The application of short video clips to improve english learners oral skills at binh dương university foreign language center m a 60 14 10

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HCM CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE THE APPLICATION OF SHORT VIDEO CLIPS TO IMPROVE ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ORAL SKILLS AT BÌNH DƯƠNG UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER Submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By TRẦN THỊ TƯỜNG VI Supervised by NGUYỄN HOÀNG TUẤN, Ph.D HO CHI MINH CITY JUNE 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr Nguyen Hoang Tuan, who gave me special instructions, contributions and provided valuable supports in the preparation and completion of my thesis Also, I would like to thank Dr Đinh Điền for giving me my knowledge at the beginning of my study Next I would like to send my special thanks to all of the staff at the Foreign Language Center of Bình Dương University, who has helped me actively to be able to carry out the study as well as to have learners involve in the study I would like to thank Mr Nguyễn Văn Hùng, Ms Nguyễn Thị Phước Bình, Ms Nguyễn Thị Bạch Yến and Ms Ung Thị Út who have played important roles in this study These people have helped me teach learners under my suggestion, score learners’ oral skills, collect and analyze data I would like to sincerely thank all of the staff working at Bình Dương University, who has covered a lot of my work for me to have time to fulfill this thesis This thesis is my success; however, these people, in any position, already contributed important roles to my success STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled: THE APPLICATION OF SHORT VIDEO CLIPS TO IMPROVE ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ORAL SKILLS AT BÌNH DƯƠNG UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER In terms of statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Program issued by Higher Degree Committee Ho Chi Minh City, June 2011 TRẦN THỊ TƯỜNG VI RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I, TRẦN THỊ TƯỜNG VI, hereby state that I being the candidate for the degree of Master in T.E.S.O.L accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of the theses Ho Chi Minh City, June 2011 TRẦN THỊ TƯỜNG VI Table of Contents Statement of Originality Retention and Use of the Thesis Acknowledgement Table of Contents i List of Figures, Tables, and Graphs v Abstract vi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 01 1.1 Background to the study 01 1.1.1 Oral skill courses at the Foreign Language Center of Bình Dương University 01 1.1.2 SVCs in teaching learners oral skills 02 1.2 Problem Statement 05 1.3 Purposes of the Study 05 1.4 Significance of the Study 06 1.5 Research Questions 07 1.6 Research Hypotheses 07 1.7 The Scope of the Study 07 1.8 Definition of Terms 07 1.9 Assumptions of the Study 08 1.10 Limitations of the Study 09 1.11 Summary 09 i CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11 2.1 SVCs 11 2.1.1 Using SVCs in teaching second or foreign languages 11 2.1.2 Effectiveness of Applying SVCs in Language Teaching Studies 18 2.2 Related Learning Theories 25 2.2.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory 25 2.2.2 Interactive Learning Techniques 26 2.2.3 Theory of Multiple Representations 27 2.2.4 Cognitive Flexibility Theory 28 2.2.5 Bruner's Three-Form Theory 29 2.3 Oral Skill Assessment through Testing 30 2.4 Summary 33 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 34 3.1 Research Design 34 3.2 Participants 35 3.2.1 Students 35 3.2.1.1 The control group 36 3.2.1.2 The experimental group 36 3.2.2 The teacher & examiners 37 3.2.2.1 The teacher 37 3.2.2.2 The examiners 37 3.3 Instrumentation & Materials 38 3.3.1 Tests 38 3.3.1.1 Pretests 38 3.3.1.2 Posttests 38 ii 3.3.2 Scoring method 39 3.3.2.1 Pretest 39 3.3.2.2 Posttest 39 3.3.3 Questionnaire 40 3.3.3.1 Pilot questionnaire 41 3.3.3.2 Research questionnaire 42 3.3.4 Material used in the study 46 3.3.5 Short Video Clips (SVCs) 47 3.4 Research Procedures 48 3.5 Data Statistics 49 3.5.1 Item-Total Statistics 49 3.5.2 Reliability Statistics 50 3.5.3 Correlation 50 3.5.4 Critical  value and T-test 51 3.5.4.1 Critical  value 51 3.5.4.2 T-test & Descriptive Statistics 51 3.6 Summary 51 CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 53 4.1 Reliability 53 4.1.1 Correlation 54 4.1.1.1 Pretests 54 4.1.1.2 Posttests 54 4.1.2 Reliability and Item-Total Statistics 57 4.1.2.1 Pilot questionnaire 57 4.1.2.2 Research questionnaire 61 4.2 Data Analysis 64 4.2.1 Results of the tests 64 iii 4.2.1.1 Pretest 64 4.2.1.2 Posttests 65 4.2.2 Questionnaire 69 4.2.2.1 Task Value Items 69 4.2.2.2 Learning Activeness Items 70 4.2.2.3 Self-Evaluation Items 73 4.3 Discussions & Findings 74 4.4 Implications 79 4.5 Summary 79 CHAPTER SUMMARY OF FINDINDS, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION 81 5.1 Conclusion 81 5.2 Recommendations 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY 83 APPENDICES 90 Appendix A: Pilot Questionnaire 90 Appendix B: Research Questionnaire 98 Appendix C: Holistic Scoring Instructions – Pretest 108 Appendix D: Analytic Scoring Instructions – Posttest 110 Appendix E: Lesson Plan – Using SVCs in teaching oral skills 112 Appendix F: Lesson Plan – The current teaching technique 116 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Correlations for the pretests of the two groups 54 Figure 2: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups 55 Figure 3: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the components of Pronunciation 55 Figure 4: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the components of Fluency 56 Figure 5: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the components of Vocabulary 56 Figure 6: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the components of Response 56 Figure 7: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of Task Value section 58 Figure 8: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the section of Task Value after removing three items less correlation 59 Figure 9: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the section of Learning Activeness 60 Figure 10: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the section of Learning Activeness after removing the items #3, and #4 61 Figure 11: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for Task Value section in the research questionnaire 62 Figure 12: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for Learning Activeness section in the research questionnaire 63 Figure 13: The descriptive statistics for the pretests of the two groups 64 Figure 14: The descriptive statistics for the posttests of the two groups 65 Figure 15: The descriptive statistics for the components of Pronunciation and Fluency in the posttests of the two groups 67 Figure 16: The descriptive statistics for the components of Vocabulary and Response in the posttests of the two groups 68 Figure 17: Results of the t-test for the posttests of the two groups 69 Figure 18: Patterns of responses to items for the section of Task Value (above) and Learning Activeness (below) 72 Figure 19: Patterns of responses to the item of “evaluating your improvement on English oral skills after the course” 73 Figure 20: Patterns of responses to the item of “feeling about the improvement of your self-confidence when the course is over” 74 v ABSTRACT The research aimed to study whether Short Video Clips – SVCs, abbreviatedly – would improve learners’ oral skills in terms of Pronunciation, Fluency, Vocabulary and Response and to examine learners’ attitudes towards the use of SVCs in teaching oral skills The research used Non-Equivalent Two-group Pretest-Posttest QuasiExperimental Design to compare the differences between the two groups in oral skills at the end of the study On other dimension, the research based on a sevenpoint Likert-type questionnaire to examine the attitudes of learners in the experimental group on three sections of Task Value, Learning Activeness and SelfEvaluation The study proved that learners taught with Short Video Clips would be motivated These learners took part in learning activities actively As a result, these learners did better than their counterpart at the end of the research when the final oral skill exams for the two groups were held The results of the study displayed that learners in the experimental group scored 18.77% better than those in the control group while at the beginning of the research learners in the control group scored 0.45% better The independent t-test proved that the difference between the two groups in the posttests was statistically significant with p value is only 0.000000008577 These results are consistent with previous studies showing that the use of SVCs in teaching oral skills significantly improves learners’ oral skills as well as motivates these learners to pay high attention to learning environment The researcher, therefore, would like to recommend SVCs to be used intensively in teaching oral skills for the second language vi EXAMINERS CORRELATION POSTTEST - FLUENCY CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Examiner 01 Examiner 02 0.749 0.647 Examiner 01 Examiner 03 0.548 0.576 Examiner 02 Examiner 03 0.671 0.654 0.656 0.626 Total correlation Figure 4: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the component of Fluency EXAMINERS CORRELATION POSTTEST - VOCABULARY CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Examiner 01 Examiner 02 0.681 0.688 Examiner 01 Examiner 03 0.616 0.561 Examiner 02 Examiner 03 0.767 0.778 0.688 0.676 Total correlation Figure 5: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the component of Vocabulary EXAMINERS CORRELATION POSTTEST - RESPONSE CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Examiner 