See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303819226

An Analysis Of Students' Interest in Mathematics in Relation to Gender of

Students and Type Of School

Article  in  International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research · January 2012

CITATION READS

1 6,244

2 authors, including:

Hemanta Kr. Sarmah

Gauhati University
45 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research scholars leading to a Ph.D degree of Gauhati University, Assam, India View project

A study on some fractals and their related dimensions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hemanta Kr. Sarmah on 06 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Mathematics Research.
ISSN 0976-5840 Volume 4, Number 6 (2012), pp. 707-725
© International Research Publication House
http://www.irphouse.com

An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in

Relation to Gender of Students and Type Of School

1
H.K. Sarmah and 2B. Bora Hazarika
1
Department of Mathematics, Gauhati University, Guwahati-14
2
Department of Mathematics, Narangi Anchalik College, Narangi, Guwahati-26

Abstract:

Interest plays a dominant role in making a student learn something. There may
be various factors effecting the interest of students in the subject mathematics.
The present study aims at investigating the effect of gender and type of school
on ‘mathematics interest’ of students. Interest in mathematics was measured
through standardized ‘INTEREST INVENTORY’. How ever, in this paper our
objective is to study the ‘mathematics interest’ of a population of class VIII
students of Guwahati. The term ‘different types’ of schools referred to the
schools, viz, normal co-educational school, only boys’ school, only girls’
school and co-educational school segregated by gender. In this context Govt.
schools under SEBA, private schools under SEBA and CBSE were taken into
account. The sample was collected by stratified random sampling technique.
The analysis was done to asses the difference in ‘mathematics interest’
between girl and boy students of different types of schools. Statistical tools
used for analysis of data were measures of central tendency, measures of
dispersion and test of significance.

Key Words : interest, gender, types of school, interest inventory.

Introduction :
Mathematics occupies an important place in the curriculum. Keeping in view its
importance, the ‘Education Commission’ (1964-66) recommended it as a compulsory
subject for students at school level [3]. The ‘National Policy of Education’(1986), also
considered the importance of mathematics in general education and suggest that,
“Mathematics should be visualized as a vehicle to train a child to think, reason,
analyze and to articulate logically. Apart from being a specific subject, it should be
treated as concomitant to any subject involving analysis and reasoning” [12]. The
National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE), 2000, also have the
708 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

same type of version [15, 16]. However, much of the curriculum development in
mathematics has taken place during the past thirty/forty years. This is because of the
new technological revolution which has an impact on society. It is fact that, despite
its utility and importance, mathematics is perceived by most pupils as difficult,
boring, not very practical, abstract etc. For most students, the subject is not a source
of satisfaction, but rather one of frustration, discouragement and anxiety [2, 6].
Recent NCERT research has indicated that the maximum number of failures at
secondary level is in mathematics and social sciences.
In the field of education, it has become a burning problem and the number of low
achiever students in mathematics in the school level are constantly increasing [4]. In
spite of the pedagogic progress and efforts of teachers of mathematics, results in
general are unsatisfactory.
This may be due to the lack of ‘interest’ of the students in the subject of
mathematics. Whatever one learns, ‘interest’ plays a dominant role in making him
learn that thing. When a student attributes high value to a particular subject area, then
it is said that the student has interest in that area [17]. According to Gardener and
Tamir [10], the term ‘interest’ refers to engage in some types of activities rather than
others. ‘Interest’ may be regarded as a highly specific type of attitude. When we are
interested in a particular phenomenon or activity, we are favorably inclined to it and
give time to it. The term ‘interest’ is used also to indicate a permanent mental
disposition. According to Mc Dougal, ‘taking interest’ means the bearing of a
condition or subject. If a person takes ‘interest’ in a subject, then he would centralize
himself in it despite being tired [8].
It is utmost needed to create interest of students in mathematics, so that different
intellectual traits like power of thinking, reasoning, analysis, synthesis, discovery etc
develop in the students and there by lead the society towards a positive and
constructive direction.
Different studies done so far clearly bring out the importance of ‘interest’ on
students’ achievement. Cronback (1963) confirmed positive correlation in ‘interest in
mathematics’ and mathematics achievement [3]. Several authors (e.g., Krapp, 1998a,
1998b, 1999; U.Schiefele, Krapp and Winteler, 1992) have proposed that ‘interest’
influences academic achievement and learning in school [7, 14]. But, a few number
of studies have been conducted so far in this area. So there is a great need to study
different factors which are responsible for making the students disinterested in
mathematics and suggest remedies for those.
One of the consistent finding in the literature on ‘mathematics interest’ is the
effect of gender. A number of studies have documented that boys are more interested
in mathematics than girls (Eccles et al., 1983; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Hoffmann et
al.,1998; Jacobs et al., 2002; OECD, 2004; Watt,2004) [18].
Again, after class VIII students enter into the secondary level which is a bridge
between primary level and higher secondary level. Secondary level decides in which
track a student will go. Therefore, it has a great impact on students’ life. Hence,
before entering this level, students’ ‘mathematics interest’ should be analyzed so that
drawbacks can be removed for their betterments.
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 709

