Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5.1 INTRODUCTION
After the data collection is over, the next step in the realm of research is data
processing, the primary data collected in the field. The processing involves editing,
classification and coding of data. Editing is essential to identify the errors and omissions
of the collected data and rectify them in order to achieve homogeneity, consistency and
completeness. Data should be edited before being presented as information. This action
ensures that the information provided is accurate, complete and consistent. Data editing
can be performed manually, with the assistance of computer programming or a
combination of both techniques. Goode and Hatt (1952) define that coding is an
operation by which data are organized into classes, and a number or symbols are given to
each item, according to the class in which it falls. Each answer to a particular question
must be given a distinctive code or value. After the editing and coding of the collected
data, there is a need for classification of data for easy understanding. It is the first step in
the process of analysis and interpretation of data. The classification and tabulation of data
is essential for proper and systematic arrangement and presentation of data. Stockton and
Clark (1975) defined that the process of grouping a large number of individual facts of
observation on the basis of similarity among the item is called classification. Thus the
process of good classification should have clarity, homogeneity and equality of scale,
purposefulness and accuracy.
116
The Concept of Factor Analysis can be traced back to Charles Spearmans (1904,
1927, 1933) research on the structure of human intellect. Spearman theorized that each
measure of human ability contains a general factor, common to all other measures of
ability, and a specific component unique to itself. According to Spearmans theory, the
only basis for a correlation between two ability measures is their shared influence of a
common factor that he called g. The earliest Factor Analysis were focused on
confirming Spearmans general factor model and identifying tests that correlated the
highest with g, and thereby serving as measures of general intelligence. It soon became
apparent that Spearmans one-factor theory did not accurately describe the factor
structure of ability tests.
117
Ad hoc decisions about the number of factors (dimensionality) were replaced with
precise rules for the number of factors (Cattell, 1958, Cattell and Vogelman,1977;
Guttman,1954; Kaiser, 1961), and transformations of the factors were introduced to
enhance interpretability (Carroll,1953; Kaiser 1958). The Kaiser- Guttman rule, which
states that a researcher should attempt to interpret the number of factors that have
eigenvalues greater than 1, became a standard. An eigenvalue measures the amount of
variance in the variables explained by a factor. Now it has become a computer program
default in the major statistical programs like SAS and SPSS.
Cattells (1958) Scree Test, a visual plot of eigen values, is another popular method
of determining the dimensionality of a set of variables that is the number of factors that
can be derived from the set. The most common interpretability transformation of factor
structures is Kaisers (1958) varimax criterion. The varimax criterion simplifies the factor
interpretation by rotating (transforming) the principal axis solution into uncorrelated
factors with maximum variation in the factor variable correlations. The varimax criterion
simplifies the interpretation of a factor by causing a separation in the variable factor
correlations. The varimax transformation, along with other analytical rotations is guided
by Thurstones (1947) concept of simple structure. In uncomplicated terms, a simple
structure occurs when each variable relates to only one factor.
In the second half of the 20th century, the mathematical and statistical basis of
Factor Analysis progressed to the point where rigorous tests of significance for
dimensionality and structure were possible (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980). That technical
development led to a solid statistical basis for Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis is used when a researcher wants to evaluate a number of
118
Identify a set of dimensions that are latent in a large set of variables; that is also
referred to as R factor analysis.
5.2.3.1 Factor Factor Analysis operates by extracting as many significant factors from
the data as possible, based on the bivariate correlations between the measures. A factor is
a dimension that consists of any number of variables. Factor Analysis involves extracting
one factor and then evaluating your data for the existence of additional factors.
The successive factors extracted in Factor Analysis are not of equal strength. Each
successive factors account for less and less variance. Typically the first two or three
factors will be the strongest that account for the most variance.
5.2.3.2 Eigen value- The strength of a factor is indicated by its eigen value. Factors with
eigen values less than 1.0 usually are not interpreted.
