MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

---------------

Final Project

RESEACRH METHODOLOGY:
Quantitative
Research Report on Data Analysis

Group’s members:

Võ Thiên Kim (2441901012)

Dương Quốc Phương Uyên (2441901038)
Đỗ Hải Vi (2341903017)
Nguyễn Thị Mỹ Hạnh (2441901004)

Class: 24SNA11
HO CHI MINH CITY, Sep 23th, 2024
INTRODUCTION:
The quality of school life is an increasingly central issue as student contentment and
attainment are intertwined. The main objective of this paper is to identify the differences in the
satisfaction of male and female students on various aspects of school life. The five specific
secondary scales including Teacher, Opportunity, Achievement, Status, and Identity were
used, and each scale was measured by test items. Moreover, there are two other aspects of
general scales consisting of General Satisfaction, and Negative Affect with five test items on
each were also applied in order to analyze their relationship with the purpose of evaluating the
school life’s quality of students.

The quantitative research methods were conducted to collect and analyze the quality of
school life within seven scales including Teachers, Opportunities, Achievement, Status,
Identity, General Satisfaction, and Negative effects. In order to get the research results, all 40
tested items were presented in the questionnaire which was delivered to the participants online
and in-person. The 5-point Likert scale is the summary indicator of a broader set of students'
experiences and emotions related to school life’s quality. The study aimed to clarify the
interaction between these components through the investigation of the cohesiveness of the
structures derived from these measurements. The data collected were entered into the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) which is usually utilized by researchers in
the processing and analyzing of research data results. The statistical analysis results from
SPSS assist in solving the research questions below with a reliable and clear analysis:

1. What are the differences between male and female students in their expressions
of satisfaction with school life on any of the five scales: Teacher, Opportunity,
Achievement, Status, and Identity?
2. What are the relationships among the scales of quality of school life: Teacher,
Opportunity, Achievement, Status, Identity, General Satisfaction, and Negative
Affect?

PARTICIPANTS:
The sample for this research included 1322 students at three different learning year
levels at four schools which are illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 shows the number
of students by school numbers, and Table 2 demonstrates the number of students by year level
and gender. In Table 1, school 12 had the most pupils with 395 students which occupied
29.9%. At schools 13 and 15, the number of students was calculated as 386 students and 297
students, respectively. It can be interpreted that 29.2% of students were from school 13 and
22.5% of students were from school 15. In Table 1, it can be seen that school 14 contained the
fewest students, with only 244 students, making up 18.5% in total.

Table 1. Student numbers by school numbers

In Table 2, the sample was divided into three groups which referred to three different year
levels of 7, 9, and 11. Table 2 revealed that the number of students in year 7 was dominant
with 521 students, followed by the number of students in year 9 and year 11 (459 students and
342 students, respectively). In year 7, the male students indicated the gender as that of the
majority with 275 students, occupying 20.8% of the total. In year 9, a total of 459 was
recorded, which included 250 male students (34.7%) and 209 female students (15.8%) of the
total participants. In other words, the male students were more dominant in the number than
female students. Table 2 shows that year 11 had a total of 342 students, with 166 male students
(12.6%) and 176 female students (13.3%). It accounted for 25.9% of the total student
population. The distribution of students with different genders and year levels could ensure the
diversity of the sample for the research data.

Table 2. Student numbers by gender and year level

DATA ANALYSIS:
1. Overview of means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of Teacher, opportunity,
Achievement, Status, Identity, General Satisfaction, and Negative Affects scale.

The mean and standard deviations for the seven sub-scales are presented generally in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean, Standard Deviations of seven sub-scales for Quality of School life.

Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha of seven sub-scales

In Table 3, it should be noted that in order to measure the internal consistency reliability of
each scale, it is separately calculated using the items in that scale as the scale variables. In
terms of evaluating the alpha reliability for the Total quality of school life, all 40 items from
seven sub-scales were selected for the ITEMS box. It can be apparently viewed from the table
that Cronbach's Alpha of seven sub-scales is above 0.70. It suggested that in general, those
scales can be interpreted as having good internal consistency.
In terms of the standard deviation, it demonstrated that all of the sub-scales were relatively
similar to each other as they only amounted to between 0.50 and 0.60. The only two
exceptions are Identity and General satisfaction, which are 0.49 and 0.61, respectively.
Concerning the means of seven sub-scales, it can be seen that Status had the lowest mean score
of 2.60 while Opportunity had the highest mean score overall of 3.14. It can be interpreted that
the feelings of being respectful by other people in school and the sense of being important or
proud, which could enhance the sense of belonging, were underestimated in the quality of
school life. However, the opportunities for future career paths were highly valued among
students. In other words, these secondary students strongly believed in the knowledge, skills,
and work opportunities that they would gain from school, which would assist them in their
future professions. Besides, it is also noticed that the average mean score of Negative effects
was fairly low at only 1.99. It indicated that all the feelings of loneliness, worry, restlessness,
or burnout, which could be considered negative attitudes towards the school, were not
generally dominant.

2. Gender differences:
In order to determine the possibility of the differences between male and female students in the
learning context of a secondary school, independent samples T-tests for five sub-scales,
including Teacher, Opportunity, Achievement, Status, and Identity, were conducted which can
be seen in Table 16 in Appendix 1.

The results of the T-tests for each mentioned sub-scale are illustrated in Table 5 in Appendix
1. For the variables of Achievement, Identity, Status, and Opportunity, it showed that Levene’s
test of Equal Variances was not significant (p= 0.624, p= 0.439, p= 0.650, p= 0.570,
respectively). Therefore, researchers decided to use the t-test results, df value, and 2-tailed
significance results in the equal variances not assumed line in order to determine whether
gender differences were significant.
Table 5. Gender differences in five subscales.

3. The differences between male and female students in their expressions of

satisfaction with school life on any of the five scales: Teacher, Opportunity,
Achievement, Status, and Identity
For detailed aspects of gender differences in the five sub-scales, each table of data is shown
below.
Table 6. Mean scores and Standard Deviation for Teacher satisfaction between male and
female learners

Table 7. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Teacher Satisfaction between male and
female learners
As shown in Table 6, the satisfaction levels of Teachers between male and female students
indicate that statistical differences between males and females were found. It could be seen
that an average satisfaction level with a mean score of 2.76 and a standard deviation is 0.626 is
lower while the average satisfaction level of the female group is slightly higher at 2.82 and a
standard deviation of 0.552.

As can be seen in Table 7, Equality of Error Variances Levene's test was performed to
compare F = 13.352, with a significant level of p <0.001. Therefore, the t-tests for unequal
variances are conducted. The result of the T-test can be seen as a t-value of -1.871, df is
1318.367, and a significant level of 0.062. That is to assume, the significant value (2-tailed) of
p > 0.05, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference in the mean satisfaction
level between male and female students. The 95% confidence interval of the mean difference
is -0.06066, and it falls between -0.12462 and 0.00330. Therefore, satisfaction with the teacher
did not differ significantly in both male and female students.

In order to display the mean score of the research data, the clustered bar chart (Figure 1) below
was conducted to illustrate the distribution of the differences in gender satisfaction.

Figure 1. Distribution of Teacher Scores by Gender.

To illustrate the frequency distribution of Teacher satisfaction scores in general for both male
and female students, the bar chart (Figure 2) below was conducted to illustrate the central
tendencies, spread, and the normal curve which shows the general trend of the data.
Figure 2. Frequency distribution for Teacher scale

Furthermore, in order to indicate the detail of gender differences in teacher satisfaction levels
from collected data, the bar chart below (Figure 3) was conducted in the illustration below:

Figure 3. Differences in Teacher satisfaction between male and female learners

Table 8. Mean scores and Standard Deviation for future Opportunity Satisfaction between
male and female learners

Table 9. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Opportunity satisfaction between male
and female learners
As shown in Table 8, the mean score is over 3 in both male and female (p= 3.19, p=3.07,
respectively). Moreover, it can be noted from Table 9 of the analysis of satisfaction concerning
opportunity that a difference exists between male and female students. The Levene test of
equality of error variances (F = 3.621 and p= 0.057) shows that there is no significant
difference in variances between the two groups and therefore uses equal variances for further
analysis. Therefore the t-test value is t = 4.113, the degree of freedom is df = 1320, and the
significance level of p< 0.001. Therefore, the mean difference of 0.122 supports that there is a
statistically significant difference in the overall level of satisfaction between male and female
students. The difference in the proportions is between 0.06399 and 0.180 with a 95%
confidence interval. The above results support the hypothesis that, on average, female students
have higher perceived satisfaction with opportunities than male students.

