Retesting Of Visakha Teacher Effectiveness

Print   

02 Nov 2017

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

Research in Teacher Effectiveness has been going for almost a century, but useful information has appeared in all its time (Mitzel, 1982). By this it is evident that measurement of Teacher Effectiveness is difficult since so many variables must be considered. Hence a teacher with proper combination of all variables would be considered effective. However, it is not possible to evaluate all the variables to assess the Effectiveness of the Teacher. As cognitive and affective domains are two major aspects of teacher-learning process, this study attempts to explore Teacher Effectiveness in relation to Job Satisfaction and Institutional Climate.

3.1 Definitions of the Terms used

Since the present investigation is concerned with Teacher Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction and Institutional Climate, definitions of these variables are dealt with.

Teacher

The term teacher in this study is used to refer to teachers working in primary and secondary schools except drawing, drill and craft teachers.

Teacher Effectiveness

38 In this study Teacher Effectiveness is defined as follows: An effective teacher is one who has good personal qualities, enthusiastic about his subject, intelligent, skills and techniques essential for class room teaching. The teacher guides his students on personal and vocational matters and leads students in these aspects.

Institutional Climate

Institutional Climate is defined as the perceived climate of the teacher working in that institution which is measured as the sum of positive and negative perceptions in different contexts relating to the process of the institution.

Job Satisfaction

It is defined as the satisfaction derived by the teacher in discharging his duties as a teacher.

The abbreviations used in this study are

H.M : Head Master of the School

S.A : School Assistant of the School (High School Teacher)

S.G.T: Secondary Grade Teacher ( Primary Teacher )

S.D : Standard Deviation

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To prepare and standardize tools to measure Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction.

39

To find out the distributions of the three variables and their dimensions among the teachers.

To find out the relationships among the three variables and their dimensions.

To find out the relation between sex and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job satisfaction and their dimensions.

To find out the relation between locations of the school where the teacher is working and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

To find out the relation between general qualifications of the teacher and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

7. To find out the relation between professional qualifications of the teacher and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

8. To find out the relation between cadre of the teachers and the three variables, Teacher effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

409. To find out the relation between management of the school where the teacher is working and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

10. To find out the relation between income of the teacher and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

11. To find out the relation between service experience of the teacher and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

12. To find out the relation between age of the teacher and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

13. To find out the relation between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers and the three variables, Teacher Effectiveness, Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction and their dimensions.

To realize the above objectives the following hypotheses are formulated. They are formulated in null form so that we can apply statistical analysis.

3.3 HYPOTHESES

3.3.1 RELATIONAL HypothesES

"There is no significant relationship between Teacher Effectiveness and Institutional Climate".

"There is no significant relationship between Teacher Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction of teachers".

41

"There is no significant relationship between Institutional Climate and Job Satisfaction of teachers".

"There is no significant relationship among different dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant relationship among different dimensions of Institutional Climate".

"There is no significant relationship among different dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

3.3.2 DIFFERENTIAL HYPOTHESES

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of their Teacher Effectiveness"

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

10 "There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers

in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness ".

42

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between B.Ed., teachers and M.Ed., teachers in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between B.Ed., teachers and M.Ed., teachers in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between H.M’s and S.A teachers in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness"

"There is no significant difference between H.M’s and S.A teachers in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between H.M’s and S.G.T’s in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness"

"There is no significant difference between H.M’s and S.G.T’s in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

20. "There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in terms of the dimensions of Teacher effectiveness".

21. "There is no significant difference between Government teachers and

Private teachers in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

43

There is no significant difference between Government teachers and "Private teachers in terms if the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with income below 1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 Lakhs rupees in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with income below 1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 Lakhs rupees in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with service experience less than 15 years of experience and teachers with more than 15 years of experience in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with service experience less than 15 years of experience and teachers with more than 15 years of experience in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

" There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in respect of their Teacher Effectiveness ".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of their Teacher Effectiveness".

44

"There is no significant difference between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of the dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness".

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between B.Ed., teachers and M.Ed., teachers in terms of Institutional Climate perceptions."

"There is no significant difference between B.Ed., teachers and M.Ed., teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between Government teachers and Private teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

45

"There is no significant difference between Government teachers and Private teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.A teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perception".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.A teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.G.T’s in terms of their Institutional Climate perception".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.G.T’s in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in terms of their Institutional Climate perception".

