SOLUTIONS:

*Level of Significance (as per derived in the z tabular values)

 α = 0.05
z = ± 1.645
 
 
*Statistical Test : Z-test for one-tailed test

Z=

Where, = sample mean

 μ = population mean
 σ = population deviation
 n = sample size

z= -2.5
CONCLUSION : Since the z-computed value of 2.5 is greater
than the z-tabular value of 1.645, means that the new
system is faster than the old one. The computed value
implies that the average for students' registration is less
than 55 minutes under the new system.
STEPWISE METHOD

I. PROBLEM:
Is there a significant difference in the performance of the 4 groups of student?
II. HYPOTHESIS:
Null Hypothesis Ho: There is no significant difference in the performance of the 4 groups
Alternative Hypothesis Ha: There is a significant difference in the performance of the 4 groups of
III. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE:
α = 0.05
df = 3 and 24
IV. STATISTICS:
One-Way-Analysis of Variance using F-test

GROUP
A B C
x1 x2 x3
25 625 32 1024 22 484
24 576 21 441 23 529
26 676 25 625 24 576
31 961 26 676 25 625
29 841 32 1024 26 676
26 676 15 225 24 576
31 961 30 900 22 484
TOTAL 192 5316 181 4915 166 3950
MEAN 27.43 25.86 23.71

*Needed Formulas in solving F-test

1. Correction Factor
5266.286
4680.143
3936.571
CF = 18,258.04
4425.143

2. Total Sum of Squares

TSS = 5316+4915+3950+4444-18258.04
TSS = 366.96

3. Between Sum of Squares

BSS = 50.11

4. Within Sum of Squares

WSS = TSS-BSS
WSS = 366.96-50.11
WSS = 316.85714
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
Sources of Degrees of Sum of Mean F-Value
Variation Freedom Squares Squares Computed Tabular
Between Groups k-1=4-1=3 50.11 16.70 1.27 3.01
Within Groups 27-3=24 316.86 13.20
Total N-1=28-1=27 366.96

V. DECISION RULE
If the F-computed value is greater than the F-tabular value, reject the null
hypothesis.

VI. CONCLUSION
With the lower F-computed value versus the F-tabular value, the null hypothesis is
accepted and that no significant difference exist in the responses of the 4 groups of
students in the trial conducted.
erformance of the 4 groups of students
formance of the 4 groups of students

D
x4
24 576
25 625
27 729
28 784
23 529
24 576
25 625
176 4444
25.14

50.11
SOLUTIONS:

*Level of Significance (as per derived in the t-distribution table of values)

 α = 0.05
degrees of freedom (df) = n-1
df = 19
t0.05 = 1.729
 
 
*Statistical Test (Correlated Sample)
PRETEST POSTTEST
x1 x2 D D2
89 95 -6 36
85 88 -3 9
84 80 4 16
86 95 -9 81
78 85 -7 49
78 80 -2 4
80 85 -5 25
85 86 -1 1
85 90 -5 25
88 90 -2 4
85 95 -10 100
89 94 -5 25
84 88 -4 16
86 89 -3 9 t = -5.08
81 85 -4 16 CONCLUSION: With a higher t-computed value of 5.08 than the t-critical value of
89 91 -2 4 1.729 at 0.05 level of significance with 19 degrees of freedom derived from t-
91 92 -1 1 distribution table of values, we can conclude that there is a significant difference
between the performance of the selected students in the pretest and posttest.
96 96 0 0 Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. It implies that the performance of the
90 95 -5 25 students in Mathematics improved with the use of programmed materials.
88 90 -2 4
TOTAL 1717 1789 -72 450
Mean 85.85 89.45
* LEVEL OF SIGINIFICANCE
α = 0.05
df = 1

* STATISTICAL TEST USING x2 TEST OF INDEPENDENCE

SCORE
SEX HIGH LOW TOTAL
(O) (E) (O) (E)
MALE 37 41.36 28 23.64 65
FEMALE 33 28.64 12 16.36 45
TOTAL 70 70 40 40 110

x2 = 3.09

*NOTE: Expected frequencies denoted by ( E ) in the table is derived by multiplying the ROW
TOTAL and COLUMN TOTAL then divided by the over all total

CONCLUSION : A lower computed value of 3.09 than the tabular value of 3.841 indicates that
there is no significant difference in the relationship of sex and scores of the individuals being
tested.