Analysis of the hypothesis

Published: 2017-11-30 09:37:49
2255 words
9 pages
19 min to read
143 views
letter-mark
B
Categories: 
Type of paper: 
Essay

5.4 Analysis of the hypothesis
This study has three hypotheses. The analysis hypothesis was carried out to conclude whether the hypotheses were declined or accepted. The analyzed hypothesis were all backed by the data from the T-test.
The first hypothesis, there isn’t any compelling comparison between the experimental and control clusters’ average scores in the prior-test prior using music in English teaching and learning by the form four students. The table below indicates the difference between standard deviation and average scores of the prior-test between the control and experimental cluster. The control cluster’s average score is 50.4 marks. The experimental cluster’s average score is 54.1 marks. The experimental cluster’s average score is 3.7 marks greater than the control cluster’s average score. The control cluster’s standard deviation is 9.619 while the experimental cluster’s standard deviation is 7.145.

If this sample essay on
"Analysis of the hypothesis" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Group

N

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error mean

Pretest Control

Experimental

30

30

50.4

54.1

9.619

7.415

1.986

1.863

Figure 5.7: Participant’s mean score performance for the pre-test between the control and experimental cluster
The pre-test’s significance (2 tailed) is 0.169 and the level (p) of significance is more than 0.05, hence the hypothesis is acknowledged. The control cluster’s t-value and experimental cluster’s t-value is -1.833. In the table above, it indicates that the associated probability for the test is 0.169, > a=0.05. Hence the first hypothesis is accepted. So we can deduct that there is no significant comparison between control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score prior using music in English teaching and learning by form four students. We can also conclude that the participant’s prior knowledge of the English language for the control and experimental cluster is almost the same at the start of the study.

Leven’s Test for Equality of variances

t-test for Equality of Means

f

Significance

t

difference

Significance

(2-tailed)

Mean comparison

Standard error comparison

95% confidence break of the comparison

lower

Upper

Posttest equal variance

3.639

.091

-1.833

61

.169

-3.500

2.462

-7.904

.987

Assumed equal variance not assumed

-1.833

55.730

.170

-3.500

2.462

-7.914

.997

Figure 5.8: Distinction between the control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score in the prior-test
The second hypothesis, there is no significance comparison between the control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score in the post test is declined. The table below indicated the standard deviation and average scores of the after-test between the experimental cluster and control cluster. The control cluster’s average score is 65.5 marks, while the experimental cluster’s average score is 71.6 marks. The experimental cluster’s average score is 6.1 marks greater than the control cluster’s average score. The control cluster’s standard deviation is 8.514. The experimental cluster’s standard deviation is 8.979.

Group

N

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error Mean

Posttest Control

Experimental

30

30

65.5

71.6

8.514

8.979

1.392

1.496

Figure 5.9: Mean score of participant’s performance between the control cluster and experimental cluster for the after-test
For the post test, the significant (2 tailed) is 0.037 and the level (p) of significant is less than 0.05, and hence the hypothesis is declined. The control and experimental cluster have the same t-value which is -2.469. The table below also indicates the associated probability for the test which is 0.037, <a=0.05. Hence the second hypothesis is rejected. So we can deduct that there is a significant comparison between the control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score after using music in teaching English language.

Leven’s test for equality variance

T-test for equality of Means

f

Significance

t

difference

Significance

(2 tailed)

Mean comparison

Standard error comparison

95% confidence break of the comparison

Lower

Upper

Posttest Equal variance

Assumed equal variance not assumed

.136

.862

-2.469

-2.469

59

58.763

.037

.037

-4.986

-4.986

2.183

2.183

-8.911

-8.912

-.803

-.803

Figure 5.10: Difference in the post-test between control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score
The third hypothesis, there is significant comparison for the experimental cluster’s average score in the prior-test and after-test is rejected. The table below indicated the experimental cluster’s standard deviation and average score of the prior-test and after-test. The pre-test’s mean score is 54.1 marks while the after-test’s average score is 71.6 marks. The post-test’s mean score is 17.5 marks greater than the prior-test’s average score. The pre-test’s standard deviation is 7.463 while the post-test’s standard deviation is 7.910.

