CHAPTER IV

INTRODUCTION
Analysis of data means critical examination of the tabulated data to determine the
inherent facts and characteristic of the object under study. This, in turn, will help in determining
the patterns of relationships among the variables relating to it.
Data Analysis embraces a whole range of activities of both the qualitative and
quantitative type. It is usual tendency in educational research that much sue of quantitative
analysis is made and statistical is made and statistical methods and techniques are employed.
Kaul defines data analysis as studying the organized material in order to disorder inherent facts.
The data are studied born as many angles as possible to explore the new facts. (Sharif Khan,
2009).
Analysis of data in a general way involves a number of closely related operations,
which are performed with the purpose of summarizing the collected data and organizing these in
such a manner that they answer the research questions. (C.R.Kothari, 1989).
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Analysis of data is one of the basic steps of research process. It is one of the processes
of collection, analyzing and interpreting the numerical data. It is studying the tabulated material
in order to determine the inherent factors or meaning. It involves breakdown of existing complex
factor into simple parts and putting the parts together in new arrangements for the purpose of
interpretation.
The analysis and interpretation of data represent the application of deductive and
inductive logic to the research process. The data are often classified by division into, subgroups
and are then analyzed and synthesized in such a way that hypothesis may be verified or rejected.
According to Gay (1976) Analysis of the data is important as any other components of the
research process.
In general process of analysis of research data, statistical methods as contributed a great deal,
simple statistical calculation finds a place in almost any research study dealing with large or even
small group of individuals, while complex statistical computations from the basis of many type

of research. It maynt be out of place, therefore, to enumerate some stastistical methods of

analysis used in educational research.
FUNCTIONS OF DATA
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

To obtain the significant results.

To make the raw data meaningful.
To evaluate parameters.
To test the null hypothesis.
To draw some inferences or make generalization.
In this chapter percentaget test, ANOVA, and correlation co-efficient are executed.
TABLE 4.1
LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS
Low
N
20

Average
N

6.7

272

High
N

90.7

2.7

It is inferred from above table 6.7%, 90.7%, 2.7% of IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence

HYPOTHESES TESTING
Hypotheses 1-4
Level of Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students with respect to back ground variable
TABLE 4.2
LEVEL OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH RESPECT TO BACK GROUND VARIABLE

S.NO
1

Variables
Gender

Category

Low

Male

151

N
13

Female

149

Average

High

%
8.6

N
135

%
89.4

N
3

%
2.0

4.7

137

91.9

3.4

Locality of Rural
school

Urban

121

4.1

113

93.4

2.5

179

15

8.4

159

88.8

2.8

It is inferred from the above table, 8.6%, 89.4%, 2% of male IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
4.7%, 91.9% 3.4% of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of
Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
4.1%, 93.4%, 2.5%, of rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Intrapersonal
Intelligence respectively.
8.4%, 88.8%, 2.8%, of urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of
Intrapersonal Intelligence respectively.
Hypotheses 5-10
There is no significant difference between A) Boys and girls B) Rural and Urban school C) Days
scholar and Hosteller F) Nuclear family and joint family High school students in their
Intrapersonal Intelligence.
TABLE 4.3
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND
URBAN SCHOOL C) DAYS SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR FAMILY
AND JOINT FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL
INTELLIGENCE
Back

ground Category

Mean

S.D

variables
Gender
Medium
Instruction

Boys
Girls
of Tamil
English

151
149
245
55

21.34
22.89
22.02
22.49

5.45
7.05
6.82
3.45

Calculated

Remark

t value

at

2.14

level
S

0.73

NS

5%

Locality
School
Nature

of urban
Rural

121
179

22.83
21.63

5.65
6.73

1.67

NS

of Days

220

22.18

6.20

0.29

NS

80

21.93

6.70

Accommodation

Nature of family

scholar
Hosteller

Nuclear
211
22.62
7.22
2.85
Joint
89
20.91
3.16
(At 5% level of significance, the table value is 1.96)

