THE LEVEL OF DIMENSIONS OF STUDY HABITS AMONG PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT SECONDARY LEVEL STUDENTS IN KATHMANDU BY APSARA KATUWAL TU Regd.: 5-2-37-298-2010 SYMBOL No.: 370029 Rearch Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of Masters Degree in Psychology, Tri-Chandra College, Ghantaghar, Kathmandu, Affiliated to Tribhuvan University February, 2018 INTRODUCTION • Study habits refer to the daily act that helps student for the learning process. • Study habits are mainly external factors that facilitate the study process such as sound study routines that include how often a student engage in studying sessions, review the material, self-evaluate, rehears explaining the materials, and studying in a conducive environment (Credé, 2008). DIMENSIONS OF STUDY HABITS • Comprehension • Concentration • Task-Orientation and Sets • Interaction • Drilling • Writing and Recording • Supports STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The problem under investigation was to explore: • the level of dimensions of study habits among private and government secondary level students in Kathmandu, • the study of secondary level students in relation to gender. RATIONALE OF STUDY The present study aims to find out the level of dimensions of study habits among private and government secondary level students like: • Concentration level, • Comprehension level, • Task orientation and sets, • Drilling, • Interaction • Writing and recording and • Support OBJECTIVES OF STUDY i. To compare the study habits of secondary level students in terms of comprehension, concentration, task orientation and sets, interactions, drilling, writing and recording and support between both private and government school. ii. To compare the study habits of secondary level students in relation to gender. HYPOTHESES H1: There will be the significant difference in each level of dimensions of study habits between private and government secondary level school students. H2: There will be the significant difference in study habits between male and female students. H3: There will be the significant difference in the ethnicity and type of family. H4: There will be the significant difference between the ethnicity and dimension of study habits (comprehension, concentration, task orientation and sets, interactions, drilling, writing and recording and support). LITERATURE REVIEW • Gilbert Wrenn C. C. (1933) published one of the first study habits inventories in the United States (Brown, 1955). Cuff (1937) carefully derived study habits inventory and found that it aids in finding the pupils in need of special guidance and helps to identify remedial work for the good and bad study habits of individual cases. • Robinson (2000) found that certain bad study habits result in poor academic performance whereas certain good study habits result in high academic performance. • Perry (1988) investigated the effectiveness of private and public schools. A sample ofthe study was fifteen-year-old high school students, and they offered an interpretation of the differences between her/his private and public school’s experiences. Perry provided rich examples to support her main argument that, in her experience, public schools deny students their identity as intellectual beings, and repress the intellectual development of minority students in particular. Private schools, on the other hand, have better performance but they are culturally isolating for minority students. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY • Research Design (comparative study) • Research Setting (Purposive random sampling, N=200) • Target Population (14-18 years old student) • Sample Size (N=200) • Sampling Technique (Purposive Random Sampling) • Inclusion Criteria (secondary level students) • Instrumentation (general information, SHI tool) DATA COLLECTION The design of the study was a correlation design with the following procedure. i. The written permission was obtained from the schools after explaining the objectives of the study to the school authorities, ii. Then, students were briefed about objectives of the study and its justification in simple terms and was assured about the confidentiality of the information. Only those students who had given informed consent for participation were covered in the study using SHI tool. • Data Analysis After collection of data, SPSS software was used to analyze the data. The collected data were analyzed by applying Means, Standard deviation, t-test, and ANOVA test and chi square test. FINDINGS 1. Demographic Data of Respondent This section includes the demographic data of respondent which includes age, gender, family