Mean
16.8759

Median
17.0000

Variance
7.885

Std. Deviation
2.80811

Minimum
8.00

Maximum
23.00

Range
15.00

Interquartile Range
2.00

Skewness
-.452
.267

Kurtosis
1.354
.529
Total Autonomy
Low
Mean
52.1042
.78564

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
50.5237

Upper Bound
53.6847

5% Trimmed Mean
51.9907

Median
51.0000

Variance
29.627

Std. Deviation
5.44309

Minimum
42.00

Maximum
64.00

Range
22.00

Interquartile Range
6.75

Skewness
.352
.343

Kurtosis
-.150
.674

Moderate
Mean
53.1358
.56704

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
52.0074

Upper Bound
54.2642

5% Trimmed Mean
52.9444

Median
52.0000

Variance
26.044

Std. Deviation
5.10332

Minimum
43.00

Maximum
68.00

Range
25.00

Interquartile Range
8.00

Skewness
.475
.267

Kurtosis
.207
.529

Table 4.12
General, Curriculum and Total Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style

Delegator
Statistic
Std. Error
General Autonomy
Low
Mean
35.2222
1.32054

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
32.1771

Upper Bound
38.2674

5% Trimmed Mean
35.0247

Median
34.0000

Variance
15.694

Std. Deviation
3.96162

Minimum
32.00

Maximum
42.00

Range
10.00

Interquartile Range
6.00

Skewness
1.370
.717

Kurtosis
.311
1.400

Moderate
Mean
35.9083
.33494

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
35.2451

Upper Bound
36.5715

5% Trimmed Mean
35.8426

Median
36.0000

Variance
13.462

Std. Deviation
3.66908

Minimum
29.00

Maximum
45.00

Range
16.00

Interquartile Range
6.00

Skewness
.180
.221

Kurtosis
-.611
.438
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
Mean
20.2222
.49379

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
19.0835

Upper Bound
21.3609

5% Trimmed Mean
20.2469

Median
20.0000

Variance
2.194

Std. Deviation
1.48137

Minimum
18.00

Maximum
22.00

Range
4.00

Interquartile Range
2.50

Skewness
-.485
.717

Kurtosis
-.706
1.400

Moderate
Mean
16.6417
.26695

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
16.1131

Upper Bound
17.1702

5% Trimmed Mean
16.7222

Median
17.0000

Variance
8.551

Std. Deviation
2.92424

Minimum
8.00

Maximum
23.00

Range
15.00

Interquartile Range
3.00

Skewness
-.318
.221

Kurtosis
.750
.438
Total Autonomy
Low
Mean
55.4444
1.67590

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
51.5798

Upper Bound
59.3091

5% Trimmed Mean
55.2160

Median
54.0000

Variance
25.278

Std. Deviation
5.02770

Minimum
51.00

Maximum
64.00

Range
13.00

Interquartile Range
7.50

Skewness
1.317
.717

Kurtosis
.281
1.400

Moderate
Mean
52.5500
.47601

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
51.6074

Upper Bound
53.4926

5% Trimmed Mean
52.4259

Median
52.0000

Variance
27.191

Std. Deviation
5.21448

Minimum
42.00

Maximum
68.00

Range
26.00

Interquartile Range
7.75

Skewness
.378
.221

Kurtosis
-.010
.438

As can be seen through Tables 4.7 to4.12, considering the General and Curricul autonomy, Facilitator with 17.0417 has the lowest mean by contrast, Personal Model teaching style possesses the highest mean with 35.6827 regarding the low level. On the other side, in terms of the moderate level, Personal Model teaching style with 15.8800 has the lowest mean while Formal Authority teaching style with 36.8788 wns the highest. Furthermore, taking Total autonomy into account, concerning the low level, Delegator style with 55.4444 has the highest mean opposed to Facilitator which owned the lowest mean with 52.1042. In terms of moderate level, Personal Model with 52.4800 has the lowest mean while Formal Authority with 53.2727 owns the highest.
4.2.2.3. Tests of Normality
Since the teaching styles are categorized into low, moderate, and high levels, each teaching style is considered as a nominal variable. Moreover, as the autonomy is also on an interval scale, the choice of statistic to measure the relationship between one nominal variable and one interval variable is eta. However, since the frequencies of some of the styles’ levels are very low, it was decided to choose non-parametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests to compare the levels of each style in terms of autonomy scores. The reason for choosing non-parametric tests was that the test of normality results in Tables 4.13 to 4.17 indicated non-normality of the data (p .05).

مطلب مشابه :  مقاله درموردشهرستان رودبار، فشار بخار آب

Table 4.13
Tests of Normality Regarding Expert

Expert
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
General Autonomy
Low
.267
14
.008
.782
14
.003

Moderate
.109
113
.002
.969
113
.010
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
.177
14
.200*
.908
14
.146

Moderate
.131
113
.000
.967
113
.007
Total Autonomy
Low
.137
14
.200*
.944
14
.475

Moderate
.108
113
.002
.978
113
.058
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilli
efors Significance Correction
b. General Autonomy is constant when Expert = High. It has been omitted.
d. Curriculum Autonomy is constant when Expert = High. It has been omitted.
e. Total Autonomy is constant when Expert = High. It has been omitted.

