CHAPTER 04

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the analysis, the interpretation and discussions of

findings of this study. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of teaching by Subject

Specialists on Secondary School Students’ Academic Achievement in Chemistry.

The presentation of the results of the study was done based on the following objectives

which were to: Establish whether students learning chemistry by Subject Specialist chemistry

perform better than those learning by non-specialist.

O1. Hypotheses of the Study

The following research hypotheses had been generated for the study and were tested at a

significance alpha level of 0.05.

H₀. There is no significant effect of teaching by Subject Specialists on Secondary School Students’

achievement in Chemistry.

H1. There is distinct variation in students’ achievement in Chemistry.

4.1.1 Response Rate

The study targeted a total of 28 teachers. Table 4.1 shows the response rate of instruments

used in the study. Table 4.1 indicates that an average of 82% of the questionnaires were returned.

The respondents filled the questionnaires as the researcher waited. According to Mugenda and

Mugenda (2003), a return rate of 70% is considered to be good enough. Therefore, this was a good

representation of the sampled respondents.

Table 4.1

Response Rate

Teacher’s Questionnaire

Qadir Abad 18

Dhal 6

Saida Shareef 10

Total Returned 28

Total expected 34

% Return rate 82%

4.2 Demographic Variables of the Respondents

This section presents the demographic variables of the students and chemistry teachers

involved in the study. The study found it necessary to gather this information as it offered data on

the sample characteristics.

4.2.1 Number of Respondents

The study sought details on the number of respondents of this study. Table 4.2 shows the

results obtained.

Table 4.2

Number of Respondents
 Respondents

Teachers 28

Students 26

4.3 Subject Specialists teaching and Student’s Performance in Chemistry

The objective of the study was to establish whether students teaching chemistry by subject

specialist perform better than those teaching by non-specialist. The study tested first null

hypothesis, H01, that there is no significant effect of teaching by Subject Specialists on Secondary

School Students’ achievement in Chemistry. Table 4.3 gives summary of the descriptive statistics

on analysis results.

Table 4.3

Board result of class in 9th and 10th

Session 2017-18 N Minimum Maximum Mean SE Median Standard

Score Score Mean Deviation

9th

Non-specialist 26 8/60 48/60 26.46 2.07 25 10.54

Teaching

10th

Subject 26 37/60 60/60 49.31 1.30 49.50 6.63

Specialist
Teaching
 Histogram of 9th result (non-specialist teaching)
6 Mean 26.46
StDev 1 0.54
N 26

5
Score Frequency

0
10 20 30 40 50
9th result(non-specialist teaching)

Fig. 4.1 Non-Specialist Teaching Effect on Student Achievement in Chemistry

 Histogram of 10th result( subject specialist)
9

7
Score Frequency

0
40 45 50 55 60
10th result( subject specialist)

Fig. 4.2 Subject Specialist Teaching Effect on Student Achievement in chemistry

From Table 4.3 the findings indicated that there was an increase of minimum and maximum

scores from 9th to 10th grade. The findings showed that the mean for non-specialist teaching was

26.46 and the mean for Subject Specialist teaching was 49.5. The mean values indicate there was

a significant improvement from 9th to 10th grade. This shows that Subject Specialist in chemistry

have a significant positive effect on learners performance.

Table 4.4

Paired T-Test: 10th result (subject specialist), 9th result (non-specialist teaching)

Paired T for 10th result( subject specialist) – 9th result(non-specialist

teaching)

N Mean StDev SE Mean

10th result( subject s 26 49.31 6.63 1.30
9th result(non-specialis 26 26.46 10.54 2.07
Difference 26 22.85 8.70 1.71

95% CI for mean difference: (19.33, 26.36)

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): T-Value = 13.39 P-Value = 0.000

Table 4.4 showed the results of the paired T-test on scores of session 2017-18 in 9th and 10th

grade. The findings show that the t-value is 13.39. The two-tailed p value associated with the test is

0.000. From the decision rule that: If p ≤ α, then reject H0, then in this analysis p<.05, so we reject H0.

This implies that there is a significant difference between the mean score in chemistry of students

taught by a specialist and non-specialist.

