1.

Provide boxplots for the distributions of the teaching efficacy and the teaching commitment
scores. Identify the outliers and extreme values if any.

Table 1

Statistics
KomitmenPengajaranG
EfikasiPengajaranGuru uru
N Valid 90 90
Missing 0 0
Mean 126.2556 72.7667
Median 124.5000 72.0000
Std. Deviation 14.77438 9.14435
Variance 218.282 83.619
Skewness .402 1.192
Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254
Kurtosis .723 2.713
Std. Error of Kurtosis .503 .503
Minimum 97.00 49.00
Maximum 182.00 100.00
Percentiles 25 114.0000 68.0000
50 124.5000 72.0000
75 139.0000 76.0000
TEACHING EFFICACY

A five number summary for teaching efficacy data are :

- Minimum = 97.00
- First quartile = 114.0000
- Median (second quartile) = 124.5000
- Third quartile = 139.0000
- Maximum = 182.00
- Outlier = 1.5x 6 = 9; Q3=139
= 9 + 139
= 148
- There is no extreme outlier
TEACHING COMMITMENT

- Minimum = 49.00
- First quartile = 68.0000
- Median (second quartile) = 72.000
- Third quartile = 76.0000
- Maximum = 100.00
- Outlier = 1.5x 6 = 9; Q3=76
= 9 + 76
= 85
- There is no extreme outlier.
 2. Find whether there are differences in the mean scores of teaching efficacy and school
commitment between (1) male and female, (2) teachers with different subject taught.

(A) For of teaching efficacy between gender (male and female).

H0 : There is no statistically significant difference in mean scores of teaching efficacy between

male and female in the population
Ha : There is a statistically significant difference in mean scores of teaching efficacy between male
and female in the population
Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
GENDER Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
EfikasiPengajaranGu Male .179 36 .005 .876 36 .001
ru Female .108 54 .173 .936 54 .006
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

By using Kolmogrov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk tests to test normality, it showed that

the p- value for male is .000 (p<0.05), then the distribution of this data is not normal and
for the p value for female is .173 (p>0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal.
Hence, the normality for both data assumed as normal as sample exceeded 30 and large.

Table 2

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances

F Sig.
EfikasiPengajaranGuru Equal variances assumed .612 .436
Equal variances not
assumed
Table 3
Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
GENDER N Mean Deviation Mean
EfikasiPengajaranGu Male 36 130.3056 12.32841 2.05473
ru Female 54 123.5556 15.73563 2.14135

Table 4

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Sig. Confidence
(2- Mean Interval of the
tailed Differenc Std. Error Difference
t df ) e Difference Lower
EfikasiPengajara Equal
2.16
nGuru variances 88 .033 6.75000 3.11492 .55975
7
assumed
Equal
variances 2.27 85.61
.025 6.75000 2.96771 .85001
not 4 8
assumed

Value of α= .05

Probability value, p = .436 i.e. p > .05, thus not significant.

The two groups have equal variance, so assumption is met.

Since the p value is 0.033, p<.05, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there
is a statistically significant difference in mean scores of teaching efficacy between male
and female in the population.
 An independent t-test was performed comparing the mean of teaching efficacy between
male and female in the population. The result revealed that mean of teaching efficacy of
male (M= 130.3056, SD= 12.32841) and female (M=123.5556, SD= 15.73563) are
significantly no difference t(2.167) = 0.033 , p<.05

(B) For school commitment between gender (male and female).

H0 : There is no statistically significant difference in mean scores of school commitment between

male and female in the population
Ha : There is a statistically significant difference in mean scores of school commitment between
male and female in the population

Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
GENDER Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
KomitmenPengajaranG Male .240 36 .000 .790 36 .000
uru Female .112 54 .090 .972 54 .238
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

By using Kolmogrov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk tests to test normality, it showed that

the p- value for male is .000 (p<0.05), then the distribution of this data is not normal and
for the p value for female is .090 (p>0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal.
Hence, the normality for both data assumed as normal as sample exceeded 30 and large.
Table 2

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances

F Sig.
KomitmenPengajaranGuru Equal variances assumed 5.422 .022
Equal variances not
assumed

Table 3
Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
GENDER N Mean Deviation Mean
KomitmenPengajaranG Male 36 75.9722 10.98177 1.83029
uru Female 54 70.6296 7.01023 .95397

Table 4

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Std. Error Uppe
t df tailed) e Difference Lower r
KomitmenPengajara Equal
2.81 9.10
nGuru variances 88 .006 5.34259 1.89496 1.57675
9 844
assumed
Equal
variances 2.58 9.48
53.969 .012 5.34259 2.06399 1.20450
not 8 069
assumed
 Value of α= .05

Probability value, p = .022 i.e. p > .05, thus not significant.