119
5.2.3.4 Rotation of factor- After obtaining factor loadings, we need to interpret them.
The factor loadings computed initially are often difficult to interpret because they are
somewhat ambiguous. Factor rotation is used to make the factors distinct. Two types of
rotation are orthogonal and oblique rotation. In orthogonal rotation, the axes remain
perpendicular. In oblique rotation, the angles between the axes, as well as the orientation
of the axes in space, may change. Generally the orthogonal rotation is preferred over
oblique rotation because the results are easier to interpret. The most popular orthogonal
rotation method is varimax. This type of rotation maximises the variance of loadings on
each factor and simplifies factors (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).
Two types of factor analysis are principal components analysis and principal
factors analysis. In principal components analysis, the diagonal of the completed
correlation matrix is filled with ones. In contrast the principal factors analysis completes
the correlation matrix by entering communalities along the diagonal. Communality is a
measure of a variables reliability and is fairly easy to obtain after Factor Analysis.
Various techniques have been proposed for estimating communalities. The choice
between principal components and principal factor analysis rests on the goals of the
analysis. If the goal is to reduce a large number of variables down to a smaller set and to
obtain an empirical summary of the data, then principle components analysis is most
appropriate. If the research goal is driven by empirical or theoretical predications, then
principal factor analysis is the best (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). In the absence of any
clear information on which technique is best, we should probably use principal
components in those situations in which you do not have any empirical or theoretical
guidance on the values of the communalities.
120
Figure (5.1) shows the general steps followed in any application of factor analysis
techniques. The starting point in Factor Analysis is the research problem, next the
calculation of the correlation matrix. The correlation matrix is chosen based on the
objectives of the problem at hand. At the next stage decision has to be taken on whether
the correlation to be done between the variables or between the respondents. Factor
Analysis when applied to a correlation matrix of the individual respondents is called Q
factor analysis and when it is applied to a correlation matrix of the variables is called R
factor analysis.
121
RESEARCH PROBLEM
WHICH VARIABLES TO INCLUDE?
HOW MANY VARIABLES?
HOW ARE VARIABLES MEASURED?
SAMPLE SIZE?
EXTRACTION METHOD
ORTHOGONAL?
OBLIQUE?
UNROTATED FACTOR
MATRIX
NUMBER OF FACTORS
FACTOR SCORES
FOR SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS:
REGRESSION
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
CORRELATION
122
By examining the unrotated factor matrix, the investigator can explore the data
reduction possibilities for a set of variables and obtain the preliminary estimate of the
number of factors to be extracted. Final determination of the number of factors is done
after the factor matrix is rotated and the factors are interpreted. The researcher may stop with
the factor interpretation or proceed to calculate the factor scores and subsequent analysis with
other statistical techniques like correlation, discriminant analysis, regression etc.
123
To find the best solution in terms of interpretability and theoretical sensibility, the
interpretability was investigated using Hatchers interpretability criteria (Hatcher, 1994)
which read- a given component contains at least three variables with significant loadings,
a loadings of 0.40 being suggested as cut off point, variables loaded on the same
component share the same conceptual meaning, variables loaded on different components
appear to measure different constructs, the rotated factor pattern demonstrates simple
structure which means that most variables load relatively high on only one component
and low on the other components and most components have relatively high factor
loadings for some variables and low loadings for the remaining ones.
As a rule of thumb that has been frequently used by factor analyst, factor loadings
greater than 0.30 are considered significant (n= 50 or larger), 0.40 are considered more
important, and 0.50 or greater are considered very significant. Thus the larger the
absolute size of the factor loading, the more significant the loadings is in interpreting the
factor matrix. Hence factor loadings with values of 0.40 or greater have been
considered for interpretation and description. The variables are tabulated on the basis of
their absolute coefficient value in the descending order for all the 4 dimensions. The four
factor solution which emerged as a result of Factor Analysis with their loadings is
explained in the following sections.
The first factor which is considered as the primary factor is the most important
component among the four factors. The first factor is a general factor with highest
percentage of variance accounting to 23.798%. The variables highly loaded in this factor
are tabulated with their respective loadings in descending order.
124
A total of 11 variables were loaded under this factor. This primary factor has high
loading on most of the variables related to general construct of cognitive processing
i.e., planning, attention, simultaneous and successive processing, relating to cognitive
processing otherwise called mental processing. Hence it is named as mental processing.
