Category: <th
-
p=. 018) at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore
—
by
in .018</td, .359</td, .829</td, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <em, <p, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <tr, <tr, 2.01</td, 2.430</td, 3.670</td, 6.78</td, 66</td, 95% Confidence</strong, Df</strong, df</td, Lower</strong, Mean Square</td, Mean</strong, Mean</th, Pair 1</strong, Paired Differences</strong, Post-total</td, Pre-total</td, Sig.</strong, Sig.</td, Std. Deviation</strong, T., T</strong, Table 9. Paired Sample T-Test Results of Pre-service Teachers self-efficacy after the Content Pedagogy Courses.</em, Therefore, these results indicate that pre-service teachers self-efficacy decreased between the beginning and the end of mathematics content pedagogy courses.</p, Upper</strongthe paired T-Test results in Table 9 indicate that there were differences between the pre-test and post-test instrument scores in self-efficacy among the respondents (t=2.43
-
descriptive statistics helps to spot correlation between variables. Finally
—
by
in -.148</td, -1.095</td, -1.104</td, .048</td, .287</td, .287</td, .566</td, .566</td, .651</td, .684</td, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <tr, <tr, <tr, <tr, <tr, <tr, 14.10</td, 14.50</td, 16.00</td, 16.17</td, 25</td, 25</td, 5, 5.451</td, 5.726</td, 5</td, 5</td, Kurtosis</strong, Maximum</strong, Mean</strong, Mean</th, Median</strong, Minimum</strong, Motivation, Motivation</strong, Physical Activity</strong, Skewness</strong, Std. Deviation</strong, Std. Error of Kurtosis</strong, Std. Error of Mean</strong, Std. Error of Skewness</strong, Strategy Evaluation</h2, Table 2. Descriptive statistics</em, We take time to understand each others needs and concerns in each new situation</tdthe descriptive statistics provides crucial information about the variables using a unified format. Second
-
Laissez faire is the least popular. Further
—
by
in (9), </p, </td, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <figure class=""wp-block-table"", <p, <p, <p, <strong, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <th, <th, <th, 0.9622</td, 1.2139</td, 1.2331</td, 1.5671</td, 1</em, 2.3</td, 2</td, 200</td, 3</td, 4.5383</td, 4.5584</td, 4.6698</td, 4.8094</td, 4</td, Based on the data collected from a sample of 200 employees, Corporate image</td, Effectiveness of communication</th, Employee satisfaction</td, Financial strength</td, Growth of revenue</td, Mean</th, Rank</th, Sample size</th, Standard deviation</th, Strategy Evaluation</h2, Team members know about each others lives outside work that helps in bonding and building the level of trust</td, Team members share facts without reservations about each other and the issues</td, the standard deviation shows that there is less variation of the values observed from the mean. This implies that the respondents were consistent in their responses.</p, There are various indicators that give information on the quality of organizational communication. Some of these indicators are indicated in the table below.</p, Which management style is prevalent in the UK retail industry?</strongstandard deviation and the ranking of the four management styles used in the analysis. Management style Sample size Mean Standard deviation Rank Participatory 200 5.2939 0.9095 1 Democratic 200 4.8559 1.1121 2 Autocratic 200 4.4896 0.8644 3 Laissez faire 200 4.1757 1.1321 4 The table below shows that the participatory management style has the highest…