1.

A sociologist is studying the effect of certain motion picture in film upon the attitude
of Christian students towards Muslim students. She hypothesizes that viewing a film
will cause the scores of the students on a certain attitude scale to shit downward. The
score of the participating students are recorded below

Before After Difference D

1 81 89 -8
2 84 88 -4
3 90 94 -4
4 97 96 1
5 108 118 -10
6 111 111 0
7 118 121 -3
8 124 121 3
-25

where:
N is the number of cases=
D is the summation of difference=
D2 is the summation of the square of differe

t=D/(( N D ^2-(D))2)

N-1
(-25)/(( 8 (215) ^ -(-25))2)
=

7
(-25)/(( 8 (215) ^ -(-25))2)
=

(-25)/( 1,720 ^ -625)

=

7
= (25.00)
12.507

= -1.999
1. Statement of the problem
Is there a significant difference in the students score before and after viewing a film?
2. Research Hypothesis<0.05 level>
Ho-There is no significant difference in the students? Score before and after viewing a film
Ha-There is a significant difference in the students?Score before and after viewing a film
3. Test the Research Hypothesis
Use the test of hypothesis for a significance of the differeence between two means for
correlated samples,N<30,compute for the value of t computed value of t=-1.999 is less than
1.895 significant /.05
4. Interpretation:
Since the computed value of t=-1.999 is less than required value of t=1.895 at the 5
percent level,the obtained value of t=-1.999 is not significant
5. Decision
Accept the Null Hypothesis (HO):There is no significant difference in the students' Score
before and after viewing a film
Conclusion:There is no significant difference in the students' Score before and after
viewing a film
cture in film upon the attitude
othesizes that viewing a film
e scale to shit downward. The

Difference2
D2
64
16
16 (b^2-4ac)
1
100
0
9
9
215

8
25
215

and after viewing a film?

efore and after viewing a film
ore and after viewing a film

eence between two means for

d value of t=-1.999 is less than

uired value of t=1.895 at the 5

ifference in the students' Score

ents' Score before and after

2.A teacher conducted a study on he effectiveness of the cooperative learning learning
strategy. Selected students from two sections were taken as sample. The first group
consisting of 21 students were exposed to cooperative learning while the other group
consisting of 22 students were exposed to the traditional method of teaching. Is
cooperative learning effective, considering the score of the students in the post test as
shown in the table below
Sample
Cooperative Learning Traditional Method
Number
1 19 22
2 18 14
3 25 19
4 24 18
5 28 21
6 19 20
7 17 24
8 16 19
9 18 17
10 17 18
11 19 18
12 25 18
13 17 17
14 22 19
15 21 24
16 24 25
17 19 23
18 18 24
19 17 22
20 16 22
21 24 21
22 24
20.14 20.41

Method N

Cooperative Learning (1) 21

Traditional Method (2) 22
cooperative learning learning
as sample. The first group
rning while the other group
nal method of teaching. Is
students in the post test as

N X S

21 20.14 #REF!
22 20.41 #REF!
 TRAINING NOTRAINING DATAANALYSIS
1 95 90
2 89 85
3 76 73
4 92 90
5 91 90
6 53 53
7 67 68
8 88 90
9 75 78
10 85 89
11 90 95
12 85 83
13 87 83
14 85 83
15 85 82
16 68 65 tTest:PairedTwoSampleforMeans
17 81 79
18 84 83
19 71 60 Mean
20 46 47 Variance
21 75 77 Observations
22 80 83 PearsonCorrelation
1,748 1,726 HypothesizedMeanDiffere
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
TwoSampleforMeans

Training NoTraining
79.455 78.45
154.260 160.83
22.000 22.00
0.959
0.000
21.000 n1 degreesoffreedom
1.308
0.102
1.721
0.205
2.080
2.A teacher conducted a study on he effectiveness of the cooperative learning learning strategy.
Selected students from two sections were taken as sample. The first group consisting of 21 students
were exposed to cooperative learning while the other group consisting of 22 students were exposed
to the traditional method of teaching. Is cooperative learning effective, considering the score of the
students in the post test as shown in the table below