"There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

46 "There is no significant difference between teachers with income below 1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 Lakhs rupees in terms of their Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with income below 1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 lakhs rupees in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in respect of the Institutional Climate perception".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in terms of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perception".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with less than 15 years of experience and teachers with more than 15 years of experience in respect of the Institutional Climate perceptions."

"There is no significant difference between teachers with less than 15 years of experience and teachers with more than 15 years of experience in respect of the dimensions of Institutional Climate perceptions."

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers in terms of their Job Satisfaction."

47

"There is no significant difference between rural and urban teachers in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between Graduate teachers and Post Graduate teachers in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with B.Ed., and teachers with M.Ed., Qualification in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with B.Ed., and teachers with M.Ed., Qualification in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.A’s in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.A’s in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between H.M.’s and S.G.T.’s in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between H.M’s and S.G.T’s in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

48

"There is no significant difference between S.G.T’s and S.A’s in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between Government teachers and Private teachers in respect of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between Government teachers and Private teachers in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of their Job Satisfaction

"There is no significant difference between in-service trained teachers and not so trained teachers in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with income below1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 Lakhs rupees in terms of their Job Satisfaction."

"There is no significant difference between teachers with income below 1.5 Lakhs rupees and teachers with income above 1.5 Lakhs rupees in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with service experience above 15 years and teachers with service experience below 15 years in terms of their Job Satisfaction"

"There is no significant difference between teachers with service experience below 15 years and teachers with service experience above 15 years in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

49

"There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in terms of their Job Satisfaction".

"There is no significant difference between teachers with 40 years below age and teachers with 40 years above age in terms of the dimensions of Job Satisfaction".

3.4 Procedure

In order to the test the hypothesis the investigator has planned and executed in three phases namely 1. Development of the tools 2. Administration of the tools and collection of data 3. Analysis of the data.

3.5 Development of the Tools

For the collection of the data and to verify the hypotheses the following three tools are adopted and revalidated.

3.5.1 RETESTING OF VISAKHA TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

BATTERY (SELF-EVALUTION)

Visakha Teacher Effectiveness Battery, a self-assessment tool prepared by Peri, SR (1983) is used in this study. The author develops and standardizes it to measure Teacher Effectiveness.

50 Visakha Teacher Effectiveness Battery is adopted and used in this investigation, because it has all necessary qualities that a good rating scale

should have, apart from being the test standardised on a population, very similar to that of the population in the present study. There are 40 items in the Battery. The distribution of the 40 items of the Visakha Teacher Effectiveness Battery (self-assessment) is as follows. The items are given in Appendix-II.

Items pertaining to "Personal factor" are : 2, 8, 14, 18, 20, 23, 32, 34, 37 and 40.

Items pertaining to "Intellectual factor" are: 1, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 30 and 38.

Items pertaining to "Professional factor" are: 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 25, 29, 31 and 36.

Items pertaining to "Social factor" are : 5, 9, 13, 16, 21, 26, 27, 33, 35 and 36.

TABLE – 1

Number of items and percentage of items of four

factors of Teacher Effectiveness in the VTEB

FACTORS

TOTAL

Personal Factor

Intellectual Factor

Professional Factor

Social Factor

No. of items

10

10

10

10

40

Percentage

25

25

25

25

100

51

This is a five-point scale and against each item "SA-A-UD-DA- SDA"is given. SA stands for Strongly Agree, A for Agree, UD for Undecided, DA for Disagree and SDA for Strongly Disagree.

Instructions are types of the cover page of the rating scale. Instructions are given clearly and explained what the respondent has to do in filling the rating scale. It is standardised over a wide group of subjects (N = 300) in Andhra Pradesh. The Reliability Coefficient of the instrument is 81. Validity is established by cross validation method.

However, in order to ensure the suitability of the instrument to measure Teacher Effectiveness in the present study, retesting of the scale is done. The Visakha Teacher Effectiveness Battery (VTEB) along with its instructions is administered on a test sample of 200 teachers of West Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh.

3.5.2 ADMINISTRATION

The VTEB is tested on 200 teachers of various categories belonging to different managements. The investigator personally met the teachers and distributed the tool and clarified all the doubts expressed by them. The teachers readily cooperated with the investigator in filling the rating scale.