The two groups do not have equal variance, so assumption is not met.

Since the p value is 0.012, p<.05, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there
is a statistically significant difference in mean scores of school commitment between male
and female in the population.

An independent t-test was performed comparing the mean of school commitment between
male and female in the population. The result revealed that mean of t school commitment
of male (M= 75.9722, SD= 10.98177) and female (M=70.6296, SD= 7.01023) are
significantly no difference t(2.588) = 0.012 , p<.05

(C) For teaching efficacy between teachers with different subject taught (biology,chemistry,
mathematics).

H0 : There is no significant differences among the mean scores of teaching efficacy

between teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

Ha : There is a significant differences among the mean scores of teaching efficacy between
teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
SUBJECT Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
EfikasiPengajaranGur Biology .151 29 .088 .906 29 .013
u Chemistry .140 22 .200* .947 22 .273
Mathematics .142 38 .050 .930 38 .020
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 By using Kolmogrov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk tests to test normality, it showed that
the p value for Biology is .088 (p>0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal. The p
value for Chemistry is .200 (p> 0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal. While the
p- value for Indian is .050 (p> 0.05). then the distribution of this data is normal.

Table 2

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: EfikasiPengajaranGuru

F df1 df2 Sig.
1.721 2 86 .185
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.

a. Design: Intercept + SUBJECT

Value of α= .05
Since the p= value is 0.185 (p>0.05), therefore, teachers with the three subjects (Biology,
Chemistry, Mathematics) have equal variance, so assumption is met.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: EfikasiPengajaranGuru

SUBJECT Mean Std. Deviation N

Biology 123.2759 13.89989 29
Chemistry 128.2727 11.42754 22
Mathematics
127.6579 17.02665 38

Total 126.3820 14.80902 89

Table 4
ANOVA
EfikasiPengajaranGuru

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups
420.422 3 140.141 .631 .597

Within Groups 18878.589 85 222.101

Total 19299.011 88

Table 5

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: EfikasiPengajaranGuru
Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta
Source of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected
420.302a 2 210.151 .957 .388 .022
Model
Intercept 1353349.373 1 1353349.373 6165.043 .000 .986
SUBJECT 420.302 2 210.151 .957 .388 .022
Error 18878.709 86 219.520
Total 1440844.000 89
Corrected Total 19299.011 88
a. R Squared = .022 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

Since the p- value is 0.388 (p>0.05), therefore the null hypothesis is fail to reject. Hence
there is no significant differences among the mean scores of teaching efficacy between
teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

A one-way between subjects ANOVA was performed comparing the mean teaching
efficacy between teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).
There is no significant differences among the mean scores of teaching efficacy between
teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics) at the p> .05 for
the three subjects [F (2, 86)= .957, p= .388. The partial eta squared value = .022 indicates
that approximately 2.2% of the variance of the dependent variables is associated with the
group factor. (small effect)
 (D) For school commitment between teachers with different subject taught (biology,chemistry,
mathematics).

H0 : There is no significant differences among the mean scores of school commitment

between teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

Ha : There is a significant differences among the mean scores of school commitment

between teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
SUBJECT Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
KomitmenPengajaranG Biology .158 29 .061 .870 29 .002
uru Chemistry .162 22 .138 .951 22 .325
Mathematics .224 38 .000 .848 38 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

By using Kolmogrov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk tests to test normality, it showed that

the p value for Biology is .061 (p>0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal. The p
value for Chemistry is .138 (p> 0.05), then the distribution of this data is normal. While the
p- value for Indian is .000 (p> 0.05). then the distribution of this data is not normal. . But
assumed as normal as sample exceeded 30 and large.
Table 2

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: KomitmenPengajaranGuru

F df1 df2 Sig.
10.042 2 86 .050
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + SUBJECT

Value of α= .05
Since the p= value is 0.050 (p>0.05), therefore, teachers with the three subjects (Biology,
Chemistry, Mathematics) have equal variance, so assumption is met.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: KomitmenPengajaranGuru