Sample
Cooperative Learning Traditional Method
Number
1 19 22
2 18 14
3 25 19
4 24 18
5 28 21
6 19 20
7 17 24
8 16 19
9 18 17
10 17 18
11 19 18
12 25 18
13 17 17
14 22 19
15 21 24
16 24 25
17 19 23
18 18 24
19 17 22
20 16 22
21 24 21
22 24
Mean 20.14 20.41

STDV 3.45 2.87

Method n X

Cooperative Learning (1) 21 20.14

Traditional Method (2) 22 20.41

t=(X1-X2)/(((n1-1))S12+(n2-1)S22)
= -0.27
1+1
n1+n2 - 2 n1 n2
129.27 2
41 462
-0.27
0.01
 = 20.14-20.41 = -0.27
1+1 0.01

(21-1)3.45+(22-1)2.87
21(22)
21+22-2

= -0.27 =
? 238.64+173.08 43
41 462

= -0.27
43 =
411.72
41 462

= -0.27
10.042 0.093

= -0.27
0.935
= -0.27
0.967

= -0.27

1. Statement of the problem

Is there a significant difference in the students score before and after viewing a film?
2. Research Hypothesis<0.05 level>
Ho-There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the cooperative learning
strategy and traditional learning strategy.
Ha-There is a significant difference in the effectiveness of the cooperative learning
strategy and traditional learning strategy.(Two tailed test)
The cooperative leaning method is more effective than the traditional learning method(One tailed
test)
3. Test the Research Hypothesis
Use the test of hypothesis using significance of the difference between two means for
uncorrelated samples, N<30,compute for the value of t computed value of t= -0.27
<1.684 /.05, df=41
4. Interpretation:
Since the obtained value of t= -0.27 is less than the required value of t= 1.684 to be
significant at the 0.05 level of significance with df=41, therefore the obtained value of t=
-0.27 is not significant
5. Decision
 Accept the Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the
effectiveness in the effectiveness of the cooperative learning strategy and
traditional learning strategy
Conclusion:There is no significant difference in the effectiveness in the effectiveness of the
cooperative learning strategy and traditional learning strategy
ative learning learning strategy.
group consisting of 21 students
ng of 22 students were exposed
ive, considering the score of the

3.45

2.87

11.93

2
462
 (0.27)

20.00 11.93 + 173.08 *

41.00

238.64 (0.27)
193.08 43.00
41.00 462.00

(0.27)
4.709 0.093

(0.27)
0.438

(0.61)

fter viewing a film?

he cooperative learning

e cooperative learning

nal learning method(One tailed

ence between two means for

computed value of t= -0.27

uired value of t= 1.684 to be

fore the obtained value of t=
nificant difference in the
ve learning strategy and
ess in the effectiveness of the
 2.00
462.00

29.00
2.A teacher conducted a study on he effectiveness of the cooperative learning learning strategy. Selected
students from two sections were taken as sample. The first group consisting of 21 students were exposed to
cooperative learning while the other group consisting of 22 students were exposed to the traditional method o
teaching. Is cooperative learning effective, considering the score of the students in the post test as shown in
the table below

Sample Cooperativ Traditional

Number e Learning Method
1 19 22
2 18 14
3 25 19
4 24 18
5 28 21
6 19 20
7 17 24
8 16 19
9 18 17
10 17 18
11 19 18
12 25 18
13 17 17
14 22 19
15 21 24
16 24 25
17 19 23
18 18 24
19 17 22
20 16 22
21 24 21
22 24
20.14 20.41

Method N X S
Cooperative Learning (1) 21 20.14 3.45
Traditional Method (2) 22 20.41 2.87