In this general factor the variables related to Planning as shown in Table 5.1 were
Matching Numbers, Planned connections and Planned Codes etc., and those related to
attention were Receptive attention, Number detection etc., and those related to successive
processing were sentence questions. Simultaneous processing included items like
Nonverbal Matrices and figure memory. The positive loadings signifies that all the variables
are positively associated with each other which implies the four dimensions namely planning,
attention, successive and simultaneous processing are positively related.
From the above Table 5.1 we can infer that the general construct of cognitive
processing has four dimensions namely Mental processing, Planning, Attention, and
125
Table 5.2 Shows variable with significant loadings in cognitive processing for Factor 2
Total variables loaded highly in this factor were 6. The first four variables listed
in Table 5.2 i.e., Word series Part A, Word series B and Word series C and Sentence
Repetition clearly indicates that it is related to successive processing and the last variable
spatial relations with simultaneous processing. The predominance of above variables
obviously becomes the basis for naming this component as successive and simultaneous
processing. The variable Expressive Attention is also loaded here which indicates that
attention is related to successive and simultaneous processing.
From the above table we can conclude that Successive and Simultaneous
processing variables are positively associated with each other. From the above table it is
126
FACTOR 3- Planning
The third factor accounts for a total variance of 14.082%. There are significant
positive loadings in this factor also. Variables and its significant loadings are listed in
descending order in the Table 5.3 below.
Table 5.3 Shows variable with significant loadings in cognitive processing for Factor 3
Five variables were highly loaded in this factor. From the table it is evident that
all the variables i.e., Matching Numbers Part A, B, C, D and Planned Codes are related to
planning component of cognitive processing. Hence it is named as planning.
The positive loadings of the variables indicate that the variables present a positive
relationship in Factor 3. Matching Numbers Part D is highly loaded in Factor 1 (0.638)
and Planned codes part A is loaded highly in Factor 4 (0.619), but it is considered here
also to support the other variables of planning component of cognitive processing.
It can be summarized from the above Table 5.3 that all the planning variables are
loaded in a single factor and also they are positively associated with each other. From this
we can say that children who performed well in matching number task have equally
performed in planned codes task. And planning is central to every activity. A child has to
plan his activity prior to the performance of the task and need attention, which help him
to simultaneously and successively process the information.
127
Table 5.4 Shows variable with significant loadings in cognitive processing for Factor 4
The number of variable loaded in this factor was four. Based on the loading
pattern, this factor is called as Attention. The first two variables i.e. Number Detection
Part A and B and the last Receptive Attention listed in the Table 5.4 relates to attention
aspect of the cognitive processing. And hence it was named as Attention. The positive
loadings of the variables indicate that they have positive relationship with each other.
Receptive Attention part A is highly loaded in Factor 1 (0.618) and it is considered here
in Factor 4 to support the other variables related to attention factor. It is evident from the
table that the variable planned code is loaded here which indicates that Planning is
necessary condition for attention.
It can be inferred from the above table that the variables related to attention are
positively related and for a child to be attentive he needs to have a plan in mind.
Attention is very much necessary for a child to perform an activity and prior to it he has
to have a plan in mind and so as to process the information to put forth the result.
128
MENTAL
PROCESSING
SIMULTANEOUS AND
SUCCESSIVE ROCESSING
PLANNING
COGNITIVE
PROCESSING
ATTENTION
129
The first factor is a general factor with highest percentage of variance accounting
to 15.07%. The significant loadings with the items are arranged in Table 5.5, in
descending order.
I dont get the right word to speak while speaking with friends 0.590
While writing copy book, I am not able to write within the four
0.508
lines
A total of 9 variables (items) were loaded in this factor. This Primary factor has
highest loadings on reading, writing, arithmetic, organisation, memory etc. so it is named
as perception of skill of cognition. Further the loadings were all positive which implies
that there is positive association between the variables. This factor resembles the first
factor in the artificial dimensions of Cognitive processing (Hypothesis 1) i.e., Mental
130
It can be inferred from the above table that all the variables related to reading,
writing, arithmetic, memory and organisation are positively associated with each other.
And for all these aspects cognitive skills are necessary.
