• Science which deals with the

collection, presentation, analysis

and interpretation of quantitative
data
• Will help us describe a group or
make inference based on the result
obtained from the sample
Data – facts, sets of information or
observations under study

Qualitative Data Quantitative Data

• descriptive in • numeric in nature

nature • 25 cm, 100g, 120L
• tall, green, sweet
• Collection - obtaining numerical
measurement
• Presentation – showing of gathered data
o Textual
o Tabular
o Graphical
– data is presented in paragraph form
– data is presented in table form
– data is presented in visual form
• Analysis of Data – the process of
extracting from the given data relevant
information from which numerical
description can be formulated

• Interpretation of Data – the task of

determining apparent patterns or
relationships from the analyzed data
Descriptive Statistics Inferential Statistics

 Describe the basic  Investigate

features of data in a questions, models,
study
and hypotheses
 Provides summary
about the samples
and measures
Descriptive Statistics Inferential Statistics
• Count (frequencies) • t-test
• Percentage • z-test
• Mean • ANOVA
• Median • Chi-square test
• Mode
• Correlation techniques
• Range
• Regression Analysis
• Standard Deviation
• Variance • Time Series Analysis
• Ranking
Common Descriptive
Statistical Tools
Mean
• The arithmetic average
• Add all of the scores together, then divide
by the number of scores Legend:
• Formula: μ = Mean
μ = ∑x/n X = raw score
n = no. of scores
Example 1: What is the Mean of 20, 30 and 40?
Answer: 20+30+40/3 = 30.
Example 2: The systolic blood pressure of seven
middle aged men were as follows:
151, 124, 132, 170, 146, 124 and 113
The mean is
1. Enter the data in column
2. Type the equal sign (=)
3. Type or double click AVERAGE
4. Highlight the data and type close
parentheses
5. Click Enter
Standard Deviation
• The deviation of the scores/data from the
mean
A B
Sample 1 90 90
Sample 2 89 76
Sample 3 88 85
Mean 89 84
SD 1 7

• If the data are close together, the standard

deviation will be small. If the data are spread
out, the standard deviation will be large
Standard Deviation
• Formula:

 x  x
2 Legend:
S = standard deviation
s X = raw score
n
X = Mean
n = no. of scores
• A hen laid eight eggs. Each egg was weighed
and recorded as follows:
60 g, 56 g, 61 g, 68 g, 51 g, 53 g, 69 g, 54 g

a. Solve first the mean.

b. Now, find the standard deviation, using the table below.

Table 1. Weight of eggs, in grams

2
Weight (x) (x -x) (x - x)
60 1 1
56 -3 9
61 2 4
68 9 81
51 -8 64
53 -6 36
69 10 100
54 -5 25
472 320

Using the information from the above table, we can see that

 x  x  = 320
2
n=8
In order to calculate the standard
deviation, we must use the following
formula:

 x  x
2

s
n

320
=
8
= 6.32 grams
1. Enter the data in column
2. Type the equal sign (=)
3. Type or Double click STDEVA
4. Highlight the data including the Mean and
type close parentheses
5. Click Enter
Common Inferential
Statistical Tools
How to add “Data Analysis”
in your Microsoft Excel for
Computer-Aided Instruction
1. Open Microsoft Excel, go to file and click
“Options”
2.Click Add-ins, Select Analysis ToolPak and
Click Go.
3. Select Analysis ToolPak and then click OK.
4. Click “Data” and find Data Analysis.
Tentative answer to a research problem
prior to experimentation
• Based your hypothesis from specific
objectives
 Effect of Chicken Manure on the Growth of Mung Beans

The main objective of the study is to determine the effect of

chicken manure on the growth of mung beans.
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the effect of the different amount of chicken manure as
bio-fertilizer on the height and number of leaves of mung
beans?
2. Is there a significant difference among the different amount of
chicken manure as bio-fertilizer on the height and number of
leaves of mung beans?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the height and
number of leaves of mung beans?
• Make hypothesis only for comparative and
relational objective (requires inferential
tools)
• Descriptive objective does not need
hypothesis (requires descriptive tools like
mean and standard deviation)
 Effect of Chicken Manure on the Growth of Mung Beans

The main objective of the study is to determine the effect of

chicken manure on the growth of mung beans.
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following
questions:
descriptive specific objective
1. What is the effect of the different amount of chicken manure as
bio-fertilizer on the height and number of leaves of mung
beans? comparative specific objective
2. Is there a significant difference among the different amount of
chicken manure as bio-fertilizer on the height and number of
leaves of mung beans? relational specific objective
3. Is there a significant relationship between the height and
number of leaves of mung beans?
Null hypothesis Alternative hypothesis
• a statement of • formal affirmative
denial of statement
relationship, predicting a single
difference or an research outcome.
effect.
• It is the very
• As such, it is
opposite of what
expressed in the
the null hypothesis
negative form of a
statement. predicts.
 Research Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis
1. There is no significant difference among the different amount
of chicken manure as bio-fertilizer on the height and number
of leaves of mung beans.
2. There is no significant relationship between the height and
number of leaves of mung beans.

