Sample Group: School Staff

4.2.1 Demographic Analysis

Table 9 shows the demographic details of the group school staff, including gender, age, education level, years of experience, and job title. It can be seen that out of a total of 100 research samples, 80% of the sample were female, and 20% of the sample were males. As for age, the sample was distributed to four categories, 25 (25%) were less than 30 years old, 25 (25%) were within the age group of 31 – 40, 35 (35%) were within the age group of 41 – 50, and 15 (15%) aged over 51. With regard to education level, the overwhelming majority of respondents had a BSc degree (80%), followed by a MSc degree (10%) and diploma or less (10%). As for years of experience, 30% had less than ten years of experience, 45% of the total sample had an experience between 11 to 15 years, and 15% of the sample had an experience between 16 to 20 years, and 10% of the sample had an experience of 21 years and more. Regarding the staffs’ job title, the school teacher constitutes the vast majority (84%), followed by supervisor (15%) and principal (1%).

Table 9: Demographics of the group school staff

Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 20 20

Table 10 lists the means and standard deviations for each statement of school staffs’

motivation toward the implementation of the international SAT education system. The mean values were classified into three levels: (1) Low: 1 – 2.33; (2) Medium: 2.34 – 3.67;

(3) High: 3.68 – 5. It can be seen that all mean values were in the range of 3.86 to 4.20, indicating samples had the strong motivation to adapt their growth performances for

international SAT education system implementation. Also, it can be noticed that statement no.2 “SAT Educational System requires excellent English Language” ranked the first, while statement no.6 which states “You expect higher salary after you become a SAT school staff” ranked the last. Furthermore, a one-sample t-test was utilized to test the Hypotheses 3. We set the population mean as 3 to compare the grand mean of motivation.

Table 10: Descriptive statistics for the school staffs’ motivation

No. Statements Mean SD Level Rank

1 You are ready to be trained to be an

outstanding SAT School Staff. 4.17 0.84 High 3 2 SAT Educational System requires excellent

English Language. 4.20 0.80 High 1

3 SAT Educational System requires excellent

Communication Skills. 4.09 0.86 High 8

4 You expect to receive kind of supports as school staff from SAT School before / after becoming a SAT School Staff.

4.16 0.84 High 4

5 There are kind of Self Training to be added to your own performance development before / after becoming a SAT School Staff.

4.06 0.83 High 9

6 You expect higher salary after you become a

SAT school staff. 3.86 0.98 High 10

7 You expect your teaching environment to 4.15 0.85 High 6

reach certain international standards after you become a SAT school staff.

8 You will share your professional knowledge

to your colleagues if it is required. 4.19 0.80 High 2 9 You need extra working time before / after

becoming a SAT School Staff. 4.10 0.85 High 7

10 You feel you are different from other school

staff after you become a SAT School Staff. 4.16 0.85 High 5

Reliability Cronbach’s α = 0.938

Notes: The questionnaire shows good reliability as the value of Cronbach's α exceeds the recommended value of 0.70.

Table 11 shows the result of the one-sample t-test, the t-value is 16.255, the p-value is 0.000 (less than 0.5 significance level), with an effect size of 3.25, meaning a large effect. Accordingly, Hypotheses 3 was supported, providing evidence of staffs’

motivation to international SAT education system implementation.

Table 11: The result of the one-sample t-test for motivation

Variables N Mean SD t-value p-value Mean difference

Effect size (d)

Motivation 100 4.11 0.68 16.255 0.000 1.114 3.25

Notes: Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis. Cohen's guidelines for d: Small

= 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 3.25 represents large effect size.

4.2.3 Testing Differences Between Groups

The independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to test the Hypothesis 4a, Hypothesis 4b, Hypothesis 4c, Hypothesis 4d, and Hypothesis 4e (as shown in Table 12 to 16). Table 12 demonstrates the results of the independent sample t-test for Motivation between the male and female staff. We found that there was statistically significant gender difference in school staffs’ Motivation (t = -2.531, p < .05, ES = 0.63). Thus, Hypothesis 4a was supported, in that female staff (Mean = 4.24) had a higher tendency to adapt themselves to the international SAT education system than male staff (Mean = 3.98).

Table 12: The result of the independent sample t-test by gender for motivation

Variables Gender N Mean SD t-value p-value Effect size (d)

Motivation

Male 20 3.98 0.86

-2.531 0.014* 0.63 Female 80 4.24 0.63

Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, * p < .05. Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis.

Cohen's guidelines for d: Small = 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 0.63 represents medium effect size.

Table 13 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for age, revealing that Hypothesis 4b was not supported (𝐹_(&,(') = 0.03, p > .05, ES = 0.01), in that staffs’

motivation did not differ by age.

Table 13: The result of the one-way ANOVA by age for motivation

Variables Age N Mean SD F p-value Effect

size (d)

Motivation

Under 30 years old 25 4.08 0.77

0.030 0.993

(n.s.) 0.01 31 – 40 years old 25 4.07 0.69

41 – 50 years old 35 4.16 0.82

Over 51 years old 15 4.15 0.91

Note: n.s. = not significant. Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis. Cohen's guidelines for d: Small = 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 0.01 represents no effect size.

Table 14 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for education level, revealing that Hypothesis 4c was not supported (𝐹_(",($) = 1.853, p > .05, ES = 0.36), in that staffs’

motivation did not differ by education level.

Table 14: The result of the one-way ANOVA by education level for motivation

Variables Education level N Mean SD F p-value Effect size

(d)

Note: n.s. = not significant. Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis. Cohen's guidelines for d: Small = 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 0.36 represents small effect size.

Table 15 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for years of experience, revealing that Hypothesis 4d was not supported (𝐹_(&,(') = 0.248, p > .05, ES = 0.17), in that staffs’ motivation did not differ by years of experience.

Table 15: The result of the one-way ANOVA by years of experience for motivation

Variables Years of experience N Mean SD F p-value Effect

Note: n.s. = not significant. Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis. Cohen's guidelines for d: Small = 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 0.17 represents no effect size.

Table 16 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for job title, revealing that Hypothesis 4e was not supported (𝐹_(",($) = 1.081, p > .05, ES = 0.31), in that staffs’

motivation did not differ by job title.

Table 16: The result of the one-way ANOVA by job title for motivation

Variables Job title N Mean SD F p-value Effect size (d)

Motivation

Principal 1 4.12 0.00

1.081 0.343

(n.s.) 0.31 Supervisor 15 4.09 0.65

Teacher 84 4.13 0.72

Note: n.s. = not significant. Cohen's d can be used as an effect size statistic for meta-analysis. Cohen's guidelines for d: Small = 0.20, Medium = 0.50, Large = 0.80. d = 0.31 represents small effect size.