## MIND MAP FOR ACADEMIC WRITING: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

After the experiment, the result is quite impressive; researchers found that without the knowledge of mindmap, students focused average of 7 point of interest (POI) or different sectors of using ICT in agriculture in their writing. But after having the concept of mindmap, no of sectors or point of interest(POI) increased as an average of 13 which is almost double than their previous writing.

 Mean Standard Deviation Total POI (Without Mindmap) 7 1.891810606 Total POI (With Mindmap) 13 9.052631579

In the chart, it was clearly visible that, standard deviation of students writing without help of mindmap they have covered relevance sectors is 1.81. That means most of the students covered relevant areas of 5.11—8.89 which is even less than the average of sector covered by students writing after using mindmap. In our two sets of 20 measurements, both data sets gave a mean of consistently 7 and 13, but both groups size were small. How confident can we be that if we repeated the measurements thousands of times, both groups would continue to give a mean of 7 and 13

To estimate this, we calculated the standard error of the mean (S.E.M. or Sx-bar) using the equation

Where S was the standard deviation and n was the number of measurements.

• In our first data set, the student not using mind map S.E.M. was .42

95% confidence limits,

It turned out that there was a 68% probability that the “true” mean value of any effect being measured falls between +1 and -1 standard error (S.E.M.). Since this was not a very strong probability, most workers preferred to extend the range to limits within which they can be 95% confident that the “true” value lies. This range is roughly between -2 and +2 times the standard error.

So

• for our first group, .42 x 2 = .84
• for our second group, .67 x 2 = 1.34

So

• If our first group was representative of the entire population, we were 95% confident that the “true” mean lied somewhere between 6.16 and 7.84 (7 ± .84 or 6.16 < 7 < 7.84).
• For our second group, we were 95% confident that the “true” mean lied somewhere between 11.66 and 14.34 (13 ± 1.34 or 11.66 < 13 < 14.34).