It inferred from the above table that the calculatedt value (2.14) is greater than the table value,
the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between boys and girls
students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculatedt value (0.73) is less than the table value,
the null hypothesis is accepted and there are significant difference between Tamil and English
Medium high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Locality of School, the calculatedt value (1.67) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural of high
school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculatedt value (0.29) is less than the table
value, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Days scholar
and Hostel high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
With regard to Nature of Family, the calculatedt value (2.85) is greater than the table value, the
null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family
of high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 11
There is no significant difference among Boys, Girls, and Co-Education high school students in
their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
TABLE 4.4

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Source of

Degrees

Variation

freedom

of Sum
Squares

of Mean
Square

Calculated

Remark

F value

5% level

Variance
Between
2
164.31
82.16
2.05
Within
297
11905.06
40.08
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

at

NS

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated F value (2.05) is less than the table value
for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among boys,
girls, and co-education high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 12
There is no significant difference among boys, girls, and co-education high school students in
their intrapersonal intelligence.
TABLE 4.5
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Source
Variation

of Degrees
freedom

of Sum
Squares

of Mean
Square

Calculated

Remark

F value

5% level

Variance
Between
2
218.36
109.18
2.74
Within
297
11851.02
39.90
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

at

NS

It inferred from the above table that the calculated F value (2.74) is less than the table value for
(2,297) df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference among
government, aided, private high school students in their Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Hypothesis 13-18

There is no significant association between fathers Education, Fathers Occupation, Mothers

Occupation and Mothers Monthly Income of high school students in their Intrapersonal
Intelligence.
TABLE 4.6
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHERS EDUCATION,
FATHERS OCCUPATION, MOTHERS OCCUPATION, MOTHERS OCCUPATION
AND MOTHERS MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR
INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
Back

Category

Low

Average

High

ground
Variables
Fathers

Calculated

Remark at

2 value

5% level

Illiteracy
SSLC
HSC
UG and above
Coolie
Business
Private
Government
Coolie
Business
Private
Government

7(10)
8(6)
3(3)
2(1)
7(9)
2(3)
5(4)
6(4)
2(4)
8(7)
2(3)
4(3)

135(132)
76(77)
45(44)
16(19)
121(120)
38(38)
61(61)
52(53)
55(54)
100(100)
41(42)
45(45)

4(4)
1(2)
0(1)
3(1)
4(4)
2(1)
1(2)
1(2)
2(2)
2(3)
3(1)
0(1)

15.22

3.12

NS

5.99

NS

Below Rs.5000
Rs.5000-10000
Rs.10000-20000
Above 20000
Below Rs.5000
5000-10000
10000-20000
Above 20000

4(4)
7(6)
4(5)
5(4)
7(6)
2(3)
4(5)
7(5)

55(55)
84(84)
76(73)
57(60)
86(88)
49(46)
68(67)
69(71)

2(2)
2(2)
0(2)
4(2)
4(3)
0(1)
2(2)
2(2)

3.82

NS

5.92

NS

Illiteracy
7(9)
125(121)
2(4)
5.92
SSLC
5(5)
65(63)
2(2)
Education
HSC
5(4)
53(53)
1(2)
UG and above
3(3)
32(34)
3(1)
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)

NS

Education
Fathers
Occupation
Mothers
Occupation
Mothers
monthly
Income
Fathers
monthly
Income
Mothers

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated 2 value (15.22) is greater than the table
value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant association between
fathers education and Intrapersonal Intelligence of high school students.
As the calculated 2 value (3.12) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Fathers Occupation and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
As the calculated

value (5.90) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Mothers Occupation and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
Calculated 2 value (5.99) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted
and there is no significant association between Mothers monthly Income and Intrapersonal
Intelligence of high school students.
Calculated

value (3.82) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted

and there is no significant association between Fathers Income and Intrapersonal Intelligence of
high school students.
Calculated 2 value (5.92) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is accepted
and there is no significant association between Mothers Education and Intrapersonal Intelligence
of high school students.
Hypotheses 19-20
TABLE 4.7
LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Low
N
50