Six items were significantly loaded under factor 2, which accounted for a variance
of 14.27%. The items with their loadings are displayed in Table 5.6.
Items Significant
loadings
From the Table 5.6 it is evident that the items are significant positive loadings and
they are closely associated with each other. These items i.e., I am a poor speller, While
writing I dont get ideas to put in, I am a poor reader, I am a poor at basic mathematics, I
make mistakes while reading, I can tell a story but cannot write it, reflect the
processing skills in children. And hence it is named as perception of skill of processing.
Visual processing skills should be helpful when solving geometry problems that must be
solved by looking at the problem as a whole, sequential visual processing skill should be
131
To summarize items in the second factor the skill of processing are positively
associated with each other. This factor resembles the second factor in the cognitive
processing of elementary inclusive school children. Processing skills are very much
essential in mastering the three rs i.e. reading, writing and arithmetic.
Under factor 3 nine items got significantly loaded. The items were arranged in
descending order of their loading values. This factor accounted for a total variance of
12.98%. The items in the Table 5.7 below show positive loadings and so they are
positively associated with each other.
132
The skill of expression requires prior planning by the child. So the factor three
i.e., Planning in the artificial dimensions of cognitive processing ability is related with
this factor. If a child want to read or write (express) he has to plan first which part he has
to read or write and how he has to do it either by part method or whole method and what
are the aspects to be covered in it etc. So Planning is an essential component in the skill
of expression whether it is oral or written aspect.
To conclude all the items in Factor 3, skill of expression has high loadings and
is positively associated with each other. This Factor is related with the Planning aspect of
cognitive processing ability in elementary school children. In school, expressive language
difficulties will impact a students performance both in written and spoken language.
Without good expressive language, the child will have great difficulty showing people
what he or she actually knows. A person with an expressive language issue may actually
know the answer, but not be able to put it into words. Therapy can help with this problem
using stories, games and a variety of other methods and strategies.
Six items were loaded under factor 4. The total variance accounted by this factor
is 12.38 %. The items with their positive loadings are displayed in Table No.5.8 below in
descending order.
133
I often do not write down the assignments and forget what to do 0.449
Most of the items resemble memorization skill in children and hence it is named as
perception of skill of memory. It is evident from the table that most of the items are
positively loaded which implies that there is positive association between the items.
Memorization is an important concept in learning, and so it is important in skill of
reading, writing, maths etc. This factor is related with the fourth Factor i.e., Attention in
cognitive processing ability of the elementary school children. Only if a child is attentive
he can store important things in the memory.
It can be inferred from the above table that items in Factor 4 reflect skill of
Memory which are positively associated with each other. And this factor is related with
the Factor 4, Attention of the cognitive processing abilities of elementary school
children. Only if the child is attentive he can store information in the memory i.e., short
term memory or long term memory. And also the stored up information which has to be
coded and stored can be retrieved, recalled or recognised only if the child is attentive in
this process. If the child is inattentive there may be gap in the information storage so that
the correct retrieval wont take place.
It is seen from the above discussion of the four independent factor solution that
the first factor which is a general factor items loaded were related to reading, writing,
arithmetic, organisation, memory etc. named as skill of cognition. Next three factors
were specific factors related to skill of processing, skill of expression and skill of
134
SKILL OF COGNITION
SKILL OF PROCESSING
SELF-PERCEPTION OF
LEARNING DISABILITIES SKILL OF EXPRESSION
SKILL OF MEMORY
135
The main advantage of cluster analysis is that it enables the researcher to define a
cluster variate (i.e., the characteristic variables included in the comparison) which then
determines the commonalities and differences among and between groups and leads to
natural groupings (Hair et al., 1995). Furthermore, this approach provides an opportunity
to explore structures existing in data prior to attempting to explain why they exist.
Finally, taxonomy can be developed to help describe a population. These techniques have
been variously referred to as techniques of cluster analysis, Q-analysis, typology,
grouping, clumping, classification, numerical taxonomy and unsupervised pattern
recognition. This variety of nomenclature is due to its application in the field of diverse
disciplines such as Psychology, Zoology, Biology, Botany, Sociology, Artificial
Intelligence and Information Retrieval. Although the names differ across disciplines, they
all have a common dimension: classification according to natural relationships.
