منهج بحث إحصائي1 1

0:00 Peace, mercy and blessings of God. Dear friends, we are with a lecture, one of the lectures, a method of statistical research, and we will take it in the form of practical applications. In other words, you take a calculation in the calculation, so you benefit from it in How to calculate the calculation process? How to calculate the average, the average, the minimum, the standard deviation? Finally, you calculate the center deviation measurement, the frequency measurement, which is to know, for example, the connection transactions, etc. Here we are talking about a slightly different shape, so you should focus on what? With me, because I want you to have practical

0:47 examples. For example, we need the statistics in our research, we will see different stages, so we have the first model, and this model is about how the statistics were applied and how the statistics tests were applied in the educational research. I am looking for the title of the activity of a proposed training program based on a teaching in a change in the development of the thinking of the negative and the ability to solve the problem. When we see it, we have a training program. This training program, I will see

1:33 its activities in the development of the ability to think negative and to solve the problem. So I have an independent change. which is the training program and it affects two factors, the two following, which are the thinking and the thinking of the negative and the ability to solve the problem. We see who has the teachers throughout the stage, this is the research that we are looking for and it is available and published in the magazine in the education of children. We see that we need the best in it. There are several stages of research, such as the introduction to the research in problem-sensitive feelings. When we come to make problem-sensitive feelings, there must be sources for problem-sensitive feelings. Do not forget that I have a program of training and

2:21 a proposal based on the exchange training in developing critical thinking and the ability to solve problems. Here we will take a model and see how we benefit. For example, in problem-sensitive feelings. When the problem is felt, you need the sources of the problem. When we talk about the sources of the problem, the first source may be the actual reality. The second source is the results of previous studies. The third source is the work of the researcher. The fourth source is that the researcher studies a discovery study to determine the reality of the problem. and therefore using the calculation is done at a stage that

3:08 any researcher who studies will be able to get it. So, for example, in our current research, We conducted a study to determine the level of teachers in the two changing followers we have, which are critical thinking and solving problems. Are teachers capable of thinking critical thinking? In other words, can they judge information in the right or wrong way? He can present arguments or evidence or evidence, he can convince others, he can judge on the basis of a certain answer or a certain issue or a certain law, etc. And his ability to solve problems, of course, in the case of the white man. In

3:53 order to determine the level of these levels, the level of the teachers is excellent, so what is the justification for this research? There is no justification, so we must explore the levels of teachers. If they are alternative, I will look for what to use this alternative, so the idea came up that we will make a program called "The Training of the List on Alternative Teaching" in order to develop these variables. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that the third source of the observations was the third source. There are notes in the field, there are previous studies, the third source is the research in a study of the study of the study of the study of the study of the study of the study of the study of the study of

4:52 the study of the study of the study 26 teachers and he gave them three problems. The first problem, the second problem, the third problem, and they are 26 teachers. And the second was on the correct answers to the first problem. Five correct answers. The second problem is seven correct answers. The third problem 4 correct answers. So, what is 5 of the original? Of the original 26. So, this is 7 of the original 26. This is 4 of the original 26. Ok, is this the level of the teachers? High. Of course, we need to calculate what else? So, the calculation is this. So, I have a numerical value that exists. I convert it to a strong ratio Therefore, the strong ratio of the answer

5:38 was 19% Therefore, the answer to the error is approximately 81% 26% or 27% was 73% of the correct answer, 15% of the correct answer was 85% or 84.6% of the correct answer. Therefore, as long as the answers are wrong, the percentage is very high. This is a reason for the presence of doubt in the level of the performance of teachers in solving problems or in critical thinking. the answer is the answer of the number of correct

6:25 answers. we divide the correct answer by the total answer and the result we get is 100 and then we put the mark in the water so when it is 5/26 it is 192/1000 and when we multiply it by 100 it is 19.2 in the water ok? so the wrong answer is 100 in the water minus the correct answer so if both of them are 100 in the water Therefore, I needed the evidence to prove that there is a real problem in the performance of teachers in solving problems or in thinking about the law. So you need it here. So what do you benefit

