Following to this, a two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to discover the impact of two independent variables on one dependent variable. According to Field (2014), this two-way independent ANOVA compares several means when there are two independent variables and different entities have been used in all experimental conditions. In other words,
this design allows to simultaneously test for each effect of each of independent variables on the dependent variables and also identifies any interaction effect. The effect size provides an indication of the magnitude of the differences in the means. The guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988) for interpreting the effect size values are: 0.01= small effect; 0.06= moderate effect and 0.14= large effect. The analysis showed that the overall model tests were non-significant which suggests that there is almost no predictive power in the model. Therefore, post hoc tests were not performed so they were not reported.
5.7.1 The impact of age and teaching experience on affective 1 (LD)
scale
Subjects were divided into four groups by age: Group 1:20-30 years; Group 2: 31-40 years; Group 3: 41-50 years and Group 4: 51-60 years. There was a statistically significant main effect for age group (F=3.312, p=.020, however the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.024). The main effect for teaching experience (F=1.777, p=0.116) and the interaction effect (F=1.028, p=0.414) were not statistically significant.
5.7.2 The impact of age and teaching experience on affective 2 (EBD)
scale
Subjects were divided into four groups by age: Group 1:20-30 years; Group 2: 31-40 years; Group 3: 41-50 years and Group 4: 51-60 years. There was a statistically significant main effect for age group (F=3.187, p=.024), however the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.023). The main effect for teaching experience (F=1.504, p=0.188) and the interaction effect (F=1.390, p=0.199) were not statistically significant.
5.7.3 The impact of age and types of SEN on behavioural scale
Subjects were divided into four groups by age: Group 1:20-30 years; Group 2: 31-40 years; Group 3: 41-50 years and Group 4: 51-60 years. There was a statistically significant main effect for age group (F=2.680, p=.047), however the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.020). The main effect for types of SEN (F=1.282, p=0.264) and the interaction effect (F=1.464, p=0.169) were not statistically significant.
5.7.4 The impact of sex and location on affective 1 (LD) scale
Subjects were divided into three groups by location: Group 1: urban; Group 2: suburban and Group 3: rural areas. There was no statistically significant main effect for sex group (F=1.359, p=.244). Meanwhile, the main effect for teaching experience was significant (F=4.453, p=0.012) however the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.021). Interestingly, the
interaction effect (F=4.519, p=0.011) were statistically significant however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.021).
5.7.5 The impact of sex and location on affective 2 (EBD) scale
Subjects were divided into three groups by location: Group 1: urban; Group 2: suburban and Group 3: rural areas. There was a statistically significant main effect for sex group (F=40461, p=.035) however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.011). Meanwhile, the main effect for location was not significant (F=1.241, p=0.290). Similarly, the interaction effect (F=2.319, p=0.100) were also not statistically significant.
5.7.6 The impact of sex and training on affective 1 (LD) scale
Subjects were divided into two groups by sex: Group 1: male and Group 2: female. There was no statistically significant main effect for sex group (F=2.061, p=.152). Interestingly, the main effect for training was statistically significant (F=4.977, p=0.026) however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared=.012). The interaction effect (F=3.561, p=0.060) were not statistically significant.
5.7.7 The impact of sex and training on affective 2 (EBD) scale
Subjects were divided into two groups by sex: Group 1: male and Group 2: female. There was a statistically significant main effect for sex group (F=5.072, p=0.025) and the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.012). Interestingly, the main effect for training was also statistically significant (F=4.131, p=0.043) however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared=.010). The interaction effect (F=3.684, p=0.056) were not statistically significant.
5.7.8 The impact of location and types of SEN on affective 2 (EBD) scale
Subjects were divided into three groups by location: Group 1: urban; Group 2: suburban and Group 3: rural areas. There was a statistically significant main effect for location (F=3.741, p=.025) however the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.018). Meanwhile, the main effect for types of SEN was not significant (F=1.391, p=0.217). Interestingly, the interaction effect (F=2.735, p=0.013) were statistically significant but the effect size was small (partial eta squared=0.039).
5.7.9 The impact of qualification and teaching experience on cognitive
scale
Subjects were divided into five groups by qualification: Group 1: certificate; Group 2: diploma; Group 3: post diploma; Group 4: degree and Group 5: others. There was no statistically significant main effect for qualification group (F=0.510, p=0.728) as well as the main effect for
teaching experience (F=0.440, p=0.821). Although the interaction effect (F=1.166, p=0.283) were not statistically significant, the effect size was almost moderate (partial eta squared= 0.054).
5.7.10 The impact of qualifications and teaching experience on
behavioural scale
Subjects were divided into five groups by qualification: Group 1: certificate; Group 2: diploma; Group 3: post diploma; Group 4: degree and Group 5: others. There was no statistically significant main effect for qualification group (F=0.736, p=.568) as well as the main effect for teaching experience (F=0.539, p=0.747). Although the interaction effect (F=0.886, p=0.601) were not statistically significant, the effect size was almost moderate (partial eta squared= 0.041).
