MPPU 1034

APPLICATION OF STATISTIC IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

ASSIGNMENT 1

KAMARUL ARIFFIN BIN KHAMIS

MPP181121
SECTION 04

PREPARED FOR:
DR MEGAT
 PART A
1) Study on the factors affect pupil’s performance in Mathematics
2) In this research, survey was chosen as a research design, which is one of quantitative
research method.

3) Research Questions
RQ1 What are the pattern of the factors for pupil's performance?

RQ2 Is there exists a significant different of pupil’s performance of final examination

between the gender?

RQ3 Is there exists a significant different of pupil’s performance of final examination

between the rank of class ?

4) Research Hypotheses
H0b : There is no different of pupil’s performance of final examination between male and
female.

H1b : There is a different of pupil’s performance of final examination between male and
female.

H0c : There is no different of pupil’s performance of final examination between the rank of
class.

H1c : There is a different of pupil’s performance of final examination between the rank of
class.

5) Research Instruments
Research instrument used for this study is questionnaire. There are 37 questionnaires were
distributed among 37 pupils form Sekolah Kebangsaan Kangkar Pulai 2, from year 4 to
year 6.
6) Research Data

Figure 1: Data Structure

7) Data Management (as necessary)

Figure 2: Data in SSPS

In SSPS data as shown above. The selected class and factors of affecting performance
of pupils were computed in SSPS. There are 6 rank of classes and there are five factors that
influence the performance in three assessment which are test 1, mid-term examination and final
examination. In structuring the data, age, gender, rank of class, place of living and factors were
measured as ordinal data while mark of test 1, mark of mid-term and mark of final examination
were computed as scale data.
8) Investigations of assumptions on data normality (when applicable)

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Marks of test 1 .186 37 .002 .903 37 .004
Marks of mid term
.170 37 .009 .901 37 .003
examination
Marks of final
.197 37 .001 .903 37 .003
examination
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Figure 3: Tests of Normality

Basically a normality test is used to determine whether sample data has been drawn from a
normality distributed population. A number of statistical tests, such as the pupil’s t-test and
the one-way and two-way ANOVA require a normally distributed sample. That is why this
normality test is done to determine which type of test should be carried out because normal
data is an underlying assumption in parametric testing. The hypothesis used are :

Ho : Data is normally distributed.

When testing for normality :

Probabilities < 0.05 mean the data are not normal
Since the respondent not more than 2000 Shapiro-Wilk sig was measured for normality test
.So in this case, we have to reject Ho since the Sig of Shapiro-Wilk shows that it is less than
0.05. Thus the data above is not normal.
9) Results
RQ1 What are the pattern of the factors for pupil's performance?

strongly agree agree disagree

Count Row Valid N Count Row Valid N Count Row Valid N
% % %
Lack of basic
18 48.6% 8 21.6% 11 29.7%
Mathematics skills
Do not diligently try
10 27.0% 13 35.1% 14 37.8%
past questions
Do not practice simpler
and more fun 10 27.0% 12 32.4% 15 40.5%
techniques
Less time is devoted to
learn and practice 11 29.7% 14 37.8% 12 32.4%
questions
The attitude of pupils
who have always
13 35.1% 8 21.6% 16 43.2%
considered math
subjects is difficult.

Figure 4: Likert Scale Data

Based on Figure 4, it shows that the highest mean for factors affecting pupil’s performance in
Mathematics is lack of basic Mathematics skills which were agreed by 21.6% respondents
and strongly agreed by 48.6% respondent ( shown in Figure 4 ). Meanwhile the mode for
disagree was contributed by fifth factor which is the attitude of pupils who have always
considered math subjects is difficult which is by 43.2% respondents. Furthermore, many
respondents agree for fourth factor which is less time is devoted to learn and practice
questions. This support a statement that a lot of exercise will determine the best result in
Mathematics.

H0b : There is no different of pupil’s performance of final examination between male and
female.

H1b : There is a different of pupil’s performance of final examination between male and
female.
 Ranks
Gender N Mean Sum of
Rank Ranks
male 21 15.90 334.00
Marks of final
female 16 23.06 369.00
examination
Total 37

Marks of
final
examination
Mann-Whitney U 103.000
Wilcoxon W 334.000
Z -1.995
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .046
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed
.047b
Sig.)]

When run normality test for pupil’s performance of final examination, found that the data was
not normal. Thus, Non-Parametric measurement was used to test the hypothesis null. In this
test, Mann- Whitney U was chosen since it is suitable for 1 dependent and 1 independent
variable. Table above shows that the respondents were consist of 21 male and 16 female which
almost equally uniform. As a conclusion, fail to reject Ha1 because the asymptotic Sig for this
test is 0.046 which is less than 0.05. Thus, there is different of pupil’s performance between
male and female.

H0c : There is no different of pupil’s performance of final examination between the rank of
class.

