Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Nahla Aljojo et al.
Compared the exam result of students of group(B) using the TASAM system with no professor
explanation of the chapter (Measures of Central tendency and Measures of Variability) with the
exam result of group (B) not using the TASAM system with professor explanation of the chapter
Correlation
In addition feedback was gained from a survey of the students using the TASAM system. The
feedback of student’s Survey overall students seemed to have enjoyed using the TASAM system and
there seemed to have been a positive impact on learning performance (see table 11). The results of
these comparisons and the survey will be discussed in the next section.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Test system (TASAM)
4.1.1 Result of A comparison of first case of group (A) with second case of group (A)
H0: group (A) using the TASAM system no professor explanation of the chapters correlation and
Measures of Variability (after adaptive) will learn significantly better than students of group (A) not
using the TASAM system only using the professor explanation of the chapter (Measures of Central
tendency) (before adaptive). To determine if the students of first case of group (A) (after adaptive)
significantly better than second case of group (A) (before adaptive), The main results of the one way
repeated measures analysis of variance are presented in Table 6
Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA for within subject variable. This table can be read much the
same as for one way independent ANOVA. There is a sum of squares for the within subject effects of
system test, which tells us how much of the total variability is explained by experimental effect (i.e
differences in before adaptive and after adaptive. there are an error term, which is the amount of
unexplained variation across the conditions of the repeated measures variable these sums of squares
are converted into mean squares by dividing by the degrees of freedom. The F-ratio is obtained by
dividing the mean squares for experimental effect (12410.012) by error mean squares (31.067). As
with between –group ANOVA, this test statistics represents the ratio systematic variance to
unsystematic variance. The value of the F-ratio (12410.012/31.067 = 399.46) is then compared
against a critical value for 1 and 27 degrees of freedom. The significance of F is 0 which is
significance because it is less than the criterion value of .05 we can, therefore, conclude that there
was significance difference in scores of students before adaptive and after adaptive.
The main values for the scores students of first case of group (A) (after adaptive) and students of
second case of group (A) (before adaptive) and standard deviation are listed in Table 5 and it appears
that the mean scores for after adaptive are much higher than the main scores for before adaptive
(12.46> 11.75). Analysis of student performance indicated first case of group (A) after adaptive
significantly better than students of second case of group (A) before adaptive are also listed in the
Table 6. From the before adaptive and after adaptive scores, it has been found that there was a very
significant difference of scores; P=.045