In order to display the mean score of the research data, the clustered bar chart (Figure 4) below
was conducted to illustrate the distribution of the differences in gender opportunity
satisfaction.

Figure 4. Distribution of Opportunity Scores by Gender.

To illustrate the frequency distribution of Opportunity satisfaction scores in general for both
male and female students, the bar chart (Figure 5) below was conducted to illustrate the central
tendencies, spread, and the normal curve which show the general trend of the data.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution for Opportunity scale

Furthermore, in order to indicate the detail of gender differences in opportunity satisfaction
levels from collected data, the bar chart below (Figure 6) was conducted in the illustration
below:

Figure 6. Differences in Opportunity satisfaction between male and female learners

Table 10. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Achievement Satisfaction between Male
and Female Learners

Table 11. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Achievement satisfaction between male
and female learners
Table 10 showed the analysis of the satisfaction with achievement variable which reveals a
small but statistically significant difference between male and female students. The level of
satisfaction is also higher among male students, and it is noted as 3.01, while among female
students it is 2.93. Thus, as it is possible to observe, the value of the standard deviation for the
male students is 0.525 while for the female students is 0.503. As well as that, Table 11 of
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances (with F = 0.241, p= 0.624) stated that there is enough
evidence to show that the variances between the two groups can not be considered significant
enough, allowing even to make an assumption of equal variances in the analysis. The t-test
shows that there is a statistically significant difference in satisfaction with achievement
between the two groups, so it can be shown in the table with the following details: t= 2.645,
df= 1320, p= 0.008; mean difference = 0.07490. The 95% interval in confidence is from
0.01934 to 0.13046. This means that the satisfaction of achievement of male students reported
slightly higher satisfaction with achievement than female students.

In order to display the mean score of the research data, the clustered bar chart (Figure 7) below
was conducted to illustrate the distribution of the differences in gender achievement
satisfaction.

Figure 7. Distribution of Achievement Scores by Gender.

To illustrate the frequency distribution of Opportunity satisfaction scores in general for both
male and female students, the bar chart (Figure 8) below was conducted to illustrate the central
tendencies, spread, and the normal curve which show the general trend of the data.
Figure 8. Frequency distribution for Achievement scale

Furthermore, in order to indicate the detail of gender differences in achievement satisfaction

level from collected data, the bar chart below (Figure 9) was conducted in the illustration
below:

Figure 9. Differences in Achievement scores between male and female learners

Table 12. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Status satisfaction between Male and
Female Learners

Table 13. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Status satisfaction between male and
female learners
As revealed in Table 12, for the satisfaction level concerning status, there is no remarkable
difference existing between the male and female students. More precisely, the mean of 2.60
and the standard deviation of 0.563 refer to the group of males, while for the females, the
mean value is also 2.60, and so 0.513 is the standard deviation. Then performing Levene's test
of equality of equality variances in Table 13 provided F = 3.403; p= 0.065. That led to the fact
that there is no significant disparity between the two groups, and hence the assumption of
homogeneity of variances is met. The t-test result implies, that there is no statistical difference
between the two groups in their levels of satisfaction (t = 0.078, df = 1320, p= 0.938). The
mean score difference is 0.00233. There is a 95% level of confidence interval with a low value
of -0.05596 to 0.06062. It is thus easy to understand that the level of satisfaction with status is
almost the same for male and female students.

In order to display the mean score of the research data, the clustered bar chart (Figure 10)
below was conducted to illustrate the distribution of the differences in gender status
satisfaction.

Figure 10. Distribution of Status scores by Gender.

To illustrate the frequency distribution of Status satisfaction scores in general for both male
and female students, the bar chart (Figure 11) below was conducted to illustrate the central
tendencies, spread, and the normal curve which shows the general trend of the data.