1 20.14
2 20.41

(1-)2

1 19.00 20.14 1.31 1 22.00 20.41 2.53

2 18.00 20.14 4.58 2 14.00 20.41 41.09
3 25.00 20.14 23.62 3 19.00 20.41 1.99
4 24.00 20.14 14.90 4 18.00 20.41 5.81
5 28.00 20.14 61.78 5 21.00 20.41 0.35
6 19.00 20.14 1.30 6 20.00 20.41 0.17
7 17.00 20.14 9.86 7 24.00 20.41 12.89
 8 16.00 20.14 17.14 8 19.00 20.41 1.99
9 18.00 20.14 4.58 9 17.00 20.41 11.63
10 17.00 20.14 9.86 10 18.00 20.41 5.81
11 19.00 20.14 1.30 11 18.00 20.41 5.81
12 25.00 20.14 23.62 12 18.00 20.41 5.81
13 17.00 20.14 9.86 13 17.00 20.41 11.63
14 22.00 20.14 3.46 14 19.00 20.41 1.99
15 21.00 20.14 0.74 15 24.00 20.41 12.89
16 24.00 20.14 14.90 16 25.00 20.41 21.07
17 19.00 20.14 1.30 17 23.00 20.41 6.71
18 18.00 20.14 4.58 18 24.00 20.41 12.89
19 17.00 20.14 9.86 19 22.00 20.41 2.53
20 16.00 20.14 17.14 20 22.00 20.41 2.53
21 24.00 20.14 14.90 21 21.00 20.41 0.35
22 22 24.00 20.41 12.89
3.4542688 ### 2.8708 ###
1 1
0.048 0.045
N 11.93 N 8.24
3.4543 2.8708
ng strategy. Selected
ents were exposed to
traditional method of
post test as shown in

?=D/(( N D ^2-(D))2)

t=(X^1-X)/(( (n ^-1)S+(n-1)S( (n ^-1)

(0.27)
238.65 173.08

 ^2-(D))2)