In the present study an attempt has been made to analyze the ‘mathematics
interest’ of class VIII students of different types of school and related effects of
gender in this context. The factors which we have considered are the gender and type
of school, which includes schools managed by different authorities.

Objectives of the study:

1. To analyze ‘mathematics interest’ of upper primary school students.
2. To study the effect of gender differences in ‘mathematics interest’ of school
students of class VIII of different category of schools such as Govt. SEBA
(Secondary Education Board of Assam), Pvt. SEBA and Pvt. CBSE (Central
Board of Secondary Education).
3. To study the relationship of ‘mathematics interest’ of students with their
inclusion in different types of school such as normal co-educational school,
only girls’ school, only boys’ school and co-educational school segregated by
gender.

Hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ score of male
and female students.
1. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ scores
of girls from normal co-educational schools and only girls’ school.
2. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ scores
of girls from normal co-educational schools and co-educational schools
segregated by gender.
3. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ scores
of boys from normal co-educational schools and only boys’ school.
4. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ scores
of boys from normal co-educational schools and co-educational schools
segregated by gender.

Delimitation of the study:

1. The study was confined to the pupils of class VIII only.
2. The schools incorporated in the sample are only from-
a. Govt. and Govt. provincialized schools under SEBA
b. Permitted private schools under SEBA
c. Affiliated private schools under CBSE of Guwahati.

3. No schools other than English and Assamese medium were included in the
sample.
4. No schools existing in the rural areas were undertaken.
5. No ‘special schools’ like ‘Blind School’ etc. were included.
6. Data analysis was confined to measures of central tendency (mean), measures
of dispersion (standard deviation) and t-test.
710 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

Methodology:
Sample and Procedure:
Depending upon the nature of the study and the variables, descriptive survey method
was adopted in this study [1].
The computation of the appropriate sample size is generally considered the most
important step in statistical study. The sample size computation must be done
appropriately because if the sample size is not appropriate for a particular study then
the inference drawn from the sample will not be authentic and it might lead to some
wrong conclusions.
It can be shown that even when the original population is not normal, if we draw
samples of n items from the population and obtain the distribution of the sample
means, the distribution of the sample means become more and more normal as the
sample size increases. This fact is proved mathematically in the Central Limit
theorem. The theorem says that if we take samples of size n from any arbitrary
population (with any arbitrary distribution) and calculate x then sampling distribution

of x will approach the normal distribution with mean  and standard error i.e.
n
  
x ~ N ,  as the sample size n increases i.e. the sample becomes large. A
 n
sample size greater than 30 is considered to be large.
For the present study, initially the list of all Govt., Govt. provincialised, and Govt.
permitted private schools of Guwahati under SEBA were collected from the Inspector
of Schools, Kamrup District. Only the schools of English and Assamese medium were
included. No ‘special school’ of the city such as ‘Blind School’ etc were included in
the sample. Again, list of CBSE schools in the city had been collected from the
Regional office of CBSE, Guwahati. In this case, only the private schools were
included in the sample.
Cochran (1977) formula has been used to calculate the sample size [5]. Cochran
developed a formula to calculate a representative sample for proportions as
z 2 pq
n0  2 (1)
e