Figure 11. Frequency distribution for Status scale

Furthermore, in order to indicate the detail of gender differences in status satisfaction level
from collected data, the bar chart below (Figure 12) was conducted in the illustration below:

Figure 12. Differences in Status scores between male and female learners
Table 14. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Identifying Satisfaction Level between
male and Female Learners

Table 15. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Status satisfaction between male and
female learners
As can be viewed in Table 14, this identity satisfaction analysis provides proof of a statistical
difference between male and female students. It was clear that Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances in Table 15 which F = 0.598 and p= 0.439, implies that there is no significant
difference in variation between two groups, and thus the assumption of equal variance can be
made. The t-test for mean difference provided t = -5.911, df = 1320, p< 0.001. Hence, it can be
said that the above results were pointed towards a significant difference in the satisfaction
level of the two groups. From the result above, it can be seen that female student has
significantly higher satisfaction with identity compared to male students.

In order to display the mean score of the research data, the clustered bar chart (Figure 12A)
below was conducted to illustrate the distribution of the differences in gender identity
satisfaction.

Figure 12A. Distribution of Identity Scores by Gender.

To illustrate the frequency distribution of Identity satisfaction scores in general for both male
and female students, the bar chart (Figure 14) below was conducted to illustrate the central
tendencies, spread, and the normal curve which showed the general trend of the data.

Figure 14. Frequency distribution for Identity scale

Furthermore, in order to indicate the detail of gender differences in identity satisfaction levels
from collected data, the bar chart below (Figure 15) was conducted in the illustration below:

Figure 15. Differences in Identity scores between male and female learners
In short, from the total analysis, it can be obtained that the satisfaction of male students varies
by category: Teacher, Opportunity, Achievement, Status, and Identity.
Males reported lower satisfaction than females in Opportunity and Identity, while the rest are
all statistically significant. They are a little higher in Achievement, while the rest show no
obvious difference: Teacher and Status.
Female students reported higher satisfaction in Opportunity and Identity and lower satisfaction
in Achievement than male students. No differences were found in Teacher and Status.
Overall, females report higher satisfaction compared to males, with the largest differences in
Opportunity and Identity.

3. The relationships among the scales of quality of school life: Teacher,

Opportunity, Achievement, Status, Identity, General Satisfaction, and
Negative Affect
In order to explore the relationships among the seven sub-scales, the correlation analysis was
conducted. The Teacher, Opportunity, Achievement, Status, Identity, General Satisfaction, and
Negative Affect quality of school life measures have positive and negative correlations that
show how one factor can affect or be connected with others. These associations are the main
characteristic of the relationships between the scales. A detailed table of the connections was
demonstrated in Table 18 of Appendix 2. Table 18 illustrates that there were 1322 students as
samples for the research (N= 1322). Overall, the statistically significant level for the
coefficient of less than 0.05 (p<0.01) indicated that these variables have a statistically
significant connection among them, except for Negative Affect (p= 0.60).
A correlation coefficient (r) measures the strength of a linear association between two
variables and ranges between -1 (perfect negative correlation) to 1 (perfect positive
correlation). It can be seen in Table 18 that the Pearson Correlation values of Teachers and
other variables including Opportunity, Achievement, and General satisfaction are all positive
(r= 0.589, r= 0.574, and r= 0.597, respectively). It could be interpreted that the relationship
among these variables are moderate positive relationship. (Figures 16, 17, and 20). Teacher
satisfaction such as fairness between students or caring value in class could have a strong
impact on those mentioned factors for quality school life. According to this reasonably high
positive association, students who get along well with their teachers typically do better
academically. (r= 0.574)

Figure 16. The relationship between Teacher and Opportunity

Figure 17. The relationship between Teacher and Achievement

Teacher and Achievement (0.574):

Figure 20. The relationship between Teacher and General Satisfaction
Furthermore, it can be interpreted as the relationship between these variables is strong. There
is a large positive correlation between Teacher and General satisfaction, indicating that
students are more satisfied with their school experience generally when they engage positively
with their teachers (Figure 20). In other words, students who report feeling greater at school
opportunities are more likely to have positive interactions with their teachers. The degree of
overall happiness with school life increases with a positive teacher-student interaction.

