Course 1.

3 Practical assignment

Name: Dheif Daniel Yunting Student number: 472493

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

Introduction

The Department of Psychology, Education & Child Studies was evaluated by an

independent education committee based on a report prepared by the management department which

contained important statistics, such as: the students’ characteristics, performance on statistic

courses and student evaluation on said courses. These statistics were researched by a group of able

and willing researchers commissioned by the management department.

However, the research team of the department primarily conducted their study based on the

research questions provided by the management department. The first was a determination whether

there was a difference in courses 1.3 and 2.2 in statistic grades between students who only gained

credits for the first two years of the course, despite being half-way through the third year, and

students who accumulated more credits during the entire course. The following hypotheses were

formulated: Null Hypothesis: There were no differences between students who gained credits in the

first two years and the students who gained more credits. Alternative Hypothesis: There were

differences between students who gained credits in the first two years and the students who gained

more credits. The second question was whether there were differences in statistic grades, in course

2.2, between students who were satisfied with the programme quality to those who were

dissatisfied. The following hypotheses, for this question, were formed. Null Hypothesis: There

were no statistical differences between students who were satisfied and dissatisfied with the

programme quality. Alternative Hypothesis: There were statistical differences between students

who were satisfied or dissatisfied with the programme quality.

Aside from testing the prior mentioned hypotheses, the relationship of the two courses

which formed the basics of Methodology and Statistics, the students’ main characteristics and the

progress in statistic courses in the first year of students was examined.

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Method
Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

Method

Participants

For this research, a random sample of n=210 students was drawn from a total of 5,000

students. The gender ratio, as charted in a pie graph, showed that the 56.67% were males, making it

the largest proportion, whereas 43.33% were females. The age of the participants, ranged from 22

to 29 years (Mage=25.5 years, SD=1.19). The age distribution showed, that the min. value was 22

years, the 25th percentile was 24 years and below, the median was 25 years, the 75th percentile was

26 years and above, and the max. value was 29 years. On a histogram, at which the age was charted

in, it was shown that the distribution is approximately normal; just skewing slightly to the right.

The programme ratio, as charted in a bar graph, showed that 47.1% of participants were enrolled in

Psychology (Dutch); making it the highest peak. The next highest peak, was 31.0% of participants

enrolled in Pedagogy. Lastly, the lowest peak was 21.9% of participants enrolled in Psychology

(International). The Living situation of the participants, as charted in a bar graph, showed that

47.6% live with peers/partners, making it the highest peak. The second highest peak was 33.8% of

participants living alone, then 16.7% of participants living with their parents, and finally 1.9% have

another form of living situation; making it the lowest peak on the graph.

Materials and Procedure

OSIRIS is an online study information platform that holds records of the participants’ data;

those being their age, gender, credits, grades, programme and living situation. Through this

platform, the data was made available for students and administrators alike. All participants were

informed of the research and its purpose, and with their written and informed consent, they were

handed questionnaires with seven items. Each item had a scale from 1 through 10, at which the

participants would have to select based on their opinions. One of the items were: “Please indicate

the overall quality of the program you are following”, the data on programme satisfaction was

collected this way.

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

collected this way. All the available and questionnaire data were recorded and analyzed onto a

program known as Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. The statistical tests

on that data that were used, included: descriptive statistics (frequencies, descriptive, and crosstabs),

compare means (independent samples t-test), and correlation (bivariate, as we were comparing the

grades of 1.3 and 2.2).

Results

A bivariate analysis has shown a correlation existing between the grades of 1.3 and 2.2. The

correlation was about r=.553, indicative of a moderate and linear correlation. The points on the

scatterplot do not cluster as much in relation to the line of best fit, but a positive linear pattern does

show. There are a few outliers that deviate from the line of best fit. As the overall pattern suggests,

those who scored either high or low in course 1.3 tended to score higher in course 2.2, but a few

points stray far below from the line of best fit; this indicates that a low percentage of the

participants do not necessarily score better in later courses. However, another outlier scored

considerably low in course 1.3, but scored higher in course 2.2; indicating that a low percentage of

the participants can also score better in later courses.

