I.

Problem
Is there a significant difference in the mean scores of the students exposed

to the two teaching methods of teaching mathematics?

II. Data

III. Statistical Tool

 T-test for Independent Means

IV. Ho:
There is no significant difference between the two teaching methods in
terms of the mean score.

Ha:
There is a significant difference between the two teaching methods in terms
of the mean score.

SPSS Output:
 V. Decision

Since p-value is 0.000 is less than 0.05, we reject Ho.

VI. Conclusion
The sample provides sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a
significant difference between the two teaching methods in terms of the mean
score.
VII. Summary Table

Table 1. Comparison between the two teaching methods in terms of the mean
scores in Mathematics

Group Mean Standard P-value Interpretation

Deviation
New Teaching 75.50 4.503
Method

Traditional 64.10 5.859

Teaching 0.000 Reject Ho

Method

Legend; If p-value is ≤ 0.05, we reject Ho, otherwise, fail to reject Ho.

I. Problem

Are upperclassmen significantly different from the underclassmen as

regards to their opinion about a certain university policy?

 II. Data

III. Statistical Tool

 Chi-Square Test of Independence

IV. Ho:
Class standing does not significantly differ in terms of opinion about a
certain university policy.

Ha:
Class standing significantly differs in terms of opinion about a certain
university policy.

SPSS Output:

V. Decision

Since p-value is 0.157 is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject Ho.

VI. Conclusion
The sample provides sufficient evidence to conclude that class standing does
not significantly differ in terms of opinion about a certain university policy.
VII. Summary Table

Table 2. Cross tabulation between the opinion of the upperclassmen and

underclassmen about a certain university policy.

Opposed
Variable 64 84 Total P-value Interpretation
Favor 0 1 1
64 0.157 Fail to reject Ho
138 1 0 1
Total 1 1 2

Legend; If p-value is ≤ 0.05, we reject Ho, otherwise, fail to reject Ho.

I. Problem
A certain researcher developed the inspired hypothesis that people are
taller when they are wearing shoes than when they are not wearing shoes. To test
this hypothesis, he took a random sample of 15 adults, measuring the height of
each individual subject first with shoes on, and then again with shoes off. Test at a
= 0.05 if there is a significant difference on the height of adults when they are

wearing shoes and when they are not wearing shoes?

II. Data
III. Statistical Tool

 T-test for Correlated Samples

IV. Ho:
The height of adults wearing shoes does not differ significantly to the ones
who are not wearing.

Ha:
The height of adults wearing shoes differ significantly to the ones who are
not wearing.

SPSS Output:

V. Decision

Since p-value is 0.000 is less than 0.05, we reject Ho.

VI. Conclusion
The sample provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the height of adults

wearing shoes differ significantly to the ones who are not wearing.
VII. Summary Table

Table 3. Comparison between the height of adults wearing shoes and does not.

Pair Mean Standard P-value Interpretation

Deviation
Shoe on 65.78 5.1988

Shoes off 64.207 5.238

0.000 Reject Ho

Legend; If p-value is ≤ 0.05, we reject Ho, otherwise, fail to reject Ho.

I. Problem
 One hundred twenty-five teachers were selected at random and were
asked to state their opinion regarding the Philippine foreign policy. After several
weeks, during which they received an informative letter, their opinion were asked
again. Is the change in number of teachers opposed to Philippine foreign policy

significant? The data is shown below:

II. Data

III. Statistical Tool

 Mc Nemar Change Test

IV. Ho:
There is no significant change in the teachers’ opinion regarding the
Philippine foreign policy before and after reading the informative newsletter.

Ha:
There is significant change in the teachers’ opinion regarding the Philippine
foreign policy before and after reading the informative newsletter.

SPSS Output:

V. Decision
 Since p-value is 0.539 is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject Ho.

VI. Conclusion
The sample provides sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no
significant change in the teachers’ opinion regarding the Philippine foreign policy

before and after reading the informative newsletter.

VII. Summary Table

Table 4. Cross tabulation between the teachers’ opinion before and after about
the Philippine foreign policy

After
Before Agreed Opposed P-value Interpretation
Agreed 52 30
0.539 Fail to reject Ho
Opposed
36 7

Legend; If p-value is ≤ 0.05, we reject Ho, otherwise, fail to reject Ho.

I. Problem
 An experiment in teaching chemistry was conducted. Three methods of
teaching were used. Students were randomly assigned to each of these three
sections and an achievement test was given at the end of the treatment. Is there a
significant difference in student performance by teaching method? The data is

shown below. Use a = 0.05.

II. Data

III. Statistical Tool

 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

IV. Ho:
The achievement test scores for the three teaching methods are the same

Ha:
At least two of the teaching methods are different in terms of the
achievement test scores.

SPSS Output:

V. Decision

Since p-value is 0.000 is less than 0.05, we reject Ho.

VI. Conclusion
 The sample provides sufficient evidence to conclude that at least two of the
teaching methods are different in terms of the achievement test scores.

VII. Summary Table

Table 5. Comparison between the three teaching methods in terms of the

achievement test result in Chemistry

Group Mean Standard P-value Interpretation

Deviation
Videotape 29.50 5.359
Demonstration 19.60 4.742
Lecture 21.40 4.142
Total 23.50 6.356 0.000 Reject Ho

Legend; If p-value is ≤ 0.05, we reject Ho, otherwise, fail to reject Ho.

Data:

Activity 3 Problem #1
Problem #2

Activity 4 Problem #1
Problem #2

Activity 5