Table 4.14
Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority

Formal authority
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
General Autonomy
Low
.112
96
.004
.971
96
.034

Moderate
.174
33
.013
.919
33
.018
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
.113
96
.004
.965
96
.011

Moderate
.209
33
.001
.885
33
.002
Total Autonomy
Low
.091
96
.050
.981
96
.185

Moderate
.166
33
.022
.874
33
.001
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Table 4.15
Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model

Personal model
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
General Autonomy
Low
.105
104
.007
.972
104
.026

Moderate
.246
25
.000
.890
25
.011
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
.125
104
.000
.962
104
.004

Moderate
.246
25
.000
.865
25
.003
Total Autonomy
Low
.093
104
.026
.982
104
.165

Moderate
.251
25
.000
.795
25
.000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Table 4.16
Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator

Facilitator
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
General Autonomy
Low
.132
48
.034
.948
48
.034

Moderate
.125
81
.003
.965
81
.025
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
.128
48
.048
.948
48
.035

Moderate
.165
81
.000
.943
81
.001
Total Autonomy
Low
.101
48
.200*
.966
48
.178

Moderate
.144
81
.000
.963
81
.018
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Table 4.17
Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator

Delegator
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
General Autonomy
Low
.300
9
.019
.737
9
.004

Moderate
.111
120
.001
.973
120
.017
Curriculum Autonomy
Low
.218
9
.200*
.887
9
.184

Moderate
.130
120
.000
.959
120
.001
Total Autonomy
Low
.313
9
.011
.755
9
.006

Moderate
.109
120
.001
.976
120
.031
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

4.2.2.4. Final Results

Tables 4.18 to 4.22 present the results on the comparison of Total autonomy and its subscales scores across the categories of teaching styles. Evidently, the categories of Expert, Personal Model, and Delegator styles in terms of Curriculum autonomy are significantly different from one another. In other words, there is a significant relationship between teachers’ Expert, Personal Model, and Delegator styles and Curriculum autonomy. A closer look at the descriptive statistics of these teaching styles reveals that the low category of the above teaching styles is of higher Curriculum autonomy. This indicates that there is a negative relationship between teachers’ Expert, Personal Model, and Delegator styles and Curriculum autonomy while in terms of General and Total autonomy, the hypothesis is retained and no significant relationship was found between teaching styles and General and Total autonomy.
Table 4.18
Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Expert

مطلب مشابه :  پایان نامه دربارهآداب و رسوم

Table 4.19
Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Formal Authority

Table 4.20
Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Personal Model

Table 4.21
Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Facilitator

Table 4.22
Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Delegator

4.2.3. Testing the Second Null Hypothesis
H02: There is no significant relationship between teachers’ teaching styles and NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming)‏.

4.2.3.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles
In order to test the above null hypothesis, the same procedure as in the previous hypothesis was employed. The frequencies of the teaching styles in the sample were calculated, which are provided in Tables 4.23 to 4.27.

Table 4.23
Expert Frequency Statistics

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Low
14
10.9
10.9
10.9

Moderate
113
87.6
87.6
98.4

High
2
1.6
1.6
100.0

Total
129
100.0
100.0

Table 4.24
Formal Authority Frequency Statistics

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Low
96
74.4
74.4
74.4

Moderate
33
25.6
25.6
100.0

Total
129
100.0
100.0

Table 4.25
Personal Model Frequency Statistics

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Low
104
80.6
80.6
80.6

Moderate
25
19.4
19.4
100.0

Total
129
100.0
100.0

Table 4.26
Facilitator Frequency Statistics

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Low
48
37.2
37.2
37.2

Moderate
81
62.8
62.8
100.0

Total
129
100.0
100.0

Table 4.27
Delegator Frequency Statistics

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Low
9
7.0
7.0
7.0

Moderate
120
93.0
93.0
100.0

Total
129
100.0
100.0

Tables 4.23 to 4.27 show that 113, 33, 25, 81, 120 participants in Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Model, Facilitator and Delegator teaching styles, respectively, had the moderate level of the styles. Moreover, Personal Model had the highest number of low category with 104 by contrast to delegator style with 9. In addition, two teachers had a high level of Expert teaching style which was, in effect, the only style with a high level.

4.2.3.2. Descriptive Statistics

Tables 4.28 to 4.33 also present the descriptives on total NLP scores alone and the total NLP scores in terms of different levels of each teaching style separately.
Table 4.28
NLP Descriptive Statistics

Statistic
Std. Error
NLP
Mean
143.5504
1.02559

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
141.5211

Upper Bound
145.5797

5% Trimmed Mean
143.4832

Median
143.0000

Variance
135.687

Std. Deviation
11.64847

Minimum
110.00

Maximum
210.00

Range
100.00

Interquartile Range
12.50

Skewness
1.047
.213

Kurtosis
7.920
.423

According to Table 4.28, the mean of NLP was proved to be 143.5504 while Std Deviation turned out to be 11.64847. In addition, skewness and kurtosis regarding Neuro-Linguistic Programming were 1.047 and 7.920