5.7.11 The impact of qualification and training on affective 1 (LD) scale
Subjects were divided into five groups by qualification: Group 1: certificate; Group 2: diploma; Group 3: post diploma; Group 4: degree and Group 5: others. There was no statistically
significant main effect for qualification group (F=0.823, p=.511). The main effect for training was significant (F=3.962, p=0.047) however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.010). Meanwhile, the interaction effect (F=0.731, p=0.571) were not statistically significant.
5.7.12 The impact of qualification and types of SEN on affective1 (LD)
scale
Subjects were divided into five groups by qualification: Group 1: certificate; Group 2: diploma; Group 3: post diploma; Group 4: degree and Group 5: others. There was no statistically significant main effect for qualification group (F=1.391, p= 0.236) as well as the main effect for types of SEN (F=0.273, p=0.949). However, the interaction effect (F=2.204, p=0.011) were statistically significant with moderate effect size (partial eta squared= 0.062).
5.7.13 The impact of qualification and types of SEN on affective 2 (EBD)
scale
Subjects were divided into five groups by qualification: Group 1: certificate; Group 2: diploma; Group 3: post diploma; Group 4: degree and Group 5: others. There was no statistically significant main effect for qualification group (F=1.466, p= 0.212) as well as the main effect for types of SEN (F=0.413, p=0.870). However, the interaction effect (F=2.204, p=0.011) were statistically significant with almost moderate effect size (partial eta squared= 0.049).
5.7.14 The impact of teaching experience and types of SEN on
behavioural scale
Subjects were divided into six groups by experience: Group 1: less than 2 years; Group 2: 2-5 years; Group 3: 6-10 years; Group 4: 11-15 years; Group 5: 16-20 years and Group 6: more than 20 years. There was no statistically significant main effect for teaching experience group (F=1.677, p= 0.139) as well as the main effect for types of SEN (F=0.238, p=0.964). However, the interaction effect (F=1.187, p=0.282) were statistically significant with almost moderate effect size (partial eta squared= 0.040).
5.7.15 The impact of SEN experience and SEIP support on affective 2
(EBD) scale
Subjects were divided into two groups by SEN experience: Group 1: yes and Group 2: no. There was no statistically significant main effect for teaching experience group (F=2.597, p= 0.108) as well as the main effect for SEIP support (F=1.747, p=0.176). Although the interaction effect (F=4.578, p=0.033) were statistically significant, the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.011).
5.7.16 The impact of SEN experience and SEIP support on behavioural
scale
Subjects were divided into two groups by SEN experience: Group 1: yes and Group 2: no. There was a statistically significant main effect for SEN experience group (F=4.697, p= 0.031) however the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.011. The main effect for SEIP support (F=0.941, p=0.391) was not significant as well as the interaction effect (F=0.388, p=0.534).
5.7.17 The impact of SEN experience and types of SEN on behavioural
scale
Subjects were divided into two groups by SEN experience: Group 1: yes and Group 2: no. There was a statistically significant main effect for SEN experience group (F=4.113, p= 0.043) however the effect size was small (partial eta squared= 0.010. The main effect for types of SEN (F=1.002, p=0.424) was not significant as well as the interaction effect (F=0.901, p=0.441).
5.7.18 The impact of types of SEN and SEIP support on behavioural scale
Subjects were divided into seven groups by SEN experience: Group 1: visual; Group 2: Auditory; Group 3: speech; Group 4: physical; Group 5: LD; Group 6: Combination and Group
6: none. There was no statistically significant main effect for types of SEN group (F=0.392, p= 0.854). The main effect for SEIP support (F=4.022, p=0.046) was significant however the effect size was small (partial eta Squared= 0.010. Meanwhile, the interaction effect (F=0.823,
p=0.481) was not significant.
5.8 Relationships between constructs
Several correlation tests have been conducted to explore the relationship between two variables. The analysis revealed that there were an association between: Behaviour and cognitive component; Behaviour and affective 1 component; Behaviour and affective 2 component; Cognitive and affective 1 component; Cognitive and affective 2 component; Cognitive and behaviour component; Affective 1 and affective 2 component; attitude components and demographic information; attitude components and teaching information; teachers’ demographic information and their teaching background; qualification, experience, SEN experience, training, types of SEN and SEIP.
5.8.1 The relationships between the cognitive, affective and behavioural
component of attitude
In order to answer this question, a correlation test was conducted and the result of the analysis is presented in Table 35.
Table 35. Relationships between cognitive, affective and behavioural component of attitude
Attitude Component Cognitive Affective 1 Affective 2 Behaviour
Cognitive .263 .237 .429
Affective 1 .263 .794 .504
Affective 2 .237 .794 .456
Behaviour .429 .504 .456
All correlations were significant at the level .01 level. Pearson’s correlations were conducted on all components
Table 35 shows the relationship between the cognitive, affective 1, affective 2 and behaviour components. The correlation between cognitive component and affective 1 component was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a weak positive relationship between cognitive component and affective 1 component (r = 0.263, n= 421, p<0.01). The correlation between cognitive component and affective 2 component was also investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a weak positive relationship between cognitive component and affective 2 component (r = 0.37, n= 421, p<0.01). However, there was a moderate positive relationship between cognitive component and behaviour component (r = 0.429, n= 421, p<0.01).
