The
results and findings of the study obtained from the freshmen students as the
written outputs were provided with the assessment and feedback as the outcome
of the course of study. Likewise, the data were presented, analyzed and
interpreted to gain better insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the
teaching and learning performance in English among the freshmen students.
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the gathered data that
ultimately answer the inquiries sought in the study. The presentation is
divided into five parts: Part I gives the data on the level of language
proficiency of the freshmen science high school students with reference to
pronunciation and correct usage. Part II delineates the results of the mean
pretest and post test scores of the students based on the structured lessons of
macro-skills’ learning performance. Part III shows whether there is a
significant difference in the mean pretest and posttest scores of the students
in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Part IV shows the overall results
of the mean (pretest and posttest) gain scores in the aforementioned areas of
language teaching. Part V entails module which can be proposed based on the
findings of the study. Also in this part is the intended course of action
administered by the researcher to the students, particularly in the public
school – a short course of study within the limited or interval time of
instruction that forms part of a larger academic course or training program
given to seventy-five (75) students in two selected classes as first year
students of a Science High School.
The results and findings of the study obtained from the freshmen students as
the written outputs were provided with the assessment and feedback as the
outcome of the course of study. Likewise, the data were presented, analyzed and
interpreted to gain better insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching
and learning performance in English among the freshmen students.
The effectiveness of structured macro-skills’ development lessons in English
hinges on the four (4) areas of language teaching such as listening, speaking,
reading and writing. It contains language proficiency indices: accuracy,
appropriateness, correct usage, inflection, pronunciation, oral and written
English. Each of these items was treated in part as a test. The data gathered
were grouped accordingly based on the four (4) main areas as the macro-skills
of English language teaching. The data presented were shown the frequency or
number as found in the corresponding tables. The pronunciation and correct
usage levels of language proficiency of the freshmen science high school
students were also shown and treated separately below:
Reference to Pronunciation and Correct Usage
Table 1 shows the level of language
proficiency of the freshmen students. The mean of 75 students with reference to
pronunciation was 81.9333 and was rated Very Good while the mean of 75
students with reference to correct usage was 77.5867 and was rated Good.
These high ratings of the freshmen students as a public school could be
attributed to the fact that they focused more on their studies and had more
chances of studying their lessons not only in school but also at home. They had
enough supplemental books as references; thus, they owned them and had more
time to research and study the lessons given to them by the subject teacher
concerned.
Students of the aforementioned
school, based on this study, were more competent because they had high
motivation to beaver away their studies. This supports the idea of Aquino
(1989) that the high degree of motivation is a contributing factor to a high
competence in learning academic and non-academic subjects.
Besides, the notion is supported by
Aristotle that constant study and practice both in school and at home result in
excellence which is an art won by training and habituation. Teachers and
students do not act rightly because they have virtue or excellence, but they
rather have those because they have acted rightly. They are what they
repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. It is the mark of
an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the
nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness when only an
approximation of the truth is possible.
Table 1
Level of Language Proficiency of the
Freshmen Science High School Students with Reference to Pronunciation and
Correct Usage
Categories
|
Mean
|
Level of Language Proficiency
|
Pronunciation
|
81.9333
|
Very Good
|
Correct Usage
|
77.5867
|
Good
|
Legend:
90 and
above (Excellent)
80-89 (Very Good)
70-79
(Good)
60-69
(Fair)
50-59
(Poor)
Mean Pretest and Posttest, Standard
Deviation and Error Mean of
the Freshmen Students
Table 2 shows the paired samples’ statistics of the mean pretest and posttest
of the macro-skills in language teaching, standard deviation and standard error
mean using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 14, a
computer program used for statistical analysis.
It also shows the relevance with
regard to the freshmen students who took the pretest and posttest scores. It
can be gleaned from table 2 that the posttest mean of the group in the
listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group
which is 75.5333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 10.95980
while the result of posttest is 6.07959. Unlike the standard error mean, the
result of pretest is 1.26553 while the result of posttest is .70201; the
posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than
the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467. In the standard deviation, the
result of pretest is 4.92455 while the result of posttest is 3.42471. Unlike
the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .56864 while the result of
posttest is .39545; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is
86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133. In the
standard deviation, the result of pretest is 3.28425 while the result of
posttest is 3.17649. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is
.37923 while the result of posttest is .36679; the posttest mean of the group
in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the
group which is 76.3333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is
6.26732 while the result of posttest is 5.29467. Unlike the standard error
mean, the result of pretest is .72369 while the result of posttest is
.61138.
