http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/instrument%20Reliability%20and %20Validity/Likert.html (ee the many different types of Likert cale" http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.htm (a mini #ob$aid with good e%amples" Likert scale: & Likert scale (pronounced 'lick$ert'" is a type of psychometric response scale often used in (uestionnaires) and is the most widely used scale in sur*ey research. +hen responding to a Likert (uestionnaire item) respondents specify their le*el of agreement to a statement. ,he scale is named after Rensis Likert) who published a report describing its use (Likert) -./2". Sample Question presented using a five-point Likert Scale & typical test item in a Likert scale is a statement) the respondent is asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the statement. ,raditionally a fi*e$point scale is used) howe*er many psychometricians ad*ocate using a se*en or nine point scale. Ice cream is good for breakfast -. trongly disagree 2. 0isagree /. 1either agree nor disagree 2. &gree 3. trongly agree Likert scaling is a bipolar scaling method) measuring either positi*e and negati*e response to a statement. ometimes Likert scales are used in a forced choice method where the middle option of 41either agree nor disagree4 is not a*ailable. Likert scales may be sub#ect to distortion from se*eral causes. Respondents may a*oid using e%treme response categories (central tendency bias"5 agree with statements as presented (acquiescence response bias"5 or try to portray themsel*es or their group in a more fa*orable light (social desirability bias". Scoring and analysis: http://www.answers.com/topic/likert-scale &fter the (uestionnaire is completed) each item may be analy6ed separately or item responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items. 7ence) Likert scales are often called summati*e scales. Responses to a single Likert item are normally treated as ordinal data) because) especially when using only fi*e le*els) one cannot assume that respondents percei*e the difference - between ad#acent le*els as e(uidistant. +hen treated as ordinal data) Likert responses can be analy6ed using non$parametric tests) such as the 8ann$ +hitney test) the +ilco%on signed$rank test) and the 9ruskal$+allis test. :-; Likert cale (<nter*al 0ata" +hen responses to se*eral Likert items are summed) they may be treated as inter*al data measuring a latent *ariable. <f the summed responses are normally distributed) parametric statistical tests such as the analysis of *ariance can be applied. =%amples: &ttitudes toward >omputer (20 (uestions) but =ach participant gets one score) summed" ample ?uestions: -. < feel happy when using a computer. 2. 8y hands will sweat e*ery time when < use a computer /. < feel an%ious when < ha*e to type up a paper on a computer 2. @.. ome of the personality test (same way" 9olbAs Learning tyle <n*entory (>heck it out online" 0ata from Likert scales are sometimes reduced to the nominal le*el by combining all agree and disagree responses into two categories of 4accept4 and 4re#ect4. ,he >ochran ?) or 8c1emar$,est are common statistical procedures used after this transformation. A Note from Marcie: Plenty of people treat ordinal data as continuous --- especially when survey data are supplemented with other measures 2 !"ample of a Likert #cale $ordinal% #urvey and &ata Analysis 0ata set: the one posted on >ourse +ebsite: Cultural differences in online Learning See the Survey at: http://sur*eymonkey.com/s.aspBuCD-20-EE/32/ (?uestion 2F tudentsA Gerceptions on ,eachers and ,eaching in Heneral" Practice of statistical Analysis for two Class Periods: Set the data correctly (Data, aria!le" Analy#e Data$Practice$contin%o%s (Descripti&e Analysis, 'rst ti(e, lea&e )factor* %nchecked+ second ti(e, check it, co(pare the res%lts" Look at the res%lts and see what concl%sions can yo% draw, Analy#e Data$Practice$-rdinal (.nferential statistics" #ummary of &ata: $&escriptive analysis%'generated by #urveyMonkey . Iollowing are se*eral (uestions about your perceptions on or e%pectations about teachers and teaching in general5 please click on the button to indicate your choice: #trongl y agree Agre e (ndecide d &isagre e #trongl y disagree )espons e Average < typically consider my teachers to ha*e wisdom. /2% (23" *+, $-+% J% (." -% (2" 0% (0" .-/ < usually ha*e a great deal of respect for my teachers. 2.% (/." *+, $-+% .% (-2" 2% (3" 0% (0" .+- < feel me and my teachers are essentially e(uals. .% (-2" 01, $*2% 2D% (/3" 2/% (/0" 2% (/" 3/4 < think there should be e%press rules of conduct in e*ery class which all students should follow. 