+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Uncle Balas Data Analysis

Uncle Balas Data Analysis

Date post: 06-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: balarabe-el-hussain
View: 217 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
13
SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS ON CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF LECTURERS CLASSROOM TASK PERFOMANCE & RECTORS PLANNING STYLES IN THE NIGERIAS DENTAL SCHOOLS. Frequencies School Frequency Percent school of dental tech & therapy Enugu 76 38.0 medical school 60 30.0 school of dental health 64 32.0 Total 200 100.0  Source: Field Survey, 2011 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 sch ool ofdentaltech &therapyEnugu m ed ic a l s ch oo l s ch oo l of d en ta l health location Frequency Percent Ojo - lagos 64 32.0 Enugu 72 36.0 Kaduna 64 32.0 Total 200 100.0  Source: Field Survey, 2011 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Ojo - l ag os E nugu Ka duna your gender Frequency Percent male 116 58.0 female 84 42.0 Total 200 100.0  Source: Field Survey, 2011
Transcript

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 1/13

SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS ON CORRELATIONAL STUDY OFLECTURERS CLASSROOM TASK PERFOMANCE & RECTORSPLANNING STYLES IN THE NIGERIAS DENTAL SCHOOLS.FrequenciesSchool

Frequency Percent

school of dental tech & therapy Enugu 76 38.0

medical school 60 30.0

school of dental health 64 32.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

0

20

40

60

80

school of dental tech

& therapy Enugu

medical school school of dental

health

location

Frequency Percent

Ojo - lagos 64 32.0

Enugu 72 36.0

Kaduna 64 32.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

Ojo - lagos Enugu Kaduna

your gender 

Frequency Percent

male 116 58.0

female 84 42.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 2/13

84116 male

female

age range

Frequency Percent

25 - 35yrs 84 42.0

36 - 46yrs 72 36.0

47 - 57yrs 36 18.0

58yrs - above 8 4.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

25- 35yrs 36 - 46yrs 47- 57yrs 58yrs- above

educational qualificationFrequency Percent

HND 40 20.0

Bsc/BDS 44 22.0

PGD 32 16.0

Masters 72 36.0

PhD 12 6.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

0

20

40

60

80

HND Bsc/BDS PGD Masters PhD

years of teaching experience

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 3/13

Frequency Percent

below 5yrs 56 28.0

6 - 12yrs 76 38.0

13 - 19yrs 52 26.0

20 - 2yrs 16 8.0

Total 200 100.0

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

0

20

40

60

80

below5yrs 6 - 12yrs 13 - 19yrs 20 - 2yrs

THE DECISION RULE FOR THE LIKERT SCALES IS: If mean <2.5, the respondents disagree

 If 3.5 < mean ≤ 2.5, the respondents are undecided 

 If mean ≥ 3.5, the respondents agree

Rectors’ Perception of Lecturers’ Classroom Task Performance

a) Lecturers’ PreparednessIn this school, lecturers SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Comes to lecture rooms on time and specifies the

objectives for each lecture topic or unit

40

(20)

140

(70)

12

(6)

8

(4)

0

(0)

4.060

0

0.6469

Introduces lecture topics in a stimulating and well-thought out manner, using appropriate illustrations

80(40)

92(46)

28(14)

0(0)

0(0)

4.2600

0.6890

Brings to class specific assignment for each lecture

topic and covers contents for each semester 

36

(18)

96

(48)

28

(14)

40

(20)

0

(0)

3.640

0

0.9977

Marks students tests scripts on time and make

necessary corrections promptly

36

(18)

92

(46)

32

(16)

36

(18)

4

(2)

3.600

0

1.0418

 Mean 3.890

0

0.2795

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

b) Mastery of Subject/CoursesIn this school, lecturers SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Gives clear cut answers to questions from students 40

(20)

112

(56)

24

(12)

20

(10)

4

(2)

3.820

0

0.9338

Leaves students satisfied as having learnt

something new

56

(28)

116

(58)

24

(12)

4

(2)

0

(0)

4.120

0

0.6841

Do not leave students confused as they leave the

lecture rooms

80

(40)

60

(30)

40

(20)

8

(4)

12

(6)

3.940

0

1.1386

Summarises and agrees with what students found

in text books

48

(24)

72

(36)

40

(20)

36

(18)

4

(2)

3.620

0

1.0962

 Mean 3.875

0

0.1819

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 4/13

c) Lecturers PersonalityIn this school, lecturers SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Are always pleasant, nice and very sensitive to

students needs, though firm, but fair in the waythey handle issues

44

(22)

128

(64)

0

(0)

12

(6)

16

(8)

3.860

0

1.0799

Enforces discipline and punctuality amongst

students as well as discourage students’

involvement in examination malpractice and

cultism

92

(46)

88

(44)

