Sample Group: Students Parents

4.3.1 Demographic Analysis

Table 17 shows the demographic details of the group student parents, including gender, age, education level, years of experience, job title, and monthly income. It can be seen that out of a total of 100 research samples, 70% of the sample were female and, 30% of the sample were males. As for age, the researcher distributed the sample according to four categories, 20 (20%) were less than 30 years old, 60 (60%) were within the age group of 31 – 40, 10 (10%) were within the age group of 41 – 50, and 10 (10%) aged over 51. About education level, the majority of respondents had a BSc degree (55%), followed by MSc degree (20%), diploma or less (15%), and PhD (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. With regard to the parents’ job title, the business owner constitutes the vast majority (60%), followed by self-employed (25%) and employee (15%). As for monthly income, the overwhelming majority of respondents earned 1000 to 3000JD per month (60%), followed by more than 3000JD (25%) and less than 1000JD (15%).

Table 17: Demographics of the group student parents

Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 30 30

4.3.2 Descriptive Analysis

Table 18 lists the means and standard deviations for each statement of parents’

benefits toward the international SAT education system implementation. 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 3.78 to 4.15, indicating samples considered that the international SAT education system is beneficial to students. Also, it can be noticed that statement no.12 “The level of honesty and transparency of SAT Educational System matters to you” ranked the first, while statement no.6 which states “You expect your children have the possibility to choose their subjects” ranked the last. Furthermore, a one-sample t-test was utilized to test the Hypotheses 5. We set the population mean as 3 to compare the grand mean of benefits.

Table 18: Descriptive statistics for the parents’ benefits

No. Statements Mean SD Level Rank

1 You choose SAT for your child as

Educational Scheme due to the benefits. 4.09 0.93 High 6 2 You expect many benefits from SAT

educational System for your child in his/her learning path.

4.13 0.88 High 2

3 You support school as a member of

community for SAT International 4.02 0.93 High 13

Educational System.

4 You think the Grading at SAT Educational

System is fair. 4.06 0.94 High 8

5 There are many equivalency procedures affect your decision to enroll your child into the SAT educational system.

3.95 0.94 High 18

6 You expect your children have the

possibility to choose their subjects. 3.78 1.06 High 21 7 It is effective to have the freedom of

choosing learning subjects on the performance of the student.

4.04 0.97 High 10

8 SAT Educational System follows a strict systematic agenda for all exam dates affect your decision to enroll your child to the system.

4.08 0.92 High 7

9 SAT Educational System follows a strict systematic agenda for all result dates affect your decision to enroll your child to the system.

4.00 0.94 High 14

10 SAT Educational System follows a strict systematic agenda for all other events dates affect your decision to enroll your child to the system.

4.05 0.96 High 9

11 SAT Educational System Results

Announcement is stressful to you. 4.10 0.87 High 4 12 The level of honesty and transparency of

SAT Educational System matters to you. 4.15 0.83 High 1 13 Better Education is one of major reason for 3.99 0.92 High 17

you to prefer SAT Educational System.

14 Easy Learning is one of major reason for

you to prefer SAT Educational System. 4.03 0.95 High 11 15 Better English is one of major reason for

you to prefer SAT Educational System. 4.00 0.86 High 15 16 Standardized International Grading is one

of major reason for you to prefer SAT Educational System.

3.83 1.01 High 20

17 Financially Capable is one of major reason

for you to prefer SAT Educational System. 4.10 0.89 High 5 18 Freedom in choosing Subject is one of

major reason for you to prefer SAT Educational System.

4.11 0.85 High 3

19 Better Chance of Study Abroad is one of major reason for you to prefer SAT Educational System.

4.03 0.92 High 12

20 Self-Actualization is one of major reason

for you to prefer SAT Educational System. 3.89 1.06 High 19 21 Self-Esteem is one of major reason for you

to prefer SAT Educational System. 4.00 0.99 High 16

Reliability Cronbach’s α = 0.967

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

Table 19 shows the result of the one-sample t-test, the t-value is 14.002, the p-value is 0.000 (less than 0.5 significance level), with an effect size of 2.80, meaning a large

effect. Accordingly, Hypotheses 5 was supported, providing evidence of parents’

perceived benefits regarding the international SAT education system.

Table 19: The result of the one-sample t-test for benefits

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

Effect size (d)

Benefits 100 4.02 0.73 14.002 0.000 1.021 2.80

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 = 2.80 represents large effect size.

4.3.3 Testing Differences Between Groups

The independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to test the Hypothesis 6a, Hypothesis 6b, Hypothesis 6c, Hypothesis 6d, Hypothesis 6e, and Hypothesis 6f (as shown in Table 20 to 25). Table 20 demonstrates the results of the independent sample t-test for benefits between the male and female parents. We found that there was statistically significant gender difference in parents’ benefits (t = 2.916, p

< .05, ES = 0.57). Thus, Hypothesis 6a was supported, in that male parents (Mean = 4.15) were more likely to play the roles in choosing international SAT education system than female parents (Mean = 3.89).

Table 20: The result of the independent sample t-test by gender for benefits

Variables Gender N Mean SD t-value p-value Effect size

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 = 0.57 represents medium effect size.

Table 21 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for age, revealing that Hypothesis 6b was not supported (𝐹_(&,(') = 0.408, p > .05, ES = 0.18), in that parents’

benefits did not differ by age.

Table 21: The result of the one-way ANOVA by age for benefits

Variables Age 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 = 0.18 represents no effect size.

Table 22 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for education level, revealing that Hypothesis 6c was not supported (𝐹_(&,(') = 0.823, p > .05, ES = 0.12), in that parents’

benefits did not differ by education level.

Table 22: The result of the one-way ANOVA by education level for benefits

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

Benefits

Diploma or less 15 4.00 0.85

0.823 0.484

(n.s.) 0.12

BSc 55 3.97 0.78

MSc 20 4.06 0.97

PhD 10 4.05 0.90

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 = 0.12 represents no effect size.

Table 23 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for years of experience, revealing that Hypothesis 6d was not supported (𝐹_(&,(') = 0.748, p > .05, ES = 0.05), in that parents’ benefits did not differ by years of experience.

Table 23: The result of the one-way ANOVA by years of experience for benefits

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 = 0.05 represents no effect size.

Table 24 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for job title, revealing that Hypothesis 6e was not supported (𝐹_(",($) = 0.723, p > .05, ES = 0.31), in that parents’

benefits did not differ by job title.

Table 24: The result of the one-way ANOVA by job title for benefits

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

Self-employed 25 4.02 0.71

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.

Table 25 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for monthly income, revealing that Hypothesis 6f was not supported (𝐹_(",($) = 0.392, p > .05, ES = 0.11), in that parents’

benefits did not differ by monthly income.

Table 25: The result of the one-way ANOVA by monthly income for benefits

Variables Monthly income N Mean SD F p-value Effect size (d)

Benefits

Less than 1000JD 15 4.11 0.69

0.392 0.677

(n.s.) 0.11 Between 1000 to

3000JD 60 4.03 0.88

More than 3000JD 25 3.92 0.82

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 = 0.11 represents no effect size.