For my thesis i have to find out if there is any statistical correlation between a Traditional+Experimental teaching method (compared to a merely traditional one) and a highier level of understanding of certain subjects.
I used a survey structured on a likert scale of 4 (Strongly agree/disagree), with two sets of questions for each subject.
- TRAD. lessons completed
- First survey: "TRADITIONAL teaching method has helped in the
understanding of x" "i strongly agree/disagree"
- EXP. lessons completed
- Second survey: "EXPERIMENTAL teaching method (on top of a traditional one) has helped in the understanding of x"
Where x are 4 different kinds of specific notion/subject.
I used fisher test because i have a low total count(8 people). Code in R, with the first set of data for x1, looked something like this
input_mxn_table = structure(list(Standard = c(0L, 5L, 2L, 1L), Tread = c(1L, 5L, 1L, 1L)), .Names = c("Standard", "St+Experimental"), row.names = c(NA, -4L), class = "data.frame") fisher.test(input_mxn_table)
The results look realistic as in 3 out of 4 subjects there is no improvement that is statistically relevant. But does this make sense? Did i make any mistake (logic or code)?
Thank you for your time.