eduzhai > Socail Sciences > Psychology >

Study the education status of tribal and non tribal KGB girls compared with girls in other schools in Chhattisgarh

  • sky
  • (0) Download
  • 20211101
  • Save
https://www.eduzhai.net International Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, 7(3): 49-59 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijap.20170703.01 Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh Ushakiran Agrawal Department of Psychology, Govt. D.B. Girls P. G. College, Pt Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur Chhattisgarh, India Abstract A sample of 720 girls was chosen on incidental cum random basis from tribal KGBV of Dantewada and Kanker, non- tribal KGBV Bemetara and Baloda Bazar, model schools of Kugda and J R Dani school Raipur, other schools of Kurud and Mandhar. Various schools were compared with tribal and non-tribal KGBV on the four dimensions system maintenance, personal development, relationship and system change) of class room environment scale, tribal KGBV found higher on system maintenance and personal development while non-tribal KGBV found higher on relationship and system change dimension when tribal KGBV compared with model school tribal KGBV found lower on relationship dimension and higher on other 3 dimensions, tribal KGBV when compared with other school, other school found higher on system change dimension. So tribal KGBV needs improvement in relationship and system change dimension, when Non-tribal KGBV compared with tribal KGBV it was found better on relationship and system change dimension, tribal KGBV needs improvement in these two dimensions, Non-tribal KGBV were found better on relationship and system change dimensions while model and other schools needed improvement in these dimensions, non-tribal KGBV needs improvement in personal development and system maintenance dimensions. Keywords System Maintenance, Personal Development, Relationship, System Change, Classroom Environment 1. Introduction 1.1. Concept and Definitions Children have a right to education, a quality education “In all aspects of the school and its surrounding education community, the rights of the whole child, and all children, to survival, protection, development and participation are at the center. This means that the focus is on learning which strengthens the capacities of children to act progressively on their own behalf through the acquisition of relevant knowledge, useful skills and appropriate attitudes; and which creates for children, and helps them create for themselves and others, places of safety, security and healthy interaction” (Bernard, 1999). Class room environment in any institution is of utmost importance for the learners. In a study “Defining Quality Education” by UNICEF quality education is one which includes  Learners who are healthy, well-nourished and ready to * Corresponding author: ushakiran2308@gmail.com (Ushakiran Agrawal) Published online at https://www.eduzhai.net Copyright © 2017 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved participate and learn, and supported in learning by their families and communities.  Environments that are healthy, safe, protective, gender-sensitive, and provide adequate resources and facilities.  Content that is reflected in relevant curricula and materials for the acquisition of basic skills, especially in the areas of literacy, numeracy and skills for life.  Knowledge in such areas as gender, health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS prevention and peace.  Processes through which trained teachers use child-centered teaching approaches in well-managed classrooms and schools and skillful assessment to facilitate learning and reduce disparities.  Outcomes that encompass knowledge, skills and attitudes, and are linked to national goals for education and positive participation in society (SourceUNICEF). 2. KGVB Scheme Gender disparities still persist in rural areas and among disadvantaged communities. Looking at enrolment trends, there remain significant gaps in the enrolment of girls at the elementary level as compared to boys, especially at the upper 50 Ushakiran Agrawal: Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh primary levels. The objective of KGBV is to ensure access and quality education to the girls of disadvantaged groups of society by setting up residential schools with boarding facilities at elementary level. Chhattisgarh Scenario The state of Chhattisgarh along with the other 27 states of the country launched this scheme and has made considerable progress by establishing KGBV schools across the state. Along with these schools the state government has established model schools with following objectives- A model school will have infrastructure and facilities of the same standard as in a Kendriya Vidyalaya and with stipulation on pupil-teacher ratio, ICT usage, holistic educational environment, appropriate curriculum and emphasis on output and outcome. Classroom Environment Classroom environment encompasses a broad range of educational concepts, including the physical