( (n ^-1)))2)
0.20 13.10
 HIGHEST
NAM E POSITION GENDER BIRTHDAY AGE RANGE EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
1 Joselito A. Mangunay Division Manager A L May 1952 64.00 College 07/01/2010
2 Jose Ariel G. Domingo Principal Engineer C L July 1961 55.00 Doctoral 2009
3 Jayson M. Ibarra Supervising Engineer A L Dec. 1983 33.00 College 03/01/2015
4 Efren S. Chua Supervising Engineer A L Sept. 1952 64.00 College 04/16/2015
5 Fernando I. Bala Supervising I.D.O. L June 1952 64.00 College 10/16/2009
6 Olivia M. Coronel Administrative Services Officer A B Oct. 1976 40.00 College 09/16/2015
7 Joel C. Javier Senior Engineer A L March 1973 43.00 College 11/02/2015
8 Emiliano V. Quejada Sr. IDO L Feb. 1955 61.00 College 04/30/2009
9 Crisanto E. Padre III Sr. IDO L March 1964 52.00 College 11/11/2009
10 Marife C. Panalandang Cashier B B Jan. 1974 42.00 Masteral 03/16/2016
11 Wendell N. Rivera Hydrologist L Apr. 1980 36.00 Masteral 03/20/2016
12 Jennifer B. Morley Sr. Accounting Processor A B Oct. 1976 40.00 College 03/16/2016
13 Melquiades M. Saragpon Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Dec. 1954 62.00 College 7/13/2001
14 Luis D. Gabbac Jr. Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Sept. 1957 59.00 College 11/11/2009
15 Augustus F. Olanda Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Aug. 1959 57.00 College 02/16/2011
16 Rowell G. Tiangco Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L June 1963 53.00 College 02/01/2011
17 Noli N. Pabula Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L July 1963 53.00 College 04/30/2011
18 Marites B. Yambot Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. B Nov. 1965 51.00 College 03/01/2011
19 Sherwin N. Hernandez Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Nov. 1973 43.00 College 09/16/2010
20 Dennis T. Enriquez Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Aug. 1974 42.00 College 10/26/2010
21 Rufino G. Maningas Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L July 1957 59.00 College 01/02/2013
22 Ireneo L. Diaz Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Apr. 1954 62.00 College 01/02/2013
23 Mario M. Javier Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Jan. 1957 59.00 College 01/02/2013
24 Sherwin J. Bondoc Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Sept. 1983 33.00 College 01/02/2013
25 Corazon S. Fajardo Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. B Apr. 1964 52.00 College 01/02/2013
26 Michael Q. Mejia Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Dec. 1978 38.00 College 7/16/2014
27 Jefferson P. Madrid Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Apr. 1976 40.00 College 08/11/2015
28 Arnel D. Bartolome Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. L Feb. 1978 38.00 College 08/12/2015
29 Cecille S. Gonzales Sr. Water Resources Facilities Tech. B Dec. 1972 44.00 College 08/11/2015
30 Emelita A. Gavino Collection Representative A B Feb. 1956 60.00 College 07/16/2009
31 Orlando L. Angeles Electronic Communication Systems Optr. B L Sept. 1962 54.00 College 03/01/2013
32 Manuel R. Fajardo Heavy Equipment Operator L May 1968 48.00 Vocational 10/16/2002
33 Genaro D. Verdadero Industrial Security Guard A L Sept. 1971 45.00 College 07/16/2009
34 Renato C. Cabanban Industrial Security Guard A L March 1963 53.00 High School 04/30/2009
35 Mat Vergel M. Cruz Industrial Security Guard A L Aug. 1979 37.00 College 09/04/2013
36 Melanie Grace V. Mallare Accounting Processor A B Oct. 1981 35.00 College 05/25/2009
37 Jennelyn S. De Guzman Accounting Processor A B Apr. 1975 41.00 College 12/28/2009
38 Leonardo A. Eugenio Jr. Accounting Processor A L Jan. 1980 36.00 College 03/01/2011
39 Melanie A. Vizconde Accounting Processor A B Apr. 1983 33.00 College 08/01/2016
40 Michael Joshua C. Bautista Data Encoder L Feb. 1986 30.00 College 03/22/2010
41 Mylene C. Candelaria Data Encoder B Oct. 1982 34.00 College 07/18/2011
42 Paul S. Romero Driver Mechanic B L June 1963 53.00 College 07/01/1999
43 Ballard DV. Osal Driver Mechanic B L Oct. 1967 49.00 Vocational 06/16/2005
44 Gilbert F. De Guzman Driver Mechanic B L Aug. 1978 38.00 Vocational 05/25/2009
45 Francisco C. Ferol Storekeeper C L Oct. 1959 57.00 College 07/16/2009
46 Jose B. Dizon Jr. Water Resources Facilities Operator B L March 1957 59.00 College 07/13/2001
47 Jose C. Santos Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Feb. 1953 63.00 High School 05/16/2004
48 Ricky L. Surigao Water Resources Facilities Operator B L July 1973 43.00 High School 08/16/2010
49 Edmond A. Quejada Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Feb. 1976 40.00 Vocational 08/16/2010