0

(0)

16

(8)

4

(2)

4.240

0

0.9523

Responds to students’ questions in such a way that

students hardly ask questions in the lecture rooms

32

(16)

40

(20)

48

(24)

68

(34)

12

(6)

3.060

0

1.1931

Lectures topics in such a way that the lecture

rooms are always lively

44

(22)

92

(46)

36

(18)

20

(10)

8

(4)

3.720

0

1.0426

 Mean 3.720

0

0.4259

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

d) Lecturers Assessment StrategyIn this school, lecturers SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Always reviews questions students missed in the

tests

24

(12)

64

(32)

60

(30)

44

(22)

8

(4)

3.260

0

1.0574

Gives regular tests or quizzes at the rate of above

two or more a month

28

(14)

84

(42)

36

(18)

48

(24)

4

(2)

3.420

0

1.0663

Allows students performance in a test to affect the

way they teach students

32

(16)

68

(34)

48

(24)

36

(18)

16

(8)

3.320

0

1.1767

Awards students marks that are fair assessment of 

students work 

44

(22)

92

(46)

32

(16)

16

(8)

16

(8)

3.660

0

1.1440

 Mean 3.415

0

0.1526 

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

e) Lecturers’ Professional Development In this school, lecturers SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Experiments with innovative approaches and

materials to facilitate instructional delivery

36

(18)

128

(64)

16

(8)

16

(8)

4

(2)

3.880

0

0.8657

Brainstorm with fellow lecturers to find solutions

to instructional problems

32

(16)

88

(44)

36

(18)

40

(20)

4

(2)

3.520

0

1.0465

Attend seminars organised locally, nationally

and/or internationally as well as in-service training

such as sandwich programmes

80

(40)

96

(48)

16

(8)

4

(2)

4

(2)

4.220

0

0.8337

 Mean 3.873

3

0.2858

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Lecturers’ Perception of Rectors Planning Stylesa) Autocratic Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors SA(%)

A(%)

U(%)

D(%)

SD(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 5/13

Dictates policies, procedures and imposes tasks

and methods to lecturers with little or no

 participation of lecturers in decision-making

20

(10)

8

(4)

32

(16)

68

(34)

72

(36)

2.180

0

1.2472

Centralisation of authority to the top and assigning

tasks to lecturers without commensurable

authority discourages lecturers to perform

60

(30)

32

(16)

44

(22)

48

(24)

16

(8)

3.360

0

1.3414

Objection to lecturers’ use of their innovative

ideas and changes that dampens the morale of 

lecturers on assigned tasks

32

(16)

20

(10)

52

(26)

72

(36)

24

(12)

2.820

0

1.2472

Self-centredness and unwillingness to make

sacrifices for the development and upliftment of 

the image of the school, when the need arises only

dampens lecturers’ spirit to perform on assigned

tasks

8

(4)

24

(12)

28

(14)

48

(24)

92

(46)

2.040

0

1.2023

 Mean 2.600

0

0.5282

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

b) Free-Rein/Lassie Fairer Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Allows lecturers complete freedom to do what they wish

at will, and is always indecisive, indifferent and

vacillated about his/her responsibilities to lecturers

4

(2)

16

(8)

24

(12)

84

(42)

72

(36)

1.980

0

0.9922

Misuses functional authority and establishes careless and

 poor measurable goals for lecturers

0

(0)

8

(4)

28

(14)

100

(50)

64

(32)

1.900

0

0.7830

Careless, coordinates and implementation of personnel

good policies destroy lecturers’ morale to perform

8

(4)

20

(10)

24

(12)

80

(40)

68

(34)

2.100

0

1.1028

Poor arrangement and combination of both human and

material resources make lecturers lose confidence in a

given task 

16

(8)

32

(16)

32

(16)

56

(28)

64

(32)

2.400

0

1.2994

 Mean 2.095

0

0.1899

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

c) Democratic Planning Styles

In this school, the rectors SA(%)

A(%)

U(%)

D(%)

SD(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Involves lecturers’ full participation in organisational

administration, decision making and policy formulation,

giving room for self-expression, interactions and

criticisms

40

(20)

60

(30)

36

(18)

36

(18)

28

(14)

3.240

0

1.3384

Obtains from lecturers the information needed for 

 planning school programmes and encourages lecturers

to follow standard rules and regulations

28

(14)

88

(44)

32

(16)

40

(20)

12

(6)

3.400 1.1342

Regard for lecturers’ initiative, suggestion, creativeness

and outward mark of respect for them, improves their 

 performance on assigned tasks

20

(10)

144

(72)

16

(8)

8

(4)

12

(6)

3.760

0

0.9091

Use of stabilised policies, division of labour and work 

simplification, programs with equal and fair treatment,

60

(30)

100

(50)