The correlation between affective 1 component and cognitive component was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a weak positive relationship between affective 1 component and cognitive component (r =0.237, n= 421, p<0.01). Nevertheless there was a strong positive relationship between affective 1 component and affective 2 component (r = 0.794, n= 421, p<0.01). Meanwhile, there was a moderate positive relationship between affective 1 component and behaviour component (r = 0.504, n = 421, p<0.01).
The correlation between affective 2 component and cognitive component was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a weak positive relationship between affective 1 component and cognitive component (r = 0.263, n = 421, p<0.01). The correlation between affective 2 component and behaviour component was also investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. The result shows that there was a moderate positive relationship between affective 2 component and behaviour component (r = 0.456, n = 421, p<0.01).
The correlation between behaviour component and cognitive component was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a moderate positive relationship between behaviour component and cognitive component (r = 0.429, n = 421, p<0.01). The correlation between behaviour component and affective 1 was also investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. The result shows that there was a moderate positive relationship between
behaviour component and affective 1 component (r = 0.504, n = 421, p<0.01).
5.8.2 The relationships between attitude components and demographic
information
To answer this question, a correlation test was conducted and the analysis is presented in Table 36.
Table 36. Relationships between attitude components and demographic information Demographic
Information
Cognitive Affective 1 Affective 2 Behaviour
Age .0090 -.070 -.042 -.068
Sex -.024 .022 -.058 -.051
Location .035 -.050 -.017 .025
Race .114* .006 .037 .86
*=p<.05, (a) = Pearson’s correlation
Table 36 shows the relationship between the attitude component and demographic
information. The correlation between race and cognitive component was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a weak positive relationship between race and cognitive component (r = 0.114, n = 421, p<0.05).
5.8.3 The relationships between attitude components and teaching
information
For this question, a correlation test was conducted and Table 37 will demonstrate the result of the analysis.
Table 37. Relationships between attitude components and teaching information Teaching Information Cognitive Affective 1 Affective 2 Behaviour Qualification -.019 -.013 -.021 -.051 Experience -.008 -.020 -.012 -.023 SEN Experience -.044 -.075 -.049 -.127** Training -.019 -.062 -.033 -.055 Current SEN .002 .019 .012 .002 Types of SEN -.025 .032 .007 -.034 SEIP -.095 -.052 -.029 -.089
*=p<.01, (b) = Spearman rho’s correlation
Table 37 shows the relationship between the attitude component and teaching information. The correlation between SEN experience and behaviour component was investigated using Spearman rho’s correlation. There was a weak negative relationship between SEN experience and behaviour component (r = 0.127, n = 421, p<0.01).
5.8.4 The relationships between teachers’ demographic information and
their teaching information
For this question, a correlation test was conducted and Table 38 will demonstrate the result of the analysis.
Table 38. Correlation between teachers' demographic information and their teaching information Teachers’ demographic information Qualification Teaching experience SEN experience Current SEN Training Types SEN SEIP Age -.289 .723 .130 .125 Location -1.57 .101 .125 .138 Race .126 -.233 -.108 -.128 .151
The correlation between teachers’ demographic information and their teaching background is presented in Table 38. Weak but significant relationships were identified between qualification and teachers’ demographic information. A strong significant relationship was found between teaching experience and age (r = 0.723, n = 421, p<0.01). Whereas, teachers’ SEN
experience has a weak significant relationship on teachers’ demographic information. Current SEN, training and SEIP were all positively correlated with teachers’ demographic information. Finally, types of SEN has a weak negative relationship but significant in relation to teachers’ demographic information.
5.8.5 The relationships between qualification, teaching experience, SEN
experience, training, types of SEN and SEIP
To answer this question, a correlation test was conducted and the result is revealed in Table 39.
Table 39. Correlation between qualification, teaching experience, SEN experience, training, types of SEN and SEIP
Teaching
background Teaching experience SEN experience Current SEN Training Types SEN SEIP
Qualification -.178 Teaching experience .107 -.104 SEN experience .303 .348 .147 Types of SEN .702 -.135
The correlation between qualification, experience, SEN experience, training, types of SEN and SEIP is presented in Table 39. Weak but significant negative relationships were identified between qualification and teaching experience (r = -0.178, n = 421, p<0.01) and between training and teaching experience (r = -0.104, n = 421, p<0.01). However, a weak significant positive relationship was found between SEN experience and teaching experience (r = 0.107, n = 421, p<0.01). Interestingly, teachers’ SEN experience has a moderate significant
relationship on current SEN (r = 0.303, n = 421, p<0.01) and training (r = 0.348, n = 421, p<0.01). Similarly, a weak positive relationship was identified between SEN experience and types of SEN (r = 0.147, n = 421, p<0.01). Meanwhile, there was a strong significant
relationship between types of SEN and current SEN (r = 0.702, n = 421, p<0.01). Lastly, type of SEN and SEIP (r = -0.135, n = 421, p<0.01) was found to have a weak yet significant negative relationship.