# Analysis And The Interpretation Of The Data Education Essay

Published:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

## 5:1 INTRODUCTION

The collected data were analysed in order to realize the objective of the study.The statistical analysis is of great use in this regard. . The purpose of analysis is to summarize the completed observations in such a manner that they yield answers to the research hypothesis. A systematic study streamlines the research process and helps the investigator to identify and demarcat appropriate solution to the problem..

In this chapter, an attempt is made to analyse and interpret the collected data. The choice of statistical techniques for data analysis is largely determined by the research hypothesis. The analysis and interpretation if the simly were based on the selected sample size and the findings of the simly based on the same sample.

For easy and clear cut understanding the statistical analysis were undertaken into four sections and they were discussed in detail below.

## 5.2 Section I - Descriptive statistics

1) Comparison between the mean scores of dimensions of learning style, teaching style, information processing and SOLAT

2) Comparison between the mean scores sub variables of learning style

3) comparison between the mean scores sub variables of teaching style

## 5:3 Section II - Differential analysis

Section II deals with the results obtained on comparative analysis of the data using "t" test. This section comprises

## Section III deals with the results obtained on comparative analysis of the data using chi square test. This section comprises

9). Association between learning style and Achievement-using chi square test

10). Association between Total-learning style with Achievement Score and Left brain , Total-learning style , Achievement Score and Right brain

## Section IV deals with the results obtained on comparative analysis of the data using Pearson correlation coefficient test. This section comprises

11. Relationship between dimensions of learning style and Achievement

12 .Relationship between learning style with information processing

13 Relationship between the teaching style and solat

The analysis carried out under each subhead is given below

## Showing the Mean scores of learning style, teaching style, information processing and SOLAT

L

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Learning style

Attitude

918

35.57

3.711

Climate

918

33.43

3.835

Technique

918

43.57

4.463

Behavior

918

41.88

4.560

Total-learning style

918

151.93

14.931

Teaching style

Attitude

162

31.50

1.745

Climate

162

23.28

2.749

Technique

162

58.52

4.246

Teaching behavior

162

50.83

2.653

Total-teaching style

162

164.13

8.152

Information processing style

Right brain

918

11.37

3.456

Left brain

918

11.14

3.409

Integrated brain

918

1.40

2.980

SOLAT

Right brain

162

23.67

5.571

Left brain

162

17.39

5.653

Integrated brain

162

6.38

7.025

Achievement Score

918

305.72

92.608

The Table 5.1 shows the mean and standard deviation of the problems taken for this study. It clearly indicates the difference between the variables. The mean scores of learning technique is more than that of other dimensions in the learning style Similarly the mean scores of teaching technique is more than that of other dimensions.

## Mean scores of the learning style of the students with respect to the Background Variables

Background variable

Categories

N

Mean

SD

Govt

306

154.15

11.078

Aided

306

151.32

13.135

Matric

306

150.31

19.158

Medium

English

471

154.38

14.477

Tamil

447

149.35

14.984

Gender

Male

429

154.76

12.209

Female

489

149.44

16.581

Illiterate

113

152.12

13.999

upto 10th

444

153.93

13.284

11-12th

156

151.56

15.497

UG

118

153.30

13.929

Above UG

87

140.31

18.867

Total

918

151.93

14.931

## Fathers occupation

Unemployed

138

151.49

14.885

Labour

397

152.80

13.825

231

149.09

16.923

Professional

79

153.33

14.701

Employed

73

155.48

13.115

The following inferences are drawn from table 5.2:

The learning style of Boys were more mean value (154.76) than the learning styles of girls (149.44)

The learning style of the government school students were more mean value (154.15) as compared to private and govt.aided schools.

The learning style of English medium high school students gained more mean value (154.38) than the Tamil medium students (149.44)

The children's of parents studied upto 10th and UG (Father's education) have gained more mean value (153) than others.