Average
%
16.7

N
214

High
%
71.3

N
36

%
12.0

It is inferred from the above table 16.7%, 71.3%, 12.0 of IX standard students have low average,
high level of Self Confidence.
TABLE 4.8

LEVEL OF SELF CONFIDENCE OF IX STANDARD STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO

BACKGROUND VARIABLE

S Back
.NO

ground

variable
Gender

Locality

Category

Male

Female
of Rural

Low

Average

High

151

26

17.2

109

72.2

16

10.6

149
121

24
14

16.1
11.6

105
83

70.5
68.6

20
24

13.4
19.8

179

36

20.1

131

73.2

12

6.7

school
Urban

It is inferred from the above table 17.2%, 72.2%, 10.6%, of male IX standard students have low,
average, high level of Self Confidence respectively.
16.1%, 70.5%, of female IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self Confidence
respectively.
11.6%, 68.6%, 19.8%, of Rural IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self
Confidence respectively.
20.1%73.2%, 6.7%, of Urban IX standard students have low, average, high level of Self
Confidence respectively.
Hypothesis 21-25
There is no significant difference between a) boys and girls b) rural and urban school c) Tamil
and English d) Rural and Urban e) Days Scholar and Hosteller f) Nuclear and Joint Family
Students in their Self Confidence.
TABLE 4.9

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) BOYS AND GIRLS B) RURAL AND

URBAN SCHOOL C) TAMIL AND ENGLISH D) RURAL AND URBAN E) DAYS
SCHOLAR AND HOSTELLER F) NUCLEAR AND JOINT FAMILY IN THEIR SELF
CONFIDENCE
Back

ground category

Mean

S.D

Variables
Gender
Medium
Instruction
Locality
School
Nature

Calculated

Remark

t Value

at

Boys
Girls
of Tamil
English

151
149
245
60

57.21
58.13
57.01
60.58

10.18
11.22
10.83
9.67

0.75

level
NS

2.42

of Urban
Rural

121
179

61.05
55.38

10.05
10.55

4.70

of Days

220

58.71

10.44
2.78

80

54.79

10.94
1.17

NS

Accommodation

Scholar
Hosteller

Nature of Family

Nuclear
211
57.22
11.09
Joint
89
58.72
9.70
(At 5% level significance, the table value is 1.96)

5%

It inferred from the above table that the calculatedt value (0.75) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Boys and Girls students
in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Medium of Instruction, the calculatedt value (2.42) is greater than the table
value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant difference between Tamil and
English Medium high School students in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Locality of School, the calculatedt value (4.70) is greater than the table value,
the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Urban and Rural High
School students in their Self Confidence.
With regard to Nature of Accommodation, the calculatedt value (2.78) is greater than the table
value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference between Days Scholar
and hostel High School students in their Self Confidence.

With regard to Nature of Family, the calculatedt value (1.17) is less than the table value, the
null hypothesis is accepted and there is a significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family
high school students in their Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 26
TABLE 4.10
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG BOYS, GIRLS, CO-EDUCATION HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE
Source

of Degrees

of Sum

of Mean square Calculated

Variation
freedom
Squares
Variance
F Value
Between
2
1582.13
791.06
7.15
Within
297
32866.63
110.66
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

Remark

at

5% level
S

It is inferred from the above table that the calculated F value (7.15) is greater than the table
value for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among
boys, girls, and Co-Education high School students in their Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 27
TABLE 4.11
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, AIDED, HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE
Source
Variation

of Degrees
freedom

of Sum
Squares

of Mean
Square

Calculated

Remark

F Value

5% level

Variance
Between
2
2512.38
1256.19
11.68
Within
297
31936.38
107.53
(At 5% level of significance, the tale value for (2,297) df is 3.03)

at

It inferred from the above table that the calculated F value (11.68) is greater than the table value
for (2,297) df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant difference among
Government, Aided, Private High School students in their level of Self Confidence.
Hypothesis 28-33

TABLE 4.12
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FATHERS EDUCATION,
FATHERS OCCUPATION, MOTHERS OCCUPATION, MOTHERS OCCUPATION
AND MOTHERS MONTHLY INCOME OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THEIR
SELF CONFIDENCE.
Back