NAM E
50 Wilson L. Mejia
51 Joel V. Abelardo
52 Noel B. Macapagal
53 Mauro J. Rufino Jr.
54 Adriel A. Legaspi
55 Casiano M. Valeda
56 Zoilo S. Pangilinan Jr.
57 Miguel G. Hizon
58 Gilbert O. Cruz
59 Manny C. Javier
COB
1 Leonard I. Salonga
2 Sharon P. Orena
3 Lord Tristan S. Bernabe
4 Amilyn M. Martin
GAA
5 Jospio D. Visto
6 Marvin SM. Cuevo
7 Eduardo B. Gavino
8 Leopoldo V. Verde
9 Arnold B. De Lara
10 Ronald S. Vicencio
11 Jowett L. San Pedro
12 Jasmin R. Atayde
13 Hiram Abif P. Fajardo
14 Michael DC. Gabriel
15 Renan B. Vizon
16 Loralie Hazel C. Mapoy
17 William S. Tiangco
18 Fretie J. Peralta
19 Reynan B. Macasaya
20 Nelson D. Alibuyog
21 Maximo R. Germino
22 Wilfredo B. Torres
23 Alexander R. Loterte
UT-SRIP
24 Sweetclaire L. Gamboa
25 Edwin M. Bondoc
26 Jhonny E. Poblador Jr.
27 Laureano P. Aguilar III
28 Jun Jeremy D. Santuray
29 Dungil B. Atendido
30 Dan Julius D. Adrineda
31 Arnie L. Candelaria
32 Jeffrey C. Reyes
33 Gonzalo R. Sanguyo Sr.
HIGHEST
POSITION GENDER BIRTHDAY AGE RANGE EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Apr. 1958 58.00 College 01/17/2011
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L July 1970 46.00 College 03/18/2013
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Feb. 1972 44.00 High School 03/18/2013
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Dec. 1972 44.00 College 03/18/2013
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L June 1969 47.00 College 03/18/2013
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Aug. 1962 54.00 College 01/18/2014
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Dec. 1979 37.00 College 05/04/2015
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L May 1964 52.00 High School 03/11/2016
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L March 1970 46.00 College Aug. 2016
Water Resources Facilities Operator B L Dec. 1969 47.00 High School Aug. 2016
Irrigators Dev't. Officer A
Irrigators Dev't. Officer A
Irrigators Dev't. Officer A
Irrigators Dev't. Officer A
Engineer A
Driver Mechanic B
Driver Mechanic B
Survey Aide A
Survey Aide B
Survey Aide B
Heavy Equipment Operator I
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Utility Worker B
Engineer A
Irrigators Dev't. Officer A
ROW Assistant B
Survey Aide A
Driver
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker A
Utility Worker B
 NO. OF NO. OF
YEARS IN Number
YEARS IN
CURRENT PUBLIC Age Range
SERVICE Male Female Total
POSITION
6.00 Jan. 1976 40.00 20-30 years old 1.00 0.00 1.00
7.00 Nov. 1983 33.00 31-40 11.00 5.00 16.00
1.00 Apr. 2007 9.00 41-50 13.00 3.00 16.00
1.00 July 2000 16.00 51-60 16.00 3.00 19.00
6.00 Nov. 1974 42.00 61-65 7.00 0.00 7.00
1.00 July 1999 17.00 Grand Total 48.00 11.00 59.00
1.00 Aug. 2002 14.00
7.00 July 1976 40.00
6.00 July 1988 28.00 Number
Educational Attainment
1.00 Apr. 2012 4.00 Male Female Total
1.00 Feb. 2012 4.00 Elementary Graduate 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Oct. 2000 16.00 High School Graduate 6.00 0.00 6.00
15.00 Feb. 1975 41.00 Vocational Course Completio 4.00 0.00 4.00
7.00 June 1975 41.00 Bachelor's Degree 36.00 10.00 46.00
5.00 Sept. 1997 19.00 Masteral Degree 1.00 1.00 2.00
5.00 Sept. 1988 28.00 Doctoral Degree 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.00 July 1997 19.00 Grand Total 48.00 11.00 59.00
5.00 May 1988 28.00
6.00 May 2009 7.00
6.00 Aug. 2004 12.00 Number
Years in Current Position
3.00 May 1978 38.00 Male Female Total
3.00 Sept. 2009 7.00 1-10 years 42.00 11.00 53.00
3.00 Aug. 1975 41.00 11-20 6.00 0.00 6.00
3.00 Jan. 2011 5.00 21-30 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.00 July 2001 15.00 31-40 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Sept. 2009 7.00 40 and above 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Jan. 2011 5.00 Grand Total 48.00 11.00 59.00
1.00 Aug. 2004 12.00
1.00 March 2004 12.00
7.00 Apr. 1975 41.00 Number
Years in Public Service
3.00 Jan. 2011 5.00 Male Female Total
14.00 July 2001 15.00 1-10 years 18.00 3.00 21.00
7.00 June 2003 13.00 11-20 18.00 5.00 23.00
7.00 Jan. 2006 10.00 21-30 4.00 1.00 5.00
3.00 Sept. 2013 13.00 31-40 4.00 0.00 4.00
7.00 Apr. 2008 8.00 40 and above 5.00 1.00 6.00
7.00 July 1997 19.00 Grand Total 49.00 10.00 59.00
5.00 Apr. 2009 7.00
1.00 Jan. 2006 10.00
6.00 March 2010 6.00
5.00 July 2011 5.00
17.00 July 1999 17.00
11.00 March 1999 17.00
7.00 July 2003 13.00
7.00 Jan. 2000 16.00
15.00 July 1975 41.00
12.00 Aug. 1986 30.00
6.00 Jan. 2003 13.00
6.00 Feb. 2004 12.00
 NO. OF NO. OF
YEARS IN Number
YEARS IN
CURRENT PUBLIC Age Range
SERVICE Male Female Total
POSITION
5.00 Oct. 2004 12.00
3.00 Jan. 2011 + 12 5.00
3.00 Sept. 2009 7.00
3.00 Sept. 2009 7.00
3.00 Dec. 1997 19.00
2.00 Aug. 2004 12.00
1.00 June 1995 21.00
1.00 Sept. 2013 3.00
1.00 Feb. 2012 4.00
1.00 Aug. 2016 1.00
 Column1
Column1 1.00
 Column1 Column2
Column1 1.00
Column2 0.96 1.00
AgeRange Male Female Chart
2030yearsold 1.00 0.00 60.00
3140 11.00 5.00 50.00
4150 13.00 3.00
40.00
5160 16.00 3.00
6165 7.00 0.00 30.00
GrandTotal 48.00 11.00 20.00
10.00
0.00
20-30 31-40 Male
41-50 Fe5
years old

