Tutorial 4

1. A researcher wants to investigate the effect of blended learning on motivation to learn science. By
using SPSS file, there are score obtained before and after the intervention.
a. State null and alternative hypothesis.
b. State the assumptions.
c. What is your conclusion.
(Code: PREMOT = before the intervention; POSTMOT = after the intervention)
2. A researcher wants to investigate the effect of using i-think strategy on interest in learning science.
By using SPSS file, there are score obtained before and after the intervention.
a. State null and alternative hypothesis.
b. State the assumptions.
c. What is your conclusion.
(Code: PREMINAT = before the intervention; POSTMINAT = after the intervention)

1. a. Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the mean scores of motivation to learn science before
and after the intervention of blended learning.

Alternative Hypothesis
There is a significant difference between the mean scores of motivation to learn science before and
after the intervention of blended learning

b. Assumptions

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
PREMOT .181 30 .013 .904 30 .010
POSTMOT .164 30 .038 .874 30 .002
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The p value for PREMOT is .013 (p < 0.05), therefore the distribution of this data is NOT NORMAL.

The p value for POSTMOT is .038 (p < 0.05), therefore the distribution of this data is NOT NORMAL.

Statistics
PREMOT POSTMOT
N Valid 30 30
 Missing 0 0
Skewness -.911 -1.174
Std. Error of Skewness .427 .427
Kurtosis .391 .897
Std. Error of Kurtosis .833 .833

Based on the statistics table, referring to the degree of skewness, (PREMOT -.911; POSTMOT 1.174) the
data is considered normally distributed. Therefore, paired t-test sample can be carried out.

Decision

Paired Samples Test

Sig. (2-
Paired Differences t df tailed)
95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper
Pair 1 PREMOT - -3.83333 7.84366 1.43205 -6.76220 -.90446 -2.677 29 .012
POSTMOT

Since the p value is 0.012 (p < 0.05), therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there is a
significant difference between the mean scores of motivation to learn science before and after the
intervention of blended learning.

Interpretation of results

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 PREMOT 37.7667 30 6.37713 1.16430
POSTMOT 41.6000 30 6.70872 1.22484

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 PREMOT & POSTMOT 30 .282 .131

The result shows that, there is a significant positive relationship between the pre test and post test score
after the intervention (r = 0.282 , p = 0.131)

Report/Result (APA style)

Paired Samples Test

 Sig. (2-
Paired Differences t df tailed)
95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper
Pair 1 PREMOT - -3.83333 7.84366 1.43205 -6.76220 -.90446 -2.677 29 .012
POSTMOT

A paired samples t-test was performed comparing the effect of blended learning on motivation to
learn science. The result shows that the mean difference is negative (M = -3.833 , SD = 7.843). This
revealed that there is a significant difference t(29) = -2.677, p < 0.05 between the mean scores of
motivation to learn science before and after the intervention of blended learning.

c. Conclusion
Thus, the finding indicated that there is effect of blended learning on motivation to learn Science.

2. a. Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the mean scores of interest to learn Science before and
after the intervention of i-think strategy.

Alternative Hypothesis
There is a significant difference between the mean scores of interest to learn Science before and
after the intervention of i-think strategy.

b. Assumptions

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
PREMINAT .173 30 .023 .902 30 .009
*
POSTMINAT .122 30 .200 .950 30 .164
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The p value for PREMINAT is .023 (p < 0.05), therefore the distribution of this data is NOT NORMAL .

The p value for POSTMINAT is .0200 (p > 0.05), therefore the distribution of this data is NORMAL.

Statistics
 PREMINAT POSTMINAT
N Valid 30 30
Missing 0 0
Skewness -1.194 -.669
Std. Error of Skewness .427 .427
Kurtosis 1.556 -.076
Std. Error of Kurtosis .833 .833

Based on the statistics table, referring to the degree of skewness, (PREMINAT -1.194; POSTMINAT -0.669)
the data is considered normally distributed. Therefore, paired t-test sample can be carried out.

Decision

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval Sig. (2-
Std. Std. Error of the Difference t df tailed)
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper
Pair 1 PREMINAT - -1.40000 9.80007 1.78924 -5.05941 2.25941 -.782 29 .440
POSTMINAT

Since the p value is 0.440 (p > 0.05), therefore the null hypothesis is fail to reject. Hence, there is no
significant difference between the mean scores of interest to learn Science before and after the
intervention of i-think strategy.

Interpretation of results

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 PREMINAT 38.2667 30 6.43232 1.17438
POSTMINAT 39.6667 30 8.82525 1.61126

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 PREMINAT & POSTMINAT 30 .205 .278

The result shows that, there is only a slight positive relationship between the pre-test and post-test score after
the intervention (r = 0.205 , p = 0.278)

APA Style report

 Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval Sig. (2-
Std. Std. Error of the Difference t df tailed)
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper
Pair 1 PREMINAT - -1.40000 9.80007 1.78924 -5.05941 2.25941 -.782 29 .440
POSTMINAT

A paired samples t-test was performed to investigate the effect of using i-think strategy on interest
in learning science. The result shows that the mean difference is negative (M = -1.40 , SD = 9.80).
This revealed that there is no significant difference t(29) = -0.782, p > 0.05 between the mean
scores of interest to learn Science before and after the intervention of i-think strategy.

c. Conclusion
Thus, the finding indicated that there’s no effect of using i-think strategy on interest in learning
science.