Problems of present . It endeavor’s to determine the real facts of a given situations.

Here data is gathered pertaining to prevailing conditions. This method find out the

typical conditions pertaining to the problem under study.

Attitude Towards Online education scale

Online education scale is a scale of Likert’s type having 40

statements ; 31 of them or favorably worded and the remaining 9 are

unfavorably worded. Each statements is set against a five point scale of

“Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “undecided”, “Disagree”, and “Strongly

disagree”, and weight of 5,4,3,2 and 1 are given in that order for the

favorable statements and the scoring is reversed for the unfavorable

statements. An individual’s score is the sum of all the scores for the 40

items

Initially all the 40 statements in the original scale. Then this scale

of 40 statements intended to the pilot study (vide appendix-A) was

administered to the sample of as many as hundred B.Ed., students

studying in the Annamalai University in Chidambaram town have been

chosen for the purpose.

Calculation of the t value and item selection.

The next step in the validation of an Online education scale after pilot

study is to find out the ‘t’ value of each statement which forms the basis

for item selection in order to build up the final scale.

The linkert type scale calls for a graded response to each statement

on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly

Disagree”.

The individual anxiety towards using technology in teaching scale

score for all the 100 students were found out and they were ranked from

the highest to the lowest scorer. Then 25% of the subject (high) with the

highest total scores and 25% of the subjects (low) with the lowest total

scores were sorted out for the purpose of item selection. The high and

the low groups, thus selected, formed the criterion groups and each

group was made up of 25 students.

It may be recalled that each statements is followed by five different

responses of “SA”, “A”, “UD”, “DA”, “SD” in the computer user

anxiety scale. As already indicated weights are given for the response

categories in respect of each statement favorable or unfavorable. Then

each statement was taken individually and the number of students who

responded, “SA”, “A”, “UD”, “DA” and “SD” was found out in both

the high and the low groups separately. Thus for all the statements the

number of students coming under each category was found out

separately for both the high and low groups. Then a separate work –

sheet was prepared for each statements for the calculation of ‘t’ values,

A model work – sheet is given in table 3.1.

The following formula was used (Edwards,1957) to calculate the

‘t’ value of each statement.
XH− X L
S S

t = √ nH
H2
+
nL
L2

where,
S
H2 = The variance of the distribution of response of the high

group to the statement.

S
L2 = The variance of the distribution of response of the low

group to the statement.

nH = The number of subjects in the high group.

nL = The number of subjects in the low group.

 Table 3.1

Table for the calculating the ‘t’ value of anxiety towards using

technology in teaching scale statement.

Statement number: 31- favorable (Model)

Sl.N Respons
low group High group
o e
    x f f(x) f(x2) x f f(x) f(x2)
1 SDA 5 9 45 225 5 17 85 425
2 DA 4 12 48 192 4 8 32 128
3 UD 3 1 3 9 3 0 0 0
4 A 2 3 6 12 2 0 0 0
5 SA 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
      25 102 438   25 117 553
      nL ∑XL ∑X2L   nH ∑XH ∑X2H

X L=
∑ XL X H=
∑ XH
nL = 102/25 = 4.08 nH = 117/25 = 4.68

2 2
( ∑ X L) (∑ X H )
nL = 10404/25 = 416.16 nH = 13689/25 = 547.56
2 2
(∑ X L ) (∑ X H )
∑ ( X L−X L )2 =∑ X L2 − n
∑ ( X H −X H ) 2=∑ X H2− n

= 438-416.16 = 553-547.56
= 21.84 = 25.44

X H −X L

∑ ( X H −X H )2+ ∑ ( X L−X L )2

t=
√ n ( n−1 )
t=3
Table 3.2
Rank order of items in the Anxiety towards using technology in
teaching scale based on ‘t’ values.

Nature of the Original Serial

Rank Order statement t' value Number
1 F 16.02 2
2 F 5.9 25
3 F 5.35 23
4 UF 4.9 14
5  F 4.65  31
6 F 4.29 3
7 F 3.9 17
8 UF  3.62 38
9 F  3.37 15
10 F  3.26 37
11 F  3.05  27
12 UF  3.03 5
13 F  3  1
14 F 2.93  40
15 F 2.87 33
16 UF  2.83  32
17 F  2.66  29
18 F  2.5 9
19 UF  2.48 20
20 F  2.44 10
21 F  2.25 16
22 F  2.12  39
23 F 2.12 6
24 F  2.06 11
25 F 2 7
26 UF 1.4 13
27 UF  1.29 12
28 F  1.29 26
29 F  1.14 22
30 F 1.06  30
31 F 0.99 28
32 F 0.70 32
33 F 0.66  24
34 F 0.5 34
35 F 0.49  18
36 F 0.46 19
37 F 0.36 21
38 F 0.3 36
39 UF 0.26 8
40 UF   0.12 35
F = favorable
UF = unfavorable
Note ; if Nh as will be the care if we select the

same percentage of the total number of objects for the high and the low

groups then the above formula can be written as follows;

Thus the ‘t’ value for all the 40 statements were calculated (vide :

Table 3.2)

According to Edward (1957), in the method of summated ratings,

what is desired is a set of 20 to 25 statements that will differentiate

between the high and low groups. These statements can be selected by

finding out the ‘t’ value for each statement and then arranging the

statements according to their ‘t’ values in the rank order.

The value of ‘t’ is a measure of the extent to which a given

statement differentiates between the high and low groups. If the ‘t’ value
is “equal to or greater than 1.75, it indicates that the average response of

the high and the low groups to a statement differs significantly, provided

there are 25 or more subjects in the high group and also in the low

groups”. In the present study there are 25 subject each in the high and

low groups. The total number of subjects involved in the pilot study

being 100.

As many as 28 statements, having ‘t’ value greater than or equal to

1.75 were chosen in order to form the final scale (vide Appendix- B).

this has as many as 31 favorable and 9 unfavorable statements. The

items in the scale were randomized so that, the favorable and

unfavorable statements were distributed throughout the scale. The

validity and reliability of this scale are given in the succeeding chapter

(1V).