Chapter 4: Results
4.3 Third Research Question
4.3.1 The Quantitative Part of the Perceptions Survey
The quantitative part of the perceptions survey consisted of 8 items of 5 point Likert scale statements. Descriptive statistical analyses were employed; mean scores rather than total scores were analyzed, following Gagné’s (1991) interpretations. The mean scores were categorized as follows: mean scores of 4–5 points were classified as high positive (HP), between 3.24–3.99 as positive (P), 2.75–3.25 as ambivalent (A), and 2–2.74 as negative (N). Scores under 2 were considered high negative (HN). The means and standard deviations of the results for individual statements in the survey were found. In addition, the mean results per individual statement rating were estimated using Gagné’s (1991) interpretation and demonstrated in Table 31 as follows:
Table 31: Perceptions Survey Mean Scores
Program Evaluation Survey Items M SD Rating
1- I loved the mathematical contextual problem solving presented in this program.
3.80 1.15 P 2- This program made me feel more confident about my
mathematics ability.
3.92 0.94 P 3- This program helped me to do better in my regular
Mathematics class.
4.06 0.86 HP 4- This program made me see and appreciate the
importance of mathematics in life.
4.18 0.87 HP 5- This program made me more motivated and engaged
in my mathematics study.
3.86 0.98 P 6- This program made me more prepared to take the
PISA test in mathematics.
4.20 0.66 HP 7- It is important to spend time studying contextual
problem-solving in mathematics classes.
4.10 0.94 HP 8- Deducting time from math classes to implement this
program did not present a challenge to complete the required curriculum on time.
2.90 1.15 A
Survey Average 3.88 0.80 P
Table 31 reveals that students who enrolled in MEP showed a general positive feeling (M=3.88) about the program. They were very positive about 4 aspects of the program: it made them more prepared for the PISA test (M = 4.20), it also made them see and appreciate the importance of mathematics in life (M = 4.18), they see that spending part of mathematics classes time to study this type of problems is important (4.10) and that the program helped them to do better in their regular mathematics class.
The students were positive about 3 aspects of the program; they loved the mathematical contextual problems (M = 3.80) that made them more confident in their mathematical ability (3.92) and motivated them to learn mathematics (M = 3.86).
Noteworthy, the students were only ambivalent (M = 2.90) about deducting time from mathematics classes to implement the program.
Furthermore, the students were asked “Do you recommend applying this program to students to improve their mathematical literacy?” if they recommend this program for improving mathematics literacy. Frequencies and percentages of students who recommend the program from both genders presented in Table 32:
Table 32: Percentages of students who recommend the program
Students who recommend the program F %
All Students
Yes 44 86.3
No 7 13.7
Total 51 100.0 female students
Yes 22 91.7
No 2 8.3
Total 24 100.0 Male students
Yes 22 81.5
No 5 18.5
Total 27 100.0 Table 28 shows that most students would recommend this program to improve students' mathematical literacy and literacy based on their experience. The number of students who recommended this program was 44 (86.3%), while those who did not recommend it were 7 (13.7%). In more detail, most of the students who don’t recommend this program were males, 5 males versus 2 females.
The majority of female and male students recommended this program.
However, for further understanding, another sub-question has been added to understand if there are differences between female and male perceptions as follows:
RQ3a: Are there statistically significant differences between female and male perceptions of tenth grade students about MEP?
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between female and male perceptions of tenth grade students.
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the perceptions towards the program for female and male students to answer this question. As usual, test assumptions are examined before any statistical test is performed. There are six assumptions for the use of the independent-samples t-test (Laerd Statistics, 2020a).
The first three assumptions are related to the choice of research design and do not need statistical tests to check them. The research design of this study, a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design supports these assumptions; there is one dependent variable (students evaluation to MEP) that is measured on a continuous scale; there is one independent variable of two categorical independent groups (Gender), and independence of observations as there is no relationship between the participants in either of the groups.
The other three assumptions were normally distributed residuals, homogeneity of variance, and no outliers (Field, 2013; Laerd Statistics, 2020a). There were no outliers in the students’ responses to the program evaluation survey, as assessed by no cases with standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations. The data of male and female groups were not normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p
= 0.046 for females; p = 0.024 for males) but their histograms showed approximate normality. However, despite looking at a histogram distribution that to some extent reflected a normal distribution, the t-test was described as a robust test regarding the assumption of normality. This means that some deviation from normal does not have a significant effect on Type 1 error rates (Laerd Statistics, 2020a). For homogeneity of
variance, based on Levene's test of equality of variances (F = 0.093, P = 0.762) equal variances were assumed.
After testing all the assumptions, the independent t-test was performed, and its results are shown in the following Table 29.
Table 33: Comparison of perceptions about the MEP
Variable Female (N = 24) Male (N =27) T df P
M SD M SD
MEP perceptions 4.03 .74 3.74 0.84 1.306 49 .198 Table 33 above, shows that there was no statistically significant difference between female (M= 4.03, SD = .74) and male students (M= 3.74, SD = .84) on program evaluation (df = 49, t = 1.306, p > .05). The researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that female and male students are roughly holding the same perceptions about MEP.