General English proficiency test results

Một phần của tài liệu Using visual aids as a scaffolding for teaching efl 10th graders’ reading comprehension luận văn thạc sĩ theory and method of english language teaching (Trang 48 - 60)

In order to access the similarity in English proficiency between the experimental group and the control group, this test was performed before the experiment. This test

s carefully selected from Cambridge A2 tests to match the level of 10" graders. This test includes vocabulary, reading, writing, listening, and grammar tasks with 20 questions in twenty-five minutes. Each correct answer scores 0.5 points. The total score for the test is 10 points, After completing the test scores of the participants, the researcher compared the results of the two groups of classes and found that they had the same basic level of English. The results are presented in the table below.

Table 4. 1 The detailed results of general English proficiency test in the two groups : the

experimental group and the control group

| The experimental group | Thecontrolgrop `

| AI 8 Bl 85

| AZ 6 B2 6

| A3 5 B3 Hộ

Aa 3 B4 75

AS 6 BS 25

A6 + B6 3⁄5

AT 65 B7 9

AB 45 B8 45

A9 8.5 B9 2

ATO 3 BIO 6

An 25 BH 3

A12 4 BI2 8

Al 65 BI3 4

Ald 35 B14 75

AIS 45 BIS 25

Al6 3 BI6 65

AI? 7 BI7 4

AI§ 35 BIR 25

Alo 35 B19 8

A20 9 B20 3

A2I 2 B2I 7

A22 3 B22 45

A2 6 B23 85

A24 15 B24 6

A25 # B25 65

A26 25 B26 4

A27 35 B27 45

39

A28 T 8 B28 75

A29 9 B29 =

A30 | 65 B30 85

A3I 2

A3 45 B33 1

A34 § B34 15

A35 6 B35 6

A36 4 B36 4

A37 4 B37 5

A38 9 B38 6

A39 6 B39 15

A40 4 D40 8

A4I 8.5 B41 45

A42 4 B42 4

A4 Table 4. 2 The general English proficiency test scores of bvo groups 65 B43 45

Scores From0-3 | From3.5-35 ] From675 | From 8-10

Group A 10 14 " 8

Group B 12 1 13 7

‘The lowest score of all participants was 1 and the highest score was 9. The table 4.2 presents the results of the two groups in the general English proficiency test. As shown, in the experimental group, there are ten students who got “0 to 3” scores, fourteen students who got “3.5 to 5.5”, eleven students who got 6 to 7.5” scores and

40

only eight students who gained “8 to 10” whereas the control group has twelve students who got “0 to 3”, eleven students who got “3.5 to 5.5”, thirteen students who got “6 to 7.5” and only seven students who got “8 to 10”.

Table 4. 3 The mean and standard deviations of general English proficiency test of the

experimental group (group A) and the control group (group B)

Group Experimental group Control group

(N=43) (N=43)

Mean 6.09 601

SD 2.23 2.25

From the tables above, it could be said that the scores of the general English proficiency test of both groups were not significantly different. The mean total score

of experimental group was 6.09 (SD ~ 2.23) and the mean total score of the control

group was 6.01 (SD = 2.25). The average total scores of the control group was slight

lower than the average total scores of the experimental group. ‘The different score between the two groups was only 0.08.

1 The Experiment Group) w The Gontl Group

AVERA Goon EXCELLENT

Figure 4. 1 Chart of the general English proficiency test scores of the experimental

group (group A) and the control group (group B)

4I

For the experiment group, 10 students (23%) scored from 0-3 marl 14 students (32.5%) scored from 3.5 to 5.5 marks, 11 students (25.5%) scored from 6 to 7.5 marks, and 8 students (19%) scored from 8 to 10. For the control group, 12 students (28%) scored from 0-3 marks, 11 students (26%) scored from 3.5 to 5.5 marks, 13 students (30%) scored from 6 to 7.5 marks, and 7 students (16%) scored from 8 to

10. The results indicated that all students in the experimental group and the control group had the same/similar English competency.

