those students taught by

IPM are better than that of the CM group in the low intelligence categories.

N

15

10

5.3.4.7 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores- Higher

Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale-Class XI


pre-test and post-test scores of the pupils possessing high scientific attitude of the

experimental and control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 135.

Mx

2.2

2.8

2.5

MY

12

8.9

10.45

My.x (adjusted)

12.62

8.28



Fx = 1.62 From Table F - df - 21

Fy = 133.53 Fa t 0.05 level = 4.32

Fa t 0.01 level = 8.02

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The Fy value (1 33.53)is greater than the table value (8.02) and hence it is




df

1

21

22


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS -

HIGHER CATEGORIES ON THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SSx

1.57

20.43

22


Fat 0.05 level = 4.32

Fa t 0.01 level = 8.10

SSY

379.23

59.64

438.87

SSy.x

394.14

43.09

437.23

Source of Var~ation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

1.57

0.97

SSx

1.57

20.43

22

df

1

20

21

MSY

379.23

2.84

Msy.x

394.14

2.15

SSY

379.23

59.64

438.87

SDy.x

1.47

Sxy

-24.39

18.39

-6

The Fy.x value (183.32)is greaterthan the table value (8.10) and hence the





TABLE - 5.137 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST OF STUDENTS IN

THE TWO GROUPS -HIGHER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SED = 0.61 From table- df- 20

tat 0.01 level = 2.84


0.01 level = 0.61 x 2.84

= 1.73


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum value (1.73) it is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean of the experimental group is

greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that the students taught

by IPM are superior compared to the CM group on the scientific altitude scale for the

higher categories.

N

11

12

Mx

3.73

4.25

3.99

MY

20.55

12.42

16.48

My.x (adjusted)

20.78

12.19

5.3.4.8 Comparison o f IPM and CM with respect t o the Scores -Lower

Categories o n Scientific Attitude Scale -ClassXI


pre-test and post-test scores of the low scientific attitude group of the experimental and

control groups were cornputed.The data are given in Table - 138.



Fx = 0.21 From Table- F- df- 18

Fy = 7.87 Fat 0.05 level = 4.41

Fa t 0.01 level = 8.28

The Fx value ( 7.87) is greater than the table value (4.41) and hence it is


- MSY

61.63

7.83

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total





LOWER CATEGORIES ON THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

d f

1

18

19

SSx

0.21

17.54

17.75

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

SSY

61.63

140.92

202.55

df

1

17

18

MSx

0.21

0.97

SSx

0.21

17.54

17.75

SSY

61.63

140.92

202.55

Sxy

-3.58

29.33

25.75

SSy.x

73.31

91.88

165.19

Msy.x

73.31

5.40

SDy.x

2.32

Fy.x = 13.58 From Table df - 17

Fa t 0.01 level = 8.40

The Fy.x value (13.58 )is greater than the table value (8.40) and hence the





TABLE - 5.140 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR POST TEST OF

STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS - LOWER CATEGORIES


SED = 1.06 From table- dt- 17

ta t 0.01 level = 2.9


0.01 level = 2.9 x 1.06

= 3.07



minimum required (3.07) this is significant at 0.01 level. It means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean score of the experimental group is


by IPM are betterthan the CM group on the scientific attitude scale for the lower categories.

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

MY

12.08

8.5

10.29

N

12

8

My.x (adjusted)

12.26

8.33

Mx

2.17

2.38

2.28


Scientific Attitude - ClassXl


pre-test and post-test scores with respect toscientific attitude of the two groups were

computed. The data are given in Table - 141



Fx = 0.96 From Table df- 1 18

Fy = 0.37 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Both Fx and Fy values are not significant even at 0.05 level since their

values are below 3.93

Source of Variation

Among means

Within Groups

Total


test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 142;

SSx

110.21

13525.39

13635.60

df

1

118

119

TABLE - 5.142 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF PRE-TEST AND


RESPECT TOSCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

SSY

61.63

19564.74

19626.37

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

110.21

114.62

MSY

61.63

165.8 -

df

1

117

118

SSx

110.21

13525.39

13635.6

SSY

61.63

19564.74

19626.37

SXY

-82.42

13098.24

13015.82

SSy.x

401.91

6859.45

7261.36

Msy.x

401.91

58.63

SDy.x

7.66

Fy.x = 6.87 From Table df - 117

Fat 0.01 level = 6.856

The Fy.x value ( 6.87)is greaterthan the table value (6.856)and hence the





TABLE - 5.143 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROL GROUPS FOR THE POST TEST OF STUDENTS WITH

RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

SED = 1.38 From table- df. 11 7

tat 0.05 level = 1.98

tat 0.01 level = 2.63


0.05 level = 1.38 x 1.98

= 2.73


Since the difference between the adjusted mean (3.29) is greater than the

minimum value (2.73) this is significant at 0.05 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements. The adjusted mean scoreof the experimental group

