Home / Physics 10

Frequency Distribution of Test Results No. 2


* Average score:



TN group:


n

n i Xi

n

X i 1

n i

i 1


= 6.01 Control group:


n

n i Y i

n

Y i 1

n i​

i 1


= 5.33


Table 3.8: Grading of test number 2



Group

T.number

HS (n)

Classification

Least

Weak

Average

Rather

Good

Point

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

9 - 10


TN


128

HS (n i )

2

13

72

34

7

%

1.56

10.16

56.25

26.56

5.47


Address


127

HS(n i )

6

28

66

23

4

%

4.72

22.05

51.97

18.11

3.15

Maybe you are interested!

Frequency Distribution of Test Results No. 2


* Test grading chart number 2


%

60


50


40


Experimental Control

30


20


10


0

Poor Weak Average Fair Excellent

Classification


Table 3.9: Frequency distribution of test results number 2


Point X i (Y i )

Experiment

Control

n i

W i (%)

X i X

n X X 2

i i

n i

W i (%)

X i X

n X X 2

i i

1

0

0

-5.01

0

0

0

-4.33

0

2

2

1.56

-4.01

32.16

6

4.72

-3.33

66.54

3

6

4.69

-3.01

54.36

11

8.66

-2.33

59.73

4

7

5.47

-2.01

28.28

17

13.39

-1.33

30.09

5

34

26.56

-1.01

34.68

42

33.07

-0.33

4.62

6

38

29.69

-0.01

0.04

24

18.9

0.67

10.8

7

20

15.62

0.99

19.6

16

12.59

1.67

47.52

8

14

10.94

1.99

55.44

7

5.52

2.67

49.91

9

5

3.91

2.99

44.7

4

3.15

3.67

53.88

10

2

1.56

3.99

31.84

0

0

4.67

0

128



301.1

127



323.09


* Frequency distribution graph of test number 2


Wi (%)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Experiment

Control


Xi , Yi


* Statistical parameters of test number 2

i i X

nn X 2


i i Y

nn Y 2

S 2 i 1

= 2.37

S 2 i 1

= 2.56

n

1

TN DC

TN

n DC 1


S2

TN

S2

DC

TN = 1.54DC = 1.6


V TN

TN .100% = 25.62 %

X


DC​

DC .100%

Y


= 30.02 %


Student coefficient according to calculation:

t t t

XY

= 3.45


n

S 2

TN DC

S 2

According to Student coefficient table with n = 127; = 0.005 then

tn ,

= 2.62


Comment: The calculated value of Student's coefficient is larger than the theoretical value with high reliability. This confirms that the average value of the test score of test number 2 is meaningful.

Table 3.10: Third test results



Point

Experimental group

Control group

Cau farm

DTMinh

G.Steel


n

Areca farm

DTMinh

G.Steel

n

10B

10A 3

10A 2

10E

10A 5

10A 7

SL

%

SL

%

SL

%

n i

SL

%

SL

%

SL

%

n i

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

4.76

1

2.38

1

2.33

4

3

2

5.0

1

2.33

1

2.22

4

4

9.52

3

7.15

3

6.98

10

4

1

2.5

3

6.97

2

4.44

6

5

11.9

4

9.52

8

18.6

17

5

13

32.5

9

20.93

16

35.56

38

10

23.82

14

33.33

13

30.23

37

6

11

27.5

14

32.56

11

24.44

36

13

30.95

11

26.19

7

16.28

31

7

6

15.0

7

16.28

4

8.89

17

4

9.52

5

11.9

5

11.63

14

8

5

12.5

5

11.63

6

13.34

16

3

7.15

3

7.15

5

11.63

11

9

2

5.0

3

6.97

4

8.89

9

1

2.38

1

2.38

1

2.33

3

10

0

0

1

2.33

1

2.22

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

40


43


45


128

42


42


43


127


* Average score:



TN group:


n

n i Xi

n

X i 1

n i

i 1


= 6.22 Control group:


n

n i Y i

n

Y i 1

n i​

i 1


= 5.48

Table 3.11: Grading of test number 3



Group

Number of students (n)

Sort

type

Least

Weak

Average

Rather

Good

Point

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

9 - 10


TN


128

HS (n i )

0

10

74

33

11

%

0

7.82

57.81

25.78

8.59


Address


127

HS(n i )