4.1.2 The effects of using visual aids as a scaffolding on students’ reading

comprehension

The results obtained from pre-test and post-test gave the answer to the number one question of this research “How does the use of visual aids as a scaffolding help students to improve 10" graders’ reading comprehension?”

4.1.2.1 The pre-test results

Table 4. 4 The detailed results of pre-test in the two groups : the experimental group and

the control group

[ Theexperimental group | Thecontrolgronp -

AI T5 Bì 8 |

A2 5.5 B2 5.5

AB 3 B3 75

^4 4 B4 6

AS t BS 3

A6 25 B6 4

AT 7 B7 5

AS B8 3

A9 7 B9 2

Al0 4 B10 6

42

All BI 3.5

Al2 45 B12 7

Al3 55 BI3 3.5

Ald 4 B14 6

AS 4 BIS 3

Al6 3.5 BIG 5

A1 7 BI7 5

ALB 4 BI8 3.5

Al9 3.5 B19 7

A20 75 B20 3

A2I 2.5 BI 65

A2 3.5 B22 5

A2 35 B23 §

A24 3 B24 5.5

A25 25 B25 7

A26 3 B26 3.5

A27 3 B27 3

A28 75 B28 §

A29 85 B29 4

A30 7 B30 85

ABI 2 Bài 6

A32 65 B32 3.5

A33 5 B33 2

A34 9 B34 2

4

A35 55 B35 s

A36 4 B36 4

A37 s B37

A38 8 B38 55

A39 7 B39 2

A40 4 B40 7

A4 § Bat 5

A42 55 B42 45

A43 7 B43 5

Table 4. 5 The pre- test scores of two groups

Scores From0-3 j From3.5 From 6-7.5 From 8-10

Group A 7 21 " 4

Group B 7 21 10 5

The lowest score of all participants was 2 and the highest score was 9. The table 4.5 presents the results of the two groups in the reading comprehension level. As shown,

in the experimental group, there are seven students who got “0 to 3” scores, twenty- one students who got “3.5 to 5.5”, eleven students who got 6 to 7.5” scores and only four students who gained “8 to 10” whereas the control group has seven students who got “0 to 3”, twenty-one students who got “3.5 to 5.5”, ten students who got “6 to 7.5” and only five students who got “8 to 10”,

Table 4. 6 The mean and standard deviations of reading comprehension scores of both

groups in pre-test

Group Experimental group Control group

(N=43) (N=43)

44

Mean 635 6.22

sD 213. 231

Both groups did the same reading comprehension test. As ean be seen from table 4.3, the mean reading comprehension score of the experimental group was 6.35 and the standard deviation was 2.13 while in the control group the mean score was 6.22 and the standard deviation was 2.31. The two groups have 0.13 difference in mean score. The above results showed there were no significant differences between reading comprehension skill of the two groups. It can be concluded that the reading comprehension level of two groups were similar.

Experimental Group Control Group

2 bề

6-75 ô8-10

“03 #3555 ô675 ô8-10 203 +

Figure 4. 2 Results of score ranges in reading comprehension on Pre-test by students

from the two groups

From this pie chart, it can be seen that the results of students in the pre-test of the two

groups which were equivalent in term of the scores and the number of students who got equivalence point range. The two groups have the same students who gained “3.5

to 5” and “o to 3” scores. While there was a small difference in the number of students who got “6 to 7.5” scores in the two groups. The experimental group which got 11 students who got “6 to 7.5” scores is higher than the control group (10). Whereas the experimental group which got 4 students who got “3.5 to 5.” scores is lower than the control group (5). Despite having a negligible disparity in the results of the two

45

groups, once again this results suggests that the two groups had the same English reading comprehension competency.

4.1.2.2 The post-test results

After implementing visual aids as a scaffolding in teaching reading comprehension skill for the experimental group, the two groups was given a post-test about reading comprehension so as to assess if students” reading comprehension ability was enhanced. In the post-test, every student in both groups was given a test (see

Appendix D). The test was taken from Cambridge English Test A2 level.