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Mx

32.4

34.32

33.36

N

60

60

MY

47

45.57

46.28

My.x (adjusted)

47.93

44.64

1s greateT -nan that of the control group Hence it can be concluded that the students

taught t i =M IS superlor to the CM group wlth respect to sc~entlfic attltude

5.4.7 C~mparison of the Pre-test and Post test Scores of Scientific

Artitude when IPM is used -Class XI

The performance of the pupils taught by IPM in the pre-test and post-test in

scientific~zltude were compared and the difference in their performance was tested for

significan:e by finding thecritical ratio.The data and results are given in Table -144


3ETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST TEST

SCORES OF IPM GROUP

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greater than 2.58

Hence !t :I significant at 0.01 level.lt means that there is significant difference between the

scores ci:ne pre-test and post-test.Since the mean score of the post.-test is greater than

that of the -re-test,it can be concluded that IPM is effective in producing significant scientific

attitudina changes in pupils

5.4.8 Comparison of the Pre-test and Post test Scores of Scientific

Attitude l ~ h e n CM is used

The performance of the pupils taught by CM in the pre-test and post-test in

scientific zditude were compared and the difference in their performance was tested for

significanx by finding the critical ratio.The data and results are given in Table -145.

SD

10.68

13.64

Mean

32.4

47

Scores

Pre-Tes

Post-T?~i

N

60

60

CR

6.54

Level of

Significance

0.01

Result of Test

of Significance

significant



SCORES OF CM GROUP

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greater than 2.58

Hence it is significant at 0.01 level. It means that there is significant difference between

the scores of the pre-test and post-test. Since the mean score of the post -test is greater

than that of the pre-test, it can be concluded that CM is also effective in producing sign~ficant

scientificattitudinal changes in pupils

5.5.4 Analys is of t he Entries of the Observat ion Schedule

The ratings obtained from the observation schedule were converted into

scores and then analysed.The results are summarised in Tables 146,147,148.

Level of

Significance

0.01

Table - 5.146 THE SCORES OBTAINED FOR THE OBSERVATION

SCHEDULE OF CAM ' C

Result of Test

Significance

significant

SD

10.81

11.81

Mean

34.32

45.57

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test

CR

5.46

N

60

60

The range ofscorespossible is 18-72 The mean score obtained is 54. This

is much more than the mid point of the range(45). This indicates thatthe procedure followed

by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the expected procedure.

Mean

54

Teacher No.

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

56

54

52


SCHEDULE OF ITM

The range ofscorespossible is 20-80 The mean score obtained is (64)This

is much more than the mid point of the range(50). This indicates that the procedure followed

by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the expected procedure


SCHEDULE OF AOM

Mean

64

Teacher No.

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

64

66

62

The range ofscorespossible is 0-56 The mean score obtained is (43.33)is

is much more than the mid point ofthe range(28). This indicates that the procedure followed

by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the expected procedure

5.3.5.1 Comparison of IPM and CM -Test as a Whole-Class XI1

Mean

43.33

Teacher No.

1

2

3


pretest and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups were computed. The

data are given in Table - 149

Marks Assigned

46

44

40



Fx = 23.27 From Table F df -1 18

Fy = 4.63 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Source of

Variation

Among Means

With~n Groups

Total

The Fx value (23.47) is greater than the table value (6.86)and hence it is

significant at 0.01 level. The Fy value (4.63) is greater than the table value (3.93) and i t is




df

1

118

119

TABLE - 5.150 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE PRE-

TEST AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

AND CONTROL GROUPS

SSx

124.04

629.13

753.17

Fy.x = 125.77 From Table - df -1 17

F at 0.01 level = 6.86

SSY

122.01

3108.58

3230.59

SSy.x

872.88

81 1.69

1684.57

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

124.04

5.33

SSx

124.04

629.13

753.17

df

1

117

118

MSY

122.01

26.34

Msy.x

872.88

6.94

SDy.x

2.63

SSY

122.01

3108.58

3230.59

SXY

-123.02

1202.1

1079.08

Since the obtained Fy.x value(125.77) is greater than the table value (6.86)



The adjusted meansforthe post-test scores of students in the two groups

were computed. The data are given in Table - 151.

