Table 2 Recognizing EM in case studies according to classifications in Table 1
Respondents | Correct | Partially correct | Incorrect | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case study 1 | Teacher | 30 | 1 | 11 | 42 |
% | 71.4 | 2.4 | 26.2 | 100 | |
Student | 95 | 0 | 23 | 118 | |
% | 80.5 | 0 | 19.5 | 100 | |
Total | 125 | 0 | 34 | 160 | |
% | 78.1 | 0 | 21.9 | 100 | |
Case study 2 | Teacher | 35 | 4 | 2 | 41 |
% | 84.4 | 9.8 | 4.9 | 100 | |
Student | 89 | 22 | 8 | 119 | |
% | 74.8 | 18.5 | 6.7 | 100 | |
Total | 124 | 26 | 10 | 160 | |
% | 77.5 | 16.2 | 6.3 | 100 | |
Case study 3 | Teacher | 38 | 0 | 4 | 42 |
% | 90.5 | 0 | 9.5 | 100 | |
Student | 113 | 0 | 5 | 118 | |
% | 95.8 | 0 | 4.2 | 100 | |
Total | 151 | 0 | 9 | 160 | |
% | 94.4 | 0 | 5.7 | 100 | |
Case study 4 | Teacher | 10 | 21 | 11 | 42 |
% | 23.8 | 50.0 | 26.2 | 100 | |
Student | 31 | 63 | 26 | 120 | |
% | 25.8 | 52.5 | 21.7 | 100 | |
Total | 41 | 84 | 37 | 162 | |
% | 25.3 | 51.8 | 22.8 | 100 | |
Case study 5 p<.05; Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) = 0.011; C=0.27 | Teacher | 32 | 0 | 10 | 42 |
% | 76.2 | 0 | 23.8 | 100 | |
Student | 53 | 1 | 66 | 120 | |
% | 44.2 | 0.8 | 55.0 | 100 | |
Total | 85 | 1 | 76 | 162 | |
% | 52.5 | 0.6 | 46.9 | 100 | |
Case study 6 | Teacher | 35 | 7 | 0 | 42 |
% | 83.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 100 | |
Student | 73 | 40 | 7 | 120 | |
% | 60.8 | 33.3 | 5.8 | 100 | |
Total | 108 | 47 | 7 | 162 | |
% | 66.7 | 29.0 | 4.3 | 100 | |
Case study 7 | Teacher | 31 | 9 | 2 | 42 |
% | 73.8 | 21.4 | 4.8 | 100 | |
Student | 86 | 31 | 3 | 120 | |
% | 71.7 | 25.8 | 2.5 | 100 | |
Total | 117 | 40 | 5 | 162 | |
% | 72.2 | 24.7 | 3.1 | 100 | |
Case study 8 | Teacher | 15 | 27 | 0 | 42 |
% | 35.7 | 64.3 | 0.0 | 100 | |
Student | 27 | 83 | 9 | 119 | |
% | 22.7 | 69.7 | 7.6 | 100 | |
Total | 42 | 110 | 9 | 161 | |
% | 26.1 | 68.3 | 5.6 | 100 |