setting, the psychological environment created through social contexts, and numerous instructional components related to teacher characteristics and behaviors. We are interested in relationships between environment constructs such as class room arrangement classroom discussions are punctuated by partner talk rather than calling on one student at a time, visibility of learning tools such as books charts maps of and their impact on learning of the students The Classroom environment broadly include. (1) The Physical Environment It has found that classrooms with highly cooperative groups appear to have students with more positive perceptions of fairness in grading, stronger class cohesion, and higher degree of social support, as well as higher achievement scores. Female students have been found to prefer collaborating with other students when studying and resolving problems and they have a stronger preference for teacher support than male students. The primary school environments tend to use collaborative strategies more frequently and have higher levels of teacher involvement and support than is found in secondary schools. Studies about class size have examined how class size influences student and teacher behaviors. in general, smaller classes are associated with students who are less stressed and are more frequently on-task with fewer reported behavior problems than students in larger classes, overcrowded facilities, too many students in certain classes, and lack of teachers' assistants are three major issues cited as potentially creating problems due to increased stress levels of students and increased teacher-reported incidences of behavioral problems. These increased stress levels and behavior problems found in larger classrooms are frequently accompanied by lower levels of academic achievement. (2) Classroom Climate Classroom climate identifies the relationships among students with each other, the teacher and how this translates into learning. (3) The Psychological Environment Beyond the physical arrangement of a classroom a psychological environment also plays important role in learning. Interaction of key players in the classroom, namely students and teachers lead to student class participation rates, teacher support, and communication of learning goals. It is important to learn whether the behavior of teachers is democratic or autocratic and its impact on learning, A democratic classroom might be one that is gives more sense of freedom and large degree of permissiveness to foster healthy teacher-pupil relationship and where students are allowed to work independently, On the other hand, an autocratic environment may be described as controlled by the teacher in which teacher decides the goals and the learning activities to be taught. The students do not participate in the selection of learning activities. We will study following environments in the class room  Involvement of the students.  Affiliation among students of the class.  Teacher support.  Task Orientation.  Competition.  Order and Organization of the class.  Rule clarity to the students.  Teacher control in the class. Arranging the Physical Environment of the Classroom to Support Teaching/Learning Arranging the physical environment of the classroom is one way to improve the learning environment and to prevent problem behaviors before they occur. Research on the classroom environment has shown that the physical arrangement can affect the behavior of both students and teachers (Savage, 1999; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Weinstein, 1992), and that a well-structured classroom tends to improve student academic and behavioral outcomes (MacAulay, 1990; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker & Walker, 1991). In addition, the classroom environment acts as a symbol to students and others regarding what teachers value in behavior and learning (Savage, 1999; Weinstein, 1992). If a classroom is not properly organized to support the type of schedule and activities a teacher has planned, it can impede the functioning of the day as well as limit what and how students learn. However, a well-arranged classroom environment is one way to more effectively manage instruction because it triggers fewer behavior problems and establishes a climate conducive to learning. The spatial structure of the classroom refers to how students are seated, where the students and teacher are in relation to one another, how classroom members move around the room, and the overall sense of atmosphere and order. The research on classroom environments suggests that classrooms should be organized to accommodate a variety of activities throughout the day and to meet the teacher’s instructional goals (Savage, 1999; Weinstein, 1992). In addition, the classroom should be set up to set the stage for International Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, 7(3): 49-59 51 the teacher to address the academic, social, and emotional needs of students (MacAulay, 1990). The standards for determining what spatial layout is most appropriate to fulfill these