SUBJECT Mean Std. Deviation N

Biology 71.5862 6.24796 29
Chemistry 72.2273 4.56625 22
Mathematics
74.2368 12.39755 38

Total 72.8764 9.13637 89

Table 4
ANOVA
KomitmenPengajaranGuru

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups
95.085 2 47.542 .563 .572

Within Groups 7347.015 87 84.448

Total 7442.100 89

Table 5
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: KomitmenPengajaranGuru
Type III Sum Partial Eta
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected
127.874a 2 63.937 .762 .470 .017
Model
Intercept 447478.198 1 447478.198 5331.722 .000 .984
SUBJECT 127.874 2 63.937 .762 .470 .017
Error 7217.767 86 83.928
Total 480022.000 89
Corrected Total 7345.640 88
a. R Squared = .017 (Adjusted R Squared = -.005)

Since the p- value is 0.470 (p>0.05), therefore the null hypothesis is fail to reject. Hence
there is no significant differences among the mean scores of school commitment between
teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).

A one-way between subjects ANOVA was performed comparing the mean teaching
efficacy between teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics).
There is no significant differences among the mean scores of teaching efficacy between
teachers with different subject taught (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics) at the p> .05 for
the three subjects [F (2, 86)= .762, p= .470. The partial eta squared value = .017 indicates
that approximately 2% of the variance of the dependent variables is associated with the
group factor. (small effect)
 3. Is there any significant correlation between (1) teaching efficacy and teaching experience,
and (2) school commitment and teaching experience?

(A) The correlation between teaching efficacy with teaching experience

H0 : There is no significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teaching experience

in the population.
Ha : There is a significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teaching experience
in the population.

Significant level is set at 0.05,  = 0.05

If p < 0.05, reject the null hypothesis, H0.
If p > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, H0.

Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
EfikasiPengajaranGuru .108 90 .011 .939 90 .000
TEACHINGEXPERIENC
.247 90 .000 .832 90 .000
E
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on the Tests of Normality, referring to the Shapiro-Wilk, p = 0.00, p < 0.05.
Therefore, the data is not normally distributed, but the sample size of more than 30 tends
to have relatively little impact on the accuracy of the Pearson r test (Yockey, 2008).
Table 2

Correlations
TEACHINGEXPE EfikasiPengajara
RIENCE nGuru
TEACHINGEXPERIENCE Pearson Correlation
1 .310**

Sig. (2-tailed) .006

N 90 90
EfikasiPengajaranGuru Pearson Correlation
.310** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .003

N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Failed to reject H0 because p=0.006, p > 0.05.

H0 is accepted.
There is no significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teaching experience in the
population, r (28) = 0.310, p < .05.
r 2 = 0.3102 = 0.0961
About 9.61% of the variance in the teaching efficacy are associated with the variance in the
teaching experience
Or about 90.39% of the variance in the teaching efficacy are associated with the variance in the
teaching experience.

(B) The correlation between school commitment with teaching experience

H0 : There is no significant correlation between school commitment and teaching experience

in the population.
Ha : There is a significant correlation between school commitment and teaching experience
in the population.

Significant level is set at 0.05,  = 0.05

If p < 0.05, reject the null hypothesis, H0.
If p > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, H0.
Table 1

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
KomitmenPengajaranGur
.166 90 .000 .879 90 .000
u
TEACHINGEXPERIENC
.247 90 .000 .832 90 .000
E
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on the Tests of Normality, referring to the Shapiro-Wilk, p = 0.00, p < 0.05.
Therefore, the data is not normally distributed, but the sample size of more than 30 tends
to have relatively little impact on the accuracy of the Pearson r test (Yockey, 2008).

Table 2

Correlations
KomitmenPengajaranGuru
KomitmenPengaj TEACHINGEXP
aranGuru ERIENCE
Pearson Correlation
1 .004

Sig. (2-tailed) .970

N 90 90
TEACHINGEXPERIENCE Pearson Correlation
.004 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .970

N 90 90

H0 is rejected because p=0.004, p < 0.05.

Ha is accepted.
There is a significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teaching experience in the
population, r (28) = 0.004, p > .05.
r 2 = 0.0042 = 0.000016
About 9.61% of the variance in the teaching efficacy are associated with the variance in the
teaching experience
Or about 90.39% of the variance in the teaching efficacy are associated with the variance in the
teaching experience.