TABLE - 5.151 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST TEST OF


SED = 0.48 From table-df.117

Fat 0.01 level = 2.63


0.01 level = 0.48 x 2.63

= 1.26


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

Since the difference the between adjusted means (5.92) is greater than

the minimum value (1.26) it is significant at 0.01 level. It means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean scoreof the experimental group

is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that the students

taught by IPM are superior to the CM group in their performance in the post test

N

60

60

Mx

2.57

4.6

3.59

MY

13.15

11.13

12.14

My.x (adjusted)

15.1

9. la

5.3.5.2 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to the

Knowledge level Class - XI1


pre-test and post-test scores with respect to theknowledge level questions of the two

groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 152



Fx = 11.75 From Table F, dfl118

Fy = 2.57 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

F at 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fx value (1 1.75) is greater than the table value (6.86)and hence it is




MSx

9.64

0.82

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY -

2.14

0.83

SSx

9.64

97.03

106.67

df

1

118

119

SSY

2.14

98.23

100.37

TABLE - 5.153 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE PRE-TEST



From Table for df / 11 7

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Fy.x is significant at 0.01 IevelLThis means that the difference between the

scores of the two groups is significant


df

1

117

118

The adjusted means for the post-test scores with respect to knowledge

level of students in the two groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 154.



SSx

9.64

97.03

106.67

SED =0.13 From table- df 1 17

Fa t 0.01 level = 2.63


0.01 level = 0.13 x 2.63

SSY

2.14

98.23

100.37

My.x (adjusted)

4.2

3.57

SXY

-4.54

60.87

56.33

MY

4.02

3.75

3.88

Mx

1 .88

2.45

2.17

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

SSy.x

10.58

60.04

70.62

N

60

60

Msy.x

10.58

0.51

Si3y.x

0.72

= 0.34


Since the difference between the adjusted meanS(0.63) is greater thar:

the minimum required (0.34) this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups

differ significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean scoreof the experimental

group is greater than that of the control group. It may therefore be concluded that the

students taught through IPM are better than the CM group with respect to the knowledge

level of cognitive achievement

5.3.5.3 Comparison o f IPM and CM -with respect to

Comprehension level- Class XI1


pre-test and post-test scores with respect to comprehension level questions of the twc

groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 155



Fx = 23 From Table for df/ 118

Fy = 1.48 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

The Fx value (23 ) is greater than the table value (6.86)for df1118 and

hence it is s~gnificant at 0.01 level. .

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

118

119

SSx

44.4

227.52

271.92

SSY

8.54

678.93

687.47

MSx

44.4

1.93

MSY

8.54

5.75




TEST AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

GROUPS WlTH RESPECT TO COMPREHENSION LEVEL

Fy.x = 39.36 From Table for df 1 11 7

Fat 0.01 level = 6.86

Fy.x value(39.36) isgreater than the table value (6.86)and hence the

difference between the scores of the two groups is significantat 0.01 level

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups


df

1

118

SSx

44.4

227.52

The adjusted means for the post-test scores with respect to comprehension

level of students in the two groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 157.



SSy

8.54

678.93

SED = 0.30 From table- df 11 7

tat 0.01 level = 2.63

SXY

-19.47

285.77

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

SSy.x

106.67

320

MY

5.5

4.97

5.24

N

60

60

My.x (adjusted)

6.27

4.21

Msy.x

106.67

2.71

Mx

0.67

1.88

1.28

SDy.x

1.65


0.01 level = 0.30 x 2.63

= 0.79


Since the difference between the adjusted means(2.06) is greater than

the minimum required(0.79)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

s~gnificantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean scoreof the experimental group


taught by IPM are superior to CM group with respect to comprehension level of cognitive

achievement.

5.3.5.4 Comparison o f IPM and CM -with respect t o

Application level- Class XI1


pre-test and post-test scores with respect to application level questions of the two groups

were computed. The data are given in Table - 158



Fx = 7.88 From Table - dfl118

Fy = 7.91 Fa t 0.01 level = 6.86

MSx

2.13

0.27

SSY

43.20

644.67

687.87

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

43.20

5.46

df

1

118

119

SSx

2.13

31.74

33.87

Both Fx and Fy values are significant at 0.01 level. The total sum of

squares and adjusted mean square variances for post-test scores were cornput- 4. The

data are given in Table - 159.