functions include: ways to maximize the teacher’s ability to see and be seen by all his or her students; facilitate ease of movement throughout the classroom; minimize distractions so that students are best able to actively engage Series on Highly Effective Practices—Classroom Environment. In academics; provide each student and the teacher with his or her own personal space; and ensuring that each student can see presentations and materials posted in the classroom. Most researchers agree that well-arranged classroom settings should reflect the following attributes (Walker & Walker, 1991):  Classrooms will contain a high-traffic area around commonly shared resources and spaces for teacher-led instruction or independent work, such as rows of desks. A classroom for students with learning/behavior problems may Clearly defined spaces within the classroom that are used for different purposes and that ensure students know how to behave in each of these areas (Quinn, Osher, Warger, Hanley, Bader, & Hoffman, 2000; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995) have separate quiet spaces where a student can cool down or work independently (Quinn et al., 2000; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995), personal spaces that each student can call his or her own (Rinehart, 1991; Quinn et al., 2000), and areas for large and small group activities that set the stage for specific kinds interactions between students and teacher (Rinehart, 1991; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). There may also be spaces to store items, computers, or audio-visual equipment.  Seating students in rows facilitates on task behavior and academic learning; whereas more open arrangements, such as clusters, facilitate social exchanges among students (MacAulay, 1990; Walker & Walker, 1991).  It is useful to strategically arrange the classroom to limit student contact in high-traffic areas, such as the space surrounding the pencil sharpener and wastebasket, and instructional areas; and, to seat easily distracted students farther away from high- Series on Highly Effective Practices—Classroom Environment 3 Traffic areas (Bettenhausen, 1998; Quinn et al., 2000; Walker, 1995; Walker & Walker, 1991).  All students should have a clear view of the teacher and vice versa, at all times (Quinn et al., 2000; Rinehart, 1991; Stewart & Evans, 1997; Walker et al., 1995; Walker & Walker, 1991; Wolfgang, 1996). In addition, the traffic pattern in the classroom allows the teacher to be in close physical proximity to high maintenance students (Shores, Gunter & Jack, 1993; Wolfgang, 1996).  There is some evidence that it is useful to limit visual and auditory stimulation that may distract students with attention and behavior problems (Bettenhausen, 1998; Cummings, Quinn et al., 2000).  There is good reason to strategically place students with special needs or behavior problems in close proximity to the teacher’s desk (Bettenhausen, 1998; Wolfgang, 1996). Shores and his colleagues (1993) recommend that this be done not only to monitor student problem behaviors, but also to facilitate teacher delivery of positive statements when compliant or otherwise appropriate behaviors are exhibited.  Finally, it is advantageous to keep the classroom orderly and well organized (Bettenhausen, 1998; Stewart & Evans, 1997). The physical arrangement of the classroom can serve as a powerful setting event for providing students effective instruction and facilitate (or inhibit) positive teaching/learning interactions. As with other aspects of instruction, the physical arrangement of the classroom should be reflective of the diverse cultural and linguistic characteristics of the students and be consistent with specific learner needs. Eric et. al (2008) investigated the contributions of stressful life events and resources (social support and social problem-solving skills) to predicting changes in children's adjustment. At Time 1, 361 third through fifth graders completed measures of social support and social problem-solving skills. Their parents completed a stressful life events scale and a child behavior rating measure. The children's teachers provided ratings of behavioral and academic adjustment. 2-year follow-up data (Time 2) were obtained for approximately half of the sample on the same measures. Time 1 stressful life events and resources showed some significant but modest zero-order correlations with the Time 2 adjustment indices. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed prospective effects for Time 1 social support on later teacher-rated competencies and grade-point average. In addition, increases over time in social support and social problem-solving skills (a composite score) were significantly related to improvement in behavioral and academic adjustment, whereas stressful life events were not predictive of adjustment. Objectives of the Project – The objectives of the project are: 1. To compare the education status by measuring classroom environment of different schools of Chhattisgarh state of India. Sample Composition-Classroom Environment Scale 52 Ushakiran Agrawal: Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh Non-tribal KGBV Bemetara Non-tribal KGBV Baloda Bazaar Tribal KGBV Dantewada Tribal KGBV Kanker Model School Kugdaa Model School J R Dani Raipur Govt. School Kurud Govt. School Mandhar Total Sample 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from Class Sixth To Class 8th 90 Girls from class sixth to class 8th (other) 90 Girls from class sixth to class 8th (other) 720 Tools The tools used were class room environment scale By Mohan C Joshi And Om Prakash, R Joshi having 4 dimensions relationship (involvement, affiliation, teacher support), personal development (task orientation, competition) system maintenance (Order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control), and system change (innovation), having high reliability on all sub scales and validity. Procedure Data was collected after talking to these students and establishing rapport with them first life skill test was administered then self confidence and then classroom environment scale was administered in the order of difficulty, scoring was done simultaneously and the obtained data was put to statistical treatment. Data analysis; Data was analyzed by using t-test to compare the significant difference among different schools on the different dimensions of classroom environment. 3. Results and Discussion The life skill self-confidence and class room environment was measured among girl students of KGBV from classes 6th to 8th classes (the tribal schools are of ANTAGRH AND DANTEWADA the two non-tribal KGBV’S are from BALODA BAZAAR AND BEMETARA), the two model schools were J R DANI AND KUGDAA from district DURG, two other schools were MANDHAR AND DHAMTARI (from the same class). MEANS OF TRIBAL KGBV ANTAGARH CLASS ROOM ENV RD 61.02 PD 34.28 SMD 50.16 SCD 14.84 MEANS OF TRIBAL KGBV DANTEWADA CLASS ROOM ENV RD 58.26 PD 33.04 SMD 50.40 SCD 17.01 TOTAL TRIBAL KGBV MEAN RD 59.64 PD 33.66 SMD 50.28 SCD 15.92 MEANS OF NON-TRIBAL KGBV BALODABAZARCLASS ROOM ENV RD 61.28 PD 32.28 SMD 43.87 SCD 16.53 MEANS OF NON-TRIBAL KGBV BEMETARACLASS ROOM ENV RD 62.96 PD 32.49 SMD 43.8 SCD 17.13 TOTAL NON-TRIBAL KGBV MEAN RD 62.12 PD 32.28 SMD 48.68 SCD 16.83 DHAMTARI OTHER SCHOOL CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT RD 60.12 PD 31.53 SMD 48.68 SCD 15.04 OTHER SCHOOL CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT MANDHAR RD 60.02 PD 33.1 3SMD 48.39 SCD 15.26 TOTAL MEAN OTHER SCHOOL RD 60.07 PD 32.33 SMD 48.53 SCD 15.15 MODEL SCHOOL RAIPUR, J R DANI CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT RD 61.23 PD32.62 SMD 47.66 SCD 14.09 CLASS ROOM MODEL SCHOOL DURG RD 60.70 PD 31.96 SMD 47.44 SCD 14.87 TOTAL MEAN MODEL SCHOOL RD60.96 PD 32.29 SMD 47.55 SCD 14.48 TRIBAL VS NON-TRIBAL KGBV CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT MEANS COMPARISON N= 720 Means on these dimensions show that tribal KGBV‘s show better on systematic maintenance dimension with a mean of 50.28, and personal development dimensions mean 33.66 while it needs improvement in relationship (59.64) and system change dimension (15.92) as on these dimensions non-tribal KGBV”S are higher. International Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, 7(3): 49-59 53 Relationship dimension (involvement, affiliation, teacher support) Tribal 59.64 Nontribal 62.12 Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV Means Compared Personal Development Dimension (task orientation, competition) 33.66 32.28 Systematic Maintenance Dimension (order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control) 50.28 44.22 System change dimension (innovation) 15.92 16.83 TRIBAL KGBV VS MODEL SCHOOL CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT MEANS COMPARED N = 720 While comparing tribal KGBV with model schools tribal KGBV’S are found to be better on three dimensions of class room test i.e. on personal development M-33.66, systematic maintenance dimension-50.28 and system change dimension with mean of 15.92 and it needs improvement on relationship dimension as having lower mean of 59.64 as compared to model school of 60.96. Relationship dimension (involvement, affiliation, teacher support TRIBAL 59.64 MODEL 60.96 Tribal KGBV And Model school Means Compared Personal Development Dimension (task orientation, competition) 33.66 32.29 Systematic Maintenance Dimension (order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control) 50.28 47.55 System change dimension ( innovation) 15.92 14.48 NON-TRIBAL KGBV WITH MODEL SCHOOL CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT MEANS COMPARED N = 720 54 Ushakiran Agrawal: Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh When non-tribal KGBV’S are compared with model schools on classroom environment test non-tribal KGBV’S were found better on relationship dimension M- 62.12 and system change dimension M-16.83 while model schools were better on systematic maintenance dimension M- 47.55 and on personal development dimension M-32.29. Relationship dimension (involvement, affiliation, teacher support NON-TRIBAL 62.12 MODEL SCHOOL 60.96 Personal Development Dimension (task orientation, competition) 32.28 32.29 Systematic Maintenance Dimension (order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control) 44.22 47.55 System change dimension ( innovation) 16.83 14.48 NON-TRIBAL SCHOOL WITH OTHER SCHOOL CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT MEANS COMPARED N=720 On comparing non-tribal KGBV’s with other school on the basis of means on different dimensions of class room environment, non-tribal KGBV’S were found to be higher on relationship dimension with a mean of 62.12 and system change dimension M-16.83 while other schools are found better on personal development dimension M-32.33 and systematic maintenance M-48.53, non-tribal KGBV needs improvement on these dimensions. Relationship dimension (involvement, affiliation, teacher support Non-tribal 62.12 Other 60.07 Personal Development Dimension (task orientation, competition) 32.28 32.33 Systematic Maintenance Dimension (order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control) 44.22 48.53 System change dimension (innovation) 16.83 15.15 International Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, 7(3): 49-59 55 T-Test DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV IN RELATIONSHIP; T value in relationship dimension of classroom environment scale is found to be significant at higher level showing that there is a significant difference between tribal and non-tribal KGBV showing that non-tribal KGBV 62.12 have higher level of relationship among their students as compared to tribal KGBV 59.64 hence improvement is needed in tribal KGBV in this dimension. Relationship Tribal Kgbv Non-Tribal Kgbv N MEAN SD MEAN DIFFERENCE T-VALUE SIG. 720 60.77 7.48 720 59.77 214.38 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV IN PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT When tribal KGBV are compared with non-tribal KGBV on this dimension i.e. personal development dimension the difference was found significant on this dimension showing that, Tribal KGBV 33.66 were better in personal development dimension of classroom environment, While non-tribal KGBV 32.28 need improvement in this dimension. Personal Developement TRIBAL KGBV NON-TRIBAL KGBV N MEAN SD MEAN DIFFERENCE T-VALUE SIG. 720 32.69 5.94 720 31.69 142.99 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV IN SYSTEM MAINTENANCE On this dimension of class room environment there is a significant difference between tribal and non-tribal KGBV significant at higher level. Showing that tribal KGBV were better on this dimension with a mean of 50.28 while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this dimension with a lower mean of 44.22. System Mainteannce N MEAN SD MEAN DIFFERENCE T-VALUE SIG. Tribal KGBV Non-Tribal KGBV 720 46.14 8.07 720 46.73 155.34 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV IN SYSTEM CHANGE In the system change dimension there was a significant difference between tribal and non-tribal KGBV’S t value was found significant on the higher level showing that non-tribal KGBV’S are better in system change dimension with a higher mean of 16.83 and tribal KGBV’S need to improve in this dimension with a lower mean of 15.92. System change Tribal KGBV Non-Tribal KGBV N MEAN SD MEAN DIFFERENCE t-VALUE SIG. 720 15.67 4.67 720 14.67 84.73 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN PERSONAL DEVOLOPMENT While comparing classroom environment on this dimension the t value has been found significant between tribal KGBV and other school on.01 level, with tribal KGBV higher with a mean of 33.66 than the other school having a mean of 32.33 hence other schools need improvement in this dimension. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN SYSTEM MAINTAINENCE When tribal KGBV were compared with other school on system maintenance dimension the difference was found significant in this dimension showing that tribal KGBV ‘S is having better system maintenance i.e. 50.28 than other school having a mean of 48.53 hence other school needs improvement in system maintenance dimension. System Maintenance Tribal KGBV Other School N Mean SD 720 47.73 8.07 720 p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** Mean Difference 44.73 T-Value 148.70 Sig. .01** 56 Ushakiran Agrawal: Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN SYSTEM CHANGE When tribal KGBVS were compared with other school in system change dimension of class room environment the t value was found significant showing that tribal KGBV’S were having better system change dimension with a mean of 15.92 and other school need improvement in this dimension having a lower mean of 15.15. System Change Tribal KGBV Other School N Mean SD 720 15.67 4.67 720 Mean Difference 12.67 T-Value 72.70 Sig. .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL IN RELATION SHIP When non-tribal KGBV were compared with model school in relationship dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with non-tribal KGBV better in this dimension with a mean of 62.12 while model school need improvement in this area with a mean of 60.96. Relationship Non-Tribal KGBV Model School N Mean SD Mean Difference T-Value Sig. 720 60.77 7.48 720 58.77 210.80 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL IN PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT When non-tribal KGBV were compared with model school in personal development dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with model school slightly higher in this dimension with a mean of 32.29 while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this area with a mean of 32.28. Personal Development N Non-Tribal KGBV 720 Model School 720 Mean 32.69 SD Mean Difference T-Value Sig. 5.94 30.69 138.48 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL IN SYSTEM MAINTAINENCE When non-tribal KGBV were compared with model school in system maintenance dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with model school higher in this dimension with a mean of 47.55 while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this area with a mean of 44.22. System maintenance N Non-Tribal KGBV 720 Model School 720 Mean 47.73 SD Mean Difference T-Value Sig. 8.07 45.73 152.02 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL IN SYSTEM CHANGE When non-tribal KGBV were compared with model school in System Change dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with non-tribal KGBV higher in this dimension with a mean of 16.83 while model school need improvement in this area with a mean of 14.48. System Change Non-Tribal KGBV Model School N Mean SD Mean Difference 720 15.67 4.67 720 13.67 T-Value 78.43 Sig. .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** When non tribal KGBV were compared with other school in relationship dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with non-tribal KGBV higher in this dimension with a mean of 62.12 while other school need improvement in this area with a mean of 60.07. International Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, 7(3): 49-59 57 Relationship N Non-Tribal KGBV 720 Other School 720 Mean 60.77 SD Mean Difference T-Value Sig. 7.48 57.77 207.21 .01** p<.01** t-table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT When non-tribal KGBV were compared with other school in personal development dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with other school slightly higher in this dimension with a mean of 32.33 while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this area with a mean of 32.28. Personal Development N Mean SD Mean Difference t-Value Sig. Non-Tribal KGBV Other School 720 32.69 5.94 720 29.69 133.96 .01** P<.01**t table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN SYSTEM MAINTAINENCE On comparing non-tribal KGBV with model school in system maintenance dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with other school higher in this dimension with a mean of 48.53 while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this area with a mean of 44.22. System Maintainance Non-Tribal KGBV Other School N Mean SD Mean Difference t-Value Sig. 720 47.73 8.07 720 44.73 148.70 .01** P<.01**t table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NON-TRIBAL AND OTHER SCHOOL IN SYSTEM CHANGE On comparing non-tribal KGBV with other school in system change dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with non-tribal KGBV higher in this dimension with a mean of 16.83 while other schools need improvement in this area with a mean of 15.15. System Change N Mean SD Non-Tribal KGBV 720 15.67 4.67 Other School 720 P<.01**t table.05, 1.97*.01, 2.60** OVERALL PICTURE IN CLASS ROOM ENVIRONMENT Class Room Environment Relationship Personal Development System maintenance System Change df Mean 719 60.77 719 32.69 719 47.73 719 15.67 Mean Difference 12.67 t-Value 72.70 Sig. .01** SD t-Value Sig 7.481 217.974 .01 5.947 147.504 .01 8.07 158.672 .01 4.67 89.909 .01 4. Conclusions 4.1. Conclusions on Comparison of Educational Status  Means on 4 dimensions show that TRIBAL KGBV ‘s were better on SYSTEMATIC MAINTENANCE DIMENSION and PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS while it needs improvement in RELATIONSHIP dimension and SYSTEM CHANGE DIMENSION as on these dimensions NON-TRIBAL KGBV”S are higher.  While comparing TRIBAL KGBV with MODEL SCHOOLS, TRIBAL KGBV’S are found to be better on three dimensions of class room test i.e. on PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, SYSTEMATIC MAINTENANCE DIMENSION AND SYSTEM CHANGE Dimension and it needs improvement on relationship dimension as compared to model schools.  On comparing TRIBAL KGBV WITH OTHER SCHOOL, on the basis of means TRIBAL KGBV were found better on PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT 58 Ushakiran Agrawal: Study of Educational Status among Girls of Tribal and Non-tribal KGBV as Compared with Girls of Other Schools of Chhattisgarh DIMENSION SYSTEMATIC MAINTENANCE DIMENSION AND SYSTEM CHANGE DIMENSION While tribal KGBV needs improvement on relationship dimension than other school.  On comparing NON-TRIBAL KGBV’S WITH MODEL SCHOOLS on classroom environment NON-TRIBAL KGBV’S were found better on RELATIONSHIP DIMENSION AND SYSTEM CHANGE DIMENSION while MODEL SCHOOLS were better on systematic maintenance dimension and on personal development dimension.  On comparing NON-TRIBAL KGBV’S WITH OTHER SCHOOL on the basis of means on different dimensions of class room environment, non-tribal KGBV’S were found to be higher ON RELATIONSHIP DIMENSION AND SYSTEM CHANGE DIMENSION while other schools are found better on personal development dimension and systematic maintenance while non-tribal KGBV needs improvement on these dimensions.  T value in relationship dimension of classroom environment scale is found to be significant at higher level showing that there is a significant difference between TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV showing that non-tribal KGBV had higher level of relationship among their students as compared to tribal KGBV hence improvement is needed in tribal KGBV in this dimension.  When TRIBAL KGBV ARE COMPARED WITH NON-TRIBAL KGBV, personal development dimension the difference was found significant on this dimension showing that, Tribal KGBV were better in personal development dimension of classroom environment, While non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this dimension.  On system maintenance dimension of class room environment there is a significant difference between TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV significant at higher level. Showing that tribal KGBV were better on this dimension, while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this dimension.  In the system change dimension there was a significant difference between TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL KGBV’S t value was found significant on the higher level showing that non-tribal KGBV’S are better in system change dimension with a higher mean and tribal KGBV’S need to improve in this dimension.  Significant difference was found among TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL in relationship dimension with t value significant, with Tribal KGBV lower in this dimension and model school higher on this dimension, so tribal KGBV’S need an improvement in this dimension.  There was a significant difference in TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL in personal development dimension of class room environment scale with tribal KGBV higher in this dimension and model school lower on this dimension, hence model school needs improvement in this dimension.  On system maintenance dimension of classroom environment scale the difference between TRIBAL AND MODEL SCHOOL was found significant with tribal school better in this dimension and model school need improvement in this dimension.  The difference between TRIBAL KGBV AND MODEL SCHOOL on system change dimension is found significant with tribal KGBV better in this dimension while model schools need improvement in this dimension.  The difference between TRIBAL KGBV AND OTHER SCHOOL on relationship dimension is found significant with tribal KGBV better in this dimension while model schools need improvement in this dimension.  While comparing classroom environment on personal development dimension the t value has been found significant between tribal KGBV and other school, with tribal KGBV higher, than the other school, hence other schools need improvement in this dimension.  When TRIBAL KGBV were compared with other school on system maintenance the difference was found significant in this dimension showing that tribal KGBV ‘S having better system maintenance than other school, hence OTHER SCHOOL needs improvement in system maintenance dimension.  When TRIBAL KGBVS were compared with other school on system change dimension of class room environment the t value was found significant showing that tribal KGBV’S were having better system change dimension and OTHER SCHOOL need improvement in this dimension.  When NON-TRIBAL KGBV were compared with model school in relationship dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with non-tribal KGBV better in this dimension while model school need improvement in this dimension.  When NON-TRIBAL KGBV were compared with model school in personal development dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with model school slightly higher in this dimension, while non-tribal KGBV need improvement in this area.  When NON-TRIBAL KGBV were compared with model school in system maintenance dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with model school higher in this dimension, while NON-TRIBAL KGBV need improvement in this.  When NON-TRIBAL KGBV were compared with model school in SYSTEM CHANGE dimension of classroom environment the difference was found significant on higher level with NON-TRIBAL KGBV higher in this dimension while model school need improvement in this area.  When NON-TRIBAL KGBV were compared with

... pages left unread,continue reading

Document pages: 11 pages

Please select stars to rate!

         

0 comments Sign in to leave a comment.

    Data loading, please wait...
×