The children's of father employed in companies(father's occupation) have gained more meanvalue (155.48) as compared to the other two groups.

## 3) comparison between the mean scores of sub variables of teaching style

The following inferences are drawn from table 5.3:

Both Male and female teachers were equal mean score value in teaching style.

2 The teaching style of English medium and the Tamil medium teachers show equal mean score value..

3 The teaching style of the teacher whose age is above 50 the teaching style of other age group teachers

4 Teachers whose experience range in between 10to 15 years of experience , their teaching style is much better than the teachers whose teaching experience less.

## showing Mean value of teaching style with respect to the Background Variables

Background variables

Categories

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Govt

58

165.45

6.623

Aided

56

163.46

6.528

Matric

48

163.31

11.009

Medium

English

98

164.04

8.992

Tamil

64

164.27

6.729

Gender

Male

77

164.05

10.221

Female

85

164.20

5.730

21-30 yrs

38

162.03

12.712

31-40 yrs

66

163.77

6.782

41-50 yrs

43

165.79

4.789

Above 50 yrs

15

166.27

5.365

Total

162

164.13

8.152

Tamil

23

166.17

5.789

English

29

162.48

7.084

Maths

41

161.54

9.034

Science

47

163.98

8.928

History

22

169.32

5.259

Total

162

164.13

8.152

Below 3 yrs

32

162.75

10.764

3-5 yrs

37

164.24

8.237

5-10 yrs

31

164.52

9.007

10-15 yrs

25

165.96

4.895

Above 15 yrs

37

163.65

6.447

## 1 comparison among the dimensions of Learning style with respect to gender and medium-using t test

a) Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean scores of the dimensions of the total learning style with respect to gender and medium of instructionThe mean, standard deviation and t value have been calculated for learning style and its dimensions with respect to gender and medium the results are given in table. 5.4

## Mean, Standard Deviation and t value for the scores of learning style and its dimensions with respect to Gender and medium

Gender

Mean

Std. Deviation

t

P

Attitude

Male

35.55

3.649

0.183

0.855

Female

35.60

3.767

Climate

Male

33.65

3.631

1.615

0.107

Female

33.24

3.998

Technique

Male

43.76

4.434

1.209

0.227

Female

43.40

4.486

behaviour

Male

41.80

4.507

0.480

0.631

Female

41.95

4.610

Total-learning style

Male

154.76

12.209

5.469

Female

149.44

16.581

Medium

Attitude

English

35.29

3.911

2.416

Tamil

35.88

3.465

Climate

English

33.97

4.088

4.387

Tamil

32.87

3.464

Technique

English

44.02

4.665

3.178

## 0.002

Tamil

43.09

4.191

behaviour

English

41.76

4.915

0.797

0.426

Tamil

42.00

4.155

Total-learning style

English

154.38

14.477

5.167

## 0.000

Tamil

149.35

14.984

Df 916 significance at 0.05 level

An examination of the table(5.4) shows that the mean score s of total learning style for boys 154.76 and girls 149.44 which shows high significance difference (P<0.05) similar study was done by Malathi.S. and Malini .E (2006) According to them there was significant difference in the learning style between boys and girls studying in higher secondary schools. Cline(1984),Davis(1985)Cohen (1986) and Diaz(1986) founded there is significant difference in learning styles of boys and girls.

The table (5.4) also reveals that in the dimensions of learning style the means score of boys and girls are 35.55and 35.60, 33.65and 33.24, 43.76 and 43.40, and 41.80 and 41.95 respectively. This shows that there is no significant difference (P>0.05) in the dimensions of learning style with respect to gender.But this study is different from the studies of Verma and Asha Tiku. B.P.Verma and Asha Tiku (1981) conducted a research with sample of 300 students studying in 10th class in 7 institutions of shimla city. Out of this 112 were males and 118 were females. The t value were calculated. The findings were shown that female students seems to have significantly more inclination towards participant learning style than male students

From the analysis of the table(5.4) it has come to know that the learning style of English medium students is much better than the learning style of tamil medium students

The table also reveals that in the dimensions of learning style the mean of tamil medium and English medium are 35.88 and 35.29, 32.87 and 33.97, 43.09 and 44.02 respectively. This shows that there is significant difference (P<0.05)in the dimensions of learning style with respect to medium of instruction.