Alternative Hypothesis
1. There is a significant difference among the different amount
of chicken manure as bio-fertilizer on the height and number
of leaves of mung beans.
2. There is a significant relationship between the height and
number of leaves of mung beans.
1. Formulate either null hypothesis or
alternative hypothesis or both
Research Objective
Is there a significant difference between
the glass with Silica microparticles and the
glass with Sodium carbonate in terms of
their weight and compressive strength?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the
glass with Silica microparticles and the glass with
Sodium carbonate in terms of their weight and
compressive strength.

Alternative Hypothesis
There is significant difference between the
glass with Silica microparticles and the glass with
Sodium carbonate in terms of their weight and
compressive strength.
2. Set the level of significance (0.05; 0.01)
Level of Significance
• The probability of making an error in a
test
• A 5% significance level (0.05 α) means that
you can accept about 5 chances in 100 that
you would reject the null hypothesis. It
implies that you are 95% confident that
you have made the right decision
How about 1% significance level (0.01 α)?
• A 1% significance level means that
you can accept about 1 chance in 100
that you would reject the null
hypothesis. It implies that you are
99% confident that you have made the
right decision.
3. Compute the required statistical
test
• May use SPSS (Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences) or Microsoft
Excel ToolPak for the computation
• Commonly used inferential tools are
t-test for two dependent means, t-
test for two independent means
and One-way ANOVA
1. t-test
• Used to establish the
significance of the difference
between the means of the two
samples
t-test for two independent means
• Compares the mean score of two
different or independent groups
(treatment/control)
• The sample size is less than 30
 There is no significant
difference between the glass with
Silica microparticles and the glass
with Sodium carbonate in terms of
their weight and compressive
strength.
Step 1:Enter the Data for A and B.
Step 2: Click tools on the Menu bar and select
Data Analysis
Step 3: The Data Analysis dialogue box
appears. Select t-test: Two Sample Assuming
Equal Variances and click OK.
Step 4: Enter the values of the Variable Range 1
and Variable Range 2. Enter the level of
significance of 0.05
Step 5: On the output option select output range
and click anywhere in the blank worksheet and
click OK.
Weight t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
A B

Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 61.83333 60.16667

Variance 0.083333 2.583333

Observations 3 3

Pooled Variance 1.333333

Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 4

Tcalc t Stat 1.767767

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.075917

t Critical one-tail 2.131847

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.151835

Ttab t Critical two-tail 2.776445

4. Decide whether to accept or reject
the hypothesis
• Reject the null hypothesis if the
calculated value is equal or greater than
the tabular value
Tcalc > Ttab
• Accept the null hypothesis if the
calculated value is lower than the
tabular value
Tcalc < Ttab
Weight t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
A B

Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 61.83333 60.16667

Variance 0.083333 2.583333

Observations 3 3

Pooled Variance 1.333333

Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 4

Tcalc t Stat 1.767767

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.075917

t Critical one-tail 2.131847

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.151835

Ttab t Critical two-tail 2.776445

Compressive Strength
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 6100 5833.333
Variance 10000 23333.33
Observations 3 3
Pooled Variance 16666.67

Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 4
Tcalc t Stat 2.529822
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.032338
t Critical one-tail 2.131847
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.064677
Ttab t Critical two-tail 2.776445
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference
between the glass with Silica microparticles
and the glass with Sodium carbonate in
terms of their weight and compressive
strength.
Weight Tcalc (1.77) < Ttab (2.78)
Compressive Strength Tcalc (2.53) < Ttab (2.78)
Decision: Accept the null hypothesis
5. Summarize the result
Result shows that the glass with
Sodium sulfate microparticles is
comparable to the glass with Sodium
carbonate because the calculated t is lower
than the tabular t for the two
aforementioned parameters; therefore,
Sodium sulfate microparticles as a
component in glass making could be used
as a cheaper alternative to Sodium
carbonate.
t-test for two dependent means
• Compares the mean score of the
same group before (pretest) and
after (posttest) the treatment
 There is no significant difference on the
total dissolved solids (TDS) of the
wastewater before and after the
introduction of water lettuce as
bioremediating agent.
TDS
Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 43.36667 25.8
Variance 1.163333 0.01
Observations 3 3
Pooled Variance 0.586667

Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 4

Tcalc t Stat 28.08919

P(T<=t) one-tail 4.78E-06
t Critical one-tail 2.131847
P(T<=t) two-tail 9.56E-06

Ttab t Critical two-tail 2.776445

Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference on
the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the
wastewater before and after the
introduction of water lettuce as
bioremediating agent.
TDS Tcalc (28.09) > Ttab (2.78)
Decision: Reject the null hypothesis
.
Summary of Result
Based on the result of the t-test for two
dependent means at 0.05α, the t calc
(28.09) is greater than the t tab (2.78) which
leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis
which implies that water lettuce significantly
reduced the TDS of the wastewater river
after the treatment.
2. One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA)
• also known as F test
• used to determine the significant
difference among the means of
more than two groups
 There is no significant difference
among the different amounts (250 µL,
500 µL, 750 µL and 1000 µL) of Tilapia
fish mucus on the concentration of
DNA in comparison with the positive
control (DNAzol).
Step 1:Enter the Data for each set-up in columns
Step 2: Click tools on the Menu bar and select
Data Analysis
Step 3: The Data Analysis dialogue box
appears. Select ANOVA: Single factor and click
OK.
Step 4: Enter all the values in the input range.
Enter the level of significance of 0.05
Step 5: On the output option select output range
and click anywhere in the blank worksheet and
click OK.
4. Decide whether to accept or reject
the hypothesis
• Reject the null hypothesis if the
calculated value is equal or greater than
the tabular value
Fcalc > Ftab
• Accept the null hypothesis if the
calculated value is lower than the
tabular value
Fcalc < Ftab
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference among the
different amounts (250 µL, 500 µL, 750 µL and
1000 µL) of Tilapia fish mucus on the
concentration and purity of DNA in comparison
with the positive control (DNAzol).

DNA Concentration
Fcalc (7.83323) > Ftab (3.47805)

Decision: Reject the null hypothesis

Summary of Result
One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) at 0.05α reveals that there is
significant difference among the
varying amount of fish mucus and
DNAzol (positive control) in terms of
the DNA concentration because the
computed F (7.83323) is higher than
the tabular F (3.47805).
2. Duncan Multiple Range Test
• A post hoc multiple comparison
test that is employed when the
ANOVA test showed significant
difference
• Makes a pairwise comparison that
shall determine which of the given
means differ
1. Arrange the Mean from lowest to
highest.

T5 (1000 µL DNAzol) = 51.60 µg/µL

T1 (250 µL fish mucus) = 90.13 µg/µL
T3 (750 µL of fish mucus) = 94.47 µg/µL
T4 (1000 µL fish mucus) = 96.30 µg/µL
T2 (500 µL fish mucus) = 100.43 µg/µL
2. Get EMs and its degree of freedom from
ANOVA table.

EMS (Within Groups) = 151.74

Df = 10
 3. Find rp (least significant
studentized range) by getting the
intersection of p (no. of treatment/set-
up) and df (degree of freedom) in the
DMRT Table

p= 5
Df = 10
p 2 3 4 5

rp 3.151 3.293 3.376 3.430

 p 2 3 4 5
4. Solve for Rp. rp 3.151 3.293 3.376 3.430
Rp
 p 2 3 4 5
Given: rp 3.151 3.293 3.376 3.430
EMS = 151.74
Rp 22.40 23.41 24.00 24.39
n=3
rp = 3.151, 3.293, 3.376, 3.430
T5 (1000 µL DNAzol) = 51.60 µg/µL
T1 (250 µL fish mucus) = 90.13 µg/µL p 2 3 4 5
T3 (750 µL of fish mucus) = 94.47 µg/µL rp 3.151 3.293 3.376 3.430
T4 (1000 µL fish mucus) = 96.30 µg/µL Rp 22.40 23.41 24.00 24.39
T2 (500 µL fish mucus) = 100.43 µg/µL

TREATMENTS Difference Rp
T1 - T5
38.53 > 22.40 Significant Difference
90.13 - 51.60
T3 - T5
42.87 > 23.41 Significant Difference
94.47 - 51.60
T4 - T5
44.70 > 24.00 Significant Difference
96.30 - 51.60
T2 - T5
48.83 > 24.39 Significant Difference
100.43 - 51.60
T3 - T1 No Significant
4.34 < 22.40
94.47 - 90.13 Difference
T5 (1000 µL DNAzol) = 51.60 µg/µL
T1 (250 µL fish mucus) = 90.13 µg/µL p 2 3 4 5
T3 (750 µL of fish mucus) = 94.47 µg/µL rp 3.151 3.293 3.376 3.430
T4 (1000 µL fish mucus) = 96.30 µg/µL Rp 22.40 23.41 24.00 24.39
T2 (500 µL fish mucus) = 100.43 µg/µL

TREATMENTS Difference Rp
T4 - T1 No Significant
96.30 - 90.13 6.17 < 23.41 Difference
T2 - T1 No Significant
10.3 < 24.00
100.43 - 90.13 Difference
T4 - T3 No Significant
1.83 < 22.40
96.30 - 94.47 Difference
T2 - T3 No Significant
5.96 < 23.41
100.43 - 94.47 Difference
T2 - T4 No Significant
4.13 < 22.40
100.43 - 96.30 Difference
5. Summarize the result
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT)
shows that the epidermal mucus from
Tilapia at different amount (250, 500, 750
and 1000 µL) yielded a significant higher
DNA concentration than the DNAzol
(positive control). Moreover, there is no
significant difference among the different
amount of epidermal mucus from O.
mossambicus in terms of the DNA
concentration.