 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 19, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2018) |
Descriptive statistics analysis was conducted during the post-test to show the mean difference of the achievement scores results and students’ motivation results after treatment was done. Analysis of the descriptive statistics on the post-tests’ mean scores can be seen in the following descriptions.
Students’ Achievement Mean Scores According to Groups
Table 6 shows that the treatment group obtained mean value of (mean = 76.63 and SD = 11.042) while the control group obtained a value of mean = 58.25 and SD=10.358. It can be observed that the treatment group obtained a higher mean value than the control group.
Table 6. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Students’ Achievements According to Groups
Group N Mean Standard deviation Treatment 32 76.63 11.042 Control 32 58.25 10.358 Students’ Motivation Mean Scores According to Groups
Table 7 shows that the intrinsic motivation of treatment group obtained a mean score of (mean = 3.94 and SD = 0.323) while the control group obtained a mean score of (mean = 3.81 and SD = 0.340). It can be observed that the treatment group obtained a higher mean value than the control group.
Table 7. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Students’ Motivation According to Groups
Intrinsic Treatment 32
3.94
0.323
Control 32
3.81
0.340
Extrinsic Treatment 32
3.38
0.510
Control 32
3.36
0.462
For extrinsic motivation, the treatment group obtained mean score of (mean = 3.38 and SD = 0.510) and the control group obtained mean score of (mean = 3.36 and SD = 0.462). Thus the treatment group has higher mean value than the control group.
Students’ Achievement According to Groups
Independent t-test was conducted to determine the differences in students’ achievement according to groups. The independent t-test results are shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Independent T-Test Results of the Difference in Students’ Achievement According to Groups
Treatment 32 76.63 11.042 6.866 62 0.0001 Control 32 58.25 10.358
Table 8 shows that the main effect of method is significant based on the value of t=6.866 (p <0.05). In terms of the mean, the treatment group (mean=76.63 and SD=11.042) had higher achievement than students in the control group (mean=58.25 and SD=10.358). This shows that the null hypothesis (Ho1) that states that there is no significant difference in student achievement based on the group is rejected. It can be concluded that there is no significant difference in achievement between treatment group and control group.The Differences in Students’ Motivation According to Groups
MANOVA analysis was carried out to identify the differences in students’ motivation according to groups. Before the MANOVA analysis was conducted, the researchers first conducted tests to determine the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrix using Box's M test. Box'M test analysis can be seen in Table 9 below.
Table 9. Box’M Differences in Students’ Motivation According to Groups
(2-tailed)8.393 0.905 9 176205.994 0.519 Table 9 shows that there is no significant variance-covariance among the dependent variables for all levels of the independent variable with the Box's M=8.393 and sig=0.519 (p<0.001). This means that the variance-covariance of the dependent variable is homogeneous across the independent variables. Therefore, MANOVA tests can be carried out to see the difference in students’ motivation according to groups (Pallant, 2007). MANOVA analysis results can be seen in Table 10 and Table 11 below.
Table 10. Wlilks’ Lambda Differences in Students’ Motivation According to Groups
Effect D.K in group
Group
0.976
1.537
3
708
0.219
Test time
0.995
0.335
3
354
0.716
Group*Test time
0.999
0.063
3
124
0.939
Table 10 shows that there is no significant difference in students’ motivation according to groups and time with the value of Wilks' = 0.999, F (0.063) =0.939 (p> 0.05). Motivation based on both groups obtained a value of Wilks’ = 0.976, F (1.537) = 0.219 (p>0.05) whereas the motivation that depends on test time obtained a value of Wilks’ = 0.995, F (0.335) = 0.716 (p>0.05). This shows that the null hypothesis (Ho2) that states that there is no significant difference in student motivation according to groups is accepted. More details of the MANOVA analysis on the difference for every aspect of students’ motivation according to groups can be seen in Table 11 below.
Table 11. MANOVA Differences in Students’ Motivation According to Groups
Source Dependent Variable
(2-tailed)Group Intrinsic motivation 0.369 1 0.369 2.818 0.096 Extrinsic motivation 0.015 1 0.015 0.073 0.787 Test time Intrinsic motivation 0.027 1 0.027 0.210 0.648 Extrinsic motivation 0.077 1 0.077 0.367 0.546 Group*Test time Intrinsic motivation 0.015 1 0.015 0.113 0.738 Extrinsic motivation 0.001 1 0.001 0.004 0.949 a. R Squared = 0.025 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.001) b. R Squared = 0.004 (Adjusted R Squared = -0.021) Table 11 shows that there is no significant effects on the motivation of both groups in terms of the students' intrinsic motivation (F=2.818, p>0.05) and extrinsic motivation with the value of F=0.073 and sig=0.787 (p>0.05). Additionally, there is no significant difference of overall time on the students' motivation in terms of intrinsic motivation with F=0.210 and sig=0,648 (p>0.05) and extrinsic motivation with F=0.367 and sig=0.546 (p>0.05). Furthermore, the results of the analysis showed that there is no significant effect of the interaction between group and test time with F=0.113 and sig=0.738 (p>0.05) for intrinsic motivation and F=0.004 and sig=0.949 (p>0.05) for extrinsic motivation. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of the students based on group and time. Thus, there was no significant difference between the intrinsic motivation of students in the treatment group and the control group.