H1c : There is a different of pupil’s performance of final examination between the rank of
class.
 Ranks
Rank of N Mean
Class Rank
Usaha 2 36.25
Rajin 11 26.91
Jujur 11 21.41
Marks of final
Tekun 4 13.50
examination
Gigih 4 6.88
Ikhlas 5 3.50
Total 37

Test Statisticsa,b
Marks of
final
examination
Chi-
27.857
Square
df 5
Asymp. .000
Sig.
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable:
Rank of Class

When run normality test for pupil’s performance of final examination, found that the data was
not normal. Thus, Non-Parametric measurement was used to test the Hypothesis Null. In this
test, Kruskal Wallis Test was chosen since it is suitable for 1 dependent and two or more
groups of independent variable. Table above shows that the respondents were consist of 21
male and 16 female which almost equally uniform. As a conclusion, reject H02 because the
asymptotic Sig for this test is 0.00 which is less than 0.05. Thus, there is different of pupil’s
performance between rank of class.
 PART B
1) Study on the factors affect pupil’s performance in Mathematics
2) In this research, survey was chosen as a research design, which is one of quantitative
research method.

3) Research Questions
RQ1 Is there exists a significant different of pupil’s performance between test 1, mid-term
exam and final examination?
RQ2 Is there exists a significant relationship of pupil’s performance between test 1 and
final examination.

4) Research Hypotheses
H0a : There is no different of pupil’s performance between test 1, mid-term exam and final
examination.
H1a : There is different of pupil’s performance between test 1, mid-term exam and final
examination.
H0b : There is no relationship of pupil’s performance between test 1 and final examination.
H1b : There is relationship of pupil’s performance between test 1 and final examination.

5) Research Instruments
Research instrument used for this study is questionnaire. There are 37 questionnaires were
distributed among 37 pupils form Sekolah Kebangsaan Kangkar Pulai 2, from year 4 to
year 6.
6) Research Data

Figure 1: Data Structure

7) Data Management (as necessary)

Figure 2: Data in SSPS

In SSPS data as shown above. The selected class and factors of affecting performance
of pupils were computed in SSPS. There are 6 rank of classes and there are five factors that
influence the performance in three assessment which are test 1, mid-term examination and final
examination. In structuring the data, age, gender, rank of class, place of living and factors were
measured as ordinal data while mark of test 1, mark of mid-term and mark of final examination
were computed as scale data.
8) Investigations of assumptions on data normality (when applicable)

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Marks of test 1 .186 37 .002 .903 37 .004
Marks of mid term .003
.170 37 .009 .901 37
examination
Marks of final .003
.197 37 .001 .903 37
examination
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Figure 3: Tests of Normality

Basically a normality test is used to determine whether sample data has been drawn from a
normality distributed population. A number of statistical tests, such as the pupil’s t-test and
the one-way and two-way ANOVA require a normally distributed sample. That is why this
normality test is done to determine which type of test should be carried out because normal
data is an underlying assumption in parametric testing. The hypothesis used are :

Ho : Data is normally distributed.

When testing for normality :

Probabilities < 0.05 mean the data are not normal
Since the respondent not more than 2000 Shapiro-Wilk sig was measured for normality test
.So in this case, we have to reject Ho since the Sig of Shapiro-Wilk shows that it is less than
0.05. Thus the data above is not normal.

9) Results
H0a : There is no different of pupil’s performance between test 1, mid-term exam and final
examination.
H1a : There is different of pupil’s performance between test 1, mid-term exam and final
examination.
 Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Minimu Maximu
Deviation m m
Marks of test 1 37 46.081 21.2019 5.0 76.0
Marks of mid term
37 52.324 21.9216 10.0 83.0
examination
Marks of final
37 58.838 21.8257 8.0 90.0
examination

Ranks
Mean
Rank
Marks of test 1 1.04
Marks of mid term
2.01
examination
Marks of final
2.95
examination

Test Statisticsa
N 37
Chi-Square 67.633
df 2
Asymp.
.000
Sig.
a. Friedman Test

The Friedman Test result is 0.000… (p< 0.05) which reject the hypothesis. It means that
there is different of marks between test 1, mid-term examination and final examinations.
Thus, the respondents have either get higher marks or lower marks between the three
assessments.
H0b : There is no relationship of pupil’s performance between test 1 and final examination.
H1b : There is relationship of pupil’s performance between test 1 and final examination.

Test : Spearmen

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Marks of test 1 .186 37 .002 .903 37 .004
Marks of final
.197 37 .001 .903 37 .003
examination
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Correlations
Marks of test Marks of
1 final
examination
Pearson
1 .974**
Correlation
Marks of test 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 37 37
Pearson
.974** 1
Marks of final Correlation
examination Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 37 37
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The test shows that the significant value is < 0.05. Hence we have to reject Ho, thus it shows
that there is significant relationship between test 1 and final examination that linear, positive
and very strong.