01 Examiner 02 0.777 0.734 Examiner 01 Examiner 03 0.602 0.657 Examiner 02 Examiner 03 0.673 0.831 0.684 0.741 Total correlation Figure 6: Correlations for the posttests of the two groups on the component of Response 56 Of the correlations for the four components, the total correlation for the Response of the experimental group is the highest with 0.741 and the total correlation for the Fluency of the experimental group is the lowest with only 0.626 Since these components were scored on the scale of five which would reduce the correlations among the examiners, these correlations are still high ones, displaying a high consensus among the examiners in scoring With the obtained correlations of the scores given by the examiners, the average scores, then, are believed to reflect learners’ oral skills 4.1.2 Reliability statistics and Item-total statistics 4.1.2.1 Pilot questionnaire With the responses to part two of the pilot questionnaire, the reliability statistics display an acceptable internal consistency among the respondents with the value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.779 With item-total statistics, on the column of Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted, the smallest value is 0.709 for item “SVCs instruct learners to imitate the expressions of the native speakers” and the highest value is 0.817 for item “SVCs improve learners’ listening skills very much” On the column Corrected Item-Total Correlation, there is a weak correlation between items “I like going to learn other English classes with SVCs”, “I like learning English with SVCs since it really appeals learners”, “SVCs improve learners’ listening skills very much” and the sum of the other items in this section with 0.198, -0.375, and -0.168, respectively, lower than the standardized value of 0.300 suggested by de Vaus (2002) As regulated previously in chapter three, these items would be removed from the final questionnaire, leaving this section to have ten items Figure displays the reliability statistics with Cronbach’s Alpha and itemtotal statistics for the section of Task Value in the pilot questionnaire 57 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.779 13 Item-Total Statistics Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 198 785 506 756 506 756 611 743 818 709 408 764 656 739 416 764 611 743 I like going to learn other English classes with SVCs SVCs not improve learners’ pronunciation Interacting with the screen makes learners more active SVCs make in-class activities boring SVCs instruct learners to imitate the expressions of the native speakers SVCs instruct lessons very interestingly SVCs is a useful technique for learning English In-class activities turn to be more active with SVCs SVCs make learners get difficulties when communicating with real human-beings SVCs help learners speak English more fluently I like learning English with SVCs since it really appeals learners SVCs makes me not sure of myself when communicating in English SVCs improve learners’ listening skills very much .471 764 -.375 815 615 744 -.168 817 Figure 7: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the domain of Task Value Figure displays the results of reliability and item-total statistics of Task Value section after three mentioned items were removed from the questionnaire The Cronbach’s alpha value, then, goes up to 0.868 and all values in the column of Cronbach’s alpha if Item Deleted are from 0.847 to 0.873 In the column Corrected Item-Total Correlation, there is a strong correlation among the ten items in the section The lowest correlation is item In-class activities turn to be more active with SVCs with 0.401 Cronbach’s alpha is strong, 0.868, a good coefficient alpha to meet the mentioned requirements 58 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.868 10 Item-Total Statistics SVCs not improve learners’ pronunciation Interacting with the screen makes learners more active SVCs make in-class activities boring SVCs instruct learners to imitate the expressions of the native speakers SVCs instruct lessons very interestingly SVCs is a useful technique for learning English In-class activities turn to be more active with SVCs SVCs make learners get difficulties when communicating with real human-beings SVCs help learners speak English more fluently SVCs makes me not sure of myself when communicating in English Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 661 850 661 850 625 852 690 847 534 859 526 860 401 873 625 852 550 861 692 847 Figure 8: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the domain of Task Value after removing three items less correlation For the ten items in Learning Activeness section, reliability statistics give a coefficient apha of 0.824, displaying a good internal consistency among ten items of this section On the column Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted in Figure 