where, n0 is the sample size, z is the selected critical value of desired confidence
level, p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population,
q  1  p and e is the desired level of precision.
Precision is the measure of how close an estimate is to the actual characteristic in
the population. The degree of variability in the attributes being measured refers to the
distribution of attributes in the population. A proportion of 0.5 indicates the maximum
variability in a population, and hence it is often used in determining a more
conservative sample size.
While calculating the sample size, the desired confidence level is specified by the
z value. The z-value is a point along the abscissa of the standard normal distribution.
It is known from the table of normal curve that 95 percent of the total area of the
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 711

curve fall within the limits ±1.96σ , where σ is the standard deviation of the
distribution and 99 percent of that fall within the limits ±2.58σ . In other words,
95% of the area under the normal curve is specified by the z-value of 1.96 and z-
value of 2.58 will specify 99% of the cases under the normal curve. These will
represent confidence levels of 95% and 99% respectively.

Standard Normal Curve

For example, suppose we want to calculate a sample size of a large population

whose degree of variability is not known. Assuming the maximum variability which
is equal to 50% ( p = 0.5) and taking 95% confidence level with ±5% precision, the
calculation for required sample size will be as follows--
p =0.5 and hence q =1-0.5 = 0.5 ; e = 0.05 ; z =1.96

So, n0 
1.962 0.5 0.5 =384.16=384
0.052

Again, Cochran pointed out that if the population is finite then the sample size can
be reduced slightly. This is due to the fact that a very large population provides
proportionally more information than that of a smaller population. He proposed a
correction formula to calculate the final sample size in this case which is given below
n0
n (2)
1
 n0  1
N

where, n0 is the sample size derived from equation (1) and N is the population size.
In the present study total population size is N  13191 . According to the formula
(1), the sample size will be 384 at 95% confidence level with margin of error (.05).
n0
Here, is negligible and the sample size (384) does not exceed 5% of the
N
population size (13191). So, in this case, we did not use the correction formula to
712 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

calculate the final sample size. Hence, n0 is a satisfactory approximation to the

sample size .
Therefore, by using Cochran formula for sample size, the appropriate sample size
at 95% confidence level and 0.5% margin of error was found to be 384. Females and
males are about equally represented in the sample. Approximately 49.7% of the
sample are female students.
In our study, for selection of samples, stratified random sampling technique had
been adopted. The three categories of schools such as Government and Govt.
provincialised schools under SEBA, Permitted private schools under SEBA,
Affiliated private schools under CBSE of Guwahati were considered as the three
strata. The samples from each stratum are taken through simple random sampling
technique. The stratification is done to produce a gain in precision in the estimates of
characteristics of the whole population.
The stratification was done following the principles that –
1. The strata are non-overlapping and together comprise the whole population.
2. The strata are homogeneous within themselves with respect to the
characteristics under study

All the VIII standard students of Govt., private including SEBA and CBSE
schools of Guwahati formed the population of the study. The sample of the study
included 384 students from 13 schools of Guwahati .The sample can be considered
representative of the student population of Guwahati, with students coming from a
wide range of socio-economic backgrounds and from each of the three types of
schools such as Co-Educational, only Boys’ and only Girls’ schools of Guwahati.
The allocation of the sample to the different strata, that is to each category of
schools was done through the proportional allocation method of stratified random
sampling. This proportional allocation method was originally proposed by Bowley
n
(1926). In this method, the sampling fraction, is same in all strata. This allocation
N
was used to obtain a sample which could be estimated with greater speed and a higher
degree of precision. By using this method, we have gained efficiency by 0.30 over
simple random sampling. The gain in efficiency was calculated as
VarR  Var( St )Pr op   0.00060839  0.0004673  0.3017333  0.30
Var( St )Pr op 0.0004673

where, VarR and Var( St )Pr op are the variances of simple random sampling and
proportional allocation method respectively. The formulae to calculate the variances
are given by

For simple random sampling:

s2  N  n  n
Variance of mean=   where, s 2  pq
n N  n 1
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 713

p = proportion of Mark in annual examination who secured 50% and above in all the
selected schools,
q = 1- p, N= population size, n = sample size.

for stratified random sampling:

1 S 2i Ni
variance of mean = 2  Ni  Ni  ni  where, Si 2  Pi Qi
N ni Ni  1

N=Total population size, Ni= population size of ith stratum, ni = sample size of ith
stratum,
Pi = proportion of students who secured 50% or more mark in annual examination
in i-th strata
= (no. of students in the ith stratum who secured 50% or more marks)/(total no of
students in the ith stratum) and Qi=1-Pi .

for proportional allocation:

N S2  N  n 
variance of mean =  i i   ,
N n  N 
nNi
substituting ni 
N

The allocation of a given sample of size n to different stratum is done in

proportion to their sizes. i.e. in the i th stratum ,
N
ni  n i where i =1,2,3.
N
n – total sample size, Ni – population size of the i th strata and N – total
population size.

