{"id":78173,"date":"2021-12-01T05:22:22","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T05:22:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/2021\/12\/01\/section-b-respond-to-all-parts-please-number-all-responses-accurately-e-g\/"},"modified":"2021-12-01T05:22:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-01T05:22:22","slug":"section-b-respond-to-all-parts-please-number-all-responses-accurately-e-g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/2021\/12\/01\/section-b-respond-to-all-parts-please-number-all-responses-accurately-e-g\/","title":{"rendered":"SECTION B: Respond to ALL parts .Please number all responses accurately (e.g.,"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>SECTION B:<\/p>\n<p> Respond to ALL parts .Please number all responses accurately (e.g., 4a and 4b).<\/p>\n<p> As noted in the instructions, your interpretation must be in APA style.<\/p>\n<p> A researcher was interested in assessing the effect of type of learning on university students\u2019 academic self-efficacy. As such, he recruited 150 students and randomly divided them into three<\/p>\n<p> (3) groups of 50. Over a period of four (4) weeks, students in the first condition experienced face-to-face learning, those in the second condition participated in fully online learning, and students in the third condition underwent blended learning (with a mix of face-to-face and online classes).<\/p>\n<p> After the four (4) weeks, all students completed a 40-item, 5-point Likert scale measuring academic self-efficacy, which was adapted from Gafoor and Ashraf (2007). The scale was computed to create a composite variable, with higher numbers on the scale meaning greater academic self-efficacy among the students. The researcher then entered the data into SPSS.<\/p>\n<p> Firstly, the researcher compared face-to-face and blended learning. He hypothesized that university students who participated in face-to-face learning would have higher academic self-efficacy than those who experienced blended learning. He therefore conducted an appropriate statistical analysis to test his hypothesis. Based on the SPSS tables shown<\/p>\n<p> below, fully interpret the researcher\u2019s results in APA style to determine if his first hypothesis was supported. In your response, be sure to include whether the assumption of<\/p>\n<p> homogeneity of variance was met.<\/p>\n<p> (5 marks)<\/p>\n<p> Type of Learning<\/p>\n<p> N<\/p>\n<p> Mean<\/p>\n<p> Std. Deviation<\/p>\n<p> Std. Error Mean<\/p>\n<p> Academic Self-Efficacy<\/p>\n<p> Face-To-Face<\/p>\n<p> 50<\/p>\n<p> 125.94<\/p>\n<p> 32.597<\/p>\n<p> 4.610<\/p>\n<p> Blended<\/p>\n<p> 50<\/p>\n<p> 127.96<\/p>\n<p> 32.027<\/p>\n<p> 4.529<\/p>\n<p> Levene&#8217;s Test<\/p>\n<p> for Equality of<\/p>\n<p> Variances<\/p>\n<p> t-test for Equality of Means<\/p>\n<p> 95% Confidence<\/p>\n<p> Interval of the<\/p>\n<p> Sig. (2-<\/p>\n<p> Mean<\/p>\n<p> Std. Error<\/p>\n<p> Difference<\/p>\n<p> F<\/p>\n<p> Sig.