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).

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

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