The findings showed that secondary school students‟ have a positive achievement level

towards chemistry when taught by chemistry subject specialist. The implication of this study

suggests that teacher’s qualification and their area specialty affects the academic achievement of

students.
Table 4.5

Questionnaire Response

Sr. # Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree % Disagree
% % % %

1 Subject knowledge affects 72 20 2 4 2

teaching.
2 Subject Specialist provides 52 34 11 2 1
sound knowledge of
subject.
3 Subject specialist builds 49 26 7 16 2
conceptual understanding
of students.
4 Subject specialist satisfies 64 22 10 2 2
students.
5 Subject specialist 17 52 14 11 6
influences the creative
sense of students.
6 Subject specialist uses the 26 48 14 3 9
appropriate pedagogy.
7 Subject specialist 38 35 17 5 5
eliminates the chance of
selective study.
8 Subject specialist 72 14 8 4 2
maximizes learning.
9 Subject specialist polishes 15 66 4 11 4
the cognitive skills of
pupils.
10 Subject Specialist affects 58 22 13 4 3
students’ academic results.

Table 4.5 gave the response percentage of survey analysis via questionnaire. Teachers of

cluster Saida Sharif responded against different statements. 72% strongly agreed that subject
knowledge of teacher maximize chemistry learning in students. 17% did not respond yes or no

about elimination of selective study chance. 9% teachers disagreed that subject specialist use

appropriate pedagogy.

Response
80
70
percentage

60
50
40
30 Strongly Agree %
20 Agree
10
Neutral
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree %

Fig. 4.3 Questionnaire Response percentage

As shown in figure 4.3 the response rate overall collected was positive. Most of the teachers

agreed the statements asked about effect of subject specialist in teaching of chemistry. A few

people respond negative and similarly disagreed responses were also low. This gave the clear

picture that a teacher having master degree in chemistry can teach better secondary school

chemistry subject as compared to a non-specialist teacher and tends to give better results.
Table 4.6

One-way ANOVA

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information

Factor Levels Values

Factor 5 Strongly Agree %, Agree, neutral, disagree, Strongly disagree

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 4 14443 3610.7 22.93 0.000
Error 45 7085 157.4
Total 49 21528

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

12.5477 67.09% 64.16% 59.37%
Mean

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Strongly Agree % 10 46.30 21.42 ( 38.31, 54.29)
Agree 10 33.90 16.64 ( 25.91, 41.89)
neutral 10 10.00 4.76 ( 2.01, 17.99)
disagree 10 6.20 4.76 ( -1.79, 14.19)
Strongly disagree 10 3.600 2.459 (-4.392, 11.592)

Pooled StDev = 12.5477

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

 Response Rate of Quuestionnaire
80

70

60
%age of Response

50

40

30

20

10

Strongly Agree % Agree neutral disagree Strongly disagree

Fig. 4.4 Comparison of Responses’ Mean Value

The output of ANOVA in table 4.6 showed the effect of subject specialists in chemistry on

students’ performance. This was to test the null hypothesis Ho: there is no significant difference

in subject specialist teaching and that of non-specialists on students’ academic achievement. F

value of 22 and significance of 0.000 < 0.05 makes to reject the null hypothesis. The consequence

of this examination was that exposure of students to specialist teaching enhance their achievement

level. Because the teacher having relevant degree in chemistry; have the potential to tackle the

subject difficulties and teaching techniques.

Mean comparisons of responses given in figure 4.3 clearly indicated that majority of teachers in
cluster saida sharif agreed that chemistry teaching at secondary level by subject specialist
enhance the success ratio of students. Board result summary of grade 9th and 10th given in table
4.3 support the results of survey studies.