Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1

Advertisements

Intermediate-level learner

Hospital live Deliveries

Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education

Figure 3. Comparison of class performance

Table 3. Quran memorization students survey responses about App

Table 1. Sample Size No Category Sample Size (F) Percentage (%) 1

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Regression Statistics

Table 3. Student’s Mathematical Critical Thinking Ability Description

Teachers Response (N= 11)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

student achievement scores

Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group

No. 8, doi: /education Table 9. t-Test Analysis Based on Average Quiz Scores from Last Six Quizzes t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Knowledge about elderly care

in the last evaluation of the software

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Test Mean Std. Dev. Mathematics English Language

Table 1. Student’s attitude towards technology (%)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Significant (2- tailed)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Contrast equality of group means

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)

Table 2. Modal parameters estimated by Pulse Reflex®

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Overall Average Female Overall Average Male/Female

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

Table 2. Test of Normality

Table 1. LLC Academics Outcome Report ( )

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Number of questionnaires sent out

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Training Programs in Management and Leadership

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the study subjects

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Behavioral strategies

Table 4. Summary of Multi ways ANOVA results

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

chemistry that are involved in peer group

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 3. (d) Summary of two way ANOVA for overall adjustment

Figure 2. MDS-T configuration for the thirteen (13) criteria (and their Place) in DPESS in Athens (NKUA) Chris P. Lamprou et al. Evaluating the effectiveness.

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

Table 1. Illiteracy distribution by Gender and Place (No. in million)

Table 3. The Result of Post-test Data Normality Test

Table 7. The Result of T Test After Treatment

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Educational Attainment

Average Execution Time in seconds

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Gender N Mean S.D Df t-cal P

Presentation transcript:

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio Pair of comparison N Mean SD Mean Difference t-value Science 106 249.68 25.17 4.15 1.22** Humanities 194 245.53 29.66 Male 150 244.15 31.50 5.69 1.75** Female 249.84 24.21 LSI 138 235.55 29.59 26.96 5.93* HSI 51 262.51 21.89 18.55 5.42* ASI 111 254.10 22.91 8.41 2.20* *Significant at 0.05 level, ** not significant at 0.05 level, LSI: Low Social Intelligent, HSI: High Social Intelligent, ASI: Average Social Intelligent. Moumita Kundu et al. Adjustment of Undergraduate Students in Relation to Their Social Intelligence. American Journal of Educational Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 11, 1398-1401. doi:10.12691/education-3-11-8 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.