Cluster Analysis (CA) is a technique which seeks to separate data into constituent
groups. This technique is used for grouping of objects or individuals under investigation.
The objects which are subjected to cluster analysis are termed entity or individual.
The measurements taken on each entity are generally referred to as variables, characters
or attributes. The result of a Cluster Analysis will be number of groups, clusters, types or
classes.
136
The technique for Cluster Analysis seeks to separate a set of data into groups or
clusters. Cluster Analysis technique may be classified into types as follows-
Density or mode - seeking techniques- In this the clusters are formed by searching
for regions containing a relatively dense concentration of entities.
These types are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and several clustering
techniques could be placed in more than one category. For the present study the
investigator has employed the hierarchical clustering technique and so it is presented in
detail in the following sections.
137
5.4.3.1 Agglomerative methods-The basic procedure with all these methods is similar.
They begin with the computation of a similarity or distance matrix between the entities.
The end product of the methods is a dendrogram showing the successive fusions of
individuals, which culminates at the stage where all the individuals are in one group.
For this reason agglomerative procedures are sometimes referred to as build-up methods.
At any particular stage the methods fuse individuals or groups of individuals which are
closest (or most similar). Differences between methods arise because of the different
ways of defining distance (or similarity) between an individual and a group containing
several individuals or between two groups of individuals. Seven popular agglomerative
procedures used to develop clusters are Single linkage, Complete linkage, Unweighted
pair-group average, Weighted pair-group average, Unweighted pair-group centroid
method, Weighted pair-group centroid (median) and Wards method.
Single linkage (nearest neighbour) method - In this method the distance between two
clusters is determined by the distance of the two closest objects (nearest neighbours) in
the different clusters. This rule will, in a sense, string objects together to form clusters,
and the resulting clusters tend to represent long "chains."
Complete linkage (furthest neighbour) method - In this method, the distances between
clusters are determined by the greatest distance between any two objects in the different
138
Unweighted pair-group average method - In this method, the distance between two
clusters is calculated as the average distance between all pairs of objects in the two
different clusters. This method is also very efficient when the objects form natural
distinct "clumps," however, it performs equally well with elongated, "chain" type
clusters. Sneath and Sokal (1973) introduced the abbreviation UPGMA to refer to this
method as unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic averages.
Unweighted pair-group centroid method- The centroid of a cluster is the average point
in the multi-dimensional space defined by the dimensions. In a sense, it is the center of
gravity for the respective cluster. In this method, the distance between two clusters is
determined as the difference between centroids. Sneath and Sokal (1973) used the
abbreviation UPGMC to refer to this method as unweighted pair-group method using the
centroid average.
139
The objective of cluster analysis is to group observations into clusters such that
each cluster is a homogenous as possible with respect to the clustering variables.
The various steps in cluster analysis are-
Overlapping clusters
With these basics of cluster analysis in mind the investigator moved on with the
classification of elementary inclusive school children based on their cognitive processing
and self-perception of learning disabilities using the hierarchical clustering technique in
line with the hypotheses formulated in the methodology of investigation.
140
Hypothesis 3- Different groups based on the cognitive processing will emerge from the
elementary inclusive school children.
To classify the 100 subjects based on their cognitive processing skills the multivariate
statistical technique cluster analysis was employed. The descriptive typologies of the 100
subjects were obtained through computing the similarity coefficients among the subjects
considered for the study. This analytical procedure was carried out based on hierarchical
clustering agglomerative method to obtain homogeneous classifications based on cognitive
processing in elementary inclusive school children with as many groups as possible.
This procedure resulted in identifying exclusive and mutually exhaustive groups or
typologies. Further as a result of this procedure, 100 subjects has been clustered in terms
of the taxonomic distances as computed between the pairs which are illustrated in the
form of a linkage tree called Dendogram figure 5.4.