2J% (/D" *1, $//% -J% (2/" D% (E" 0% (0" 313 < e%pect my teachers to be recogni6ed e%perts in the field which they teach. 0*, $/1% 2/% (3J" E% (--" /% (2" -% (-" .-. < am more comfortable when my teacher conducts class in a formal manner rather than informally. J% (." /0% (20" 2/% (/-" 2*, $0-% 3% (J" 213 5otal )espondents .20 / $filtered out% 2 $skipped this 6uestion% . Note: however7 this summary does not give us Mean and #&7 still I needed to analy8e the raw data &ata: $Part of the )aw &ata-#urveyMonkey will give you a numerical version% Culture QS Open-Ended Response Q1Wisd om Q2Resp ect Q3Equ al Q4rulescond uct Q5expe rts Q6ormalman ner C!inese 2 1 2 2 1 5 C!inese 2 2 2 1 1 4 C!inese 2 2 2 2 2 2 C!inese 1 1 2 1 1 2 C!inese 1 1 2 2 1 2 C!inese 3 1 2 2 4 4 C!inese 1 1 1 1 2 4 "merican 2 2 4 2 1 3 "merican 1 1 3 1 2 2 "merican 2 4 4 2 3 4 "merican 1 1 4 1 1 1 american 2 2 3 1 1 3 "merican 1 1 2 2 1 4 "merican 2 2 3 2 2 2 american 2 2 2 2 3 5 "merican 2 2 4 1 2 1 "merican 2 2 1 4 1 4 &escriptive Analysis: $from . strongly agree to * strongly disagree% n Mean SD Q1Wisdom4 12# 1$%5& &$614# Q2Respect4 12# 1$#%5 &$6'#% Q3Equal4 12% 2$66' &$'6#2 Q4rulesconduct4 12% 2$&31 &$#351 Q5experts4 12% 1$%&1 &$%5'2 Q6formalmanner4 12# 3$&4% 1$&33# Note "i#ert Scale $as to %e set as &ontinuous Data in order for 'nal(se)it to run descripti*e Statistics+ not accurate %ut 'ccepta%le, Plenty of people treat ordinal data as continuous --- especially when survey data are supplemented with other measures The rigorous analysis is to get a Weighted mean, which Analyse-it does not do. Often times, researchers go right into Inferential Statistics and Skip the Descriptie Statistics, since it is less informatie. 2 :=nd of 0escripti*e &nalysis; 3 <nferential &nalysis on the differences among the three groups (&merican) >hinese) 9orean" For later discussion (KouAll try to create the charts posted below) using &nalyse$it" 1) Participants perceptions on teacher and teaching in general (pre-survey): <tem 2 on the pre$ sur*ey assessed participantsA perceptions and e%pectations on teacher and teaching in general. ,he three (uestions that are closely related to sense of Gower 0istance were analy6ed inferentially with the 9ruskal$+allis &nalysis of Variance test) with cultural identity being the independent *ariable. ,he results indicate that: a" there were significant differences in participantsA perceptions about being e(ual with their instructor. ,he 9orean group had the highest mean rank (23.3/" on a scale of - (strongly agree" to 3 (strongly disagree". Ly contrast) the &nglo$&merican group had the lowest mean rank (2..JJ" and therefore percei*ed their instructors more as e(uals. b" ,here was no significant difference in participantsA perceptions about rules of conduct in online classes. ,he >hinese group had the lowest mean rank (2../D") an indication of a stronger agreement about implementing specific rules of conduct. ,his result aligned with some of their narrati*e comments about Mfeeling lostN and hoping for more guidance. &nd c" ,here was highly significant differences in their perceptions on course conduct. &gain the >hinese had the lowest mean rank) an indication of a stronger agreement about conducting courses in a formal manner. 2) Post-survey: approaching superior and peer when completing individual assignments and team work: Other Responses to the post sur*ey that reflect the impact of Gower 0istance include: a" LearnersA comfort le*el in approaching the instructor/facilitator/,& for help with indi*idual assignments and/or teamwork5 and b" ,heir comfort le*el in approaching the peers for help with indi*idual assignments and/or teamwork. Garticipants rated their comfort le*el from *ery comfortable (-") to somewhat comfortable (2") uncomfortable (/") and to *ery uncomfortable (2". ,he lower their mean rating) the higher their comfort le*el. 9ruskal$+allis &nalysis of Variance was used again to compare the mean differences in participantsA ranking of comfort le*el in approaching MsuperiorN or their peers) when completing indi*idual assignments and team work if applicable. 9Note: :ecause the regular Mean of Likert #cale does not make much sense7 I skipped the descriptive Analysis and ;ent right into Inferential Analysis'Analysis of <ariance using the Non-Parametric =ruskal-;allis statistic> <tem -. <ndi*idual &ssignment: &pproaching uperior for 7elp (two$tailed test" O. <&: &pproach 4uperior4 D n Rank sum 8ean rank &mericanD /- .30.0 /0.D3 >hineseD -3 DE2.3 23.30 9oreanD 2. -2-J.3 2-..E 9ruskal$+allis statistic J.