7:14 from this? When you want to do a problem or a problem in your research, you must provide evidence and multiple sources on the existence of this problem, including the studies of the survey conducted by researchers, and we have results in a simplified form like this. Another research can be done, for example, to calculate the average calculation of the performance of this survey, and it can calculate how many people are above the average and how many people are below the average, and it starts calculating the ratio above the average and the ratio below the average, and it proves that there is a weakness in the change he wants to develop or he wants to study it and it is really realistic, I mean, it is not just that I

8:00 go to prove that this is weak to do research, no, this is what you think about an idea and then the worker collects data and collects data to start seeing this problem is true or not, suppose that the teacher's position is high, we will not do research, we will do the research that remains As long as their performance is high in these two variables, and in the least they must be a real problem. After you do this, after you do the cellular study and save sources of the problem, you must then punish him, punish him by being exposed problem and you know what the problem is, and then you start from it to the title of the research or the quality of the treatment,

8:49 and therefore you must write this under the table of the sources of the problem, and after you finish it, you will continue to write this complication, so through what you have previously written, you will be at a level after teachers in critical thinking and weakening them in solving the problem. Here, we will Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to critical thinking and solve problems. From here, the problem is the weakening of the level of teachers. and the students will be able to learn the basics of the

9:36 program. and this is not our topic, our topic is that we must do a review and analyze the problem, you must know that the problem is not the type of research, the problem is the weakness of teachers in changing the way they solve problems and changing the way they think about the problem, so why do we suggest I will do a training program for them and train them and see if they will develop the two abilities, the ability to think and the ability to solve problems. Therefore, I suggest the following titles and the search for the following: Measuring the effectiveness of a training program that is listed on the training. the problem will be solved by the ability of thinking and the ability of criticism. So, we have to use

10:21 the statistical method here, in which we study the results and solve its results by using statistical methods and indicators. So, we have used a simple percentage of the power in the sense of the problem. An example of one of the problems, and you want to think about it. Sometimes, for example, you wrote the data or wrote these results. Someone will complain about it, and there is no problem as long as you work on your scientific research in the right way, and a moral way, and a way with a conscience, and from the principles of scientific research ethics. and worked with it, you don't care about anything if someone is suspicious of your results, you must have the evidence to defend it from the results of your research or the results of your study, for example, if we say that this is four out of 26,

11:08 I tell you that this is the one who adjusted the grades so that it will be weak and there will be a justification for the study, so let's see a problem from the problems For example, you must have the tool you used in the study that you found or put it in your research plan at the end so that if someone asks to see what you did, it will be with you. We will see an example of one of the problems that was presented to the teachers and try to think about it. You can pause the video and think about its solution for a short time and then you know or you have the results, and it is not difficult, I mean, if you have the results, you start to see the results and you start

11:57 to listen to the rest of the video and see the answer, do you agree with your answer or not? So, if we have a long piece of wood, we cut it into 5 equal pieces, then the time spent in that is 20 minutes. So, we have a piece of wood, we cut it into 5 equal pieces, we spent 20 minutes. He asks me, where is the time required to cut another piece that is similar to it? I mean, a slightly longer piece, but similar, so that the time of cutting is one. to 30 equal pieces. So if we have a piece of wood that we divide into 5 equal pieces in 20 minutes, then this is the time required to cut another piece similar to 30 equal

12:47 pieces. So, this was a question when you were presenting the first question, people would solve it and get the correct answer. So, if we want to see the answer of the teachers who were in the test, which was answered by more than 22 teachers in a wrong way, we see it together. The answer was that I have 20 pieces and we divide the 5 pieces equally by 20, the 5 parts are equal to 4, right? and 4 when we divide it by 30, we get 34, so we get 120 minutes. And the answer was, most teachers, it is like this. Therefore, this answer is not the correct answer. Why is not the correct answer? Because if I have a piece of wood, I divide it into pieces, I