The different groups of the subjects were arrived at by drawing cut-off lines
across the dendogram. This procedure has been adopted because of the fact that there are
no accepted standards or norms of the taxonomic distance values that could be considered
as characteristic indicator to establish taxonomic category or the cluster status. In the
present analysis one cut-off line was drawn across the linkage tree figure 5.4 at the mean
of the taxonomic distance. There is no analytical solution which exists for identifying the
number of distinct groups or classes. The cut-off line drawn at the mean yielded two
major groups or clusters of the subjects. Table 5.9 shows the number of subjects clustered
in each of the groups and their mean values of cognitive processing. Further two isolates
were also present in the group. These isolates were considered for purpose of
interpretation by including in the nearest and approximate group. The different groups
then evolved are considered for further interpretation. The two major groups evolved
contained within themselves a few homogenous subgroups.
Analysis of group 1
From the Figure 5.4 and Table 5.9 it is evident that the groups and subgroups
have several unique features. When we consider the cognitive processing at the group1
level it is comprised of 52 subjects arranged themselves into distinct subgroups of
141
Analysis of group 2
At the group 2 level as shown in figure there were 48 subjects. Based on the
difference of the taxonomic distances it was further divided (next level) into two major
subgroups with 18 subjects in the first subgroup and 30 subjects in the second. From the
table 5.9 of mean scores of two sub groups, it is evident that there is no much variation in
the mean scores of personal variables, but there is significant variation in the mean scores
of the achievement scores. The 18 subjects in the first major subgroups at next level were
divided into two sub groups with 8 subjects in the first subgroup and 10 subjects in the
second. The 30 subjects in the second subgroup at the next level were divided into three
subgroups with 14 subjects in the first and second subgroups respectively and two in the
third. These two in the third subgroups were considered as isolates. The subgroups also
possesses the same characteristics as found in the first group namely the mean scores of
cognitive processing which have not shown much difference between the subgroups of
group 2. Hence it was considered that these subgroups are homogeneous within the
group2.
142
3 Mothers
1.28 0.513 1.06 0.250 1.06 0.236 1.00 0.00
education
4 Fathers
1.25 0.500 1.00 0.00 1.28 0.669 1.03 0.183
education
5 Mothers
2.97 1.341 3.69 0.602 3.61 0.778 3.70 0.466
occupation
6 Fathers
2.50 0.811 2.94 0.250 2.61 0.778 2.97 0.183
occupation
7 Science marks
81.50 11.60 63.40 23.28 58.74 22.80 36.73 16.31
(%)
8 Maths (%) 80.45 13.38 60.24 23.88 59.17 25.81 38.42 18.09
9 Malayalam (%) 79.93 15.57 66.61 23.08 63.45 21.83 36.87 17.40
10 Social science
80.52 14.33 59.22 23.40 63.14 20.89 36.86 16.43
(%)
11 English (%) 82.46 10.60 63.60 23.20 58.25 23.91 35.91 17.58
12 Hindi (%) 75.83 19.06 56.95 27.02 53.53 24.46 35.89 16.83
13 Avg. (%) 80.13 12.15 61.67 22.50 59.38 21.77 35.79 15.91
14 Total no. of
36 16 18 30
subjects
From the figure 5.4 it is evident that the subgroup of group1 has the following
subjects of the elementary inclusive school children representing each of the sub groups.
A thorough introspection of the data set of the subjects of cognitive processing subgroups
clearly indicates the homogeneous characteristics of the cognitive processing within each
143
Finally from Table 5.9 and Figure 5.4 of the subgroups and major groups it is
clear that the elementary inclusive school children have grouped themselves based on
their similarity of cognitive processing characteristics. They were grouped themselves
due to their individual characteristics. In this study the 100 elementary inclusive school
children at the highest level has emerged as a single homogeneous group. This implies
that they are related to each other in planning, attention or simultaneous and successive
processing dimensions of cognitive processing.
In order to find out the typologies of elementary inclusive school children on self-
perception of learning disabilities, Taxonomic procedure cluster analysis (CA) was
carried out. Based on the 32 items of self-perception of learning disabilities the subjects
were found to cluster themselves into groups. The result obtained through Cluster
Analysis is presented in the form of a linkage tree Figure 5.5.