Following table illustrates the distribution of the sample in different strata using
proportional allocation method.

Table 1: Distribution of sample students by category of schools:

Categories of school Total students

Ni ni
Govt.(SEBA) 5609 163
Private(SEBA) 3498 102
Private(CBSE) 4084 119
TOTAL 13191 384

After allocation of sample size to each stratum, students were selected randomly
from different schools within the stratum. In the present study, students were selected
714 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

from each schools by using Cochran formula at 95% confidence level with ±15%
margin of error. Out of these 13 schools, 6 are from Govt. SEBA; 3 are from Pvt.
SEBA and 4 are from Pvt. CBSE schools. There are different types of schools under
SEBA such as normal co-educational schools, co-educational schools segregated by
gender, only girls’ schools and only boys’ schools. In the category Govt. SEBA
schools, three are normal co-educational schools where boys and girls sit together in
the same classroom, one is only boys’ school and one is only girls’ school. The school
‘Noonmati High School’ included in the sample is the only co-educational school
where students are segregated by gender i.e. in this school boys and girls of same
class sit in different classrooms separately. In case of Pvt. SEBA schools, one of the
schools is girls’ school and other two are normal co-educational schools. However, in
case of Pvt. CBSE schools, there is no single sex school, rather, all are co-educational.
In this case total sample size is 119. But when students of 4 schools are taken into
consideration it becomes 131. Hence, to make it 119 from each of the 4 schools, three
students were not taken into account .
Following table illustrates the distribution of the sample by gender and category of
schools.

Table 2 : Distribution of sample students by gender and category of schools:

Categories of school Total schools Boy students Girl students Total students
Ni ni Ni ni Ni ni
Govt.(SEBA) 6 2900 84 2709 79 5609 163
Private(SEBA) 3 1641 48 1857 54 3498 102
Private(CBSE) 4 2103 61 1981 58 4084 119
TOTAL 13 6644 193 6547 191 13191 384

Table3 : Distribution of sample students by gender and type of schools(under SEBA):

(for both govt. and pvt.)

Type of school Total Male Female Total

schools students students students
Co- 5 97 61 158
educational(normal)
Only boys 1 23 _ 23
Only girls 2 _ 56 56
Co-educational 1 12 16 28
(segregated by gender)
Total 9 132 133 265
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 715

Table 4 : The distribution of sample size in different schools of Guwahati

Category of Sl. Name of school Population Sample Allotted sample

schools No. size size (max) size
Boys Girls Total
1 Ulubari High 95 30 16 14 30
School
SEBA (Govt.) 2 Dispur Vidyalaya 88 29 16 13 29
3 Ganesh Mandir 112 31 17 14 31
Vidyalaya
4 Noonmati M.E. 79 28 12 16 28
School
5 Uzan Bazaar 43 22 _ 22 22
Girls’ School
6 Arya Vidyapeeth 46 23 23 _ 23
High School
SEBA (Pvt.) 7 Nichols School 125 32 22 10 32
8 Asom Jatiya 200 36 26 10 36
Vidyalaya
9 Holy Child 170 34 _ 34 34
School
CBSE(Pvt.) 10 Gurukul 154 34 14 17 31
Grammar School
11 Maharishi Vidya 160 34 17 14 31
Mandir school
12 Sarala Birla Gyan 115 31 13 15 28
Jyoti
13 Shankar Academy 118 32 17 12 29
Total 193 191 384

Different variables in the study:

Two types of variables, viz. independent and dependent variables were introduced in
the study.
1. Independent variable : Gender of students and type of school.
2. Dependent variable : ‘Mathematics Interest’ of students.