13:35 need to use the scissors or the wood cutter four times to produce five equal pieces Therefore, the time is wrong because the fifth piece needs 4 cuts, so I will cut it 4 times. Therefore, the time of the first cut is 5 minutes and not 4 minutes. And when I divide it into 30 pieces, I need 29 cuts. Therefore, the appropriate time is 29 minutes in 5 minutes for the single story, which is 145 minutes, not 120 minutes. So, when you put your data, you have the evidence to confirm the authenticity of these data. And

14:21 indeed, we give this question to many people, and people solve it in the wrong way. And our solution is 145, not 120. Therefore, you must have the evidence that confirms the correctness of your study results. Therefore, what is in this table expresses the level of the teachers' performance in the test of solving problems and critical thinking. Therefore, I have a real problem in the performance of teachers, so we must look for a solution for it, how to solve it, and I suggested that we solve it through a training program. and the exchange teaching is important because it is important in interaction and dialogue between teachers When we

15:07 say we need another formula, we need the calculation in the procedures and building the tools. When you build research tools or choose the sample of the research, and of course, in the comparison of the tools, I will explain to you all this, so I wanted to enter a slightly different entrance so that you know where you use the tools below. In the procedures and building the tools. The third part of your letter talks about your research procedures, the tools you will use, and the educational materials you will provide. or the test or the evaluation that you will build or the test or the evaluation as it is. And then we need this. Of course, we see this for the first time, what are the many words written here? These words

15:52 are not required from you as a text, but you are required to understand. We need it in building tools. Of course, I will tell you what is in building tools. Yes, when you build tools, you build a test. And this means that we build your test in the field of what? In politics. I am building a critical thinking test at the time of the test. Why are the different stages of building the test? One of them is that I will try to get the test done. You will ask me why I am trying to get the test done? So that I can calculate the appropriate test time. So that I can see the definitions of the vocabulary that I present in the test. Will people understand it or not? The definition of the definition, not the definition of the definition. Will it include scientific facts? Will it include printed facts? Will it include linguistic facts? And so on. So I have to achieve from this I use it to calculate a very important thing called

16:40 the test stability factor. When I come to work, I calculate the test stability factor. How do I calculate the test stability factor? There is a formula or mathematical equation that calculates the stability of this test. I use it by the method of the partial calculation. There are methods to calculate the stability. What do we do in the way of the partial division? We divide the fraction by two halves. The halves must be equal, that is, close to the denominator. For example, you can take a number 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and the other questions will take 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or a test of 10 questions. Therefore, the number of questions must be equal. The question 1 and question 2 are close in difficulty and in the time they are connected. Question 3 and question 4 are the same story. Question

17:28 5 is for me, but the questions are in between, there is no very easy question for the student and a very difficult question for the student. And an easy question will affect the balance, the balance of differences. and it will affect the standard curve and therefore the stability will not get good results. So, when do I use the calculation? I use the calculation when I get the tools. Where do I use it? In the calculation of the stability of the test, for example, or the stability of the measurement, or the stability of the test, etc. We calculate the time average and then we calculate the truth of one type of truth. There are several types of truth. The issue is that I calculate the internal coherence or

18:14 intersection between the components of the test. The test I had was a different component of knowing assumptions, interpretation, reading, evaluating arguments, arguments, errors, and so on. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, is the 6 with the total degree in connection or not? Does each component of these components have a positive or negative or negative connection with the degree of the test? Does each component of these components have an impact on the performance of the whole or not? So we took the connection between the knowledge of assumptions and the result of the whole test and the explanation and the result of the whole test, that is, is this consistent with the performance as a whole? Is it wrong to use the interpretation and the test as a whole, and