9, the lowest is for items “Do you practice over and over the conversations?” with 0.771 while item “Do you note the structures of the expression to practice at home?” gets the highest value of 0.854 On the column Corrected Item-Total Correlation, items “Do you often try to remember key words used in the communications in SVCs?”, and “Do you note the structures of the expression to practice at home?” gets the values lower than the standardized value of 0.300 suggested by de Vaus (2002) with 0.239, and 0.043, 59 respectively These items, therefore, were removed from the research questionnaire as regulated The final questionnaire, then, had eight items for this section Figure displays the reliability statistics and item-total statistics for Learning Activeness item in the pilot questionnaire with ten items Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.824 10 Item-Total Statistics Do you often listen to characters’ pronunciation to imitate them according to the intonation and the rhythm? Do you practice over and over the conversations? Do you often try to remember key words used in the communications in SVCs? Do you note the structures of the expression to practice at home? Do you often listen to the SVCs until understanding completely the conversations? Do you often discuss with your friends in English in the classroom? Do you often take part in in-class communicative activities? Do you often practice communicating with your friends in English? Do you often prepare key words for the supplement scenarios for lessons? Do you practice communicating with video clips at home? Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 551 803 833 771 239 832 043 854 551 803 362 823 657 791 657 791 518 807 741 783 Figure 9: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the domain of Learning Activeness After the two mentioned items of Learning Activeness section were removed, the results of reliability and item-total statistics display a good internal consistency of the section The Cronbach’s alpha value, then, is 0.874 and all values in the column of Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted are from 0.831 to 0.879 60 In the column of Corrected Item-Total Correlation, the correlation between each item and the others item are all higher than 0.300 These values prove a good correlation among these items Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.874 Item-Total Statistics Do you often listen to characters’ pronunciation to imitate them according to the intonation and the rhythm? Do you practice over and over the conversations? Do you often listen to the SVCs until understanding completely the conversations? Do you often discuss with your friends in English in the classroom? Do you often take part in in-class communicative activities? Do you often practice communicating with your friends in English? Do you often prepare key words for the supplement scenarios for lessons? Do you practice communicating with video clips at home? Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 584 863 870 831 584 863 439 879 775 842 775 842 469 874 569 865 Figure 10: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for the items of the domain of Learning Activeness after removing the items #3, and #4 4.1.2.2 Research questionnaire The research questionnaire has 20 items Ten items are for Task Value section, eight items for Learning Activeness section and two items for SelfEvaluation section Reliability statistics and Item-total Statistics were used for producing the reliability of the questionnaire 61 a) Task Value section has Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.830, displaying an good internal consistency within the section All items in this section has the correlation with the sum of the remaining items in the section higher than 0.300 Thus, all items are analyzed to study the learners’ attitudes towards the use of SVCs in teaching oral skills Figure 11 displays the reliability statistics and item-total statistics for Task Value section in the research questionnaire Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 830 10 Item-Total Statistics SVCs instruct learners to imitate the expressions of the native speakers SVCs not improve learners’ pronunciation Interacting with the screen makes learners more active SVCs instruct lessons very interestingly SVCs make learners get difficulties when communicating with real human-beings In-class activities turn to be more active with SVCs SVCs is a useful technique for learning English SVCs make in-class activities boring SVCs help learners speak English more fluently SVCs makes me not sure of myself when communicating in English Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 360 830 633 802 400 825 353 829 603 806 648 800 661 798 396 825 679 803 463 821 Figure 11: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for ten items of Task Value domain in the research