TOOLS of the study:

‘Mathematics interest’ of a student was assessed with the help of ‘mathematics
interest inventory’ developed on the basis of the inventory developed by L.N.Dubey
[9]. It was designed to measure the interest in mathematics of boys and girls students
of class VIII. Besides, the finding will enable the teacher to build up interest in those
pupils who lack in it.
The reliability co-efficient of the inventory was found to be:
716 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

i. 0.89 using Rational Equivalence Method (K.R. Formula) which is given

by

KR21  . 1

k  x k  x   where, k = number of test items, s 2 =
k 1 

   
k s 2

total test variance and x = total test score mean.

ii. 0.91 using Split –half method(Spearman Brown Formula) .The co-efficient
of reliability ( rtt ) is calculated in terms of self correlation ( rhh ) of the half
test using Spearman-Brown formula. Here,
2rhh
rtt 
1  rhh

Validity co-efficient of the inventory was found to be:

i. Annual Examination Marks of Mathematics :- 0.79
ii. Rating Scores obtained from Teachers :- 0.68

There are 40 items in the inventory. Each item has two options-‘yes’ and ‘no’. Out
of 40 items, 20 items are positive and 20 are negative. For each positive response
against a question indicating ‘liking’, one mark was awarded and for negative
response on the same item zero mark was awarded. The reverse order was used for the
questions indicating ‘disliking’ for the subject. In the end, total marks obtained was
added. After the scoring was done, the subjects (the students of the sample) were
classified into the following five categories in accordance with the raw scores
obtained by them on the inventory.

Table5: classification of subjects according to their interest.

Levels of interest Scores
High interest 33- and above
Above average interest 27-32
Average interest 21-26
Below average interest 15-20
Low interest 14-and below

Administration of the tool:

First of all we visited the selected schools. We took necessary permission from the
Inspector of schools, Kamrup and the Regional officer, CBSE, Guwahati Region to
visit the schools for the purpose and then with the due permission of school authority
gave the questionnaire to the randomly selected students of the sample with the co-
operation of the respective class teacher. Instructions were given to the students to
fill up the questionnaire properly. Students were asked to do this at the school in front
of the investigators only. The instrument was administered within five consecutive
months of a school year.
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 717

Strategy of Data Analysis :

Different statistical techniques were used in the analysis and interpretation of
numerical data of the present study [11].
The measures of central tendencies(mean) and the measures of dispersion
(standard error) were used to study the nature of the data.

Mean =A+  i i and

fx
n
2
 fx 2  fxi  
Standard error of mean = i   i
     where, A - assumed mean, f
 n n  
   
-frequency, xi-deviation from A , n-total sample size and i -width of the class
interval.

2) The sample size is 384, which is greater than 30. Hence it is a large sample and
can assumed to be normally distributed sample. It satisfies the assumptions of t- test
and therefore, to study the significant difference between the two groups ( i.e.
between male and female students) in the ‘mathematics interest’ t-test was applied.
The t-test is probably the most commonly used statistical data analysis procedure
for hypothesis testing. Actually, there are several kinds of t-tests, but the most
common is the ‘two sample t-test’ which is also known as the ‘Student’s t-test’ or the
‘independent samples t-test’. The t-test simply tests whether or not two independent
populations have different mean values on some measure. The t- statistics is given
by –
Ma  Mb  2  2 
t where σd=  a  b  , ( the standard error of mean
d  na nb 
difference) ; Ma is the mean of the group A, M b is the mean of the group B,
 a is the standard error of the group A,  b is the standard error of the group B,
and degrees of freedom (df) = ( na-1) + (nb-1), where,
na is the number of units in group A and nb is the number of units in group B.