18:59 the test as a whole, and so on, and all these components with the test as a whole, and therefore all of them came out at a high level of evidence and the treatment of the connection, what is this for? Statistically, and also the same story when you do statistical tables or tables that show data that result from the compatibility or the compatibility, but we use here who is the treatment of what? We use the treatment of what? The treatment of the connection. and here we will use the judgment equation for the partial part. So I use the calculation in the calculation of things, where these things are, you will find them in the third part of the message, or when you come to build your research tools, so you use the different calculation methods or the appropriate ones for the subject you are working on,

19:47 so we will use the connection factor equation and we calculated here with the Jettman equation for the partial fraction and we can use alpha Grumbach and we can use the Koweda Richardson equation in the past until the end so I calculated here in the test test and I calculated the things in front of you so I don't prolong your time in the I used the problem in the sense that I study it and solve the results and use the average and the strength ratio. We have to build tools for this, we have to calculate the stability, honesty, distinction, ease, difficulty, ease and difficulty, honesty and stability, etc. These are the

20:33 tools that I have to work on and take the statistics and the statistics will solve these problems. We move on to choosing the sample, of course, there are random samples, and the random class samples, and the random class samples, and this will explain to you in the detailed calculation of the calculations. Here we say that I will use the calculation to choose the sample. Of course, I will use the calculation here, I will explain it in this part in the coincidence. So when someone comes to choose an experimental group and an experimental group, the two groups must be in the first, we will do an experimental test for variables. Therefore, the most important variables to be adjusted are the variables that you work on, such as thinking about the problem, and solving it. We can prove the gender variable, the

21:19 level of intelligence, and so on. and therefore the level of acquisition, then you must have a balance between when you come to take an experimental sample and a balance sample, then the samples must be close to each other in terms of the level, meaning that there are no previous differences between them, meaning that there is no group more than a group, and therefore when I calculate the intersection between the samples, and you will be sure of the convergence of the groups that you have, even if you have one experiment and two experiments and they are not matched, you must calculate the convergence between these groups. And then when I come to calculate this, I will apply the measurements that I did or the tools that I did to test in the subject that we are presenting, and test the thinking of the problem and test

22:08 the problems, I will apply them to the experimental sample and the adjustment of the two together. And I see if there are differences as long as we have inserted differences, I will enter in my assessment. So I see if there is, I will look at the results of the test, and I will the average of the first group and the average of the second group, the average of the first group and the average of the third group, and so I insert these statistical calculations or statistical measurements into the equation of the TAC test, which is the one that measures the difference between the averages, but it measures the difference between the two averages only. because the analysis of the data will enter the differences between more

22:54 than two mediums. The analysis of the data alone. Well, when we came here, we worked here, we will start to say what? We will use the test results to find the difference between two mediums. It is one difference. we don't say "in" because they are one difference, but because they are one and two intermediates. Let's say you have a 7 and a 5 intermediates, a 7 and a 5 intermediates group, when you put them together, they become two, and two are one group, that's why we say they are one difference. So, it's a test of the difference between intermediates. Ok, guys, the teacher of the two groups of experiments has adjusted the analysis of the previous analysis of the analysis of the analysis. So, here, when we come to the first component of the analysis of the analysis, we take the knowledge of the assumptions. So, this is the experimental group and this is the test group. Okay, suppose I

23:41 got you this part from the table. This part is from the table. Like this in the exam. Like this. I told you, "Come on, explain to me this part or give me a description of this part." You will write a simple description. Describe what is in front of you. The difference between the experimental group and the data group in the knowledge of the assumption was the number of the experimental group 36 and the number of the data group 33. The average calculation of the group is 3.39. So, 3.9% is equal to 53.2% and the average value is 1.15% and the average value is 1.9%. The value of the value is 47% and the value of the value is non-indicative. The meaning