3.5.3 SCORING

52The responses of the teacher are scored according to the key prepared. For all positive items scores 5 to 1, 5 for SA, 4 for A, 3 for UD, 2 for DA and 1 for SDA are given. For all negatively worded statements scores 1 to 5, 1 for SA, 2 for A, 3 for UD, 4 for DA and 5 for SDA were given. Thus the maximum possible score is 200 and the minimum possible score is 40.

3.5.4 ITEM ANALYSIS

For the purpose of determining the degree to which each item is effective in discriminating high and low scores among the test-sample teachers, an item analysis of the data obtained from the above sample is undertaken, following the same method as in the Interpersonal Relationships Inventory. High and Low scoring groups (basing on total scores) are compared on each item, by the values of the Critical Ratio. Items with Critical Ratio greater than 1.96 are retained for the final administration.

In present study the values of the Critical Ratio for all the 40 items in the Visakha Teacher Effectiveness Battery are found to be greater than 1.96, showing discriminating power significant at the 0.05 level. Hence all the 40 items of the VTEB are retained. The analysis is as follows:

Items belonging to "Personal" factor are : 2 , 8, 14, 18, 20, 23, 32, 34, 37, and 40.

Items belonging to "Intellectual" factor are : 1, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 30 and 38.

Items belonging to "Professional" factor are : 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 25, 29, 31 and 39.

Items belonging to "Social" factor are: 5, 9, 13, 16, 21, 26, 27, 33, 35 and 36.

53

Their distribution according to their percentages is as shown in the following table.

TABLE – 2

Number and Percentage of items in each of the four factors

of Teacher Effectiveness in VTEB

FACTORS

TOTAL

Personal

Intellectual

Professional

Social

No. of items

10

10

10

10

40

Percentage

25

25

25

25

100

3.5.5 RELIABILITY

The reliability coefficient is calculated by the Split-Half method and found to be 0.72. Hence it is decided to use this instrument to measure Teacher Effectiveness of the subjects of the present study.

3.5.6 VALIDITY

Cross validation method is applied. A fresh item analysis is conducted. Here again the extreme group procedure is followed. It is noted that all the items have coefficients more than 0.2, the required value to retain an item. Hence, the instrument is considered valid.

54

3.6 ADOPTION AND RETESTING OF INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE

INVENTORY

For measuring the Institutional Climate as perceived by the teachers, the Institutional Climate Inventory developed and standardized by Dr. G.R. Kandarpa is adopted. This scale consists of four dimensions namely: 1. Teaching – learning climate 2. Administrative climate 3. Social climate and 4. Creative – Innovative climate. This inventory is adopted since it is standardized and used on a similar sample and is very simple to use. The inventory consists of 60 items distributed among the four dimensions mentioned above. The distribution of the items among the four dimensions and their percentages are given in the following table.

T A B L E -- 3

Distribution of the 60 items among the dimensions of Institutional Climate Inventory.

(Appendix –III )

Name of the Aspect

Item which belong to this aspect

No. of Items

Percentage

Teaching learning

1,3,7,12,14,23,27,35

15

25

Climate

36,37,41,45,49,53,57

Administrative

4,10,13,15,18,20,28,29

15

25

Climate

34,39,43,47,51,55,59

Social

8,9,16,19,24,25,30,31

15

25

Climate

40,44,46,48,52,56,60

Innovative

2,5,11,17,21,22,26,32

Creative climate

33,38,42,46,50,54,58

15

25

Total :-

60

100

55

3.6.1 Retesting of the Inventory

Though the inventory is developed and standardized on a similar group of teachers, retesting of the tool is taken up for securing confidence in its suitability and validity.

For this purpose a try-out sample of 200 teachers are selected randomly from around Bhimavaram town and the inventory is administered on them taking all precessions. Then all the filled-in response sheets are scored following the same procedure, which was followed in scoring teacher competency scale. Since the number of items is 60, the maximum possible score is 300 and the minimum possible score is 60. The high score indicates the high positive climate and low score indicates low positive climate.

3.6.2 Item Analysis

Item analysis is carried to determine the effectiveness in discriminating the high and low Institutional Climate of teachers. For this purpose the response sheets are arranged in descending order of their total scores. The top 27% and the bottom 27% are selected as high and low groups. For each of the items total scores are found for each group. Critical Ratios are calculated for each of the 60 items between these two groups. Items with CRs greater than 1.96 are retained and items with CRs less than 1.96 are rejected.