2 comparison among the of learning style with respect to management -using Annova,post hoc test

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of total learning style with respect to the type of management, fathers education and fathers occupation

The mean standard deviation and F-ratio were calculated for student's learning style with respect to the Type of Management of the schools fathers education and fathers occupation and the results are tabulated in the table 5.5.

## ANOVA

df

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F

P

management

Between Groups

2

2428.139

1214.070

5.499

.004

Within Groups

916

201998.258

220.763

Total

918

204426.398

Fathers education

Between Groups

4

13760.626

3440.156

16.473

0.000

Within Groups

914

190665.772

208.834

Total

918

204426.398

Fathers occupation

Between Groups

4

3271.299

817.825

3.712

0.005

Within Groups

914

201155.098

220.323

Total

918

204426.398

P significant at 0.05 level

With regard to the f value for total learning style is 5.499 and significant value is P <0.05. We reject null hypothesis. The result shows that the learning style of the students differ based on their management where they study.

In the second comparison shows that the f value for total learning style is 16.473and significant value is lesser than 0.05 level (P<0.05).The result shows that the learning style of the students differ with regards to fathers education

In the third comparison the f value for total learning style is 3.172 and significant value is 0.005 which is lesser than 0.05 level. The result shows that the learning style of the students will differ based on fathers occupation

On probing further, significant value is <0.05 so multiple comparisons of the significant difference of the scores of learning style with respect to management parent education, parents occupation have been computed, the details of which are presented in table 5.6.

. In the First multiple comparison the mean difference and the significant value for Govt

with aided(2.830), govt with matric (3.843,),and the significant

value is less than 0.05 (P<0.05) level. The result shows that In multiple

comparison there is significant difference in the total learning style based on the

management With regard to aided with matric (1.013) and the significant value

is more than 0.05 level.(P>0.05)

In the second multiple comparison of total learning style the mean

difference for illiterate with above ug (11.805,),10th with above ug(13.615), 11-

12th with Above UG (11.247),UG with above ug(12.986). The significant value

is less than 0.05 level. This shows that there is significant difference in the total

learning Style based on the fathers education

The third analysis reveals that the comparison of total learning style the

employed(6.393), The significant value is less than 0.05 level. This shows that

there is significant difference in the total learning style based on the fathers

occupation

## Showing multiple comparisons of of the mean scores of learning style of students with respect to management parents education, parents occupation

Variable

categories

Mean Difference

P

Type of management

Govt

Aided

2.830

0.011

Matric

3.843

0.007

Aided

Matric

1.013

0.726

Father's Education

Illiterate

upto 10th

1.811

0.728

11-12th

0.557

0.998

UG

1.182

0.968

Above UG

11.805

0.000

upto 10th

11-12th

2.368

0.435

UG

0.629

0.992

Above UG

13.615

0.000

11-12th

UG

1.739

0.866

Above UG

11.247

0.000

UG

Above UG

12.986

0.000

Fathers occupation

Unemployed

Labour

1.311

0.894

2.406

0.611

Professional

1.836

0.903

Employed

3.987

0.269

Labour

3.717(*)

0.039

Professional

0.526

0.998

Employed

2.676

0.508

Professional

4.243

0.214

Employed

6.393(*)

0.008

Professional

Employed

2.150

0.875

## 3) comparison among the Teaching style with respect to gender,medium and qualification

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of,

dimensions and total teaching style with respect to gender,medium,qualification

The Mean, Standard Deviation and t value have been calculated for teaching style with respect to the gender and the results are given in table 5,7.

a) It is observed from the table the `t' value for the dimensions such as T. attitude (2.520.), T. climate (7.282), T.technique (2.189) which are lesser than 0.05 (P<0.05) .There is significant difference in the dimensions of teaching style with respect to the gender It is also shows that the `t' value for the dimensions such as teaching behavior (1.833) which are greater than 0.05(P<0.05) .There is no significant difference in the teaching behavior with respect to gender.