In Figures 18 and 19 below, it is evident that the correlation between Teacher and Status, as
well as Identity had positive correlation values (r= 0.376, r= 0.383, respectively). These
moderately favorable associations showed that students’ sense of identity and their teachers’
relationships are related. In other words, the correlation value, which was between 0.3 and 0.5
(or -0.3 and -0.5), indicated that the relationship between these scales was a weak relationship.
Therefore, students’ perceptions of their status were somewhat influenced by their favorable
interactions with teachers.

Figure 18. The relationship between Teacher and Status

Figure 19. The relationship between Teacher and Identity

In Table 18, the statistically significant level for the coefficient between Teacher and Negative
Affect of less than 0.05 (p<0.01) indicated that there was a significant correlation between
them. However, the Pearson correlation value was negative of r= -0.331 indicating that a
decrease in negative emotions is inversely correlated with positive teacher connections. In
other words, it suggested that reduced levels of negative emotions, such stress or worry, are
linked to the improvement of teacher-student relationships during class. Therefore, it is crucial
for teachers to promote positive emotions including safety, motivation, and self-esteem in
order to enhance the quality of school life. The relationship between could be clearly viewed
in Figure 21.
Figure 21. The relationship between Teacher and Negative Affect

Besides, it can be seen that Opportunity and Achievement had a positive relationship (r=
0.656). This is one of the strongest positive connections (r> 0.5), showing that students feel
more accomplished when they consider they have more possibilities for learning and
engagement. Correlation coefficients above 0.50 (positive) or below -0.50 (negative) indicate a
strong relationship. In other words, Figure 22 shows a strong positive correlation between the
two with the upper line, suggesting that pupils tend to achieve far more when they feel they
have more opportunities or a clear view of their career path.

Figure 22. The Relationship between Opportunity and Achievement

In contrast, as can be seen in Table 18, the statistically significant level for the coefficient
between Opportunity and Status, as well as Identity of less than 0.05 (p<0.01) indicated that
there was a significant correlation. However, the positive correlation value of Status (r= 0.369)
and Identity (r=0.365) indicates that the relationship between these scales was positive but
slightly weak (Figures 23 and 24)
Moreover, it can be seen in Table 18 that the Pearson correlation value of Opportunity and
General Satisfaction was positive (r= 0.573). This implies that pupils who perceive more
opportunities are also more satisfied with their educational experience. (Figure 25)
Figure 23. The Relationship Between Opportunity and Status

Figure 24. The Relationship between Opportunity and Identify

Figure 25. The Relationship between Opportunity and General Satisfaction
Figure 26. The Relationship between Opportunity and Negative Affect

In Figure 26, the weak relationship between Opportunity and Negative Affect can be viewed
through the correlation value (r= -0.325). Correlation coefficients below -0.30 strongly
indicated that the connection between these factors was totally weak. It can be interpreted as
less negative emotion is felt by students only having a slight effect to those who believe they
have greater opportunities. In other words, even with the negative feelings, the students from
these schools still have a positive belief in their future jobs and learning opportunities.

Concerning the relationship between Achievement and other aspects of quality of school life,
it could be noticed that the statistically significant levels for the coefficient are all less than
0.05 (p<0.01) indicating that there was a significant correlation between them. In Table 18, the
correlation value of Achievement and General Satisfaction is quite high (r= 0.622), compared
to the other values. With the positive value (r>0.05), it could be interpreted that the
relationship between these two factors was positive and fairly strong. A higher level of
achievement is correlated with a higher level of school-life contentment. In other words, if
students were satisfied with the feeling of being important and respected could slightly affect
the results in learning of students. (Figure 29) Moreover, the good feeling of receiving an
education or having a chance to go to school might lead students to become motivated in
achieving a higher learning performance.
Figure 29. The relationship between Achievement and General Satisfaction

Besides, as could be seen in Table 18, students’ perceptions of their status and
accomplishment levels are somewhat positively correlated. the correlation value between
Achievement and General Satisfaction, as well as Identity, indicated that these scales had a
moderate relationship (r= 0.499, r= 0.400, respectively). In other words, socializing skills and
good feelings while being schooled seem slightly to have an effect on the learning
performance of students. (Figure 27 and 28)
Figure 27. The Relationship between Achievement and Status