-3 pD 0.02E0 chis(r appro%imation) corrected for ties" +hen the le*el of significance is set at 0.03 (a") the small p *alue (0.02" indicates significant difference in participantsA rating for approaching MsuperiorN in indi*idual assignment. ,he D &merican group) not surprisingly) had the lowest mean rank (/0.D3") an indication of greater comfort le*el in approaching the instructors for help5 and the >hinese group had the highest mean rank (23.30" and thus lower comfort le*el in approaching their instructors. <tem 2. <ndi*idual &ssignment: &pproaching Geer for 7elp (two$tailed test" n J/ cases e%cluded: 2 due to missing *alues" G. <&: &pproach Geer by HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank &mericanJ /- .--.3 2..20 >hineseJ -3 /J2.3 22.E/ 9oreanJ 2J -2-J.0 32.2E 9ruskal$+allis statistic 2D.2D pJ P0.000- chis(r appro%imation) corrected for ties" +hen aC0.03) the small p *alue (P0.000-" indicates highly significant differences in participantsA comfort le*el in approaching peers for help with indi*idual assignments. ,he >hinese group had the lowest mean rank (22.E/$$higher comfort le*el") while the 9orean group had the lowest mean rank (32.2E$$lower comfort le*el". <tem /. ,eamwork: &pproaching uperior for 7elp n 3E cases e%cluded: -J due to missing *alues" Q. ,eam: &pproach 4uperior4 by HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank &mericanJ /- E-2.3 2D.2J >hineseJ -3 30..0 //../ 9oreanJ -2 /EJ.3 /2.2. 9ruskal$+allis statistic 2.EE pJ 0.2/D2 chis(r appro%imation) corrected for ties" GC0.2/D (RaC0.03" indicates no significant difference in participantsA comfortableness in approaching superiors for help when completing teamwork. <tem 2. ,eamwork: &pproaching Geer for 7elp (two$tailed test" n 3E cases e%cluded: -J due to missing *alues" V. ,eam: &pproach Geer by HroupJ n Rank sum 8ean rank &mericanJ /- E0D.3 2D.02 >hineseJ -3 /-..3 2-./0 9oreanJ -2 3E3.0 2E.J3 9ruskal$+allis statistic 22.E0 pJ P0.000- chis(r appro%imation) corrected for ties" ,he high 9ruskal$+allis statistic (22.E" and the small p *alue (P0.000-" again indicates highly significant difference in participantsA comfort le*el in approaching peers for help with team work. ,he 9orean group (mean rank C 2E.J3" contributed greatly to this difference. 7owe*er) the statistical power might ha*e been reduced in this test because of the -J missing rating *alues J from the 9orean group. &s mentioned in the curriculum analysis) many of the 9orean courses did not in*ol*e team work and many chose Mnon applicableN for this sur*ey (uestion. Summary: Inluence o power distance evidenced !y the our tests: >onforming to the e%isting findings about Gower 0istance) the &merican group (mainly &nglo$&merican" had the lowest G0< score) while the >hinese group had the highest G0< score. Gossibly because of their sense of G0<) the &merican group felt the most comfortable in approaching their instructors for help) while the 9orean group felt most uncomfortable in doing so. >hinese students) because of their large class si6e) did not ha*e much opportunity to interact with the instructors. till) their reported comfort le*el in approaching the instructors was low. &s to approaching their peers for help) the >hinese group felt the most comfortable in completing both indi*idual assignments and team work) the &merican group felt comfortable) while the 9orean group felt the least comfortable in completing both indi*idual assignments and teamwork. &gain) the 9oreansA cultural perceptions on >8> might ha*e influenced their ratings here. &s some of the 9orean participants commented) peers or classmates online can be Mstrangers.N &s to the high comfort le*el of the >hinese) it is worth noting that most of these >hinese students worked in self$formed teams and they therefore were comfortable about approaching their peers for help. ,he four 9ruskal$+allis analyses on the post$sur*ey items had re*ealing results. <hough there was no significant difference in the three groupsA comfort le*el in approaching superiors for help with team work) there were significant differences in their rating for approaching superiors in indi*idual assignments) and there were highly significant differences in their le*els of comfort in approaching peers for help with indi*idual assignments and with team work. Gower 0istance indeed affected studentsA ways in approaching instructors and their peers. Ly contrast) indi*iduals were able to o*ercome their sense of Gower 0istance when working as a group. <n other words) indi*iduals became Mbra*erN when working as a team to approach their instructors for help. (Irom ;ang?s @ultural #tudies of Anline Learning7 "ritish #ournal o $ducational %echnology" E