questionnaire b) Learning Activeness section has Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.758, displaying an acceptable internal consistency within the section All items in this section has the correlation with the sum of the remaining items in the 62 section higher than 0.300 Thus, as regulated, all items are analyzed to examine the learners’ learning activeness responding to the use of SVCs in teaching oral skills Figure 12 displays the reliability statistics and item-total statistics for Learning Activeness section in the research questionnaire Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 758 Item-Total Statistics Do you often listen to characters’ pronunciation to imitate them according to the intonation and the rhythm? Do you often discuss with your friends in English in the classroom? Do you often take part in in-class communicative activities? Do you often practice communicating with your friends in English? Do you practice communicating with video clips at home? Do you often prepare key words for the supplement scenarios of lessons? Do you practice over and over the conversations? Do you often listen to the SVCs until understanding completely the conversations? Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 303 765 440 736 440 736 424 742 384 747 684 696 654 704 450 734 Figure 12: Reliability and Item-Total Statistics for ten items of Learning Activeness domain in the research questionnaire c) 18 items of two sections of Task Value items and Learning Activeness items has Cronbach’s alpha of 0.883, displaying a good internal consistency These values affirm that the design of the questionnaire used in the research is reliable for analyzing the attitudes of the learners in the experimental group 63 towards the use of SVCs in teaching oral skills as well as their activeness in taking learning strategies 4.2 DATA ANALYSIS In this section, the data collected from the tests and the research questionnaire will be discussed 4.2.1 Results of the tests 4.2.1.1 Pretests The attributes of descriptive statistics is used for comparing the results that two groups got in their pretests The software of Microsoft Office Excel was used for obtaining the descriptive statistics for the pretests PRETEST Experimental Difference group Control group Mean Standard Deviation Range Advantage of 3.17 1.13252 3.5 3.12 1.07900 0.05 0.05352 0.5 Control Experimental Control Minimum 1.5 0.5 Control Maximum 5 Equal Figure 13: The descriptive statistics for the pretests of the two groups As Figure 13 displays, the differences between two groups in all attributes are not significant For the means, the control group is higher but only 0.05, not enough to tell that there is a significant difference between the two groups For the standard deviations, the experimental group is better when the score collection tends to focus on the mean with 1.07900, compared to 1.13252 of the control group The attributes 64 of range and minimum put the control group at an advantage compared to the experimental group with the differences of 0.5 for both attributes 4.2.1.2 Posttests To avoid the disagreement among the three examiners, the cases that the highest average score and the lowest average scores differ from 2.00 and over would be removed from the final analysis There were two cases in the posttests of the experimental group and, naturally, the scores of these two learners for the pretest and the posttest would be removed from the analysis The experimental group, then, has 44 learners The data collected from two posttests will be in turn analyzed with descriptive statistics for the posttests in general and the four components in question in particular Last, the results of the independent t-test for the posttests are also discussed The attributes of the descriptive statistics for the posttests display differences between the two groups in the research All attributes, but standard deviations, display the advantages of the experimental group over the control group For the means, the experimental group gets 6.89, 1.88 higher than the mean of the control group with 5.01 The attribute of ranges proved that the difference between the lowest score and the highest one in the experimental group is 0.16 smaller than that of the control group, 5.00 for the experimental group and 5.16 for the control group Figure 14 summaries the descriptive statistics for two groups with their score getting in the posttests 65 Control group Mean Standard Deviation Range POSTTEST Experimental Difference group Advantage of 5.01 1.32487 5.16 6.89 1.37769 5.00 1.88 0.05282 -0.16 Experimental Control Experimental Minimum 2.16 4.33 2.17 Experimental Maximum 7.33 9.33 2.00 Experimental Figure 14: The descriptive statistics for the posttests of the two groups The attributes of minima and maxima express that learners in the experimental group exceed those in the control group The maximum score of the