28

(14)

8

(4)

4

(2)

4.020

0

0.8852

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 6/13

with fair remuneration that could afford lecturers

 performance to enhance their task performance

 Mean 3.605

0

0.3048

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

d) Consultative Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Invites educational experts to study current trends in

curriculum development and advises instructional

lecturers on planning for improved curriculum policies

60

(30)

100

(50)

16

(8)

24

(12)

0

(0)

3.980

0

0.9295

Consults lecturers when handling complex problems and

solicits for lecturers’ feedback (both positive and

negative) on school plans

20

(10)

88

(44)

36

(18)

24

(12)

32

(16)

3.200

0

1.2521

Consultative approach at new ideas with other lecturers

encourages lecturers perform better, in a free working

environment with a minimum friction and confusion

52

(26)

120

(60)

16

(8)

8

(4)

4

(2)

4.040

0

0.8257

Invitation of experts to advice lecturers on instructional

 planning improves lecturers’ task performance

92

(46)

88

(44)

12

(6)

4

(2)

4

(2)

4.300

0

0.8328

 Mean 3.880

0

0.4106 

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

e) Delegative Planning StylesIn this school, the rectors SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Permits organisation of such activities relative to the

development of lecturers’ professional organisational lifeto the lecturers which enhance their performance

12

(6)

120

(60)

40

(20)

16

(8)

12

(6)

3.520

0

0.9456

Delegates the responsibility of curriculum delivery and

development of other academic programmes to academic

heads and other competent lecturers

12

(6)

120

(60)

20

(10)

36

(18)

12

(6)

3.420

0

1.0436

Assigns the planning and organisation of lecturers’

 professional development tasks to his/her deputy and

other competent lecturers

20

(10)

92

(46)

40

(20)

32

(16)

16

(8)

3.340

0

1.1093

Delegates responsibility of overseeing the school after 

extra-curricular activities to lecturers

12

(6)

112

(56)

24

(12)

36

(18)

16

(8)

3.340

0

1.0910

 Mean 3.405

0

0.0740

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Influence of Sex in Rectors’ Planning Stylesa) Sex Influence on Rectors Planning 

Male Rectors SA

(%)

A

(%)

U

(%)

D

(%)

SD

(%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Are better planners, organisers and coordinators

and are willing to take responsibility for directing

their lecturers’ behaviour at work than the female

rectors

24

(12)

32

(16)

44

(22)

60

(30)

40

(20)

2.700 1.2878

Have lesser capacity to analyse large amounts of 0 12 52 96 40 2.180 0.8191

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 7/13

seemingly unrelated, complex information and see

 patterns or opportunities and threats where other 

female rectors might not see them

(0) (6) (26) (48) (20) 0

Have lesser emotional attachment in the discharge

of their duties and are less concerned about a few

group of favoured lecturers dominating in schoolaffairs than the female rectors

44

(22)

64

(32)

24

(12)

48

(24)

20

(10)

3.320

0

1.3215

Have high levels of effort, tenacity, energy and

initiatives towards motivating, other lecturers

achieve their ambition and aspirations than the

female rectors

52

(26)

64

(32)

36

(18)

40

(20)

8

(4)

3.560

0

1.1889

Even when things go wrong, they remain even-

tempered and consistent in their outlook and the

way in which they treat lecturers, as they know

 precisely what is expected of their lecturers and

give lecturers specific guidelines for performing

their tasks than the female rectors

60

(30)

40

(20)

32

(16)

48

(240

20

(10)

3.360

0

1.3856

 Mean 3.4050

0.0740

 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Research Question One

What planning styles do Rectors in the Nigeria’s Dental Schools mostlyuse?From the above Likert Scale tables on Leaders’ Perception of RectorsPlanning Styles, Autocratic Planning Style has a mean response of 2.6000,Free-rein/Lassie Fairer Planning Style has a mean response of 2.0950,Democratic Planning Style has a mean response of 3.6050, ConsultativePlanning Style has a mean response of 3.8800 and Delegative Planning Stylehas a mean response of 3.4050. From the foregoing, with ConsultativePlanning Style having the high mean response (3.8800), it can be concludedthat the planning styles rectors in the Nigeria’s dental schools mostly use is

the Consultative Planning Style.

Research Question TwoTo what extent are lecturers’ performances influenced by rectorsplanning styles?

Research Question ThreeTo what extent is sex a factor in Rector’s planning styles?

Response from the Likert Scale table on influence of sex in rectors’ planningstyles indicates that with a general mean response of 3.4050, the respondents

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 8/13

are undecided as to whether sex is factor in rector’s planning styles.

Research Question Four To what extent is lecturers’ performance environmentally determined?

Test of Hypothesis One

Ho: Perception on Lecturer’s classroom task is not significantly different among the

lecturers.