Analysis:
Table 6: Classification of the sample in different categories of schools according to
the level of interest in mathematics

Levels of interest Gender Govt. SEBA Pvt. SEBA Pvt. CBSE All the
School School School Schools
N % N % n % n %
High interest Male 7 8.33 15 31.25 16 26.22 38 19.69
Female 8 10.13 6 11.11 15 25.86 29 15.18
Above average Male 16 19.05 19 39.58 23 37.70 58 30.05
interest Female 21 26.58 19 35.19 23 39.66 63 32.98
Average interest Male 26 30.95 11 22.92 15 24.59 52 26.94
718 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

Female 17 21.52 15 27.78 13 22.41 45 23.56

Below average Male 26 30.95 3 6.25 6 9.84 35 18.13
interest Female 23 29.11 7 12.96 6 10.34 36 18.85
Low interest Male 9 10.71 0 0 1 1.64 10 5.18
Female 10 12.66 7 12.96 1 1.72 18 9.42

From the analysis of the above data, it is observed that 43.66% of female students
have high and above average interest in mathematics and in case of boy students, it
is 44.86%. Again, 28.02% of female students have low and below average interest in
mathematics, whereas, it is 25.55% in case of boy students.

Table 7: Classification of the sample in different types of schools according to the

level of interest in mathematics :

Levels of Gender Normal co-ed Segregated co-ed Only girls Only boys
interest School school school school
n % N % n % n %
High interest Male 37 23.42 0 0 - - 1 4.35
Female 24 20.17 3 18.75 2 3.57 - -
Above average Male 55 34.81 0 0 - - 3 13.04
interest Female 38 31.93 2 12.50 23 41.07 - -
Average Male 42 26.58 2 16.67 - - 8 34.78
interest Female 24 20.17 7 43.75 14 25 - -
Below average Male 19 12.03 6 50 - - 10 43.48
interest Female 22 18.49 4 25 10 17.85 - -
Low interest Male 5 3.16 4 33.33 - - 1 4.35
Female 11 9.24 0 0 7 12.5 - -

Fig:1 Bar diagram showing levels of interest of male and female students of normal
co-educational schools
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 719

Fig 2 Bar diagram showing levels of interest of male and female students of co-
educational schools segregated by gender.

Fig 3 : Bar diagram showing levels of interest of male and female students of single
sex schools

Hypothesis : 1
There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’ score of male
and female student.

Table 8 : Significant differences between means of mathematics interest scores of

male and female students of different categories of schools.

Category of gender Sample Mean Standard Degrees t-value t- decision

school size error of (calculated) critical
freedom value
Govt.(SEBA) Male 84 22.71 6.73 161 0.33 1.98 NS*
Female 79 23.08 7.49
720 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

Private Male 48 29.40 5.40 100 3.67 2.63 S**

(SEBA) Female 54 24.69 7.50
Private Male 61 28.39 5.88 117 0.39 1.98 NS*
(CBSE) female 58 27.95 6.53
TOTAL Male 193 26.17 6.87 382 1.58 1.97 NS*
female 191 25.01 7.5
* at 0.05 level of significance.
** at 0.01 level of significance.

35

30

25

20
BOY
15
GIRL
10

0
SEBA(Gvt.) SEBA(Pvt.) CBSE(Pvt.) ALL schools

Fig 4 : Bar diagram showing mean mathematics interest score of students of different
categories of school

Interpretation:
The analysis of table 8 reveals that-
i. The calculated t-value (0.33) is smaller than that given in the table(1.98) at
0.05 level of significance due to the degrees of freedom 161.
Therefore, there is no significant difference is observed between the
‘mathematics interest’ of male and female students studying in
govt.(SEBA) schools at 0.05 level of significance.

ii. In case of students of private(SEBA) schools, the calculated t-value(3.67)

is higher than that of given in the table(2.63) at 0.01 level of significance
due to the degrees of freedom100.
Therefore, the test is significant in this regard. Besides, it can be concluded
that male students are superior to female students in mathematics interest
as the mean mathematics interest score of male students (29.40) is higher
than that of female students (24.69).

iii. In the case of CBSE private schools, the calculated t-value (0.39)is smaller
than that of given in the table (1.98) at 0.05 level of significance due to
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 721

the degrees of freedom 117. Therefore, there is no significance of

difference in the interest in mathematics between the two groups.
iv. However, the calculated t-value(1.58) for all the male and female students
of all types of schools is smaller than that of given in the table(1.97) at
0.05 level of significance due to the degrees of freedom 382.
Therefore, it is not significant. It provides adequate number of evidences
to accept the null hypothesis. It can, therefore, be concluded that there is
no significant difference between the ‘mathematics interest’ of male and
female students of schools of Guwahati.