Category

Low

Average

High

ground
variables
Fathers
Education

Fathers
Occupation

Mothers
Occupation

Mothers
monthly
Income

Fathers
Income

Mothers

Calculated

Remark at

5% level

Value
9.86

NS

illiteracy
SSLC
HSC
UG
and

28(24)
13(14)
4(8)
5(4)

105(104)
63(61)
33(34)
13(15)

13(18)
9(10)
11(6)
3(3)

above
Coolie
Business
Private
Governmen

24(22)
8(7)
10(11)
8(10)

97(94)
30(30)
48(48)
39(42)

11(16)
4(5)
9(8)
12(7)

6.33

NS

t
Coolie
Business
Private
Governmen

11(10)
(18)
10(8)
4(8)

43(42)
81(79)
28(33)
38(38)

5(7)
10(13)
8(5)
7(6)

6.82

NS

t
3000-5000
6000-10000
10000-

8(10)
16(16)
15(13)

47(44)
68(68)
59(57)

6(7)
9(11)
6(10)

10.47

NS

20000
Above

11(11)

40(47)

15(8)

20000
3000-5000
6000-10000
10000-

(16)
(9)
(12)

75(69)
39(36)
47(53)

3(12)
6(6)
13(9)

13.83

20000
Above

(13)

53(56)

14(9)

20000
illiteracy
SSLC

21(22)
9(12)

99(96)
55(49)

14(14)
5(5)

8.06

NS

Education

HSC
UG

13(10)
and 7(6)

35(42)
25(27)

11(7)
6(5)

above
(At 5% level of significance, the table value for 6 df is 12.59)
It inferred from the above table that the calculated 2 value (9.86) is less than the table value
for 6 df the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant association between Fathers
Education and Self Confidence of high School Students.
As the calculated 2 value (6.33) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant association between Fathers Occupation and Self
Confidence of high School Students.
As the calculated

value (6.82) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is no significant association between Mothers Occupation and Self
Confidence of High School Students.
As the calculated

value (10.47) is less than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is

accepted and there is a significant association between Mothers Monthly Income and Self
Confidence of High School students.
As the calculated 2 value (13.83) is greater than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis
is rejected and there is a significant association between Fathers Income and Self Confidence of
High School students.
As the calculated 2 value (8.06) is than the table value for 6 df, the null hypothesis is rejected
and there is no significant association between Mothers Education and Self Confidence of High
School Students.
Hypothesis 34
TABLE 4.13
SIGNIFICANCE

RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN

THE

INTRAPERSONAL

INTELLIGENCE AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

N

X2

Y2

XY

Calculate
d

Remark

at

300

6633

17300

158725

103208

379335

Value
0.155

5%level
S

2
It is inferred from the above table that the calculated value of (0,155) is greater than the table
value (0.113) for 298 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship
between Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of High School Students.
Hypothesis 35
TABLE 4.14
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OF INTRAPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE
AND SELF CONFIDENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH RESPECT GENDER
AND LOCALITY OF SCHOOL
Categor

X2

Y2

XY

y
Boys
Girls
Urban
Rural

Calculate
d

151
149
121
179

3222
3411
2762
3871

8638
8662
7387
9913

73238
85487
66914
91811

509782
522300
463193
568889

182608
196727
169370
209965

value
0.204
0.133
0.109
0.347

Remark

at
5%level
S
NS
NS
S

With respect to boys, the calculated value of (0.204) is greater than the table value (0.159) for
149 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school boys students.
With respect to girls, the calculated value of (0.133) is less than the table value (0.159) for
147 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of high school girls students.
With respect to urban students, the calculated value of (0.109) is less than the table value
(0.159) for 119 df, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between
intrapersonal intelligence and self confidence of urban high school students.

With respect to rural students, the calculated value of (0.347) is greater than the table value
(0.177) for 117 df, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
Intrapersonal Intelligence and Self Confidence of rural high school students.