Similarly the t value for total teaching style 0.115 and significant value is greater than 0.05. Hence there is no significant difference in teaching style with respect to gender.This result is different from the findings of Lacey Candace .H Saleh Amany: Gorman(1998) They submitted a paper on the relationship between teaching style and gender., The study shows that the significance difference in male and female teacher. Male teachers found to be more dominant and exacting in their teaching style, while female teachers tended to be more informal and open towards students.

b) It is observed from the table the `t' value for the dimensions with respect to

medium such as attitude (0.736),climate(1.573), technique (0.545) & behavior (0.790)

which are greater than 0.05(P>0.05). Similarly the t value for total teaching style 0.

171 and significance value is greater than 0.05. (P>0.05). There is no significant difference in

the dimensions of teaching style and total teaching style with respect to medium

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

t

P

Attitude

Male

77

31.14

2.366

2.520

Female

85

31.82

.743

Climate

Male

77

24.71

2.699

7.282

Female

85

21.98

2.070

Technique

Male

77

57.77

4.726

Female

85

59.21

3.652

2.189

## 0.030

Teaching behaviour

Male

77

50.43

3.481

Female

85

51.19

1.500

1.833

0.069

Total-teaching style

Male

77

164.05

10.221

Female

85

164.20

5.730

0.115

0.909

Medium

Attitude

English

98

31.42

1.989

0.736

0.463

Tamil

64

31.63

1.291

Climate

English

98

23.55

3.053

1.573

0.118

Tamil

64

22.86

2.159

Technique

English

98

58.38

4.553

0.545

0.587

Tamil

64

58.75

3.750

Teaching behaviour

English

98

50.69

2.976

0.790

0.430

Tamil

64

51.03

2.070

Total-teaching style

English

98

164.04

8.992

0.171

0.864

Tamil

64

164.27

6.729

qualification

Attitude

UG

53

31.36

1.688

0.718

0.474

PG

109

31.57

1.776

Climate

UG

53

23.02

2.591

0.835

0.405

PG

109

23.40

2.826

Technique

UG

53

57.66

4.151

1.820

0.071

PG

109

58.94

4.247

Teaching behaviour

UG

53

50.60

2.436

1.629

0.105

PG

109

50.94

2.756

Total-teaching style

UG

53

162.64

7.409

0.746

.0.457

PG

109

164.85

8.427

c) The t value for total teaching style 1.629 and significance value is greater than 0.05. (P>0.05). There is no significant difference in the total teaching style with respect to qualification.This result is entirely different from the findings of Mccollin, Evelyn(2000). They examined the relationship between teachers teaching style and such teachers demographic variables as age,gender years of experience work status ,educational level they conducted research for 84 teachers and 585 students they concluded there is significant relationship between teaching style and demographic variables

4 .comparison of teaching style with respect to management, age,experience, major subject

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of total teaching style

with respect to type of management,age,experience,major subject

The Mean, Standard Deviation and f value have been calculated for learning style with respect to the management age,experience,major subject and the results are given in table 5.8.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

P.