type, type of school, ethnicity. TABLE 1 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SECONDARY LEVEL STUDENTS (N=200) Characteristics Age (Years) Gender School Type of family Ethnicity Frequency Percentage (%) 14 7 3.5 15 86 43 16 84 42 17 14 7 18 9 4.5 Female 95 47.5 Male 105 52.5 Private 100 50 Government 100 50 Joint 54 27 Nuclear 146 73 Brahmin 47 23.5 Chhetri 29 14.5 Janajati 103 51.5 Dalit 10 5 Others 11 5.5 2.Significant difference in each level of dimension of study habits between private and government secondary level students Table 2 Study habits between private and government secondary level students (N = 100) Dimension of Study Habits Comprehension Concentration Task orientation and sets Interaction Drilling Writing and Recording Support Total score of study habits Type of School Mean Std. Deviation private school 21.11 3.241 government school 18.30 2.743 private school 16.79 2.976 government school 15.54 2.914 private school 22.39 3.673 government school 20.52 3.138 private school 18.17 3.420 government school 17.98 2.730 private school 20.25 2.883 government school 19.70 2.946 private school 23.10 3.724 government school 24.52 3.249 private school 19.89 3.739 government school 18.94 4.636 private school 137.90 14.500 government school 131.15 11.683 Table 2.1 Independent Samples Test Dimensions of study habits t p-value Mean Difference Comprehension 6.618 .000 2.810 Concentration 3.001 .003 1.250 3.871 .000 1.870 Interaction .434 .665 .190 Drilling 1.334 .184 .550 -2.873 .005 -1.420 1.595 .112 .950 3.625 .000 6.750 Task orientation and sets Writing and recording Support Total score of study habits 3. Significant difference in each level of dimension of study habits Table 3 in relation to type of gender Study habits in relation to type of gender ( No.of female = 95, No. of male =105) Dimension of Study Habits Type of Gender Mean Std. Deviation Comprehension female 19.58 3.218 male 19.82 3.402 female 16.19 2.940 male 16.14 3.074 female 21.63 3.268 male 21.30 3.767 female 17.68 2.814 male 18.43 3.290 female 20.03 2.683 male 19.92 3.131 female 24.27 3.096 male 23.39 3.896 female 18.75 4.422 male 20.02 3.969 female 134.02 12.475 male 134.98 14.522 Concentration Task orientation and sets Interaction Drilling Writing and recording Support Total score of study habits Table 3.1 Independent Samples Test Dimensions of Study habits t p-value Mean Difference Comprehension -.513 .609 -.240 Concentration .109 .913 .047 .671 .503 .336 -1.724 .086 -.744 .260 .795 .108 1.762 .080 .883 Support -2.132 .034 -1.272 Total score of study habits -.503 .616 -.960 Task orientation and sets Interaction Drilling Writing and recording 4. Significant difference in the ethnicity and type of family. Table 4 : Ethnicity and type of family Ethnicity Type of Family joint nuclear Total Brahmin 12 35 47 Chhetri 7 22 29 Janajati 30 73 103 Dalit 4 6 10 others 1 10 11 54 146 200 Total Chi-square test Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.056a 4 .549 Likelihood Ratio 3.410 4 .492 .099 1 .753 Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 200 a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.70. 5. Significant difference between the ethnicity and dimension of study habits (comprehension, concentration, task orientation and sets, interactions, drilling, writing and recording and support). Table 5 Anova test between ethnicity and dimension of study habits Sum of Dimension of study habits Comprehension Concentration Squares df Square F Sig. Between Groups 44.840 4 11.210 1.024 .396 Within Groups 2134.75 195 10.947 Total 2179.59 199 Between Groups 29.078 4 7.270 .802 .525 1766.47 195 9.059 Total 1795.55 199 Between Groups 64.194 4 16.048 1.292 .274 2421.40 195 12.417 Total 2485.59 199 Between Groups 5.386 4 1.346 .139 .968 1892.48 195 9.705 1897.87 199 Within Groups Task orientation and sets Within Groups Interaction Mean Within Groups Total Drilling Between 28.744 4 7.186 Within Groups 1668.13 195 8.555 Total 1696.87 199 90.436 4 22.609 Within Groups 2428.34 195 12.453 Total 2518.78 199 42.335 4 10.584 Within Groups 3514.22 195 18.022 Total 3556.5 199 309.111 4 77.278 36296.7 195 186.13 36605.87 199 Groups Writing and Between recording Groups Support Between Groups Total score of study Between habits Groups Within Groups Total .840 .501 1.816 .127 .587 .672 .415 .798 DISCUSSION • Out of 200 students, 43 % were of 15 years old and only 3.5% were 14 years old. Out of 200 students, 95 were female participants and 105 were male participants. In total 200 students, 50% students were from private school and 50% were from a government school. 