Figure 28. The Relationship between Achievement and Identity

Figure 30. The relationship between Achievement and Negative Affect

In Figure 30, it is evident that the negative affect usually be seen as the most important aspect
which can cause students to have bad results in learning. Since research on the relationship
between these aspects, the results demonstrated in Table 18 showed the correlation value of
Achievement and Negative Affect are negative of r= -0.372. This small inverse relationship
indicates that unpleasant emotions are slightly impacted negatively by achievement. Moreover,
it can be interpreted that students’ negative emotions tend to decline with increased
achievement, indicating that academic accomplishment lessens stress or discontent.
Furthermore, students who possibly achieve good learning results are less likely to feel
stressed or unsatisfied.

In order to see the connection between Status and the three other aspects including Identity,
General Satisfaction, and Negative Affect, the correlation value showed a positive connection
implying that students who experience a strong sense of status also have a strong sense of their
social identity (r= 0.638). Moreover, it can be interpreted as this substantial correlation
indicates that pupils who perceive themselves as having respect or status from their peers also
have a better sense of belonging at school. (Figure 31). Furthermore, students who have a
higher level of status are generally somewhat more satisfied with their academic lives. It can
be interpreted that students’ feeling of identity with the institution grows in tandem with their
perceived status. (Figure 32).

Figure 31. The relationship between Status and Identity

Figure 32. The Relationship between Status and General Satisfaction

On the other hand, the negative correlation value between Status and the Negative Affect of r=
-0.304 could tell a different story. This indicated that there was a weak negative relationship
between them. In other words, negative feelings are marginally lessened by perceived status.
(Figure 33)
Figure 33. The Relationship between Status and Negative Affect

Figure 34 was illustrated in order to show the connection between the aspect of students’
identity and their overall satisfaction while learning in school. In Table 18, the Identity and
General Satisfaction of r= 0.399 revealed a weak positive relationship. Students who feel more
strongly about who they are studying are generally in the middle of being content. Besides the
correlation value of Negative Affect and Identity also indicated the same results with r= -
0.332. In other words, negative feelings slightly affect are somewhat reduced feeling of being
unique and respected by their learning community. (Figure 35)
Figure 34. The Relationship between Identity and General Satisfaction
Figure 35. The Relationship between Identity and Negative Affect

Figure 36. The Relationship between General Satisfaction and Negative Affect

Regarding the relationship between students’ general satisfaction and the affect of negative
feelings, the correlation value was conducted of r= -0.286, in order to demonstrate a very weak
negative correlation, suggesting that lowering negative emotions is essentially unaffected by
satisfaction.
Overall, as a result, the positive influences including the improvements in one area are
frequently linked to improvements in other areas, as evidenced by the positive
interrelationships between the Teacher, Achievement, Status, Identity, and General
Satisfaction scales. Positive connections with teachers, for instance, raise feelings of
opportunity and achievement in addition to improving overall contentment. Concerning the
negative affect scale, all other scales have an inverse relationship with this scale. Therefore, it
can be clearly seen that negative emotions decline with the quality of relationships with
teachers, opportunities, accomplishments, status, identity, and overall contentment. In other
words, the way these scales interact has an impact on the overall quality of school life. A more
satisfying educational experience is correlated with strong, positive correlations among
Teacher, Opportunity, Achievement, Status, Identity, and General Satisfaction; as these
positive features increase, Negative Affect decreases.
In summary, Achievement, Opportunity, Status, Identity, and General Satisfaction are all
strongly correlated. The majority of the time, there are moderate connections between the
teachers and other positive scores, suggesting that the influence of the instructor on other
elements is not as great as that of Opportunity or Achievement. Negative Affect has weak
correlations with other scales, indicating that although good learning experiences could be
decreased by bad emotions, the impact is not very strong. Therefore, opportunity and
achievement as well as its connections to students’ sense of identity, status, and general
satisfaction have the most effects on the quality of school life. Negative Affect exhibits mild
inverse correlations with other measures, whereas teacher associations have a moderate
influence.

Appendix 1
Table 16. Independent samples T-test for specific secondary students scales.

Appendix 2
Table 18. Pearson’s Correlations of seven sub-scales