a) management

teaching style

Between Groups

157.692

2

78.846

1.189

0.307

Within Groups

10540.586

159

66.293

Total

10698.278

161

B)Male

teaching style

Between Groups

1387.599

3

462.533

5.153

Within Groups

6552.193

73

89.756

Total

7939.792

76

Female

teaching style

Between Groups

424.507

3

141.502

4.913

0.003

Within Groups

2333.093

81

28.804

Total

2757.600

84

c) Major subject

teaching style

Between Groups

1043.785

4

260.946

4.243

0.003

Within Groups

9654.492

157

61.494

Total

10698.278

161

d) Experience

teaching style

Between Groups

158.333

4

39.583

0.590

0.671

Within Groups

10539.945

157

67.133

Total

10698.278

161

## .

a) With regard to the f value for total teaching style is 1.189 and significant value is greater than 0.05 level.. The result shows that the teaching style will not differ based on their type of management.

b) With regard to the f value for total teaching style is 5.153and 4.913, significant value is lesser than 0.05 level..The result shows that the teaching style will differ based on the age of the teacher. The findings of Passi and Sharma (1982) support the the same .They revealed that there was positive significant relationship between the age of teachers teaching at the secondary level and their teaching competency.

c) With regard to the f value for total teaching style is 4.243 and significant value is lesser than 0.05 level.. The result shows that the teaching style differ based on their major subject what they study. The similar findings of Anang ,Arlene,Lanier and perry(1983) showed that there was significant difference in the teaching style for IX class subjects namely maths and social studies.And also Caril and Davis (1970) Tishar (!(71) Santhanam(1972;1972b) Singh(1974) and Ansari and Verma(1975) observed teaching behavior of teacher changes in relation with subject of teaching

d) The analysis shows that f value is 0.590 and the significance value is greater than that of 0.05 level. Hence there is no significance difference in teaching style with respect to teachers e xperience

On probing further, significant value is <0.05 multiple comparisons of the teaching style based on the major subject have been computed, the details of which are presented below.

## Showing multiple comparisons of teaching style with respect to major subjects

Dependent Variable

(I) Main subject

(J) Main subject

Mean Difference (I-J)

P.

Total-teaching style

Tamil

English

3.691

0.250

Maths

4.637

0.105

Science

2.195

0.730

History

3.144

0.328

English

Maths

.946

0.988

Science

1.496

0.927

History

6.835(*)

0.002

Maths

Science

2.442

0.709

History

7.782 (*)

0.001

Science

History

5.339(*)

0.023

*0.01 level

The table5.9 reveals that the comparison with in the

total teaching style,The significant values are more than that of 0.05 level.

. This shows that there is no significant difference in teaching style based

on major subject of the teacher.in multiple comparison.

## Part III Information Processing

5) comparison of information processing with respect to gender,medium

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of information processing

with respect to gender,medium.

The Mean, Standard Deviation and t value have been calculated for information processing with respect to the gender and medium the results are given in table 5.10

a) It is observed from the table the `t' value for the dimensions such as right brain(2.973),left brain(4.627) which are lesser than 0.05 (P<0.05).There is significant difference in the dimensions of information processsing with respect to gender.

Similarly the t value for integrated brain 1.508 and significance value is greater than 0.05 so we accept null hypothesis. So there is no significant difference in integrated brain with respect to gender.This result was supported by the findings of Kummerow Kummerow (1989) studied the hemispheric dominance of high school students. It was found that there was no relationship between the hemispheric dominance and the variable like gender.

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

T

P

a) Right brain

Male

429

11.73

3.591

2.973

Female

489

11.06

3.304

Left brain

Male

429

10.59

3.376

4.627

## 0.000

Female

489

11.62

3.368

Integrated brain

Male

429

1.55

3.275

1.508

0.132

Female

489

1.26

2.691

Medium

b) Right brain

English

471

11.20

3.647

1.587

0.113

Tamil

447

11.56

3.236

Left brain

English

471

11.25

3.620

1.052

0.293

Tamil

447

11.02

3.171

Integrated brain

English

471

1.40

3.218

0.072

.943

Tamil

447

1.39

2.710

b) It is observed from the table the `t' value for the dimensions such as right brain(1.587),left brain(1.052 )and integrated brain (0.072) and significance value is greater than 0.05.Hence there is no significant difference in information processing with respect to medium of instruction.