27% students belonged to Joint family and 73% students belonged to Nuclear family. Regarding ethnicity, 51.5% belong to Janajati and 5% belong to Dalit. • The secondary school students studying in Private school students are better in Comprehension, Concentration, Task orientation and Sets and total study habits. And secondary school students studying in government school are better in writing and recording. However, no significant differences exist between private and government secondary level students on Interaction, Drilling, and Support. • In relation to a type of gender, male students are better in Interaction and get more support than female students. While, there is no significant difference in Comprehension, Concentration, Task orientation and Sets, Drilling and Writing and Recording and total study habits. • The cross-tabulation between ethnicity and family type shows that out of 200 students, 47 students are brahmin students, and 10 students are Dalit students. Overall, it gives insight that out of 200 students 54 students belong to a joint family and 146 students belong to the nuclear family. In chi-square test, p>0.05, which signifies that there is no significant difference between ethnicity and type of family. Hence it doesn't accept the hypothesis. • In the case of ethnicity and dimension of study habits, all the dimension of study habits namely comprehension, concentration, task orientation and sets, interactions, drilling, writing and recording and support, p>0.05 which indicates there is no significant difference between the groups or within the groups. Hence, it doesn't accept the hypothesis. • As Gilbert Wrenn C.C (1933) has found that study habits inventories aids in finding a need for special guidance even this study finds a similar result. For educational success, guidance is necessary to form study habits. Those students who are good at comprehension, have a good habit of concentration can bring a positive difference in their studies. Even Brown and Holzman (1956) and Srivastava (1967) supports this study that for good academic success, good study habits and attitudes are important. • According to Bokhari et. al, in Pakistan, a small-scale study was carried out to know the factors associated with academic achievement and those factors are equally important in the context of Nepal too. These factors are intelligence level, parental involvement, home and school environment which contribute in forming good study habits. • In Perry's (1988) studies, she has found that public school's students are repressed in intellectual development and even in public school's of Kathmandu, it has been found that in many aspects, public school's students are backward as compared to private school's students. In this study, it has been found that private school's students have better study habits than that of government school students. The study made by Naggapa & Venkataiah (1955) and Sanjeev (2003) also have a similar result. • Nuthan and Yenagi (2009) have found a correlation between study habits and academic achievement. Even this study supports the findings of Nuthan and Yenagi study, as government schools have a low mean score in concentration, comprehension, interaction, drilling, which resulted in low mean score in total study habits. Even Omotere Tope (2011), Coughlin and Castilla (2014), Nagaraju (2014) has found a similar result in their respective study. CONCLUSION On the basis of sample and response of the participants towards study habits inventory, it is found that : • Private school students are better in total study habits and dimensions of study habits mainly comprehension, concentration and task orientation and sets while government students are better in writing and recording. • In relation to gender, female students are less interactive and get less support in studies. • There is no significant difference between ethnicity and type of family • There is no significant difference between ethnicity and dimension of study habits. LIMITATIONS i. The study has analyzed findings based on one private school and one government school, so the data in findings cannot generalize the whole population of Kathmandu. ii. Participants were taken only from Kathmandu valley. iii. Only two schools of Kathmandu won't represent the whole population of Nepal. FURTHER SUGGESTION • The education system of Nepal is oriented in theoretical knowledge, but it has to focus in practical knowledge too. • Timely counseling programs should be conducted in school to help needy students. • Trained teachers should be involved in teachinglearning practices to benefit huge number of students. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME.