Number of questionnaires sent out

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

Intermediate-level learner

Table 2. Result of Actual Technical Writing Needs

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

SON Nurse Practitioner Blackboard Community

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

Source Sum of Squares (SS) df Mean Square (MS) F p-value

Table 3. Student’s Mathematical Critical Thinking Ability Description

Teachers Response (N= 11)

Instructional materials

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

Table 8. Drawing result before game

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

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.

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

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.

© 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.

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 1. Characteristics (age, height, and weight) of the participants

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

Actual descriptive example

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

Table 2. Test of Normality

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

Table 1. LLC Academics Outcome Report ( )

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Training Programs in Management and Leadership

© 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.

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.

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

Table 2. Sample items for measuring attitude towards e-learning

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

Table 1. Sampled Size by Status and Qualification of Academic Staff

MASTERS DEGREE HOLDERS

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

Geometry and Mensuration

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.

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

Table 4. Independent Samples Test Application of ICT by Gender

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

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

Presentation transcript:

Number of questionnaires sent out Table 6. Structure of the sample, 2nd round Group Number of questionnaires sent out Number of responses Response rate Participation rate Students 34 20 59% 24% Science education students at the university 6 87% 31% Science teachers Trainee science teachers 2 Teachers (in-service) 14 15 Trainee science teacher educators 8 5 Science educators 13 100% 17% Scientists 27 19 70% 23% Others 4 67% 5% Total 110 83 75% Marika Kapanadze et al. Stakeholders’ Views on Science Education - Curricular Delphi Study in Georgia. American Journal of Educational Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 7, 897-906. doi:10.12691/education-3-7-14 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.