24:29 of the word non-indicative is that there is no difference between the experimental group and the data group in the knowledge of assumptions. . the data to the 39 52 percent of the model, the standard deviation is greater than the standard deviation. We can say that the large standard deviation expresses the group's displacement to a greater degree, that is, the experimental group is more displacement than the group of the data, because the standard deviation is greater than the deviation, because every time the standard deviation increases or the value of the standard deviation increases, the displacement

25:16 of the What is the average of the calculation? The average of the calculation is the sum of the values ​​on its basis It is a value that is multiplied by the performance of a group, only one value, multiplied by the performance of a group When you did a test in the students in the department of science in English, in any subject Then the students have degrees, you tested 40 students, and you have 40 degrees I want to describe these 40 degrees with one value only, that is, I enter the measurements of the central deviation, which I can calculate the average, and say that the average of the 40 students I have is 8.5 out of 10. So I calculated and got one value only, which is the average of 8.5.

26:05 So, I can calculate the minimum, or the most frequent degree of Z degrees is, for example, the seventh degree, and you say that this is the minimum degree. So, I can calculate the average, which is the degree to which the distribution of the degrees in front is average. I mean, if we arrange them horizontally or horizontally, the degree in the middle or the value in the middle is the average. So, this is the central deviation. and it always goes to the center and then, in order not to take you too long in the explanation, we simply understand the mathematical deviation of the center and the most important one is the middle even if we ask, we ask about the middle The second most important thing is the standard deviation What is the standard deviation? It is the extent of the degree of

26:52 some degrees of its average or a certain central value The standard deviation is the measurement of the frequency That is, the extent of the degree deviation of the average value and the deviation of the standard, the more you add its value, the more you add the group of the group, and therefore the greater value here expresses the greater fraction, the greater value here expresses the better performance, and in the calculation, the greater value expresses, of course, because it is related to the So, the greater value expresses the better thinking or knowledge of the differences, and the greater value expresses the greater frequency. What is the greater frequency?

27:39 I will give you a simple example to learn. We have a demand coming at 49, and a demand coming at 51. 49 and 51. Their average was 49 and 51 divided by 2 gives me 50. The two degrees are the same after all So the average degree is 50 And if the degree 51 is crossed over by one to the right Or one curve The degree 49 is crossed over by one to the left and one to the right If the second student comes with a zero and the student comes with a hundred What is their average? Zero and one, zero plus one times two equals fifty So the average here is also 50 But is the deviation like the second one? So, I

28:26 have a student who got 49 and 51. The other two got 0 and 100. So, one got 0 and one got 100. The average here is 50 and the average here is 50. So, the average in these two cases is 50. 49 is divided by 50, so 50 and 50 are divided by 50, so the number of fractions is 1. For example, here 50 is divided by 50, and 50 is also divided by 50, so the number of fractions is 1. So the first group is 50, and the number of fractions is very

29:14 small. The second group is 50, but the number of fractions is very large. So the first group is more random than the second group. So this is what we often ask students in discussions about the story of the equation of the equation and that they explain it. And no one knows how to explain it at all. I mean, yes, we can say that the connection of the equation is better than B, because we know the big value. As for the equation of the equation, this example shows you what it means. The values ​​are far from its average to the extent that the frequency is large or very close to the average, so the closer the values ​​to the average, the smaller the curve is, and the closer the values ​​to the average, the larger the curve is, and when the curve is large, the frequency

30:02 is far away. Of course, when you make a table like this, and you see the degree of interrelationship, you must consider the table. So, we consider the table, and it is clear from the current table that the evaluation of the change is based on the absence of the difference between the degrees of teachers, which indicates the interrelationship of the two groups, which is exactly the same as the teacher's ability to think. And the problem solving was the same table. We move from the knowledge of the assumptions to the interpretation of the reading, to the evaluation of the argument, to the analysis of the errors, and so on. Okay, we move to another use that we used in the sense of the problem. We used it in the problem analysis, we