Again, co-efficient of variation,

 S .D 
C.V    100
 Mean 

In case of students of all types of schools-

 7.5 
For girl students, C.V=    100  29.99%
 25.01 
 6.87 
For boy students, C.V=    100  26.25%
 26.17 
In this case, C.V. of boy students are less than that of girl students. Which means
the variation within the group of boy students is less. i.e. the group of boy students is
more consistent with respect to mathematics interest compared to the group of girl
students.

Hypothesis: 2
i. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’
scores of girls from normal co-educational schools and only girls’ school.
ii. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’
scores of girls from normal co-educational schools and co-educational
schools segregated by gender.
iii. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’
scores of boys from normal co-educational schools and only boys’ school
iv. There is no significant difference between mean ‘mathematics interest’
scores of boys from normal co-educational schools and co-educational
schools segregated by gender.

Interpretation :
Table:9 t-test showing the mean difference in the impact of type of school on interest
of students in mathematics:

Gender Type of school Total Mean SD df t- t- Decision

students cal critical
Male Co-educational, Normal 49 24.76 7.00 70 2.24 2.00 S*
Only boys 23 21.57 4.87
722 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

Male Co-educational ,Normal 49 24.76 7.00 59 5.51 2.66 S**

Co –educational, segregated by 12 16.58 3.80
gender
Female Co –educational, Normal 61 22.90 8.02 115 2.65 2.62 S**
Only girls 56 26.73 7.64
Female Co -educational, Normal 61 22.90 8.02 75 1.16 1.99 NS*
Co –educational, segregated by 16 25.13 6.47
gender
* at o.o5 level of significance
** at 0.01 level of significance

Fig 5 : Bar diagram showing mean mathematics interest score of students of different
types of schools

From the table 9 it is observed that for girl students of normal co-educational
schools and only girls’ schools, calculated value of t (= 2.65) is higher than that given
in the table (=2.62) at 0.01 level of significance due to degrees of freedom 115.
Hence, there are evidences to reject the hypothesis. Therefore it can be concluded
that there is difference in ‘mathematics interest’ scores of female students from co-
educational schools and from only girls’ schools. The mean interest score of girl
students studying in co-educational schools is smaller than that of students from only
girls’ schools. So, girls from only girls’ schools are superior in mathematics interest.
Again it is observed that for girl students of normal co-educational schools and
co-educational schools segregated by gender, calculated value of t (=1.16) is smaller
than that given in the table (=1.99) at 0.05 level of significance due to degrees of
freedom 75. Hence, there are no evidences to reject the hypothesis. Therefore, it can
be concluded that there is no difference in ‘mathematics interest’ scores of female
students from co-educational schools and from co-educational schools segregated by
gender.
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 723

On the other hand from the table 5 it is observed that for boy students, calculated
value of t (=2.24) is greater than that given in the table (=2.00) at 0.05 level of
significance due to degrees of freedom 70. Hence, there are evidences to reject the
hypothesis. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is difference in ‘mathematics
interest’ scores of male students from co-educational schools and from only boys’
schools. The mean interest score of boys studying in co-educational schools is higher
than that of students from only boys’ school. So, boys from co-educational schools
are superior in mathematics interest.
Further, it is observed that for boy students of normal co-educational schools and
co-educational schools segregated by gender, calculated value of t (=5.51) is more
than that given in the table (=2.66) at 0.01 level of significance due to degrees of
freedom 59. Hence, the test is significant and therefore the null hypothesis can be
rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is difference in ‘mathematics
interest’ scores of male students from co-educational schools and from co-educational
schools segregated by gender. In this case it can be concluded that boys from normal
co-educational schools are superior in mathematics interest scores to the boys from
co-educational schools segregated by gender.

Main findings:
The main findings on the basis of the results from analysis of data are as follows:
i. Gender of students do not effect ‘interest in mathematics’ among school
children of Govt.(SEBA) and private(CBSE) schools.
ii. There is effect of gender on ‘mathematics interest’ of private(SEBA)
school children.
iii. ‘Mathematics interest’ of upper primary students as a whole are not
dependent on gender of the students.
iv. ‘Mathematics interest’ of upper primary boy students are influenced by
type of school (i.e. whether normal co-educational, co-educational schools
segregated by gender or single sex school)
v. ‘Mathematics interest’ of upper primary girl students from normal co-
educational schools are less than that of studying in single sex school but
have no difference with those studying in co-educational schools
segregated by gender.
vi. The group of upper primary boy students is more consistent than that of
girl students in relation to ‘mathematics interest’.

