I I|GSF hr tt.l.rt!.t tn.!. tr tlltbi - Higher Education Commission

6.2 RESULT INTERPRTATION
6,2.1. Po$t-t€st lroking aa the <strong>rt</strong>sulis oflhe post-tEsts as shown
in tables t4,t 9,;18.), OrE can cleedy s€! tba! dF .reerin€ntal
grows i! te thR! schoob bavc ordp€rforn€d lbE @ntrol oD€s.
Taking the fi$t school i.e., Al-KrMail d|€ pre-test results as
D6$€d by th€ 'nea!' arc almost th. salne in ib€ two 8ro'+s (3.3)
fo. the exp€rirnental gror.p and (3.1) for tllc conrrol group tse€ table
m.11. The Post-iest r€sult, how.v€r, are different This lime the
€xperinental group has renarksbly outperfonned the control goup
with a lrr@ of (5) for the dp€riroenial group tud (3.2) for the
control grow lse€ rable 7]. Ushg the z-r,est !o s@ ifthe difi€r€nce
of llre is sisDifi@t d no! it is foud tbat the saryle z r"jue js
45,which is gre$ter Oar 1.64 at 0.05 (5 p€r..nt lev€l of
coDfder} ltr orber wor&. the difcr€ncr b€twe€n ib. two maru
is sisrificant (table I0).
Coning to lhe s€cond boy s.hool, Hail ihe rcsulrs of the
post-t€sr are given in table (8). Hcre lgaiD the experi@Dtal group
has scorcd hiShq thtu the condol grow and lhe difreme betwen
fte plE-tesr ald post-te.st p€rfornancr quiie cle3r [see lables 2,5 &
71. However, when lesting this against z-Gst it was fourd that the
sampl€ z ialue is -50 which i5 < (Ls! than) 1.6,4.In olher words, th.
H. is acc€pted ftis tine and thu! th€ ditr€r€nce between the
dperimental gmup and rhe contol group is also lignfi@t a! the
sain€ levei ofconfddce (table l0).
Coming ro the sirl sohool dle pre-test n]E4 e (4.6) dd
(4.3) foi lhe exp€rihdral snd clntol srorp Bpe.tively [tsblg 6]-
In <strong>tt</strong>|€ post-iesl lhe expcimental grotD scDr€d (5.7) while tlie
co<strong>rt</strong>rol aoup s.ored (4.6)<strong>tt</strong>abl.9l. This diff€rEr.€ in m,ars js
foEld 27.J which is significa<strong>tn</strong> a! it b > (grstsr tm) 1.64 (table
l0).
From wha! is said abovc, erd from lhc poi<strong>rt</strong> of view of
statistiesr it is @luded ihar rhc p€rfornanc€ of the erydiDenbr