30:50 used it in the construction of tools, we used it in the measurement of the previous interrelationship between groups. We work on the analysis in the results section, which is the section we use the most in the analysis and we use it in the analysis methods. So, one of the easiest researches in the field of educational and comparative education is the field of teaching methods and the fields of teaching methods, which are the field of psychology and psychological health. Because their changes are great and their best is deeper. The best in the field of educational and comparative education is simple, general and

31:35 intermediate. and the results of the tests are very simple and light because always the research in the field of mental health, and the study of psychology and psychological health, you have to overcome it by an experimental test and then you have a research experiment and you start working on it So, I mixed the results and the test of the hypothesis. So, I want the results of the teachers on the test of the thinking of the equations. So, I tested the teachers before and I will apply it again. So, in this way, the results are related to the hypothesis. So, I have an individual who says that there is a difference in the calculation at a level of alpha less than or equal to 5% in the average of teachers' grades in the two groups of experiments, and the test of the thinking of the equations

32:24 in mathematics. with the components of the 6 we have and then for the right of the teacher to solve the experimental set. This is the difference between them. If I took out the test of the test, I will see the difference between the two. If I took it out, it means that we say that there is actually a difference. Suppose I took out another one, I will say that there is no difference. And this is the story of the assumptions, which you can also be explained in the experimental approach. We have the zero assumptions, the assumptions of alternative assumptions, and the zero assumptions of the non-existence. This means that there is no difference between the experimental group and the control group in the change that you measure. The positive assumption means that there is a difference. and you direct it to one of the two

33:13 groups of the experiment or the adjustment, and most likely every researcher puts a guide to the experiment, because he sees an independent effect on the change. and so I start talking like this and start to see the best way to work in it in the same way that I explained it before in the previous table here is the knowledge of assumptions and this is an experimental method and this is a control method and this is the next method The average is 36.33, the average is 9, and the average is 5. Each of them has improved, but the improvement of the experimental group is because it was exposed to the training program, while the matching group was not exposed. And through the presentation of the group, the average increased, so the

34:01 experimental group became better. And the matches, and we still have matches, are the best, and the experimental matches Here the frequency is higher, because 1.3 is here, 19. The value of the value is calculated and it is at a level of 1 percent. And there is a square that shows the amount of the effect, and here the amount of the effect is large. Therefore, I accept that there is a difference between the 9 and the 5, so there is a difference between the experimental group and the set of the data and we make our table like this, I worked with the calculation, so this table is known like this, it can come to you like this, as if it is a little bit like this, the table is here, I

34:50 will tell you this and I will make you this, I will tell you that I have the results of the test, what are the results of the test? You can write the group, the experiment, the number, the number of your account, the number of your account, the number of your account, the number of your account, the number of your account, the number of your account, without wasting anything, I give you the whole table and tell you to write a comment on this table. I will write a comment on this table. So, the calculation is related to a verbal comment on what is written inside it. The calculation in a table that came out to me

35:37 through the SDSS program. At first, I calculated it manually by the calculator, but in the end it is a table in front of me, and therefore I must complete the table. Keep in mind that we were testing the accuracy of a certain individual. and the difference between the two is what you have in your calculations. As I said before, just for the time being. So, I said there is a difference. Of course, I want to complete the calculation to see it together. So, there is a calculation on the result table. So, from table 7, it is clear that the value of t is better than the value of 1, and it expresses the difference between t and t, etc. in the equation. This is the difference between the teachers and the experimental group. This is the new growth in the ability of teachers to write

36:26 a comment on your table. and then we calculate the effect by calculating the square of eta and the square of eta equals the value of t squared over t squared plus the number of units of the sample and therefore , and in the end we say what and with this the first person can accept the terms of the research that we used to say exist before we say that there is a difference, this is what happened, okay, brothers, this is okay, okay, the discussion of the results, of course, any results that you write, you must discuss the results, you discuss the results in two pages, in your research and your research, and you discuss the results in the the courses that you have