Table 1

Crosstabulation of Progress and Programme

Programme
Progress Pedagogy Psychology(Dutch) Psychology(International) Total

Retake 1 3 5 9
Compensate 52 73 32 157
Safe 12 23 9 44

Total 65 99 46 210

Based on the crosstabulation, the marginal probabilities of each progress are as follows:

About 4.3 % (P=.043) of the participants must do a retake, those who must compensate are about

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

74.8% (P=.748), and the participants who are safe make about 21.0% (P=.021). Upon further

calculation, the conditional probability of being safe given the participants’ programme is as

follows. The probability that a student is safe, given they study in Psychology (Dutch) is P=.233.

The probability of being safe, given the participant studies Psychology (International) is P=.196.

Once again, the probability of being safe, given that the participant studies Pedagogy is P=.184.

These results reveal that a student being safe is not independent from either taking Psychology

(Dutch) or Psychology (International), as the probability results do not equal to the probability of

the majority being safe: Psy (Dutch)=.233 ≠ Safe=.21; Psy (International)=.196 ≠ Safe=.21.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of Grades 1.3 and 2.2

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Variance

Deviation

Grades 1.3 210 3.00 8.33 5.5143 1.02237 1.045

Grades 2.2 210 1.73 9.92 6.2290 1.73090 2.996
Credits obtained midway 210 102 138 119.24 7.240 52.424

Valid N (List Wise) 210

Above is a table with some descriptive statistics on both grades in each of the courses. One

notable observation is the min. and max. value differing in 1.3 and 2.2. This exhibited how the

grades varied in each course, that being how people scored lower in course 2.2 compared to 1.3.

The distribution of grades 1.3 was computed by calculating the percentile and z-scores for

each student. From the results, after computing, it showed that the percentile scores did not fully

coincide with the given z-scores. For instance, students who had a percentile score of 99.29 had a

z-score 2.75735 to which, when rounded off, should be three standard deviations away from the

mean. This indicated that while the distribution was not perfect, it was still approximately a normal

distribution. Another notable observation showed that most of the participants scored a 4 to 6.

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

The standard error is the estimated standard deviation from a set of data. By calculating by

hand, the formula is as follows: SE x̅ =s/√n. In relation to grades 2.2, the SE=.0705 and when

computed through SPSS, the result is the same. The confidence interval (CI), by hand, is calculated

by first finding the margin of error: m=z*(σ/√n). Next, one must add and subtract the margin of

error with the mean: x̅±m. By hand calculation, with a 95% CI, the population mean is located

between (5.993, 6.464). With SPSS, the result is still the same.

An independent samples test was used to test the first hypotheses. In course 1.3, about 123

of the participants had less than 120 credits (Mcredits= 5.547, SD=1.077) and 87 had more than 120

credits (Mcredits= 5.467, SD=.943). The mean scores of course 1.3 showed that the variances were

not equal and that the differences were significant, t(199)=.570, p=.167. In course 2.2, about 123 of

the participants had less than 120 credits (Mcredits= 6.184, SD=1.760) and 87 had more than 120

credits (Mcredits= 6.293, SD=1.698). The mean scores of course 2.2 showed that the variances were

equal and that the differences were not significant, t(208)=-.446, p=.639.

The same test was used on testing the second hypotheses. About 125 of the participants, in

course 2.2, scored a grade below 5.5 (Mgrades= 6.192, SD=1.749). The other 85 participants scored a

grade above 5.5 and higher (Mgrades= 6.283, SD=1.713). The mean scores of satisfaction showed

that the variances were equal and that the differences were not significant, t(208)=-.371, p=.750.

Conclusion

The study’s main aim was to research any differences in statistical grades in both courses

1.3 and 2.2, in terms of credit accumulation and satisfaction in course 2.2. Based on the data and

statistical tests, course 1.3 proved the alternative hypothesis correct, thus rejecting the null

hypothesis. Meaning that there was a difference with those who had less than 120 credits and those

who had more. For course 2.2, in terms of accumulated credits, the null hypothesis was proven

true. Meaning that there were no differences in how much credits were gained in this course.

Course 1.3 Practical assignment

Practical assignment
Please type your answer within the borders of the TEXT BOXES below. You are not allowed to change the format, text outside the
boxes will not be graded.

In terms of the statistic grades of course satisfaction, the differences between the students

who either gained a score either less or greater than 5.5, yielded no significant difference. In this

case, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This indicated that regardless of what grade the

students had gained, it had no effect over their opinion on the course itself.

To summarize, the research team was able to identify differences in the credits gained by

students, at east in course 1.3 and not in 2.2. For the satisfaction of the programme, in 2.2, they had

found no differences.

Course 1.3 Practical assignment