56

It is found that all the CRs are greater than 1.96 and hence all the items are retained. Thus the Institutional Climate inventory is taken as it is with 60 items and four dimensions for the present study as finalized tool.

3.6.3 Reliability

For estimating the reliability of the adopted and retested Institutional Climate inventory split-half method is used with Spearman – Brown prophecy formula using the same try-out sample. The reliability co-efficient is found to be 0.78 which is sufficiently large to take the inventory as reliable.

3.6.4 Validity

The validity of the present Institutional Climate inventory is estimated using known group technique. Two groups of teachers are selected, the first group consisting of teachers feeling that their school climate is in very good and the second group consisting of teachers feeling that their school climate is not good. The tool is administered on them and the mean scores of each of the groups is calculated "t" test is applied and the value of "t" is found to be 12.8 which is highly significant even at 1% level of significance and hence the present Institutional Climate inventory is taken as valid.

57

3.7 Retesting of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale

Try–out samples of 200 teachers are selected from around Bhimavaram town to carry out the retesting of Teacher Job satisfaction scale. The tool is administered to the try-out sample and the response sheets are scored basing on the key. The five point scale summative rating procedure is adopted as is done in the teaching competency scale. Since the total number of items is 57, the maximum possible score is 285 and the minimum possible score is 57.

A high score indicates high Job Satisfaction while a low score indicates low Job Satisfaction.

3.7.1 Item Analysis

For the sake of validation of each of the item in the scale in terms of its discriminating efficiency between high Job Satisfaction group and low Job Satisfaction group, two groups are selected one with top 27% and another with bottom 27% in the list of 200 teachers arranged in descending order of their Job Satisfaction. These two groups are compared for each of the item. Critical ratios are computed for each item with CR values less than 1.96 are rejected. The items retained after item analysis in the finalized Teacher Job Satisfaction scale are 44. The following table shows the CRs of all the 57 items.

58

Table – 4.

Table showing the value of CRs of the 57 items in the Narayan Teacher Job Satisfaction scale

Item No.

CR

Remarks

Item No

CR

Remarks

1

4.12

Accepted

30

1.69

Rejected

2

4.99

Accepted

31

1.19

Rejected

3

3.76

Accepted

32

5.43

Accepted

4

1.30

Rejected

33

4.33

Accepted

5

6.54

Accepted

34

0.15

Rejected

6

5.61

Accepted

35

0.68

Rejected

7

1.65

Rejected

36

5.61

Accepted

8

3.81

Accepted

37

4.08

Accepted

9

5.08

Accepted

38

5.63

Accepted

10

4.36

Accepted

39

4.75

Accepted

11

3.41

Accepted

40

5.04

Accepted

12

4.18

Accepted

41

3.53

Accepted

13

4.36

Accepted

42

5.82

Accepted

14

4.22

Accepted

43

4.17

Accepted

15

1.22

Rejected

44

1.99

Accepted

16

3.54

Accepted

45

2.13

Accepted

17

4.67

Accepted

46

4.13

Accepted

18

1.28

Rejected

47

3.31

Accepted

19

3.71

Accepted

48

4.54

Accepted

20

4.71

Accepted

49

2.75

Accepted

21

3.57

Accepted

50

1.12

Rejected

22

1.24

Rejected

51

4.15

Accepted

23

2.83

Accepted

52

2.81

Accepted

24

5.66

Accepted

53

3.16

Accepted

25

5.34

Accepted

54

4.65

Accepted

26

0.21

Rejected

55

2.81

Accepted

27

4.04

Accepted

56

1.33

Rejected

28

3.96

Accepted

57

0.66

Rejected

29

5.79

Accepted

59

Thus the final scale consists of 44 items as is already mentioned. These items belong to 10 dimensions of the Job satisfaction scales. The distribution of these 44 items in the 10 dimensions is given in the following table. The final form of the scale is given.

TABLE – 5

Distribution of the 44 items of the Teacher Job satisfaction finalized scale

among the 10 dimensions of the scale. (Appendix-IV)

Dimensions

Serial No’s of positive Items

Serial No’s of negative items

No. of Items

Percentage

1. Class-room teaching

1,2,3,4,5

5

11.4

2. School administration

6,9

7,8,10

5

11.4

3. Professional pleasure

11,12,13,14

--

4

9.0

4. Climate Factors

15,17,19

16,17

5

11.4

5. Social relations

20,22,23

21

4

9.0

6. Student behavior

24,25

--

2

4.5

7. Societal factors

26,27,28,29,30

--

5

11.4

8. Working conditions

31,32,33

34,35,36

6

13.7

9. Professional development

37,38,39,40,41

--

5

11.4

10. Personal factors

42,44

43

3

6.8

3.7.2 Reliability

60For estimating the reliability of the scale split-half method is used and Spearman - Brown prophecy formula (Garrett 1973) is used for calculation.