GROUPS WlTH RESPECT TO APPLICATION LEVEL

Fy.x = 21.87 From Table - df 1117

F at 0.01 level = 6.86

Since the obtained Fy.x value (21.87) is greaterthan the table value (6.86)


Source of Var~ation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

5.3.5.4.1 Comparison o f Adjusted Means

SSx

2.13

31.74

33.87

df

I

117

118

The adjusted means for the post-test scores of theexperimental ana control

groups with respect to the application level questions were computed. The data are



APPLICATION LEVEL OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSY

43.20

644.67

687.87

Sxy

-9.6

71.07

61.47

SSy.x

90.77

485.54

576.31

Mx

0

0.27

0.13

MY

3.63

2.43

3.03

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

My.x (acjusted)

3.92

2.14

N

60

60

Msy.x

90.77

4.15

SDy.x

2.04

SED = 0.37 From table- df 11 7

Fat 0.01 level = 2.63


0.01 level = 0.37 x 2.63

= 0.97


Since the difference between the adjusted means (1.78) is greaterthan the

minimum required(0.97)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean score of the experimental group is


by IPM is superior than the CM group with respect to application level of cognitive achievement

5.3.5.5 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to the Scores of the

High Intelligence Categories- Class XI1



control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 161



Fx = 85.77 From Table - df 11 28

Fy = 0 Fa t 0.01 level = 7.64

Source of

Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

df

1

28

29

SSx

282.80

92.37

375.17

SSY

0

354.97

354.97

MSx

282.80

3.29

MSY

0

12.68

The Fx value (85.77) is greater than the table value(7.64)and hence it is

significant at 0.01 IevelThe total sum of squares and adjusted mean square varrances for

post-test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 162.

TABLE - 5.162 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF THE PRE.


GROUPS UNDER THE HlGH INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES

Fy.x = 22.95 From Table - df1127


Fat 0.01 level = 7.68

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Since the Fy.xvalue (22.95) is greater than the table value (7.68)for df 1127



df

1

27

28

The adjusted means forthe post-test scores of the expermental and control

groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 163.

TABLE - 5.163 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE HlGH

INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPS

SSx

282.20

92.37

375.17

SSY

0

354.97

354.97

SXY

-0.63

131.76

131.13

MY

18.64

18.63

18.63

Mx

3.93

8.69

6.31

Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means

My.x (adjusted)

22.04

15.23

N

14

16

SSy.x

142.12

167.02

309.14

Msy.x

142.12

6.19

SDy.x

2.49

SED = 0.91 From table- df-27

Fat 0.05 level = 2.05

Fat 0.01 level = 2.77


0.01 level = 2.77 x 0.91

= 2.52



the minimum required(2.52)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean score of the experimental group


taught by IPM is superior to the CM group in the high intelligence categories

5.3.5.6 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to the Scores of

the Low Intelligence Categories- Class XI1



control groups belonging to the low intelligence categories were computed. The data are




MSY

158.49

4.79

SSY

158.49

220.49

378.98

SSx

0.80

33.12

33.92

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSx

0.80

0.72

df

1

46

47

From Table - df 11 46

Fat 0.05 level = 4.06

F at 0.01 level =7.23

Since the Fy value (33.08) is greater than the table value(723)this is

significant at 0.01 IevelThe total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for

post-test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 165.



UNDER THE LOW INTELLIGENCE CATEGORIES

Fy.x = 79.85 From Table -f, dfl-45

F at 0.05 level = 4.06

Fat 0.01 level = 7.23

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

Since the Fy.x value (79.85) is greater than the table value (7.23) the



df

1

45

46

The adjusted means for the post-test scores of the experimental and control


SSx

0.80

33.12

33.92

Sxy

-1 1.24

60.2

48.96

SSY

158.49

220.49

378.98

SSy.x

197.24

111.07

308.31

Msy.x 1 I SDy x

197.24

2.47 1.57

TABLE - 5.166 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES IN THE LOW INTELLIGENCE


SED = 0.45 From table, df-45

F at 0.05 level = 2.02

Fat 0.01 level = 2.69


0.01 level = 0.45 x 2.69

= 1.21


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


the minimum required(l2l)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ


is greater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that the group of

students taught by IPM is superiorto the CM group in the low intelligence categories

5.3.5.7 Comparison of IPM and CM -with respect to the Scores of the

Higher Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale- Class XI1

N

26

22


pre-test and post-test scores of the pupils possessing high Scientific attitude of the

experimental and control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 167.

