Download Attitudes to e-Governance in Higher Education: Comparative Study of Educators and more Lecture notes Science education in PDF only on Docsity!
CHAPTER – 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1.0 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data Analysis is the process of systematically applying statistical and/or logical techniques to describe and illustrate, condense and recap, and evaluate data. According to Shamoo and Resnik (2003) various analytic procedures “provide a way of drawing inductive inferences from data and distinguishing the signal (the phenomenon of interest) from the noise (statistical fluctuations) present in the data”. It also required an alert, flexible, and open mind. The data of the present study have been analyzed below the following points:
- Comparison the attitude of Teachers and administrators towards e-Governance in higher education institutions
- Comparison the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (Govt. v/s private)
- Comparison the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (UG v/s int. UG&PG)
- Comparison the attitude of Administrators towards e-Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (Govt. v/s private)
- Comparison the attitude of Administrators towards e-Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (UG v/s Int.UG &PG)
- Identification of the problems by administrators (principals) in adopting e- Governance in higher education institutions
4.2.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
The detail of the analysis and interpretation data of the study is given under:
4.2.1 Comparison the attitude of Teachers and administrators
towards e-Governance in higher education institutions
Table 4.
The showing the Comparison of the attitude of Teachers and administrators towards e-Governance in higher education institutions.
Comparison Groups N M SD Calculated “t” Value
DF Table value of “t” at 0.5 level
Sig.
Administrators 40 93.25 8.
0.425 73 1. Teachers 35 92.457 7.
Table 4.1 shows the Comparison of the attitude of teachers and administrators towards e-Governance in higher education institutions. From the table it is found that the calculated “t” value 0.425 is significantly less than the table value of “t” at 0.05 level of confidence for 73 DF. For 73 DF, table value of “t” is 1.999. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there exists no significant difference between the teachers and administrators in respect of their attitude towards e-Governance in higher education institutions.in other words ,it
For 26 DF, table value of “t” is 2.055. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there exists no significant difference between the Govt. teachers and private teaches in respect of their attitude towards e- Governance in higher education institutions. In other words, it may be inferred that the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions is hardly affected by their management of the institutions.
4.2.3 Comparison the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in
higher education institutions in relation to their background
variables (UG v/s UG&PG)
Table 4.
The showing the Comparison of the attitude of Teachers towards e-
Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their
background variables (UG v/s int. UG&PG)
Comparison Groups N M SD Calculated “t” Value
DF Table value of “t” at 0.5 level
Sig.
Teachers(UG) 19 90.842 6.
1.422 27 2. Teachers(int.UG &PG)
Table 4.3 shows the Comparison of the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (UG v/s int. UG&PG). From the table it is found that the calculated “t” value 1.422 is significantly less than the table value of “t” at 0.05 level of confidence for 27 DF. For 27 DF, table value of “t” is 2.051. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there exists no significant difference between the UG teachers and int.UG&PG teachers in respect of their attitude towards e- Governance in higher education institutions. In other words, it may be inferred that the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions is hardly affected by their level of the institutions.
4.2.4 Comparison the attitude of Administrators towards e-Governance in
higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (Govt. v/s private)
Table 4.
The showing the Comparison of the attitude of Administrators towards e- Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (Govt. v/s private)
Comparison Groups N M SD Calculated “t” Value
DF Table value of “t” at 0.5 level
Sig.
Administrators (Govt.)
Administrators (pvt.)
Table 4.3 shows the Comparison of the attitude of administrators towards e- Governance in higher education institutions in relation to their background variables (UG v/s UG&PG). From the table it is found that the calculated “t” value 0.856 is significantly less than the table value of “t” at 0.05 level of confidence for 8 DF. For 8 DF, table value of “t” is 2.306. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there exists no significant difference between the UG administrators and int. UG & PG administrators in respect of their attitude towards e-Governance in higher education institutions. In other words, it may be inferred that the attitude of teachers towards e-Governance in higher education institutions is hardly affected by their level of the institutions.
4.2.6 Identification of the problems by administrators
(principals) in adopting e-Governance in higher education
institutions
