3.1.1. Analysis of Writing Proficiency
Table 1. Students' Writing Proficiency
Criteria
Control Group 12D1 (45 students)
Experimental Group 12A1(45 students) Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Word Choice Translate word-by-word 5(11.1%) 5(11.1%) 8(17.7%) 6(13.3%)
Efficient vocabulary usage 13(28.8%) 14(31.1%) 6(13.3%) 12(26.6%) Convention
Error in grammar 10(22.2%) 9(20%) 15(33.3%) 17(37.7%) Misspelling and
inappropriate punctuation 12(26.6%) 13(28.8%) 14(31.1%) 15(33.3%) Coherence Unnatural linking 10(22.2%) 9(20%) 16(35.5%) 11(24.4%) Various conjunction usage 11(24.4%) 12(26.6%) 4(8.8%) 10(22.2%) Ideas No logical ideas 6(13.3%) 4(8.8%) 8(17.7%) 4(8.8%)
Creative ideas 4(8.8%) 5(11.1%) 2(4.4%) 6(13.3%) Organization Cannot state the problem 7(15.5%) 6(13.3%) 12(26.6%) 7(15.5%) Convincing presentation 8(17.7%) 11(24.4%) 5(11.1%) 8(17.7%)
3.1.1.1. Analysis of Word Choice
The ability of 12A1 students when choosing appropriate words for their writing in the pretest also indicates that they were not as good as those of 12D1. 17.7% (8 students) of 12A1 translate word-by-word from Vietnamese and they really did not care about which appropriate words could be used in such situations. While 12D1 also has the same phenomenon but with a smaller number, only 5 students (11.1%) chose to translate directly their writing from Vietnamese. However, the supplementary reading integration might have taken effects. In the post-test, the percentage of students translating word-by-word in experimental group fell to 13.3% while that in class 12D1 remained the same.
Moreover, the number of student in class 12D1 who could use vocabulary efficiently rose sharply from 6 (13.3%) in the pre-test to 12 (26.6%) in the post-test. The upward trend was also recognized in class 12A1,
but the rate of increase is minor: from 13 students (28.8%) in the pre-test to 14 students (31.1%) in the post-test.
3.1.1.2. Analysis of Convention
In experimental group, the numbers of the students who had errors in grammar in the pretest rose from 15(33.3%) in the pre-test to 17(37.7%) in the post-test. At the same rate but in the opposite trend, that of class 12D1 fell by 2.2% from 22.2% (10 students) in the pre-test to 20% (9 students) in the post-test.
However, in both classes, the number of the students who misspelled and had inappropriate punctuation increased slightly by 2.2% from 26.6% to 28.8% and from 31.1% to 33.3% for class 12D1 and 12A1 respectively.
3.1.1.3. Analysis of Coherence
Students of the two classes achieved progress at different rate in conjunction usage. While the number of students in control group had unnatural linking decreased by 2.2% from 10 (22.2%) to 9 (20%), that of experimental group fell rapidly from 16 (36.5%) to 11 (24.4%).
The percentage of 12D1 students who could use a wide variety of conjunctions in their writing rose only from 24.4% (11 students) to 26.6% (12 students). Similarly but much better, that percentage of 12A1 students increases rapidly from 8.8 % (4 students) to 22.2% (10 students).
Some students of class 12A1 used common conjunction words for example "and, but" in the pre-test. Surprisingly, in the post-test, a wide variety of conjunctions were presented in their writing.
3.1.1.4. Analysis of Ideas
In the pretest, there are 6 students (13.3%) could not have logical ideas for their writing and 4 students (8.8%) had creative ideas in class 12D1. And class 12A1 has 8 students (17.7%) without logical ideas in their writing and
only 2 students (4.4%) had creative ideas in 12D1. It shows that 12D1students are also a little bit better than 12A1 students in identifying the ideas for their writing.
Nevertheless, 12A1 can create a dramatically change in the posttest:
there are only 4 students (8.8%) that did not have logical ideas, which was at the same proportion as the students of 12D1. Moreover, the numbers of students in experimental group who had creative ideas in the post-test tripled in comparison with in the pre-test.
3.1.1.5. Analysis of Organization
In the pretest, Class 12D1 has 7 students (15.5%) who could not state the problems and 8 students (17.7%) who had convincing performance for the assigned requirement. Meanwhile, 12 students (26.6%) of Class 12A1 could not state the problems and only 5 students (11.1%) had convincing presentation. It seemed that 12D1 students were better than 12A1students in the pretest.
In the post test, whereas the number of students of 12D1 and 12A1 had convincing presentation risen by 3 students to 11 (24.4%) and 8 (17.7%) respectively, the percentage of students in class 12A1 who could not state the problem declined by 11.1% from 26.6% (15 students) to 15.5 % (7 students) while this percentage in class 12D1 only fell by 2.2% (equal to 1 student).
It means that the students in 12A1 gained much more remarkable improvements in organizing their writing than students of 12D1.
3.1.1.6. Analysis of Writing Test Scores
Although all students of both classes scored at least point 4 in the pretest, the majority of class 12A1 (60%) scored from 4 to below 6, whereas the majority of class 12D1 (51.11%) scored above 6.
In particular, 33.33% of 12A1 students scored from 4 to below 5, whereas only 22.2% of 12D1 students did. While the proportion of 12A1 students who had results in the 5-to-below-6 range was the same that of 12D1 students (26.67% respectively), more students of class 12D1 than those of class 12A1 scored from 6 to below 7 (28.89% and 24.44% respectively).
Moreover, the gap between the two classes in terms of the percentage of students who scored above 7 in the pre-test in both classes was remarkably wide (15.56% of Class 12A1 in comparison with 22.22% of Class 12D1).
In sum, the general results showed that 12A1 students on average scored lower than those of class 12D1 in the pre-test. This result is in line with writing proficiency among the two classes in the pre-test, which was
However, the results of post-test reveal a considerable improvement in the experimental class after nine weeks of the supplementary reading integration programme.
While the percentage of 12A1 students who scored below 5 fell sharply from 33.33% in the pre-test to 13.33% in the post-test, this percentage of 12D1 decreased at a slower rate (from 22.2% in the pre-test to 15.56% in the post-test). With the same percentage (26.67%) of students who scored from 5 to below 6 in the pre-test, the two classes had contrary changes in this range in the post-test. The percentage of 12A1 students who scored from 5 to below 6 in the post-test rose to 31.11% and this percentage of 12D1 fell to 24.44%.
The percentage of students in both classes who got into the 6-to-below- 7 range rose slightly from 24.4% in the pre-test to 26.67% in the post-test for class 12A1 and from 28.9% in the pre-test to 33.33% in the post-test for class 12D1.
Surprisingly, the percentage of 12A1 students who scored above 7 almost doubled (from 15.56% in the pre-test to 28.89% in the post-test) while
this percentage of 12D1 also increased but only by 4.45% from 22.22% in the pre-test to 26.67% in the post-test, which implies that more students of class 12A1 scored above 7 in the post-test than class 12D1.
It can be concluded that after nine weeks of continuous practice, both class gained improvement in developing writing skills. The extent of improvement can be relatively measured through the post-test results. While the average score of Class 12D1 – the control group increased moderately, significant improvements can be observed in class 12A1 - the experimental group. The percentage of 12A1 students who scored below 5 fell dramatically and those whose scored above 7 in class 12A1 outnumbered in class 12D1.
This overall result clearly proved the significant improvements gained from the supplementary reading integration programme.