4

27

68

25

3

%

3.15

21.26

53.54

19.69

2.36


* Test 3 grading chart


%

60


50


40


Experimental Control

30


20


10


0

Poor Weak Average Fair Excellent

Classification


Table 3.12: Frequency distribution of test results number 3


Point X i (Y i )

Experiment

Control

n i

W i (%)

X i X

n X X 2

i i

n i

W i (%)

X i X

n X X 2

i i

1

0

0

-5.22

0

0

0

-4.48

0

2

0

0

-4.22

0

4

3.15

-3.48

48.44

3

4

3.13

-3.22

41.48

10

7.87

-2.48

61.5

4

6

4.69

-1.22

29.58

17

13.39

-1.48

37.23

5

38

29.69

-0.22

56.62

37

29.13

-0.48

8.51

6

36

28.13

0.78

1.8

31

24.41

0.52

8.37

7

17

13.28

1.78

10.37

14

11.02

1.52

32.34

8

16

12.5

2.78

50.72

11

8.66

2.52

69.85

9

9

7.03

3.78

69.57

3

2.36

3.52

37.17

10

2

1.56

4.78

28.58

0

0

4.52

0

128



288.72

127



303.41


* Frequency distribution graph of test number 3


Wi (%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Experiment

Control


Xi , Yi


* Statistical parameters of test number 3

i i X

nn X 2


i i Y

nn Y 2

S 2 i 1

= 2.27

S 2 i 1

= 2.41

n

1

TN DC

TN

n DC 1


S2

TN

S2

DC

TN = 1.51DC = 1.55


V TN

TN .100% = 24.28 %

X


DC​

DC .100%

Y


= 28.28 %


Student coefficient according to calculation:

t t t

XY

= 3.86


n

S 2

TN DC

S 2

According to Student coefficient table with n = 127; = 0.005 then

tn ,

= 2.62


Comment: The calculated value of Student's coefficient is larger than the theoretical value with high reliability. This confirms that the average value of the test score of test number 3 is meaningful.


Table 3.13: Statistics of results of 3 tests


times

Number of students

Average score

S 2

V(%)

t

TN

Address

TN

Address

TN

Address

TN

Address

TN

Address

t t t

t ( n , )

1

128

127

6.13

5.57

2.36

2.58

1.54

1.61

25.12

28.9

2.84


2.62

2

128

127

6.01

5.33

2.37

2.56

1.54

1.6

25.62

30.02

3.45

3

128

127

6.22

5.48

2.27

2.41

1.51

1.55

24.28

28.28

3.86


3.6. General assessment of pedagogical experiment

Through organizing, monitoring and analyzing the progress of the TNSP hours, discussing with teachers and students of the schools selected for the experiment, and evaluating students' ability to apply knowledge through the results of the tests, we can conclude that:


- The level of interest and ability to apply knowledge of students in experimental classes is higher than in control classes. Students showed more interest in physics lessons, were more proactive in solving exercises in textbooks and workbooks, and applied the acquired knowledge to practice and techniques.

- The good and excellent scores of the experimental class are higher than those of the control class, the weak and poor scores of the experimental class are lower than those of the control class. The average scores of the experimental group students are always greater than the average scores of the control group.

- Statistical parameters: variance, standard deviation, coefficient of variation of the experimental group are always smaller than the corresponding values ​​of the control group.

- The calculated Student coefficient always has a value greater than the value looked up in the Student distribution table, proving that the knowledge acquisition results and knowledge application ability of students in the experimental group are higher than those of the control group, which is meaningful and not accidental.

- The frequency distribution graph of the tests shows that the quality of knowledge mastery and application of knowledge of the experimental group is higher than that of the control group.


CONCLUSION OF CHAPTER III


Based on the investigation of the current situation of physics teaching in some high schools and the results of the experimental process, we draw the following conclusions:

- The process of experimental teaching proves the feasibility of the prepared teaching process. Applying DHTH appropriately in the teaching process will make students more interested, active, and proactive in the learning process, thereby improving the quality of knowledge mastery and teaching quality.

- Through integrated activities along with effective orientations in teaching and learning activities of teachers and students, forms of developing the ability to apply knowledge to problems, real life, technology and environment to develop students' interest and ability to apply knowledge.

Due to time constraints, we only conducted 3 experimental periods at each selected high school, so the evaluation of the effectiveness of the experimental process is not complete and general. We will continue to develop the topic in the direction of drafting a large-scale experiment to expand to the lessons of the general physics program, thereby contributing positively to improving the effectiveness of physics teaching in general schools.

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *