� �CHAPTER – III

3.01. INTRODUCTION

“Research is the voyage of discovery. It is the quest for answers to

unsolved problems”. Research purifies human life. It improves its quality. It is

searching for knowledge. It shows how to solve any problem scientifically. It is

a careful inquiry through search for any kind of Knowledge. It is a journey from

known to unknown. It is a systematic effort to gain new knowledge in any kind

of discipline. When it seeks a solution of any educational problem it leads to

educational research.

3.02. METHODS OF RESEARCH

While preparing the design of the study, it is necessary to think of

research method. It is simply the method for conducting research. Generally,

such methods are divided into quantitative and qualitative methods. Such

quantitative methods include descriptive research, evaluation research and

assessment research. Assessment type of studies includes surveys, public

opinion polls, assessment of educational achievement. Evaluation studies

include school surveys, follow up studies. Descriptive research studies are

concerned with analysis of the relationships between non manipulated variables.

Apart from these quantitative methods, educational research also includes

� �experimental and quasi experimented research, survey research and causal-

comparative research. Qualitative research methods include ethnography,

phenomenology, ethno methodology, narrative research, grounded theory,

symbolic interaction and case study.

3.03. METHOD ADOPTED IN THE PRESENT STUDY

The Survey Method is one of the most important areas of measurement in

applied social research. The broad area of survey research encompasses any

measurement procedures that involve asking questions of respondents. A

"survey" can be anything from a short paper-and-pencil feedback form to an

intensive one-on-one in-depth interview. Surveys represent one of the most

common types of quantitative, social science research. In survey research, the

researcher selects a sample of respondents from a population and administers a

standardized questionnaire to them. The questionnaire, or survey, can be a

written document that is completed by the person being surveyed, an online

questionnaire, a face-to-face interview, or a telephone interview. Using surveys,

it is possible to collect data from large or small populations (sometimes referred

to as the universe of a study).

Different types of surveys are actually composed of several research

techniques, developed by a variety of disciplines. Survey research does not

belong to any one field and it can be employed by almost any discipline.

A survey is a data collection tool used to gather information about individuals.

� �Surveys are commonly used in psychology research to collect self-report data

from study participants. A survey may focus on factual information about

individuals, or it might aim to collect the opinions of the survey takers. A survey

can be administered in a couple of different ways. In one method known as a

structured interview, the researcher asks each participant the questions. In the

other method known as a questionnaire, the participant fills out the survey on

his or her own. Surveys are generally standardized to ensure that they

have reliability and validity. Standardization is also important so that the results

can be generalized to the larger population. The Survey Method has been used

in this present investigation. The Random Sampling Technique has been used in

the selection of the sample of 700 Teachers working in various Engineering

colleges, Arts and Science colleges and Colleges of Education.

3.04. DEVELOPING A TOOL TO MEASURE THE KNOWLEDGE OF E-

RESOURCES

The researcher decided to determine the extent to which the teachers of

higher education in Engineering Arts and Science and B. Ed colleges are with

the knowledge of E-Resources. The tool was constructed by referring various

sources in the higher education, educational technology, and educational

psychology. Prior to the construction of the tool the researcher gained

knowledge about E-Resources and how that can be a source in enhancing and

facilitating the teaching process for the present teaching community. After

having some in depth knowledge on E-Resources in teaching the researcher

� �delved in seeking assistance from the experts in educational technology,

education psychology and higher education. To the construct the tool entitled

“knowledge of E-Resources among the teachers of higher education” the

researcher referred many books, e-books, online resources, journals and

discussed with experts in educational technology in the education and

engineering department. The experts helped in all aspects to frame and to

organize a model questionnaire which was further divided into two types of E-

Resources, Informative and Communicative Informative dimension refers to the

E-Resources which are well known and use to access to get various information

from online on their demand. Communicative E-Resources are accessed to

communicate to others by means of audio, video, text and other recent

communicating formats. And given to language experts to ensure the language

used was quite appropriate and in an understandable level of the teacher of the

selected sample. Finally, after the reference and discussions the researcher

composed 34 statements. The statements are framed in the Multiple Choice

format and each item contains four options out of which only one option is

correct. If any statement gets correct answer and the score gets counted as “1”

wrong options if chosen gets “0”. The constructed tool was administered to 120

Teachers of engineering colleges, but 100 teachers only completely responded.

To standardize the tool the researcher used Item discrimination Index and Item

Difficulty Value test and finally retained 24 statements for the final study.

� �3.05. ITEM ANALYSIS KNOWLEDGE OF E-RESOURCES

After gathering the data using the tool, scores of tool were carefully

arranged in descending order from the highest to the lowest. The item which

secured highest and lowest 27% of the subject were considered and taken for the

item analysis. In the present study there are 27 subjects belonging to low and

high groups. To short list the statements the researcher used, i) Item

Discrimination Index, ii) Item Difficulty Value and iii) “Z” Score Value. In

order to select the statements the researcher arranged the scores in descending

order of magnitude. The highest 27 and lowest 27 item scores are taken for the

study.

Index of difficulty = RL

RU

Nu

RU+

Where,

RU = Right response of Upper Group

RL = Right response of Higher Group

NU = Number of subjects in the Upper Group

NL = Number of subjects in the Lower Group

Index of Discrimination NL(or)Nu

RLRU -=

The Item Discrimination Index was used and selected the statements

whose value found at 0.40 and above was selected. Further Item Difficulty

Value was also used and selected statements whose values lie between 0.26 to

0.75 is the optimum difficulty level and such of those items were selected.

Finally, based on the statistical treatments, namely Z score, Difficulty Value,

� �and Discrimination Index 24 items were retained. The tool consists of Multiple

Choice Questions with four options and a maximum of 24 marks and a

minimum of 0.

RELIABILITY

Wolf (1994) suggests four main factors that might affect reliability: the

range of the group that is being tested, the group’s level of proficiency, the

length of the measure (the longer the test the greater the chance of errors), and

the way in which reliability is calculated. The reliability of the tool was found

out with a sample of 100 teachers of higher education using test retest methods

and it was found to be 0.82. Hence the tool has reliability.

VALIDITY

The knowledge of E-Resources among the Teachers of the higher

education tool has construct validity as the items were selected using Difficulty

Value and Discrimination index. The intrinsic validity of the tool was found to

be 0.76. It is a matter of judgment rather than measurement (Kerlinger 1986).

Content validity will need to ensure several features of a test (Wolf 1994):

(a) test coverage (the extent to which the test covers the relevant field); (b) test

relevance (the extent to which the test items are taught through, or are relevant

to, a particular programme); (c) programme coverage (the extent to which the

programme covers the overall field in question).The tool has content validity, as

it was developed with assistance of experts in the field of E-Resources and

educational technology.

� �Table – 3.01

Raw Score Z Score Difficulty Value Discrimination Index

Item No Raw Score

Z score Difficulty Value

Discrimination Index

Selected Items

1 38 49.93394 0.9137 0.1481

2 41 50.47186 0.9254 0.0333

3 20 46.70645 0.1088 0.3333

4 43 50.83047 0.7462 0.4074 Selected

5 38 49.93394 0.7037 0.5925 Selected

6 41 40.47186 0.0992 0.2974

7 41 50.47186 0.7407 0.4814 Selected

8 47 51.54769 0.6703 0.4592 Selected

9 46 51.36838 0.6518 0.4962 Selected

10 47 47.54769 0.0848 0.3703

11 43 58.83047 0.7362 0.4074 Selected

12 33 69.03741 0.9111 0.0737

13 36 70.57533 0.9866 0.2962

14 26 47.78228 0.6814 0.5185 Selected

15 38 49.93394 0.7037 0.4111 Selected

16 40 50.29255 0.7222 0.6296 Selected

17 38 49.93394 0.7037 0.5925 Selected

18 34 49.21672 0.1096 0.3703

19 37 71.75463 0.9851 0.3696

20 33 49.03741 0.6111 0.6296 Selected

21 38 49.93394 0.0737 0.1385

22 43 50.83047 0.0962 0.2592

23 35 49.39602 0.6481 0.7037 Selected

24 34 49.21672 0.6296 0.6666 Selected

25 30 48.4995 0.2455 0.3825

26 32 48.85811 0.5925 0.5925 Selected

27 41 50.47186 0.7492 0.4074 Selected

28 38 49.93394 0.7037 0.5925 Selected

29 39 50.11325 0.2422 0.0555

30 45 51.18908 0.7333 0.4633 Selected

31 45 62.18908 0.7333 0.4633 Selected

32 41 50.47186 0.6992 0.6407 Selected

33 37 72.75463 0.9551 0.2096

34 41 50.47186 0.7492 0.6407 Selected

35 42 50.65116 0.7477 0.4444 Selected

36 41 50.47186 0.7392 0.4807 Selected

37 36 49.57533 0.6666 0.5185 Selected

38 40 50.29255 0.7407 0.5185 Selected

� �3.06. UTILIZATION OF E-RESOURCES

The knowledge about E-Resources and its utilization by the higher

education teachers is inevitable and it is a desperate one for a teacher in this

digital era. To measure the higher education teacher's utilization of E-Resources,

the Researcher aimed to construct a tool named “A Tool to Measure the

Utilization of E-Resources among the Teachers of Higher Education”. Tools are

the instruments which are employed as a means to gather new facts or to explore

new fields. Without a powerful data gathering instrument, no reliable data can

be collected. According to Best J. W (1983), like the tools in a carpenter’s box

each research tool is appropriate in a given situation to accomplish a particular

purpose”. Appropriateness of the tool decides the effectiveness of the method

of research. To construct the tool entitled “Utilization of E-Resources among the

teachers of higher education”, the researcher collected various needed

information from various sources like experts in educational technology in

education and as well as from teachers of engineering colleges, web resources,

journals, e-journals, text books etc. Finally after the reference and discussions

the researcher composed 42 statements, carefully structured to measure the

utilization of E-Resources. Response option provided in the tool was Likert

three point scale and the weight age given was 2, 1, 0 which is ‘Always’,

‘Sometimes’, and ‘Never’ respectively. The tool was distributed to 120 samples

that is for the teachers in engineering colleges and finally received only 100 and

scored carefully. According to their total score the items were arranged from

� descending. Highest 27% and lowest 27% of the respondent was considered for

the item analysis procedure. To shortlist the reliable items the researcher used

statistical techniques namely

i) ‘t’ Value,

ii) Cronbach’s Alpha Test and,

iii) Kolmogrov Smirnov Test.

Using the Kolmogrov Smirnov Test the quality of mean scores was

tested, the mean scores that differed significantly were retained (Guilford, J.P.

1965). The significant level is 0.05and the corresponding significant value is

greater than 1.36 were considered for the final tool. Cronbach Alpha value was

calculated for the two sets of scores for each statement. The item with the

Cronbach Alpha value greater than 0.5 were retained and less than 0.5 were not

considered. To further establish the significance of test items, the‘t’ value was

calculated and the value of the item which is greater than the table value at 0.05

level has been taken for consideration and final questionnaire was with 25

statements were given in the table 3.01.

RELIABILITY

Reliability of the tool was established by statistically treating the tool

with the split half technique. The reliability of the tool was found to be 0.78.

� VALIDITY

Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to

measure. The tool has construct validity since it is used to ensure that the

measure is actually measure what it is intended to measure and not the other

variables. Using a panel of “experts” familiar with the construct validity is a

way in which this type of validity can be assessed. The experts can examine the

items and decide what that specific item is intended to measure.

� �

Table – 3.02

‘t’ Test Score, Cronbach Alpha Value, Kolmogrov Smirnov Value

Item No ‘t’ Test Score Cronbach

Alpha Value

Kolmogrov

Smirnov Value

Result

1 0.823 .580 1.373 Selected

2 0.956 .364 .820

3 4.012 .781 1.913 Selected

4 4.161 .504 1.546 Selected

5 3.910 .383 .848

6 3.081 .411 1.675 Selected

7 0.013 .464 .338

8 3.962 .530 1.413 Selected

9 5.181 .571 1.557 Selected

10 0.043 .521 1.196

11 5.047 .503 1.450 Selected

12 4.096 .546 1.467 Selected

13 0.024 .306 .957

14 4.895 .605 1.772 Selected

15 4.116 .450 1.143

16 4.087 .502 1.148

17 5.095 .603 1.416 Selected

18 3.569 .482 1.337 Selected

19 0.045 .508 .646

20 4.401 .589 .432

21 4.302 .561 1.515 Selected

22 0.076 .454 .406

23 6.683 .623 2.389 Selected

24 6.572 .652 1.823 Selected

25 0.032 .479 .854

26 5.241 .602 1.533 Selected

27 4.686 .538 1.295

28 5.746 .646 1.632 Selected

29 6.750 .825 1.500 Selected

30 5.144 .627 1.390 Selected

31 0.075 .500 .041

32 0.074 .514 .074

33 5.806 .603 1.844 Selected

34 5.736 .602 1.366 Selected

35 6.680 .705 .652

36 8.523 .768 1.089

37 8.523 .620 1.421 Selected

38 4.874 .561 1.416 Selected

39 4.535 .588 .090

40 6.716 .663 1.482 Selected

41 7.324 .936 2.252 Selected

42 6.066 .632 1.545 Selected

� �3.07. STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE USED

The following techniques were used for this study,

a. Descriptive Analysis,

b. Differential Analysis,

c. Correlation Analysis.

THE SAMPLE

The survey method has been used in the present investigation and

Random Sampling method has been adopted for and gathered data from 700

samples of higher education teachers from Thiruvannamalai and Vellore district

in Tamilnadu. These two districts have been chosen due to the financial and

time related concerns in the data collection process. Further these two districts

covers all the three types of colleges under the study in a closed geographical

location.

Table – 3.03

NAME OF COLLEGES SELECTED FOR THE FINAL STUDY - ARTS AND

SCIENCE COLLEGES

S.No College Name No

1 Idhaya Arts and Science college 43

2 Indian Arts And Science college 44

3 Marudher Kesari Jain College for Women 35

4 Dr. M.G.R Chokkalingam Arts and Science college 40

5 Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Arts and Science college 44

6 Muthurangam Govt Arts And Science college 33

7 Govt Arts And Science College Krishnagiri 24

8 Aringer Anna Govt. Arts And Science Cheyyar 33

9 RTG Arts And Science 45

Total 314

� Table – 3.04

ENGINEERING COLLEGES

S.No College Name No

1 Ranipettai Engineering College 57

2 C. Abdul Hakem College of Engineering 47

3 Sri Balaji Chokalingam Engineering college 44

4 Global Institute of Engineering college 42

5 Arunai Engineering College 40

6 Ganathipathi Tulsi Engineering college 42

Total 272

Table – 3.05

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

S.No College Name No

1 Chezian College of Education 9

2 Indian College of Education 9

3 Durai Murugan College of Education 10

4 Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi College of Education 7

5 KKS Mani College of Education 10

6 Renuganbal College of Education 9

7 Aravindher College of Education 8

8 Sri Vari College of Education 8

9 Dhivya Collge of Education 9

10 Adhiparasakthi College of Education 8

Total 87

GRANT TOTAL 700

� �

Table – 3.06

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

S.No Variable Sub Sample Number

1 Entire Sample 700

2 Gender Male 353

Female 347

3 Type of college Arts and Science 341

Engineering 272

Education 87

4 Designation Assistant Professor 450

Associate Professor 207

Professor 43

5 Experience 0 to 2 years 243

3 to 6 years 267

6 years and above 190

6 Age Between 22 to 28 282

Between 29 to 35 242

Above 35 175

7 Subject Teach Language 69

Arts 158

Science 172

Mechanical 32

Electrical 47

Information Technology 42

Computer Science 62

Civil 37

Electronics and Communication 40

Engineering Science 41

8 Email Id With E-Mail Id 592

Without E-Mail Id 108

9 Social media Twitter 175

Facebook 355

LinkedIn 92

Others 78

10 Browsing Habits Every day 237

Once in a week 267

Once in a fortnight 94

Once in a month 101

11 Purpose of Browsing Teaching 200

Communicate to students 92

Communicate events to students 63

Entertainment 87

Share my research publication 102

To float new ideas 90

To post my contribution 37

To reply or counteract ideas posted 28

� �

1. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

GENDER

� �

2. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

BASED ON TYPE OF COLLEGE

� � �

3. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON DESIGNATION

� � �

4. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON EXPERIENCE

� �

5. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON AGE

� �

6. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON EMAIL ID

� � �

7. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON SOCIAL MEDIA

� � �

8. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON BROWSING FREQUENCY

� �

9. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON BROWSING PURPOSE

� � �

10. PIE CHART DEPICTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

SAMPLE BASED ON SUBJECTS TEACH

� � �

3.08 CONCLUSION

In this third chapter construction of the two tools namely Knowledge of

E-Resources and Utilization of E-Resources was described which was further

used for the final study. The tool was constructed by the researcher with the

research guide was on E-Resources knowledge and utilization among the

teachers of higher education.