Cut of lines were drawn at the mean of the taxonomic distances to get clear and
distinct groups. By this two major groups were formed at the first level. Different groups
and subgroups emerged from the subjects are shown in the linkage tree Figure 5.5 and in
the Table 5.10. The 100 subjects cluster themselves at the first level, to form two major
groups, with 50 subjects in the first major group and the other 50 in the second. The first
major group (50 subjects) cluster into subgroups at the second level, with 36 subjects in
144
7 Science marks 82.12 10.61 67.36 20.87 31.77 9.72 48.99 22.53
(%)
8 Maths (%) 79.61 15.30 67.16 22.44 32.83 10.22 50.33 24.09
10 Social science 80.88 11.51 65.85 23.23 31.22 10.72 50.50 22.61
(%)
11 English (%) 80.05 14.17 71.48 21.77 32.07 11.49 49.46 24.12
12 Hindi (%) 75.63 18.56 63.26 24.16 31.43 9.62 45.37 24.20
13 Avg. (%) 80.18 11.11 66.91 21.56 31.97 8.96 49.25 22.07
14 Total no. of
36 14 14 36
subjects
145
Analysing the data set of the subjects who fall between different levels and
different subgroups they are mostly homogeneous in their raw scores on self-perception
of disabilities. Also it is seen that each level differs in their raw scores but differences are
not much, because of small distance between the subjects. Also from the table of mean
scores it is seen that there is not much variation in the mean scores of the personal
variables such as age, grade, mothers education and occupation, fathers education and
occupation etc., taken for the study but a large variation is seen between the achievement
scores of the subgroups and the groups formed after cluster analysis. This is further
proved in the last two hypotheses.
To conclude from the above analysis pertaining to the data of elementary school
children yielded homogenous groups based on self-perception of learning disabilities.
Hence the Hypothesis 4 is accepted and retained i.e., different groups will emerge from
the elementary inclusive school children based on self-perception of learning disabilities.
Hypothesis 5: There will be significant relationship between achievement and the factors
that emerged from cognitive processing among the elementary inclusive school children
146
Achievement
Social
Science Maths Malayalam English Hindi
science
Factors
Table 5.11 above shows the correlation coefficients of cognitive processing i.e.,
planning, attention and simultaneous and successive processing and achievement scores
in the subjects Science, Maths, Malayalam, Social science, English and Hindi of the
elementary inclusive school children. It is evident from the table that the correlation
coefficients are high and positive and also significant at 0.01 level (2 tailed), which
implies that as planning, attention, simultaneous and successive processing of an
individual increases the achievement increases. This shows that if the cognitive
processing of a child is high, his achievement also will be high.
It can be summarized from the above table that there is a positive relationship
between cognitive processing and achievement. Hence the Hypothesis that there will be
significant relationship between the achievement and cognitive processing factors is
retained. Further if a childs cognitive processing skill is high he will have high planning,
attention, and simultaneously and successively process the information. He will be able to
perform well in the academics.
147
Achievement
Social
Science Maths Malayalam English Hindi
Science
Factors
It can be inferred from the above table that the high negative correlation signifies
that as perception of learning disabilities in the skill of cognition, processing, expression
and memory decreases their achievement increases and vice versa which implies that
students who perceived their learning disabilities in reading, writing, arithmetic etc. as
low are good performers in academic achievement rather than the high perceivers.
In general, students who experience disabilities in reading, writing, arithmetic etc., have
low perception on learning and hence are low achievers.
148
Table 5.13 Mean scores difference in achievement between high and low groups of
factors in Cognitive Processing
Level of
Factors Groups N df Mean SD t value significance
(0.01 level)
The above Table 5.13 presents the mean; Standard Deviation in achievement
between high and low groups of factors that emerged from cognitive processing in
elementary inclusive school children. It is evident from the table that for all the factors
i.e., mental processing, simultaneous and successive processing, planning and attention
the mean scores of the high group i.e., 77.86, 75.82, 73.78 and 72.38 is higher than the
low group i.e., 43.70, 45.06, 48.13 and 48.97. Also there is not much variation in the
Standard Deviations. It is clear from this that the high group on the factors of cognitive
processing has high academic achievement rather than the low group. The t values for
factor 1, factor 2, factor 3 and factor 4 are 9.80, 8.10, 6.16 and 5.45 respectively are
found to be higher than the table value at 0.01 level of significance. And so they are
significant at 0.01 level of significance.
