Table 3.
The teachers' attitudes toward the FSLP framework.
Variables | Description | Pooled (N = 226) | Rank | Male (M), N = 83) | Rank | Female (F), N = 143) | Rank | Diff (M − F) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Confidence | A teacher is self-assured when teaching CRE using FSLP | 4.58 | 1 | 4.55 | 1 | 4.60 | 1 | −0.047ns |
Platform | The FSLP provides the teacher with the best stage set for teaching | 4.57 | 2 | 4.53 | 2 | 4.59 | 2 | −0.057ns |
Directives | The FSLP framework dictates the process of teaching CRE | 4.25 | 3 | 4.14 | 3 | 4.31 | 3 | −0.170ns |
Preference | A teacher wishes to use the FSLP while teaching | 3.74 | 4 | 3.73 | 4 | 3.75 | 4 | 0.013ns |
Understanding | Current CRE content is comprehensible through FSLP | 3.36 | 5 | 3.37 | 6 | 3.36 | 6 | 0.017ns |
Application | A teacher can jointly implement the 5 stages of the FSLP | 3.35 | 6 | 3.39 | 5 | 3.34 | 7 | 0.050ns |
Relevance | FSLP is suitable for content delivery in CRE | 3.41 | 7 | 3.33 | 7 | 3.46 | 5 | −0.136ns |
User-friendly | FSLP is simple and convenient | 3.19 | 8 | 3.28 | 8 | 3.15 | 8 | 0.130ns |
Training |
A teacher was prepared on how to apply FSLP |
2.11 |
9 |
2.01 |
9 |
2.17 |
9 |
−0.156ns |
Average attitude | 3.62 | 3.60 | 3.64 | −0.043ns |
Mean attitude, Ns mean the difference not significantly different at p<5%.