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.