Table 7.3.2: Mean of frequency of deployment of teaching methods and affective attitude
promoted by teaching methods between pupils with higher and lower levels of satisfaction at 8th
grade ________________________________________________________________________
satisfaction |
Enjoyment____________ |
Motivation |
Sense of security |
Sense of progress |
Deployment | |||||||||||
N____ |
IVI_________ |
SD |
N____ |
M___ |
SD |
N____ |
M___ |
SD |
N____ |
M___ |
SD |
N____ |
M___ |
SD | ||
PW |
H__ |
1138 |
2.82 |
1.35 |
1135 |
2.73 |
1.30 |
1131 |
2.60 |
1.23 |
1131 |
2.82 |
1.27 |
1129 |
1.48 |
.62 |
_L__ |
843 |
2.83 |
1.37 |
841 |
2.58 |
1.26 |
840 |
2.44 |
1.15 |
839 |
2.65 |
1.22 |
840 |
1.34 |
.58 | |
t=-.184, df=1979, p>.05 |
t= 2.468, df=1974l p<.05__________________ |
t= 3.022, df=1969, |
t= 3.058, df=1968, |
t= 5.146, df=1870.210, | ||||||||||||
UC |
H |
1137 |
2.97 |
1.50 |
1133 |
2.83 |
1.36 |
1129 |
2.57 |
1.26 |
1129 |
2.52 |
1.19 |
1131 |
1.42 |
.73 |
_L__ |
843 |
3.21 |
1.53 |
841 |
3.00 |
1.44 |
839 |
2.68 |
1.31 |
837 |
2.67 |
1.26 |
839 |
1.27 |
.60 | |
t=3.471, df=1791.387, p<.01 _______ |
t=-2.633, df=1972, p<.0 |
t= 1.924, df=1966, |
t=-2.731, df=1964, |
t= 5.008, df=1944.876, | ||||||||||||
RT |
~H~~ |
1138 |
2.74 |
1.20 |
1131 |
2.59 |
1.20 |
1132 |
2.92 |
1.24 |
1131 |
3.32 |
1.24 |
1129 |
3.11 |
1.12 |
_L__ |
842 |
2.43 |
1.15 |
838 |
2.27 |
1.12 |
839 |
2.62 |
1.23 |
837 |
2.94 |
1.24 |
833 |
2.93 |
1.19 | |
t= 5.870, df=1978, p<.01 |
t= 6.012, df=1863.504, |
t= 5.286, df=1808.626, |
t= 6.791, df=1966, |
t=3.391, df=1960, p<.01 | ||||||||||||
TE |
H |
1138 |
3.66 |
1.13 |
1135 |
3.48 |
1.16 |
1131 |
3.68 |
1.14 |
1131 |
4.03 |
1.00 |
1126 |
4.06 |
.98 |
_L__ |
843 |
3.01 |
1.27 |
840 |
2.81 |
1.20 |
840 |
3.13 |
1.27 |
838 |
3.58 |
1.16 |
836 |
3.97 |
1.03 | |
t= 12.058, df=1979, |
t= 12.540, df=1973, |
t= 9.882, df=1695.996, p∙ |
t= 8.884, df=1642.743, |
t= 1.831, df=1960, | ||||||||||||
IW |
H |
1138 |
3.42 |
1.22 |
1135 |
3.51 |
1.26 |
1131 |
3.72 |
1.22 |
1131 |
3.93 |
1.11 |
1126 |
3.86 |
.87 |
J.__ |
843 |
2.99 |
1.28 |
840 |
3.13 |
1.27 |
840 |
3.42 |
1.31 |
839 |
3.63 |
1.20 |
836 |
3.83 |
.93 | |
t= 7.465, df=1979, |
t= 6.525, df=1973, |
t= 5.254, df=1733.318, |
t= 5.831, df=1728.853, p<.01__________________ |
t=.785, df=1735.678, p>. | ||||||||||||
IH |
H |
1138 |
3.11 |
1.29 |
1135 |
3.39 |
1.33 |
1130 |
3.63 |
1.29 |
1131 |
4.11 |
1.10 |
1125 |
3.29 |
1.07 |
_L__ |
843 |
2.81 |
1.33 |
841 |
3.11 |
1.36 |
840 |
3.37 |
1.35 |
838 |
3.94 |
1.20 |
837 |
2.88 |
1.09 | |
t=-5.057, df=1782.607, |
t= 4.641, df=1974, |
t= 4.244, df=1968, p<.01 ______ |
t= 3.224, df=1708.718, p<.01__ |
t= 8.217, df=1960, | ||||||||||||
WD |
H |
1138 |
2.63 |
1.22 |
1135 |
2.58 |
1.19 |
1130 |
2.52 |
1.13 |
1131 |
2.63 |
1.15 |
1123 |
1.99 |
.99 |
_L__ |
843 |
2.42 |
1.19 |
841 |
2.32 |
1.17 |
840 |
2.27 |
1.14 |
839 |
2.37 |
1,14 |
833 |
1.69 |
.84 | |
t=-3.758, df=1979, |
t= 4.823, df=1974, |
t= 4.802, df=1968, p<.01 |
t= 5.121, df=1968, p<.01 |
t= 7.160, df=1954, p<.01 | ||||||||||||
GD |
H |
1138 |
2.77 |
1.28 |
1134 |
2.78 |
1.26 |
1130 |
2.66 |
1.20 |
1130 |
2.70 |
1.16 |
1121 |
1.62 |
.83 |
_L__ |
843 |
2.72 |
1.34 |
841 |
2.56 |
1.29 |
838 |
2.48 |
1.20 |
839 |
2.52 |
1.20 |
830 |
1.42 |
.69 | |
t= .833, df=1770.113, p>.05__________________ |
t= 3.757, df=1973, |
t= 3.414, df=1966, |
t= 3.486, df=1771.332, |
t= 5.760, p=1916.946, |
More intriguing information
1. Wirkung einer Feiertagsbereinigung des Länderfinanzausgleichs: eine empirische Analyse des deutschen Finanzausgleichs2. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
3. Does Market Concentration Promote or Reduce New Product Introductions? Evidence from US Food Industry
4. The name is absent
5. Mergers under endogenous minimum quality standard: a note
6. Foreign Direct Investment and the Single Market
7. New issues in Indian macro policy.
8. Moi individuel et moi cosmique Dans la pensee de Romain Rolland
9. The name is absent
10. Testing for One-Factor Models versus Stochastic Volatility Models