experimental group is 9.33 and the minimum score is 4.33 These values for the control group are 7.33 and 2.16 As Figure 14 displays, the attributes of standard deviations display that the two groups are approximate to one another when the spread of the scores to the means is taken into consideration The standard deviation of the control group is 1.32487, 0.05282 smaller than the standard deviation of the experimental group These values proved that the score collection of the control group is more focused on the mean than that of the experimental group even though the range of the experimental group is smaller The descriptive statistics for the four components of oral skills in the posttests are displayed in Figure 15, Pronunciation and Fluency, and Figure 16, Vocabulary and Response For the Pronunciation, learners in the experimental group did their job better than those in the control group These learners scored averagely 3.56, 0.94 higher than those in the control group with 2.62 Learners in the experimental group also got the highest and lowest scores higher than those in the control group with for the highest and for the lowest while these attributes for the control group are and 1.33, respectively 66 Pronunciation Control Experimental group group Mean Standard Deviation Range Fluency Control Experimental group group 2.62 0.76809 2.66 3.56 0.74563 2.65 0.89427 3.57 0.87858 Minimum 1.33 2 Maximum 5 Figure 15: The descriptive statistics for the components of Pronunciation and Fluency in the posttests of the two groups The attributes of standard deviations indicates that the distributions of the two groups’ score collections are almost akin to one another with 0.76809 for the control group and 0.74563 for the experimental group, expressing that the spread of the scores to the means of the two score collections is almost similar to one another The descriptive statistics of the Fluency are also similar to those of the Pronunciation Learners in the experimental group did their work better with 0.92 higher in the means, 3.57 compared with 2.65 These learners also got the highest and lowest scores of and 2, compared to and 1, respectively, of the control group Thus, the two groups have the same range of for the score collections The attributes of standard deviations display that the scores of learners in the experimental group are closer to each other than those of the control group with 0.87858 over 0.89427 This difference, however, is not significant with only 0.02 67 Vocabulary Control Experimental group group Mean Standard Deviation Range Response Control Experimental group group 2.50 0.76783 2.66 3.45 0.81043 2.73 0.92562 3.72 0.98114 Minimum 1.33 2 Maximum 5 Figure 16: The descriptive statistics for the components of Vocabulary and Response in the posttests of the two groups Figure 16 displays the descriptive statistics for Vocabulary and Response of the two groups For Vocabulary, the results indicate that learners in the experimental group is better than those in the control group with the mean of 3.45, 0.95 higher than the control group These learners also scored for the highest score and for the lowest score, making the range of while the relevant attributes of the control group is 4, 1.33 and 2.66, respectively The spread of the scores to the means of the two groups is also similar to one another when the difference of the standard deviations is only 0.05 in favor of the control group For Response, learners in the experimental groups scored better than those of the control group with the difference of 0.99, the biggest difference among the four components in question The highest score of the experimental group is 5, the lowest is 2, making a range of while these numbers for the control group are 4, and 3, respectively Similar to other components, the spread of the scores to the means of the two groups in this components are similar to one another with the difference of the standard deviations is only 0.06, 0.92562 for the control group and 0.98114 for the experimental group The results collected from the t-test for the posttests of the two groups indicate that the difference between the two groups is extremely statistically 68 significant as Figure 17 below displays With the degree of freedom (df) of 83, the tstatistical value collected is 6.40472, giving the pstatistical value is only 0.000000008577 (8.6E-09), far much smaller than the critical α value of 0.05 put forwards in advance This proves that the means relative to the spread of the scores of two groups 6.89 for the experimental group and 5.01 for the control group – are statistically different from one another and rejects the null hypothesis stating that there is no difference between the two groups Figure 17 displays the results of the independent t-tests for the posttests of the two groups Experimental Group Mean Observations df t Stat t Critical two-tail 6.89 44 83 6.40472 1.98895 P(T