149
This implies that the two groups which differ in their cognitive processing also
differ in their achievement scores. It can be inferred from the above table that the two
groups on cognitive processing differ significantly in their achievement scores; also high
cognitive processing group has higher achievement than the low cognitive processing
group. In general we can say that if cognitive processing skill/abilities of an individual
increases his academic achievement also increases.
Table 5.14 Mean scores difference in achievement between high and low groups in
factors that emerged from self-perception of learning disabilities
Level of
Factors Groups N df Mean SD t value significance
0.01 level
150
Further considering the mean scores it is evident that for all the factors the group
with low perception of learning disabilities have high achievement than the group with
high perception. This shows that self-perception influences achievement. This implies
that the two groups which differ in their self-perception of learning disabilities also differ
in their achievement scores.
It can be inferred from the above table that the two groups on self-perception of
learning disabilities differ significantly in their achievement scores. Hence hypothesis 8 is
accepted i.e., there will be significant mean score difference in achievement scores
between the high and low groups in factors that emerged from self-perception of learning
disabilities among the elementary inclusive school children. Also high perception group
has lower achievement score than the low perception group. It can be generalised from
the above that if self-perception of learning disabilities of an individual increases his
academic achievement decreases and vice versa.
151
The above table displays the mean; SD of achievement scores of high and low
groups of cognitive processing in elementary inclusive school children. The mean scores
of the high group on cognitive processing is found to be higher (M1=74.45) than the low
group (M2=45.26) .It is clear from this that the high group on cognitive processing has
high academic achievement scores rather than the low group. The t value is found to be
higher than the table value and so it is significant at 0.01 level of significance. So the
cognitive processing has influence on the achievement score. Hence hypothesis 9 is
accepted and retained.
This implies that the two groups which differ in their cognitive processing also
differ in their achievement scores. It can be inferred from the above table that the two
groups on cognitive processing differ significantly in their achievement scores. Also high
cognitive processing group has higher achievement score than the low cognitive
processing group. In general we can say that if cognitive processing skill/abilities of an
individual increases his academic achievement also increases.
Hypothesis 10: There will be significant mean score difference in achievement scores
between the high and low groups (based on cluster) in self-perception of learning
disabilities among the elementary inclusive school children.
Table 5.16 Mean scores difference in achievement between high and low groups of
self perception of learning disabilities
Self-perception of
disabilities
N Mean SD Df t value Level of significance
(learning) Groups
(based on cluster)
152
This implies that the two groups which differ in their self-perception of learning
disabilities also differ in their achievement scores. It can be inferred from the above table
that the two groups on self-perception of learning disabilities differ significantly in their
achievement scores. Also high perception group has lower achievement score than the
low perception group. In general we can say that if self-perception of learning disabilities
of an individual increases his academic achievement decreases and vice versa.
5.8 SUMMARY
The objectives and hypotheses stated in the methodology were analysed and
tested in this chapter based on the data generated after administering the tools. Four
factors emerged from each cognitive processing and self-perception of learning
disabilities. These factors scores were taken for further analysis i.e., correlation and t
test. With the cluster analysis two groups emerged each from cognitive processing and
self-perception of learning disabilities. The two groups were the high ability group on
cognitive processing and the low ability group. In self-perception of learning disabilities
using Cluster Analysis yielded the high perceivers on learning disabilities and the low
perceivers. The ten hypotheses formulated based on the study objectives were accepted
and retained.
This chapter puts forth light on the aspect that the PASS theory of cognitive
processing as stated by Das and his colleagues that PASS theory of intelligence is a
viable method in assessing the cognitive functions in children and Cognitive processing
has four dimensions namely - planning, attention, simultaneous and successive
processing. In addition to that this study yields one primary factor which includes all the
153
It can be concluded from the analysis and interpretations that cognitive processing
and self-perception are related with achievement and there is significant difference in
achievement between the two groups i.e. high and low on cognitive processing and self-
perception of learning disabilities.
154