Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in ... - Webs

Recommendations

Info

ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS minimum of 60 research subjects per group to get approximate power of 80 with a medium effect size. A two-part questionnaire was administered by the researcher to the subjects. Part-1 of the questionnaire consisted of eight independent variables as demographic characteristics viz: Nature of institute, nature of department, designation, age, sex, qualification, total length of service in the present department and experience. Part- II of the questionnaire consisted of 27 Likert-type items, responded on a 5 point scale from "Always to Never", carrying a value of 5 to 1 respectively. Items designated positively are scored by 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Items designated negatively are scored in the reverse manner. Omitted or invalid responses are given a score of 3.The questionnaire was developed by the researcher himself. Twenty-Seven items of the questionnaire were the communicative behaviors of a chairperson which make his/her role as a communicator. The questionnaire was personally administered by the researcher to measure the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication in universities and postgraduate colleges in the light of teachers‟ views. The scale reflects amount of involvement of heads of teaching departments in the process of communication. For the purpose of reliability of the scale, a random sample of 40 teachers and 20 heads was selected for the pilot study. This number was excluded from the final sample. Cronbach‟s coefficient Alpha formula was used in estimating the internal consistency of the scale. Obtained Cronbach‟s Alpha was 0.937 for the scale Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient usually ranges between 0 and 1. There is no really lower limit to the coefficient. The nearer the reliability coefficient is to 1.0, the better the internal consistency of the item in the scale. In general the reliabilities less than 0.6 are considered to be poor, those in the 0.70 range are acceptable, and those over 0.8 are considered good (Sekaran, 1999). George and Mallery (2003) gave these rules of thumb: “≥.9 =Excellent, ≥ .8 = Good, ≥ .7 = Acceptable, ≥.6 = Questionable, ≥ .5 = Poor, and ≤ .5 = Unacceptable” (cited in Gliem and Gliem, 2003). The scale was developed by the researcher himself, so its Cronbach‟s Alpha could not be compared to any other scale in the literature. The content validity of the scale was checked with the help of researcher‟ Ph.D research supervisor and experts in social sciences. One-Way ANOVA was utilized to find out Means difference among opinions of teachers by designation, age, experience and qualification in the present department. The SPSS statistical software package, version 11.0, was used to analyze the data. 5. Results Table 1: Comparison among teachers‟ views by designation regarding the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication Between Groups Among Groups Sum of Squares 1378.613 96485.155 Df 3 289 Mean Squares 459.538 333.859 COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 274 F 1.376 Sig .256 JANUARY 2011 VOL 2, NO 9
ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS The above table shows that F (3, 289) = 1.376, p= 0.256, since p= 0.256 > α= 0.05, means that null hypothesis of no significant difference among opinions of teachers by designation about the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication in universities and postgraduate colleges is accepted. This reflects that designation of teachers does not make difference in their opinions regarding the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication. Table 2: Comparison among opinions of teachers by age Between Groups Among Groups Sum of Squares 1110.432 9670.432 Df 2 290 Mean Squares 555.216 333.632 COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 275 F 1.664 Table 2 illustrates that F (2, 290) =1.664, p= 0.191, since p= 0.191 > α =0.05, means that null hypothesis of no significant difference among teachers‘ opinions by age about the role of heads of teaching departments of teaching departments in the promotion of communication at postgraduate level is accepted. This Means that age of teachers does not make difference in their opinions regarding the role of heads of teaching departments in the the promotion of communication. Table 3: Comparison among opinions of teachers by experience about the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication Between Groups Among Groups Sum of Squares 1812.695 96051.073 Df 2 290 Mean Squares 906.348 331.211 F 2.736 The above table indicates that F (2, 289)= 2.736, p= 0.066, since p=0.066 > α= 0.05, denotes that null hypothesis of no significant difference among teachers‘ opinions by experience regarding the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication is accepted. This is concluded that experience does not make difference in the views of teachers about the role of heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication. Table 4: Comparison among opinions of teachers by qualification about the communicative role of heads of teaching departments Sum of Mean Squares Squares Df Between 346.323 2 173.182 F Sig .191 Sig .066 Sig JANUARY 2011 VOL 2, NO 9
Page 1 and 2:
ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JO
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
ijcrb.webs.com SuppFctrz Equal vari
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224: ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JO
Page 247 and 248: 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 ij
Page 273: ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JO
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Employee Engagement Employee involv
Page 385 and 386:
Model ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLIN
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Salo & Karjaluoto (2007) Mukherjee
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489 and 490:
Page 491 and 492:
Page 493 and 494:
Page 495 and 496:
Page 497 and 498:
Page 499 and 500:
Page 501 and 502:
Page 503 and 504:
Page 505 and 506:
Page 507 and 508:
Page 509 and 510:
Page 511 and 512:
Page 513 and 514:
Page 515 and 516:
Page 517 and 518:
Page 519 and 520:
Page 521 and 522:
Page 523 and 524:
Page 525 and 526:
Page 527 and 528:
Page 529 and 530:
Page 531 and 532:
Page 533 and 534:
Page 535 and 536:
Page 537 and 538:
Page 539 and 540:
Page 541 and 542:
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Page 547 and 548:
Page 549 and 550:
Page 551 and 552:
Page 553 and 554:
Page 555 and 556:
Page 557 and 558:
Page 559 and 560:
Page 561 and 562:
show all

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in ... - Webs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?