January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Results
The first analysis was to determine if any significant differences between the students’ views existed on the
“importance” subscale.
Table 2. t-test results for gender on the “importance” subscale
Subscale Gender n X sd df t p
Importance
Male
Female
925
633
3.91
3.66
0.81
0.76
1556 6.029* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level
As shown in Table 2, statistically significant differences were found in terms of gender of the students [t(1556) = 6.029,
p < 0.05]. A higher mean rating suggested that male students were more in agreement with the importance of science
and technology courses than the female students were.
Table 3. Mann-Whitney U results for gender on the “necessity” subscale
Subscale Gender n Mean rank Sum of ranks MWU p
Necessity
Male
Female
925
633
831.42
703.62
769068.00
445393.00
244732.0* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level; Levene: 10.802, p < 0.05
Table 3 presents the summary of analysis Mann-Whitney U comparing the mean scores of the male and female
students in terms of necessity of the science and technology classes. With regard to gender differences, it appears
from the data that there was significant gender difference on the necessity to learn science and technology (MWU =
244732.0, p < 0.05). The statistically significant difference between gender groups suggests that male students had
higher mean scores than did female students. Male participants accepted the necessity of science and technology
more than female students did.
Table 4. Mann-Whitney U results for gender on the “learning environment” subscale
Subscale Gender n Mean rank Sum of ranks MWU p
Learning
environment
Male
Female
925
633
834.21
699.55
771644.50
442816.50
242155.5* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level Levene: 4.925, p < 0.05
Mann-Whitney U results in Table 3 revealed statistically significant differences between the student groups in gender
(MWU = 242155.5, p < 0.05). The significant MWU value obtained for gender demonstrated that female students
found the learning environment in science and technology classes less sufficient and effective than did male students.
Table 5. t-test results for gender on the “teaching strategy” subscale
Subscale Gender n X sd df t p
Teaching strategy
Male
Female
925
633
3.88
3.64
0.80
0.76
1556 5.919* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level
As illustrated in Table 5, t-test results revealed significant differences between male and female students in terms of
teaching strategy of the science and technology teachers [t(1556) = 5.919, p < 0.05]. Female participants tended to
adopt teaching strategies used in science and technology classes less efficiently and effectively than did male
students.
Discussion
The quality of learning has always been one of the most important concerns in an educational setting. Learning is a
complex activity, and several factors such as students’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes; teaching resources;
teachers’ skill; curriculum; physical condition; and the design of the school facility should be taken into
119