Sample Group: Stakeholders

4.1.1 Demographic Analysis

Table 1 shows the demographic details of the group stakeholders, including gender,

age, education level, years of experience, and job title. Noticeably, out of a total of 30

research samples, 50% of the sample were male, and 50% of the sample were females.

As for age, the sample was distributed to three categories, 10 (33.3%) were less than 40

years old, 10 (33.3%) were within the age group of 41-50, and 10 (33.3%) aged over 51.

Concerning education level, the overwhelming majority of respondents had a BSc degree

(83.3%), followed by an MSc degree (18.7%). As for years of experience, 33.3% had

less than ten years of experience, 16.7% of the total sample had an experience between

11 to 15 years, and 16.7% of the sample had an experience between 16 to 20 years, and

33.3% of the sample had an experience of 21 years and more. Clearly, a majority of the

respondents have good experience in the education management, which in its turn gives

their response more credibility. Concerning the stakeholders’ job title, the administrative

staff constitutes the vast majority (66.7%), followed by school board member (30%) and

general director (3.3%).

Table 1: Demographics of the group stakeholders

Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 15 50

Administrative staff 20 66.7

Notes: N = 30.

4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics Analysis

Table 2 lists the means and standard deviations for each statement of stakeholders’

motives 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 3.90 to 4.23, indicating samples had high-level agreements on all motive-related statements. Also, it can be noticed that statement no.2 “Many benefits to be added to your school if you choose SAT as your School Educational System” ranked the first. In contrast, statement no.6 which states “You support your entire staff include teachers to face these new challenges to be qualified staff for your International School of SAT” ranked the last.

Furthermore, a one-sample t-test was utilized to test Hypotheses 1. The researcher set the population mean as 3 to compare the grand mean of motives.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the stakeholders’ motives

No. Statements Mean SD Level Rank

1 You have many motives to choose SAT Education System.

4.17 0.83 High 2

2 Many benefits to be added to your school if you choose SAT as your School Educational System.

4.23 0.77 High 1

3 You are ready to modify your school

infrastructure (tangible and intangible) if you introduce SAT to your school.

4.10 0.84 High 4

4 You are ready to increase your school

infrastructure (tangible and intangible) if you introduce SAT to your school.

4.17 0.83 High 2

5 You are ready to upgrade your entire school’s 4.03 0.80 High 5

staff to match the level of SAT (tangible and intangible) standards to be an excellent international school.

6 You support your entire staff include teachers to face these new challenges to be qualified staff for your International School of SAT

3.90 0.99 High 6

Reliability Cronbach’s α = 0.936

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

Table 3 shows the result of the one-sample t-test, the t-value is 8.13, the p-value is 0.00 (less than 0.5 significance level), with an effect size of 2.96, meaning a large effect.

Accordingly, Hypotheses 1 was supported, providing evidence of motives that drive stakeholders to implement international SAT education system.

Table 3: The result of the one-sample t-test for motives

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

Effect size (d)

Motives 30 4.10 0.74 8.131 0.000 1.100 2.96

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 = 2.96 represents large effect size.

4.1.3 Testing Differences between Groups

The researcher used the independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA to test the Hypothesis 2a, Hypothesis 2b, Hypothesis 2c, Hypothesis 2d, and Hypothesis 2e (as shown in Table 4 to 8). Table 4 demonstrates the results of the independent sample t-test for motives between the male and female stakeholders. We found that there was statistically significant gender difference in stakeholders’ motives (t = -2.041, p < .05, ES = 0.82). Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported, in that female stakeholders (Mean = 4.23) hold more motives than male stakeholders (Mean = 3.96).

Table 4: The result of the independent sample t-test by gender for motives

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

Motives

Male 15 3.86 0.93

-2.041 0.033* 0.82 Female 15 4.34 0.46

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 = 0.82 represents large effect size.

Table 5 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for age, revealing that Hypothesis 2b was not supported (𝐹(","$) = 1.946, p > .05, ES = 0.28), in that stakeholders’

motives did not differ by age.

Table 5: The result of the one-way ANOVA by age for motives

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 = 0.28 represents small effect size.

Table 6 demonstrates the results of the independent sample t-test for education level, indicating that Hypothesis 2c was not supported (t = 0.570, p > .05, ES = 0.27), in that stakeholders’ motives did not differ by education level.

Table 6: The result of the independent sample t-test by education level for motives

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

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 = 0.27 represents small effect size.

Table 7 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for years of experience, revealing that Hypothesis 2d was not supported (𝐹(&,"') = 1.257, p > .05, ES = 0.51), in that stakeholders’ motives did not differ by years of experience.

Table 7: The result of the one-way ANOVA by years of experience for motives

Variables Years of experience N Mean SD F p-value Effect size (d)

Motives

Less than 10 years 10 4.10 0.77

1.257 0.310

(n.s.) 0.51 11 – 15 years 5 4.09 0.84

16 – 20 years 5 4.10 0.83

More than 21 years 10 4.11 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 = 0.51 represents medium effect size.

Table 8 displays the result of the one-way ANOVA for job title, revealing that Hypothesis 2e was not supported (𝐹(","$) = 2.845, p > .05, ES = 0.55), in that stakeholders’

motives did not differ by job title.

Table 8: The result of the one-way ANOVA by job title for motives

Variables Job title N Mean SD F p-value Effect

size (d)

Motives

School board member 9 4.07 0.85

2.845 0.076

(n.s.) 0.55 General director 1 4.10 0.80

Administrative staff 20 4.13 0.79

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 = 0.55 represents medium effect size.