Chart Title
60.00
40.00

EducationalAttainment Male Female 20.00

ElementaryGraduate 0.00 0.00 0.00
HighSchoolGraduate 6.00 0.00
VocationalCourseCompletion 4.00 0.00
Bachelor'sDegree 36.00 10.00
MasteralDegree 1.00 1.00
DoctoralDegree 1.00 0.00
GrandTotal 48.00 11.00

Male Female

Chart Title
50.00
YearsinCurrentPosition Male Female 45.00
40.00
110years 42.00 11.00
35.00
1120 6.00 0.00 30.00
2130 0.00 0.00 25.00
3140 0.00 0.00 20.00
40andabove 0.00 0.00 15.00
GrandTotal 48.00 11.00 10.00
5.00
0.00
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40 an
Male Female
years above

Chart Title
YearsinPublicService Male Female 50.00
110years 18.00 3.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
 Chart Title
50.00
45.00
1120 18.00 5.00
40.00
2130 4.00 1.00
3140 4.00 0.00 35.00
40andabove 5.00 1.00 30.00
GrandTotal 49.00 10.00 25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40 a
Male Female
years abov
 Chart Title

40 Male
41-50 Female
51-60 61-65 Grand Total

Chart Title

Male Female

Chart Title

21-30 31-40 40 and Grand

Male Female
above Total

Chart Title
 Chart Title

21-30 31-40 40 and Grand

Male Female
above Total
1. A sociologist is studying the effect of certain motion picture in film upon
the attitude of Christian students towards Muslim students. She
hypothesizes that viewing a film will cause the scores of the students on a
certain attitude scale to shit downward. The score of the participating
students are recorded below

Before After Difference D

1 81 89 -8
2 84 88 -4
3 90 94 -4
4 97 96 1
5 108 118 -10
6 111 111 0
7 118 121 -3
8 124 121 3
-25

where:
N is the number of cases=
D is the summation of difference=
D2 is the summation of the square of differe
t=D/(( N D ^2-(D))2)