<\/p>\n<p> t<\/p>\n<p> df<\/p>\n<p> tailed)<\/p>\n<p> Difference<\/p>\n<p> Difference<\/p>\n<p> Lower<\/p>\n<p> Upper<\/p>\n<p> Academic<\/p>\n<p> Equal<\/p>\n<p> .026<\/p>\n<p> .871<\/p>\n<p> -.313<\/p>\n<p> 98<\/p>\n<p> .755<\/p>\n<p> -2.020<\/p>\n<p> 6.463<\/p>\n<p> -14.845<\/p>\n<p> 10.805<\/p>\n<p> Self-<\/p>\n<p> variances<\/p>\n<p> Efficacy<\/p>\n<p> assumed<\/p>\n<p> Equal<\/p>\n<p> -.313<\/p>\n<p> 97.969<\/p>\n<p> .755<\/p>\n<p> -2.020<\/p>\n<p> 6.463<\/p>\n<p> -14.845<\/p>\n<p> 10.805<\/p>\n<p> variances<\/p>\n<p> not assumed<\/p>\n<p> QUESTION 4 (B) IS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE<\/p>\n<p> Then, the researcher compared all three types of learning. His second hypothesis was that face-to-face and blended learning would lead to higher academic self-efficacy among<\/p>\n<p> university students when compared to fully online learning. The researcher thus conducted an appropriate statistical test in SPSS. Use his SPSS tables below to fully interpret the<\/p>\n<p> results in APA style and determine whether his second hypothesis was met.<\/p>\n<p> (20 marks)<\/p>\n<p> Academic Self-Efficacy<\/p>\n<p> N<\/p>\n<p> 95% Confidence Interval for Mean<\/p>\n<p> Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound<\/p>\n<p> Upper Bound Minimum Maximum<\/p>\n<p> Face-To-Face<\/p>\n<p> 50<\/p>\n<p> 125.94<\/p>\n<p> 32.597<\/p>\n<p> 4.610<\/p>\n<p> 116.68<\/p>\n<p> 135.20<\/p>\n<p> 74<\/p>\n<p> 193<\/p>\n<p> Online<\/p>\n<p> 50<\/p>\n<p> 67.74<\/p>\n<p> 20.717<\/p>\n<p> 2.930<\/p>\n<p> 61.85<\/p>\n<p> 73.63<\/p>\n<p> 42<\/p>\n<p> 118<\/p>\n<p> Blended<\/p>\n<p> 50<\/p>\n<p> 127.96<\/p>\n<p> 32.027<\/p>\n<p> 4.529<\/p>\n<p> 118.86<\/p>\n<p> 137.06<\/p>\n<p> 64<\/p>\n<p> 190<\/p>\n<p> Total<\/p>\n<p> 150<\/p>\n<p> 107.21<\/p>\n<p> 40.161<\/p>\n<p> 3.279<\/p>\n<p> 100.73<\/p>\n<p> 113.69<\/p>\n<p> 42<\/p>\n<p> 193<\/p>\n<p> Academic Self-Efficacy<\/p>\n<p> Sum of Squares<\/p>\n<p> df<\/p>\n<p> Mean Square<\/p>\n<p> F<\/p>\n<p> Sig.<\/p>\n<p> Between Groups<\/p>\n<p> 116962.813<\/p>\n<p> 2<\/p>\n<p> 58481.407<\/p>\n<p> 69.691<\/p>\n<p> .000<\/p>\n<p> Within Groups<\/p>\n<p> 123356.360<\/p>\n<p> 147<\/p>\n<p> 839.159<\/p>\n<p> Total<\/p>\n<p> 240319.173<\/p>\n<p> 149<\/p>\n<p> Dependent Variable: Academic Self-Efficacy Bonferroni<\/p>\n<p> (I) Type of Learning (J) Type of Learning Mean Difference (I-J)<\/p>\n<p> Std. Error<\/p>\n<p> Sig.<\/p>\n<p> 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound<\/p>\n<p> Face-To-Face<\/p>\n<p> Online<\/p>\n<p> 58.200*<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> .000<\/p>\n<p> 44.17<\/p>\n<p> 72.23<\/p>\n<p> Blended<\/p>\n<p> -2.020<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> 1.000<\/p>\n<p> -16.05<\/p>\n<p> 12.01<\/p>\n<p> Online<\/p>\n<p> Face-To-Face<\/p>\n<p> -58.200*<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> .000<\/p>\n<p> -72.23<\/p>\n<p> -44.17<\/p>\n<p> Blended<\/p>\n<p> -60.220*<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> .000<\/p>\n<p> -74.25<\/p>\n<p> -46.19<\/p>\n<p> Blended<\/p>\n<p> Face-To-Face<\/p>\n<p> 2.020<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> 1.000<\/p>\n<p> -12.01<\/p>\n<p> 16.05<\/p>\n<p> Online<\/p>\n<p> 60.220*<\/p>\n<p> 5.794<\/p>\n<p> .000<\/p>\n<p> 46.19<\/p>\n<p> 74.25<\/p>\n<p> *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SECTION B: Respond to ALL parts .Please number all responses accurately (e.g., 4a and 4b). As noted in the instructions, your interpretation must be in APA style. A researcher was interested in assessing the effect of type of learning on university students\u2019 academic self-efficacy. As such, he recruited 150 students and randomly divided them into [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-78173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78173"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78173\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}