After 8 week applying two different treatments for two groups, the researcher delivered another test (post-test) at the end of the course. Like the previous section of results of the pre-test, this section; thus, summarized the results of post-test that two groups achieved in terms of mean, standard deviation, range and different scores with their frequency. After that, the comparison between these results of two groups was carried out in order to find out whether a statistically significant difference happened or not.
The table 4.1.2.a below presented the values of mean, standard deviation, range as well as scores’ frequency.
Mean Standard
deviation Range Types of
scores Frequency Percent
4.90 1.044
Min Max 3 2 4.9
3 7
4 15 36.6
5 12 29.3
6 9 22.0
7 3 7.3
Table 4.1.2a: Post-test results for the control group
The figures in table 4.1.2.a showed that there was a light change in the mean value of post-test results of control group. The average score of the control group was still low with the mean value of 4.90. The scores did not tend to be close to the mean because the standard deviation value was 1.044. The distribution of scores varied along the range of 4, which the highest scores were 7 and the lowest scores were 3. In regard to the frequency of each score, 3 was obtained by 2 students (4.9%), 4 was 15 students (36.6%), 5 was 12 students (29.3%), 6 was 9 students (22%) and 7 was 3 students with 7.3%.
Likewise, the scores of post-test of the experimental group were calculated to find out the similar values, and they were presented in table 4.1.2.b below
Mean Standard
deviation Range Types of
scores Frequency Percent
5.95 1.081
Min Max 4 4 9.5
4 8
5 10 23.8
6 15 35.7
7 10 23.8
8 3 7.1
Table 4.1.2.b: Post-test results for the experimental group
As can be seen from the table 4.1.2.b, the students of the experimental group achieved the rarely good scores. It can be proved by the mean value of 5.95. The spread of the distribution of scores still kept in the range of 4. However, the lowest
from the table, instead, there were 3 students getting the score of 8 (occupied 7.1%).
The average scores (from 5 to 6) mainly occupied with 25 students (59.5%) while the score of 4 obtained only 9.5% by 4 students. Finally, there were 10 students (23.8%) got the score of 7.
After a period of teaching reading comprehension program, thanks to the statistical figures from two previous table 4.1.2.a and 4.1.2.b, it can be seen that there was definitely a difference in the results of two groups. The performance in reading comprehension of the experimental group was rather better than those of the control group. For the evidence, the average score of the control group was lower than the mean of the experimental group, which the disparity was 1.05 (5.95 – 4.90). In addition, the distribution of the type of scores had a dramatically change between two groups. There were no students getting good marks of 8 in the control group while three students in the experimental group could reach the score of 8. The score of 4 tended to dominate the others with 36.6% in the control group while the dominated score in the experimental group was 6 with 35.7%. Therefore, it can be asserted that there appeared a difference in reading comprehension performance between the two groups. In particular, the reading comprehension ability of the experimental group seemed to be improved than that of the control group.
However, in order to check whether the disparity of 1.05 between the means of two groups had any statistical significant or not, the researcher herself once more time ran the tool of T-test on SPSS 16.0 for Windows. The results of the T-test was showed in the table below
Independent Samples Test
CGEGpost Equal
variances assumed
Equal variances not
assumed Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F .021
Sig. .885
t-test for Equality of Means
T -4.499 -4.501
Df 81 80.992
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Mean Difference -1.050 -1.050
Std. Error Difference .233 .233
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower -1.514 -1.514
Upper
-.586 -.586 Table 4.1.2.c: Compare means of the post-test results of the control group and the
experimental group
To assess the equality of variances for a variable calculated for two mentioned groups, the Levene’s Test played an important role. Therefore, the figures in the table 4.1.2.c above showed that the sig. value of Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was sig. = 0.885. This value is really higher than the significant level α = 0.05; hence, it could be claimed that the variances of both groups was equal. Because of no differences in the two variances, the test of Equal Variances Assumed was used to determine that the disparity of the means of two groups had a truly significance or not.
The sig. value of equal variances assumed was sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000 < α = 0.05. This is to say that there was a significant difference in the means of two groups. The students in the experimental group made a greater progress in reading comprehension
than the students in the control group because of the application of mind mapping technique in teaching reading.
In a nutshell, the post-test scores of the two groups were totally different, in which the experimental group scored the better progressive results. It is sure to conclude that the difference was statistically significant thanks to the use of mind mapping technique. Therefore, again, using mind map could improve students’
reading comprehension ability.