Table 4. 7 The detailed results of post-test in the two groups ; the experimental group

and the control group

‘The experimental group The control group

Al 8 BI 95

^2 8 B2 7

A3 7 BS 8

Aa 7 B4 8.5

A5 8.5 BS 55

A6 5 B6 6

AT 95 B7 95

AB 75 BS 7

A9 9 B9 4

Al0 65 BIO 75

All 6 BỊI 6

A12 7 B12 8

Ald T75 BI3 55

Ala 7 B14 8.5

46

AIS 7 BIS 55

AIG 7 BI6 65

A1? 9.5 B17 6

AI8 7 BIS 4

Alo 7 B19 85

A20 9 B20 45

A2I 5 Bi §

A22 7 B22 7

A23 75 B23 95

A24 6 B24 7

A25 6 B25 9

A26 7 B26 s

A27 75 B27 6

A28 9.5 B28 75

A29 10 B29 55

A30 9.5 B30 9

A3I 5 Bãi 7

A32 85 B32 45

A3 75 B33 4

A34 10 B34 45

A35 85 B35 7

A36 75 B36 5.5

A37 75 B37 55

ABB 9.5 B38 7

47

A39 9 B39 3.5

A40 7 B40 9

A4 9 Bal 6

A42 8 B42

A43 85 B43 65

‘The lowest score of all participants was 4 and the highest score was 10, The table 4.5 presents the results of the two groups in the reading comprehension level. As shown,

in the experimental group, there are three students who got “3.5 to 5.5”, twenty-two students who got 6 to 7.5” scores and eighteen students who gained “8 to 10” whereas the control group has fifteen students who got "3.5 to 5.5”, sixteen students who got

“6 to 7.5” and twelve students who got “8 to 10”. From Table 4.5 it can be said that the reading comprehension test results between the experimental group and the control group had a great variance in spite of the fact that all students did the same test, The most striking difference was that the experimental group had students scoring 10 while the contro! group had no students getting maximum score.

Table 4. 8 The mean and standard deviations of reading comprehension scores of both

groups in post-test

Group Experimental group Control group

(N=43) (N= 43)

Mean 8.29 7.02

sD 121 1.90

Both groups did the same reading comprehension test in post-test stage. As can be seen from table 4.6, the mean reading comprehension score of the experimental group

was 8.29 and the standard deviation was 1.21 while in the control group the mean score was 7.02 and the standard deviation was 1.9. The two groups have 0.69 difference in mean score. The results of the post-test scores of two groups were much higher than the pre-test results. It is worth mentioning that the post-test results of the

48

experimental group were significantly higher than that of the control group. It means that the experimental group made a remarkable advancement in reading comprehension after the experiment. Moreover, the standard deviation of the control group is also higher than that of the experimental group (1.9 > 1.21), which means that the experimental group's values are closer to the mean than the control group.

Figure 4. 3 Results of score ranges in reading comprehension on Post-test by students

from the two groups

Experimental group Control group

° °

103 ô3555 +675 ô810 #09 43555 ô675 ô8:0

From this pie chart, we can see that the results of students in the post-test of the two groups. Afier the experiment, the scores of 0-3 of both groups were absent. It is worth noting that the number of students who scored 3.5 to 5.5 in the experimental group was only three students (equivalent to seven per cent) meanwhile the control group was sixteen students (equivalent to thirty seven per cent). The number of students who scored 6 to 10 in the experimental group was forty (accounting for 93%) while the control group only had twenty seven students (accounting for 63%). From the

above results, itis confirmed that the using of visual aids as scaffolding helps students make great progress in learning reading comprehension skills.

49

Table 4. 9 Independent samples z-test on the post-test for both groups

Một phần của tài liệu Using visual aids as a scaffolding for teaching efl 10th graders’ reading comprehension luận văn thạc sĩ theory and method of english language teaching (Trang 48 - 60)

Tải bản đầy đủ (PDF)

(100 trang)