My.x (adjusted)

9.93

5.81

Mx

1.92

2.18

2.05

MY

9.69

6.05

7.87



- -x = 29.71 From Table - df 11 23

-y = 0.36 F at 0.05 level = 4.28

Fat 0.01 level = 7.88

i ~ u r c e of ariation

-Tong Means

'(thin Groups - -

-L1/

The Fx value (29.71) is greater than the table value(7.88)and hence it is

sis--:ant at 0.01 IevelThe total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for

pcs-:st scores were computed. The data are given.in Table - 168.

T Z L E - 5.168 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF THE SCORES OF PRE-TEST

AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS - HIGHER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE .

df

1

23

24

- -y.x = 214.35 From Table - F df1122

F at 0.01 level = 7.94

SSx

112.03

86.61

198.64

The Fy.xvalue (214.35)is greater than the table value (7.94)for df 1122.Hence

the -3erence between the scores of the two groups is significant at 0.01 level.

SSY

5.69

368.15

373.84

SSy.x

240.08

24.62

264.7

SXY

-25.25

172.49

147.24

b r c e of ination

,471g Means

\.W-n Groups -

I G

MSx

112.03

3.77

Msy.x

240.08

1.12

SSx

112.03

86.61

198.64

df

1

22

23

MSY

5.69

16.01

SDy.x

1.06

SSY

5.69

368.15

373.84


The adjusted means for the post-test scores of the experimental and control

grcups were computed. The data are given in Table - 169.

TABLE - 5.169 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES FOR THE POST TEST

OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO GROUPSHIGHER CATEGORIES

ON THE SCIENTIFIC AmTUDE SCALE

SED = 0.42 From table- df-22

F at 0.01 level = 2.82

M~n~mum difference required for significance at

0.01 level = 0.42 x 2.82

= 1.18

Diference obtained = 9.38

Groups

Experimental

C ,ontrol

Seneral Means


m!nlmum required(l.18)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

sipficantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean score of the experimental group is

gEater than that of the control group. Hence it can be concluded that the students taught by

IF'J are Superior to the CM group in the higher categories on the scientific attitude scale.

5.3.5.8 Comparison of IPM and CM with respect to the Scores - Lower

Categories on Scientific Attitude Scale- Class XI1

N

12

13


pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups belonging to the

Mx

3.92

8.15

6.04

MY

18.42

17.46

17.94

My.x (adjusted)

22.62

13.24

lower categories on scientific attitude scale were computed. The data are given in Table

- 170




Fy = 11.63 F at 0.05 level = 4.18

F at 0.01 levael = 7.60

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

The Fy value (1 1.63) is greater than the table value(7.6 )and hence it is

significant at 0.01 IevelThe total sum of squares and adjusted mean square variances for

post-test scores in the two groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 171


AND POST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS - LOWER CATEGORIES ON SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

df

1

29

30

Fy.x = 22.96 From Table - df 1128

SSx

1.32

31.39

32.71

F at 0.01 level = 7.64

SDy.x

2.42

SSY

98.83

246.59

345.42

SSy.x

133.91

163.37

297.28

M Sx

1.32

1.08

Msy.x

133.91

5.83

SSY

98.83

246.59

345.42

SSx

1.32

31.39

32.71

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

98.83

8.50

Sxy

-11.43

51.11

39.68

df

1

28

28




The adjusted means forthe post-test scores of the experimental and control




THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE

SED = 0.91 From table- df- 28

ta t 0.01 level = 2.76


0.01 level = 0.91 x 2.76

= 2.51


I Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


minimum required(2.5l)this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ

significantly in their achievements.. The adjusted mean score of the experimental group is

greater than that of thecontrol group. Hence it can be concluded that the students taught by

IPM are superior to the CM group for the lower categories on the scientific attitude scale.

N

11

20

Mx

1.82

2.25

2.04

MY

10.18

6.45

8.32

My.x (adjusted)

10.54

6.09

5.3.5.9 Comparison of IPM and C M with respect to the Scores - of

Scientific Attitude -Class XI1


pre-test and post-test scores with respect to scientific attitude of the two groups were

computed. The data are given in Table - 173.




Fy = 28.78 Fat 0.05 level = 3.93

Fat 0.01 levael = 6.86

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total L

Both Fx and Fy values are greater than 6.86 and hence aresignificant at

0.01 level.