Discussions and conclusions:

i. There is difference in ‘mathematics interest’ of male and female students
of private schools under SEBA. So keeping this in view the teachers of
mathematics as well as the management authority of schools under SEBA
may take initiative to minimize the difference. Different strategies and
techniques applied in the teaching –learning process of mathematics may
be in favour of both the boy and the girl students. Consequently, the
curriculum planner may take initiative to plan the curriculum so as to make
724 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

both boys and girls interested in learning of the subject.

ii. There is difference in ‘mathematics interest’ of male students studying in
co-educational schools and (i) only boys schools, (ii)co-educational
schools segregated by gender . There may be some psychological factors
related to this finding. Boy students may be more competitive in the
presence of girls and may be more interested to learn and do mathematics
to show that mathematics is a male dominated subject as generally
believed by the common people.
iii. On the other hand it is observed that girls are more interested in
mathematics while studying in only girls school. So the mathematics
teacher of co-educational schools may adopt some strategies to make the
subject interesting for the girls also.

Educational implications:
Mathematics is a subject which is very important for the intellectual development of
students and also the prosperity of the society. Moreover it is a compulsory subject up
to the secondary level. Therefore teachers can adopt various measures to make the
subject equally interesting to both the male and female students of upper primary
level and thereby increasing the achievement level of secondary students.

References :
[1] Best, John W. and Kahn, James V.(1996), Research in Education, 7th edition.
New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
[2] Brush, L.R.(1985). Mathematics Anxiety, Mathematics Achievement, Gender
and Socio-economic Status among Arab Secondary students in Israel. 3
Math.Edu. SCI. Technol. 21(2), 319-327.
[3] Buch,M.B.(1983-88): 4th Survey of Research in Education, vol. 1, NCERT.
[4] Chele, M.M.(1990): ”An Investigation of the problem of underachievement in
Mathematics in Mathematics Examination of West Bengal.” Fifth Survey of
Research in Education, Buch, vol. 1 , pp 3-73.
[5] Cochran, W.G.(1977): Sampling Techniques, third edition. John Willey &Sons
[6] Collis,B.(1987). ’Sex Differences in the Association Between Secondary
School Students’ Attitudes Toward Mathematics and Toward Computers’,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. vol. 18, No 5, 394-402.
[7] Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior : A self
–determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp
(Eds), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43-70). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[8] Mc.Dougal, B. (1994): ‘Research on affect on Mathematics Learning’ in the
JRME from 1970-1994, JRME 1994, vol 25 No 6 pp 637-647.
An Analysis Of Students’ Interest in Mathematics in Relation 725

[9] Dubey, L. N.: “Mathematics Interest Inventory”. College of Educational

Psychology and Guidance, Jabalpur. Published by Agra Psychological
Research Cell, Tiwari Kothi, Belanganj, Agra 282004.
[10] Gardener, P. & Tamir, P.(1989 a): Interest in Biology. Part I: A multi
dimensional construct. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching. 26: 409-
423.
[11] Garrett, H. E. (1986). Statistics in Psychology and Education, Vakils Feffer and
Simons Ltd., Bombay.
[12] Government of India (1986). National Policy on Education(1986). Programme
of action, New Delhi: Department of Education, MHRD.
[13] Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A.(2006). The four –phase model of interest
development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
[14] Koller, O., Baumart,J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does Interest Matter? The
relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448-470.
[15] NCERT(2005). National curriculum Framework, New Delhi.
[16] NCERT. Position Paper 1.2, National Focus Group on Teaching of
Mathematics.
[17] Schiefele, U.(1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 299-323.
[18] Watt, H.M.G.; Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Frenzel, A.C.(2010). Development of
Mathematics Interest in Adolescence: Influences of Gender, Family, and
School Context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20 (2), 507-537.
 726 H.K. Sarmah and B. Bora Hazarika

View publication stats