Hi: Perception on Lecturer’s classroom task is significantly different among the

lecturers

In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ perception of 

lecturers’ classroom task performance, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z

non-parametric test (as n > 30).

Mean Response on Rectors’ Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task Performance

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 9/13

Mean Response Frequency Percent

2.63 4 2.0

2.68 4 2.0

2.84 8 4.0

2.95 4 2.0

3.16 4 2.03.21 24 12.0

3.26 8 4.0

3.32 4 2.0

3.37 8 4.0

3.42 4 2.0

3.47 12 6.0

3.53 12 6.0

3.58 4 2.0

3.63 8 4.0

3.74 12 6.0

3.79 16 8.0

3.84 4 2.0

3.89 8 4.0

4.05 4 2.0

4.11 8 4.0

4.16 16 8.0

4.32 4 2.0

4.53 8 4.0

4.58 4 2.0

4.68 4 2.0

4.74 4 2.0

Total 200 100.0

Mean 3.6495

Std. Dev. .50912

Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;

NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task 200 3.6495 .50912 2.63 4.74

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 10/13

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

N 200

Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 3.6495

Std. Deviation .50912

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .076

Positive .076

Negative -.074

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.069

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .203

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 1.069 (which is less than Z-critical

value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.203 > 0.05indicates that there is no significant difference in the respondents responses on the rectors’

 perception of lecturers’ classroom tasks performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be

accepted and the alternate rejected accordingly.

Test of Hypothesis Two

Ho: Perception on Rectors’ Planning Styles is not significantly different among the

lecturers.

Hi: Perception on Rectors’ Planning Styles is significantly different among the

lecturers.

In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ planningstyles, as presented in the table below, is tested with the Z non-parametric test (as n > 30).

Perception on rectors' planning style

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 11/13

Mean Response Frequency Percent

1.80 4 2.0

2.35 4 2.0

2.50 8 4.0

2.60 4 2.0

2.70 4 2.0

2.80 4 2.0

2.85 4 2.0

2.90 12 6.0

3.00 24 12.0

3.05 20 10.0

3.10 8 4.0

3.15 32 16.0

3.20 12 6.0

3.25 4 2.0

3.30 12 6.0

3.35 16 8.0

3.40 8 4.0

3.60 4 2.0

3.70 4 2.0

3.75 4 2.0

4.05 4 2.0

4.35 4 2.0

Total 200 100.0

Mean 3.1170

Std. Dev. .39680

Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;

NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Perception on rectors' planning style 200 3.1170 .39680 1.80 4.35

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Perception on rectors' planning style

N 200

Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 3.1170

Std. Deviation .39680

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .164

Positive .139

Negative -.164

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 2.320

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

Testing the mean responses of the respondents with the Z-statistics, the Kolmogorov-SmirnovZ value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 2.320 (which is greater than Z-

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 12/13

critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 0.000 <

0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference in the respondents responses on the

rectors’ planning styles. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate

accepted accordingly.

Test of Hypothesis ThreeHo: The perception of lecturers about the rectors’ planning style is not significantly

different from their perception about the lecturers’ classroom task.

Hi: The perception of lecturers about the rectors’ planning style is significantly

different from their perception about the lecturers’ classroom task.

In testing this hypothesis, the mean response of each respondent on the rectors’ perception of 

lecturers classroom task performance and rectors’ planning styles are tested with the Z non-

 parametric test (as n > 30). Testing the above mean responses with Z-test, we have;

NPar TestsDescriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task 200 3.6495 .50912 2.63 4.74

Perception on rectors' planning style 200 3.1170 .39680 1.80 4.35

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks TestRanks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Perception on rectors' planning style -Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

Negative Ranks 168a 107.45 18052.00

Positive Ranks 32b 64.00 2048.00

Ties 0c

Total 200

a. Perception on rectors' planning style < Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

b. Perception on rectors' planning style > Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

c. Perception on rectors' planning style = Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

Test Statisticsb

Perception on rectors' planning style - Perception on Lecturers' Classroom Task

Z -9.765a

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000

a. Based on positive ranks.

b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

From the Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, most of the mean responses of the respondents on

 perception of rectors’ planning style are higher than their responses on rectors’ perception on

lecturers’ classroom task performance. This indicates that there is a difference of perception

in these two perceptions.

Furthermore, testing these mean responses of the respondents with the two related Z-

statistics, the Z value in the table above was obtained. The Z-value of 9.765 (which is greater 

than Z-critical value (95% level of significance) of 1.96) with an asymptotic significance of 

8/3/2019 Uncle Balas Data Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uncle-balas-data-analysis 13/13

0.000 < 0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference between the respondents

 perception of the rectors’ planning style and the rectors perception about the lecturers’

classroom task performance. Hence, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternate

accepted accordingly.


Recommended