The procedure adopted is the same as that adopted for finding reliability of Teacher Effectiveness scale. The reliability coefficient obtained is 0.84 which is sufficiently large to consider this Teacher Job Satisfaction scale as reliable.

3.7.3 Validity

The validity of this Job Satisfaction scale is determined by using known group technique as is done in estimating validity of Teacher Effectiveness scale. The estimation is done comparing two known groups one with high Job Satisfaction and other with low Job Satisfaction "t" value is calculated between the mean scores of these two groups. The calculated value of "t" is 15.7 which is highly significant and hence the teacher Job Satisfaction scale is taken as valid.

The final questionnaire is prepared which includes the above three batteries along with a personal data sheet specifying the gender, location, general qualification, professional qualification, cadre, management of the school, income, service experience and age.

3.8 Administration of the tools and collection of

DATA

In the present study two stages stratified random sampling procedure is adopted to get a representative and comparable sample. After fixing West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh State in India as the sample area, the schools are divided into two strata namely primary schools including Upper Primary Schools and Secondary Schools including High Schools. In the first stage 125 schools belonging to these two strata are selected from among 1250 schools of West Godavari District in the ratio of 3:2. For this purpose

61random sampling procedure is adopted. From among these schools 600

teachers are selected following again the random sampling procedure. The final sample of 530 teachers consists of comparable number of all categories of teachers like male, female, rural, urban, Head masters, School Assistants and S.G.T’s. Care is taken not to include the teachers who participated in the pilot study or in the validity test.

3.8.1 COLLECTION OF DATA

After taking necessary permissions from the concerned authorities, the researcher met the head masters and teachers personally. In order to establish initial rapport with them, the investigator informed them about the purpose of the present study and sought their cooperation. After a brief lapse of time the investigator again met the teachers in their respective schools, administered the questionnaire, giving sufficient time to fill the response sheets. In the beginning the personal data sheet containing the columns sex, locality, general qualifications, professional qualifications, age, income, service experience and cadre etc., along with the instructions was given. And then all their doubts about the questionnaire were clarified. They were given sufficient time to think well and fill the rating scales basing on their own judgments. Teachers were allowed to fill the scales at home also. The researcher gave questionnaires along with personal data sheet to each of the selected 600 teachers. But 70 of them have not returned and 530 were obtained from the teachers which were used in the final analysis and verification of hypotheses. The distribution of the sample used in the present study is given in the following table.

62

3.9 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

Table – 6

composition of demographic variables

1. Sex Male : 339

Female : 191

2. Location Rural : 192

Urban : 338

4. Cadre HM : 18

School Assts. : 350

Secondary Grades: 162

4. Gen. Qualification

Graduates : 253

Post Graduates : 277

5. Professional Qualification

B.Ed; : 454

M.Ed; : 76

3.10 ANALYSIS OF DATA

63 The collected data using the tools is analyzed to achieve the objectives of describing the distribution of different variables of the study among the

final sample and verifying the hypotheses. For this purpose the following statistical techniques were used.

Mean, Standard Deviations and Skewnesses are calculated for all distributions.

Pearson’s product moment correlations are calculated for even- odd items in the item analyses of the tools.

Reliability is found and significance of differences are found using ‘t’ test.

To find the relationship between the variables and dimensions of the variable coefficient of correlation ‘r’s are computed.

Appropriate tests of significance are conducted to find out the significance of ‘r’s and significance of difference between means.

Critical Ratios are calculated for item analysis to find out the discrimination power of the items.

For the verification of the hypotheses set basing on the problem, we have to analyse the data collected with the help of the tools prepared on the sample chosen. This analysis is carried out using appropriate statistics in the next chapter.



rev

Our Service Portfolio

jb

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

whatsapp

Do not panic, you are at the right place

jb

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now
£19 £14/ Per Page
14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

ORDER TODAY!

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

Get a Free Quote Order Now