.. test scores were computed. The data are given in Table - 174:

df

1

118

119



WITH RESPECT TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

SSx

1569.63

19188.74

20758.37

SSY

5200.83

21317.14

26517.97

SDy.x

3.93

MSx

1569.63

162.61

SXY

2857.17

19348.07

22205.24

Source of Variation

Among Means

Within Groups

Total

MSY

5200.83

180.65

SSx

1569.63

19188.74

20758.37

df

1

117

118

SSy.x

956.59

1808.42

2765.01

SSY

5200.83

21317.14

26517.97

Msy.x

956.59

15.46

Fy.x = 61.87 From Table - df11117

F at 0.01 level = 6.86




The adjusted means for the post-test of students inthe experimental and

control groups were computed. The data are given in Table - 175.

TABLE - 5.175 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROL GROUPS FOR THE POST TEST OF STUDENTS WITH RESPECT

TO SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE


ta t 0.01 level = 2.63


0.01 level = 0.72 x 2.63

= 1.89


Groups

Experimental

Control

General Means


the minimum required(l.89),this is significant at 0.01 level.lt means that two groups differ



taught by IPM are superior to the CM group with respect to scientific attitude scores .

N

60

60

Mx

33.9

26.67

30.28

MY

45.9

32.73

39.32

My.x (adjusted)

42.24

36.38


Attitude When IPM is used -Class XI1



significance by finding the critical ratio. The data and results of the test of significance are

given in Table -1 76.


BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST TEST SCORES

ON THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE OF THE IPM GROUP

It can be seen from the table that the critical ratio is greaterthan 2.58.Hence


of the pre-test and post-test.Since the mean score of post test is greater than that of the

pre-test,it can be concluded that IPM is effective in producing significant changes in the

scientific attitude of the pupils


Attitude- When CM is used -Class XI1

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test



significance by finding the critical ratio. The data are given in Table -177.

Mean

33.9

45.9

N

60

60

SD

12.92

13.48

CR

4.97

Level of significance

0.01

Result of Test of Significance

Significant

TABLE 5.177 RESULTS OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST TEST SCORES

ON THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE SCALE OF THE CM GROUP.

It can be seen from table that the critical ratio is greater than 2.58. Hence

it is significnt at 0.01 level. It means that there is significant difference in scientific attitude

scores of the pre-test and post-test. Since the mean score of the post-test is greater than

the pre-test it can be concluded that CM is also effective in producing significant changes

in the scientific attitude of the pupils.

Scores

Pre-Test

Post-Test

5.5.5 Analysis of the Entries of the Observation Schedule

The ratings obtained from the obse~ation schedules were converied into

scores and then analysed. The results are summarised in Tables 178, 179 and 180.

N

60

60


SCHEDULE OF CAM

Mean

26.67

32.73


This is much more than the midpoint of the range, that is 45. This indicates that the

SD

12.36

13.17

Mean

46

7

Teacher No

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

48

46

44

CR

2.60

Level of

significance

0.01

Result of Test

of Significance

Significant

procedure followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the

expected procedure.


SCHEDULE OF ITM

The range of scores possible is 20 - 80. The mean score obtained is 64

This is much more than the midpoint of the range (50). This indicates that the procedure

followed by the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with respect to the expected

~rocedure.

Teacher No

1

2

3


SCHEDULE OF AOM

Marks Assigned

64

66

62

The range of scores possible is 0 - 56. The mean score obtained is 44.66

This is much more than the mid point (28). This indicates that the procedure followed by

the teacher has been rated to be satisfactory with reference to the expected procedure.

Mean

64

.

Mean

44.66

Teacher No

1

2

3

Marks Assigned

44

46

44

In conclusion, it may be stated that when tested on the basis of objectives

of knowledge, understanding and application the lnformation Processing Models have

great potentiality in achieving the goal of education. Irrespective of the different intelligence

groups, these models have great influence in the development of higher order objectives

of instruction like Scientific attitude. On the basis of the collected data an attempt was

made to reveal the extent of influenze of lnformation Processing Models of Teaching on

the development of those objectives when compared to the Conventional Method and

analysed in this chapter. The anlysis justifies the hypothesis that the lnformation

Processing Models tried out are far superior to the Conventional Method of Teaching in

bringing about attainment in Chemistry.

Date post:	03-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CHRPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/418/10/10_chapter5.pdf ·...

Documents