It shows further that the posttest score in the speaking area got 1st rank
which is 87.1200 while the pretest is 80.5467 of which the difference is
6.5733; the posttest score in the reading area got 2nd rank which is 86.7333
while the pretest is 84.4133 of which the difference is 2.3200; the posttest score in the writing area got 3rd rank
which is 85.4400 while the pretest is 76.3333 of which the difference is
9.1067.
Table 2
Mean Pretest and Mean Posttest
MACRO-SKILLS
|
MEAN
|
STANDARD DEVIATION
|
STD. ERROR MEAN
|
|||
Areas
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Listening
|
75.5333
|
83.1067
|
10.95980
|
6.07959
|
1.26553
|
.70201
|
Speaking
|
80.5467
|
87.1200
|
4.92455
|
3.42471
|
.56864
|
.39545
|
Reading
|
84.4133
|
86.7333
|
3.28425
|
3.17649
|
.37923
|
.36679
|
Writing
|
76.3333
|
85.4400
|
6.26732
|
5.29467
|
.72369
|
.61138
|
Paired Samples’ Test/Paired
Differences of the Macro-Skills by the Freshmen Students
To find out if there was a
significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the
students exposed to the areas such as listening, speaking, reading and writing,
the difference between these two means was subjected to a paired t-test.
It was gleaned from table 3 that the
mean of students in the listening area was -7.57333, standard deviation was
10.63291, standard error mean was 1.22778, 95% confidence interval of the
difference (lower limit) was -10.0974 and the difference (upper limit) was
-5.12692, the c.v. result was -6.168 is greater than the t.v. result which was
-10.01974. Therefore, the macro-skill in the listening area was not
significant.
The mean of students in the speaking
area was -6.57333, standard deviation was 5.31742, standard error mean was
.61400, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -7.79676
and the difference (upper limit) was -5.34991, the c.v. result was -10.706 is
lesser than the t.v. result which was -7.79676. Therefore, the macro-skill in the
speaking area was significant.
The mean of students in the reading
area was -2.32000, standard deviation was 2.98265, standard error mean was
.34441, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -3.00625
and the difference (upper limit) was -1.63375, the c.v. result was -6.736 is
lesser than the t.v. result which was -3.00625. Therefore, the macro-skill in
the reading area was significant.
The mean of students in the writing
area was -9.10667, standard deviation was 7.38621, standard error mean was
.85289, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.80608
and the difference (upper limit) was -7.40726, the c.v. result was -10.677 is
greater than the t.v. result which was -10.80608. Therefore, the macro-skill in
the writing area was not significant.
Mean Gain of the Pretest and
Posttest Scores of Freshmen Students
The mean gain test scores of
singled-out freshmen students as found in Table 4 of the macro-skills such as
listening, speaking, reading and writing as structured in the lessons were used
as a result in statistical analysis and computation of the mean pretest and
mean posttest. It was disclosed upon interpretation of data that the mean gain
in the listening area was obtained as the result of the subtraction of number
from the mean pretest which was 75.5333 from the mean posttest which was
83.1067. The findings revealed that only the areas in speaking and reading got
the highest posttest percentages of them all. In the writing area, the mean
gain was obtained as the result of the subtraction from the pretest which was
76.3333 from the mean posttest which was 85.4400.
To find out and to have the final results: in the listening area, the mean
posttest was 83.1067 while the mean gain was -7.57333 which had the lowest mean
pretest and posttest percentages as compared to the other areas; in the
speaking area, the mean posttest was 87.1200 while the mean gain was -6.57333
which got the 1st rank posttest percentage; in the reading area, the mean gain
was -2.32000 which got the 2nd rank posttest percentage and also got 1st rank
pretest percentage among them; and in the writing area, the mean gain was
-9.10667 which got 3rd rank posttest percentage, next to the speaking and
reading areas. Thus, as shown in table 4, it can be gleaned further that the
posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher
than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333; the posttest mean of the
group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of
the group which is 80.5467; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area
which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133;
and the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is
higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333.
Table 4
Mean Gain Posttest Scores of the
Students
MACRO-SKILLS
|
MEAN
|
MEAN GAIN
|
|
Areas
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
|
Listening
|
75.5333
|
83.1067
|
-7.57333
|
Speaking
|
80.5467
|
87.1200
|
-6.57333
|
Reading
|
84.4133
|
86.7333
|
-2.32000
|
Writing
|
76.3333
|
85.4400
|
-9.10667
|
Read more: http://scienceray.com/physics/how-to-present-analyze-and-interpret-scientific-data/#ixzz1ujrcgyAc
No comments:
Post a Comment