37:14 returned to it, and you tell me why, why, as if you are justifying something, why did the evidence come out, why did someone improve the performance of the teachers, because you are justifying the result that you have reached, what you have reached, as a visual framework employee, your research and literature, your research and the courses that you have returned to. There is no problem with this, and the problem with the complication is that it talks about the activity. Because the title is the activity of the program, we see the activity. It tells me what the results of the third unit are related

38:00 to the activity of the training program. There is a different calculation method. Ok, this test shows the difference between the two averages. The two averages, the previous average and the later average. The later average for the data experiment. So, there is a data experiment average and a data experiment average. I see the difference between them. Or the previous average and the later average. I see the difference between them. So, I have here the average gain ratio for black. Black Modified Gain Ratio The average gain ratio for black depends on the student's grades to calculate their previous average and their future average and to be at the final degree of all parts of the parts and to be able to calculate the

38:49 average gain ratio The average gain ratio if it exceeds 1.2, it will be a down. If it exceeds 1.2, it will be a down. If it exceeds 1.2, it will be a down. Here it is not a down here is the left side and here is the right side Here is the result, 1.210, this is 1.18% So, I came up with my own training program that is active in the development of all the knowledge of assumptions, interpretation, reading, and processing errors, but it is also involved in evaluating arguments and reasoning. And the same story continues to complicate this table. The main thing to be clear from the table is that the percentage of the average

39:37 gain of the country exceeded the limit of the point, which is one and two out of ten in each of them, and therefore in the four that I told them, and therefore the program was effective in developing the ability of teachers to think critically in general, as well as for all the courses of knowledge of the assumptions of interpretation to extract the process of mistakes, but the percentage of gain did not reach the actual limit, In each of the evaluation of the argument and the argument and therefore we accept the partiality of this person and we reject another partiality and it is so that we use the calculation in this stage in the sense of the problem and we use the calculation in building tools and we use the calculation in We used the results of the sample to

40:26 calculate the results in different statistical methods. We see the last method, which is, or I say in the verb, he says, what is the answer to the answer to the answer to the statistics at a level of a value less than five percent, and the levels of the math teacher at the stage of the test of critical thinking in mathematics. I mean, we say, what is it? Does he have the ability to think critical? Does he have the ability to solve problems? The relationship between the two is a relationship between the two, and the relationship between the two is a relationship between the two. For example, the degree of the student in mathematics and physics is expected to be a positive relationship because physics requires

41:14 mathematics to a very high degree, and therefore the degree of the student who is good at mathematics will be good at physics or he can solve its problems to a greater degree than a student who does not study mathematics. And so, here the interpretation, I will use the interpretation factor to measure the interpretation between the levels of teachers in thinking and giving their levels in solving the problem. And the interpretation factor here is the evidence that comes from this value. It came out, of course, in the SPSS program, of course, in the yellow one. But we were talking about five of what? Five of a hundred, so it came out at least one of them. This indicates that there is a connection between the teachers' ability to solve problems and

42:01 their ability to think logically and logically, and it must be followed by the table. The table is the basis for the table. The table indicates that the teachers' activities will be connected to the table. This is a 1% estimate, and therefore, the individual's acceptance of the research assumptions and the opinion that it is possible to actually have a responsible connection between the performance of sports teachers in thinking and their performance in solving problems. And so we finished the first part Or the lecture that we said is a contradiction And it is simply about that I use In the different stages of my research And the different seasons I use the calculation from the first chapter In feeling the problem and observing the reality In the form

42:48 of a strong tendency In the form of mediocrities And then we move on to the procedures of my research, and the selection of the sample, and the percentage of the sample that I took from the original sample, whether it is a large sample or not, whether it is a intended sample or not, whether it is a random sample or a food sample, etc. Then I chose to use the measurement method in the combination between the groups previously, so that we can make an experimental adjustment to some of the changes that I have, and then we use it in the results Thank you for watching and see you in

43:36 the next video