N-1
(-25)/(( 8 (215) ^ -(-25))2)
=

(-25)/(( 8 (215) ^ -(-25))2)

=

(-25)/( 1,720 ^ -625)

=

7
 7

= (25.00)
12.507

= -1.999

1,720.00 625.00
7.00
t=

1. Statement of the problem

Is there a significant difference in the students score before and after viewing a film?
2. Research Hypothesis<0.05 level>
Ho-There is no significant difference in the students? Score before and after viewing a film
Ha-There is a significant difference in the students?Score before and after viewing a film
3. Test the Research Hypothesis
Use the test of hypothesis for a significance of the differeence between two means for
correlated samples,N<30,compute for the value of t computed value of t=-1.998 is less than
1.72 significant /.05
4. Interpretation:
Since the computed value of t=-1.998 is less than required value of t=1.72 at the 5
percent level,the obtained value of t=-1.998 is not significant
5. Decision
Accept the Null Hypothesis (HO):There is no significant difference in the students' Score
before and after viewing a film
Conclusion:There is no significant difference in the students' Score before and after
viewing a film

t=(X1-X2)/(((n1-1))S12+(n2-1)S22)
= -0.27
1+1
n1 n2
129.27 2
n1+n2 - 2
41 462
= 20.14-20.41 = -0.27
(20)3.45+(21)2.87 1+1 0.01
21(22)
21+22-2

= -0.27 = -0.27
69+60.27 2 0.01
462
41
 = -0.27
69+60.27 2 = -2.7
462
41

Hypothesis Testing
1.1 Is there a significant difference between the effectiveness of
conducting
A K-12 training in a hotel or school?
1.2 Ho-There is no significant difference between the effectiveness of
conducting
A K-12 training in a hotel or a school?
1.3 One tailed test
1.4 0.01
2.)If the sample does not support the nun hypothesis,then it should not be
accepted or rejected but if the sample supports the null hypothesis then
it should be accepted.
3.) There is a significant difference between the effectiveness a K-12
training in a hotel or a school
II.
Before After Difference D
1 81 89 8
2 84 88 4
3 90 94 4
4 97 96 1
5 108 118 10
6 111 111 0
7 118 121 3
8 124 121 3
N=8 33

t=D/(( N D ^2-(D))2)

N-1
33/(1672-1089)
=

33/83.29
=

= 33
 9 13
=
3.614

1. Statement of the problem

Is there a significant difference in the students score before and after
viewing a film?
2. Research Hypothesis<0.05 level>
Ho-There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the
cooperative learning strategy and traditional learning strategy.(Two
tailed test)
The cooperative leaning method is more effective than the traditional
learning method(One tailed test)
3. Test the Research Hypothesis
Use the test of hypothesis using significance of the difference between
two means for uncorrelated samples, N<30,compute for the value of
t.computed value of t= -2.7 <1.703 /.05, df=41
4. Interpretation:
Since the obtained value of t= -2.7 is less than the required value of t=
1.703 to be significant at the 0.05 level of significance with df=41,
therefore the obtained value of t= -2.7 is not significant
5. Decision
Accept the Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the
effectiveness in the effectiveness of the cooperative learning strategy and
traditional learning strategy
otion picture in film upon
Muslim students. She
ores of the students on a
core of the participating

Difference2
D2
64
16
16 (b^2-4ac)
1
100
0
9
9
215

8
25
215
 156.43
12.51
1.9989

and after viewing a film?

efore and after viewing a film

ore and after viewing a film

eence between two means for

d value of t=-1.998 is less than

quired value of t=1.72 at the 5

ifference in the students' Score

ents' Score before and after

2
462
n the effectiveness of

een the effectiveness of

esis,then it should not be

the null hypothesis then

he effectiveness a K-12

Difference2
D2
64
16
16
1
100
0
9
9
215
score before and after

tiveness of the
earning strategy.(Two

e than the traditional

f the difference between

mpute for the value of

n the required value of t=

significance with df=41,
ificant

nificant difference in the

ive learning strategy and