6).comparison of information processing with respect to managment

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of dimensions of

information processing with respect to management.

The Mean, Standard Deviation and F value have been calculated fo information processing with respect to the management, and the results are tabulated in table 5.11.

## ANOVA

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F

P

a)management

Right brain

Between Groups

65.917

16.479

0.525

0.718

Within Groups

4931.743

31.412

Total

4997.660

Left brain

Between Groups

22.214

5.553

0.170

0.953

Within Groups

5122.286

32.626

Total

5144.500

Integrated brain

Between Groups

104.488

26.122

0.523

0.719

Within Groups

7841.543

49.946

Total

7946.031

a) The analysis shows that the F value for the left brain (0.525) Right brain (0.170), integrated brain (0.523) respectively. and significance values are greater than that of 0.05 level.. This shows that based on the type of management, information processing will not be changed.

## 7.comparison of solat with respect to gender and medium

Hypothesis; there is no significant difference in the mean of solat with respect

to gender.,medium

The Mean, Standard Deviation and t value have been calculated for solat with respect to the gender and medium the results are given in table5.12.

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

t

P

a) Right brain

Male

77

24.32

5.056

1.422

0.157

Female

85

23.08

5.969

Left brain

Male

77

18.34

5.654

2.053

Female

85

16.53

5.545

Integrated brain

Male

77

5.25

6.090

1.965

0.051

Female

85

7.40

7.669

medium

B) Right brain

English

98

24.50

5.081

2.372

Tamil

64

22.41

6.073

Left brain

English

98

17.65

4.997

0.735

0.463

Tamil

64

16.98

6.553

Integrated brain

English

98

5.37

6.098

2.292

## 0.023

Tamil

64

7.92

8.054

.a) The analysis shows that the F value for the left brain (2.053) , and significance

value is lesser than that of 0.05 level This shows that based on the gender left brain

dominance will change The analysis also shows that the F value for right brain(1.422)

integrated brain (1.965) respectively and significance value is greater than that of 0.05

level This shows that based on gender the right, and integrated brain dominance will

not change

## .

b) It is observed from the table the `t' value for the dimensions such as right brain(2.372),and integrated brain (2.292) and significance value is lesser than 0.05.There is significant difference in the dimensions of solat with respect to medium of instruction.

It is also shows that the t value for the dimension such as left brain (0.735) and significant value is greater than 0.05 level.. There is no significant difference in the dimensions of solat with respect to medium of instruction.

## 5.03. Section III Association Analysis

8 Association between learning style and Achievement-using chi square test

HYPOTHESIS:There is no significant association between the total learning style and achievement score

The significant association between learning style and Achievement have been studied through Chi-Square test, the details of which are represented in the following table.

## L.S.

P

Total learning style and achievement score

11.095

P<0.05

.026

Df;4, P<0.05.

It is observed from the table the Chi- square value is 11.095 and the

significant value is 0.026 which is lesser than 0.05. So we reject the null

hypothesis. hence the two variables are associated.It is evident that there is an

association with learning style and achievement score

## 9 Relationship within the dimensions of learning style and Achievement

Hypothesis There is no inter relationship between attitude,climate,technique,behaviour and achievement score

The correlation between dimensions of learning style and Achievement has been calculated by Karl Pearson`s coefficient of correlation. .The correlation are given in table .

## Table showing `r'-value and level of significance for the variables, learning style and Achievemen

Variable

r value

Level of significance

Attitude

climate

0.303

0.000

Technique

0.404

0.000

behaviour

0.430

0.000

Climate

Technique

0.418

0.000

behaviour

0.376

0.000

Technique

behaviour

0.459

0.000

Total-learning style

achievement

.050

.131

N=918

The analysis revealed from the table It is understood that all the dimension

of learning style variables show significant slight correlation with achievement

score.The level of significance is at 0.01 level.

## .

The correlation coefficient of the variables the dimensions of learning style and

achievement score, the r value ranges from0.00 to 0.30 this shows that the

variables are slightly correlated The correlation coefficient of the variables between

the dimensions of learning style with each other the r value ranges from0.30 to 0.50

this shows that the variables are correlated with low positive correlation

## 10 .Relationship between learning style and information processing

Hypothesis There is no relationship between total learning style and information processing and achievement

## Table showing `r'-value for the variables, learning style and information processing and Achievement

r

P

Right brain

Total-learning style

0.067(*)

0.041

Achievement Score

0.016

0.627

Left brain

Total-learning style

0.194(**)

0.000

Achievement Score

0.081(*)

0.015

Integrated brain

Total-learning style

0.149(**)

0.000

Achievement Score

0.084(*)

0.011

* P< 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** P<0.01 level (2-tailed N=918

The analysis revealed from the table(16) It is understood that all the dimensions of

learning style variables show slight correlation with achievement

score. The level of significance is at 0.01 level

## 11 .Relationship between the teaching style and solat

Hypothesis There is no relationship between. the teaching style and solat

## Table showing `r'-value and level of significance for the variables dimensions of . the teaching style and solat

Variables

r

P

Right brain

tAttitude

0.023

0.775

Tclimate

0.104

0.189

Ttechnique

0.044

0.579

T behavior

0.037

0.636

Total teaching style

0.005

0.950

Left brain

tAttitude

0.099

0.212

Tclimate

0.021

0.795

Ttechnique

0.232(**)

0.003

T behavior

0.081

0.304

Total teaching style

0.162(*)

0.040

Integrated brain

tAttitude

0.113

0.151

Tclimate

0.079

0.317

Ttechnique

0.183(*)

0.020

T behavior

0.111

0.160

Total teaching style

0.129

0.102

** P at 0.01 level . N=162 * P at 0.05 level.

The analysis revealed from the table(5.17) It is understood that all the dimensions

of teaching style variables show significant little positive correlation with

brain hemisphericity.The level of significance is at 0.01 level This result also

similar to Evans. Evans (2004) qualitatively investigated the nature of the

impact a teacher's cognitive style had on his/her teaching style. Evans described

teaching style as analytic or wholistic in the study. An analytic teacher is

concerned about assessment, both theirs and their students, and having control

over their learning and subject. A wholistic teacher is concerned about student

needs, classroom management, and forming relationships; but less organized

compared to analytics. The qualitative study concluded 40% of the group

claimed to teach in the same way they had been taught themselves. The value of

this particular study may be in the teachers gaining awareness of the impact of

how they teach affecting students' learning

## 12 .Relationship between the teaching style with learning style and teaching style with achievement score

Hypothesis There is no relationship between. the teaching style, learning style and achievement score

## showing `r'-value and level of significance for the variables, the teaching style,learning style and achievement score

Variable

r

P

Total-learning style

Total-teaching style

.060

.451

Total-teaching style

Achievement Score

-.118

.136

** P at 0.01 level (2-tailed). tN=162

* P at 0.05 level (2-tailed) lN=198

## .

The analysis revealed from the table() It is understood that teaching style

variables show a slight relationship with learning style and also shows slight

relationship between teaching style and achievement score . The level of

significance is at 0.01 level.Similar conclusion given by Charkins, O'Toole, and

Wetzel (1985) Theyconducted research Implications for education as a

result of their study are thatstudents' achievement should improve by matching

students and instructors who possess similar learning and teaching styles.

Because students react variously to different methods of teaching as a result of

their varied learning styles, "some students may gain,but others may lose, from

using a new teaching method....Researchers may be able todiscover which types

of students gain (or lose) from different types of teaching methods"

## 4:04 CONCLUSION

A brief report of the research study together with major findings and conclusions arrived at along with their educational implications have been presented in the succeeding chapter

0

100

200

300

400

500

20

30

40

50