Group

N

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error mean

Experimental group

Pre-test

Post-test

30

30

54.1

71.6

7.463

7.910

1.794

1.994


Figure 5.11: Mean score of the experimental cluster’s participant performance in the prior-test and after-test
The post-test’s significant (2 tailed) is 0.011, and the level (p) of the significant is less than 0.05, p<0.05, thus the hypothesis is declined. The pre-test’s t-value and the post-test’s t-value is the same which is -13.604. The table below indicates the associated probability for the test is 0.011, <a=0.05. Hence the third hypothesis is rejected. So we can deduct that there is a compelling comparison for the experimental cluster’s average score in the prior-test and after-test.

Paired difference

T

difference

Significant

(2 detailed)

Pair 1

Pre-test

Post-test

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error mean

-18.300

8.031

2.618

-13.604

37

.011

5.6 Summary
The first hypothesis’ associated probability is 0.169, >a=0.05. There is no significant comparison for the control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score in the pre-test before using music in teaching English language, thus it is accepted. The second hypothesis’ associated probability is 0.037, <a=0.05, hence the hypothesis was declined. Thus, we concluded that there is a significant comparison for the control cluster’s average score and experimental cluster’s average score in the post-test. The third hypothesis’ associated probability is 0.011, <a=0.05, thus the hypothesis was rejected. Hence, we concluded that there is a compelling comparison for the prior-test’s average score and the after-test’s average score for the experimental group.

Chapter 6
Discussion
6.1 Introduction
The outcome achieved will be used to find out whether there are any comparisons between the control and the experimental group after teaching using music had been adopted in the real classroom. Challenges faced in an ESL classroom will be discussed also.
6.2 Discussion
There is no significant comparison between the control cluster’s average score and the experimental cluster’s average score in the pre-test prior using music in teaching English. This may be possibly because both the control and experimental cluster had the same prior knowledge about English language.
Almost 94% of the students from both the experimental and control group stated that they could not comprehend what the questions were all about, they simply guessed. Due to this, there is no large difference between both groups in their achievements. The control group’s average score is 47.43 while the experimental group’s average score is 50.73 with a difference of only 3.3 marks.
They were noted for having less interest in learning English for both the control and experimental groups before any teaching and learning was undertaken. English language creates fear in them since they might believe that it is difficult to learn and understand. Therefore, the percentage of participants who portrayed negative attitude were the same for both the experimental and control group.
They both improved their outcomes in the after-test. However, the experimental cluster showcased better improvement than the control cluster. In the control group, there were more participants who portrayed negative attitude than positive attitude towards English. The experimental group’s average score which is 67.93 is higher by 4.46 marks than the control group’s average score which is 63.47.
The post-test’s significant (2 detailed) is 0.026, the level (p) of significant is less than 0.05 and hence there is a significant comparison for the control group’s mean score and experimental group’s mean score in the post-test. The deduced conclusion is that the experimental group understood English language better than the control group due to the use of music.
Visual aids play a key role in teaching and learning. It helps the students understand, what they are taught. It increases interest in English and the students will participate and engage the teacher more which will assist them in learning. This will result into an increased interaction and relationship between the students and the teacher thus facilitating learning.
There is a significant comparison between the control group’s mean score and experimental group’s mean score in the post-test. This concluded that the students prefer learning English through music. The students are motivated and this facilitates learning.
This study has shown that definitely, use of music and songs in teaching and learning English will simplify the educators’ effort in teaching and also accelerate English learning by the students in a classroom. Hence use of music is an effective strategy.
6.3 Limitations of the Study
There were some limitations in the study that had been observed during the exercise. One of them is time restraint. Teaching and learning English using music is a new strategy for the students. The students might have gotten used to the strategy within two weeks. Therefore, the learners were not really absorbed into the system. The second limitation was the students’ ability standard. The participants were slightly weaker than expected. The researcher had to explain most of the vocabularies in the narrative music thus most of time was used in vocabulary explanation. The third limitation was the attendance of the students. Some of the students did not attend the research lessons thus this might have altered the results.
6.4 Recommendations for Further Study
The achievements of both the control and experimental group can be deduced from the results of the pre-test and post-test obtained. The researcher recommends that the coming studies should be carried out in remote and rural areas and also the research period should be three weeks rather than two weeks. The effectiveness of using music in teaching for the weak students should be studies. The effectiveness of using music in teaching based on the gender should also be studied.
6.5 Conclusion
This research approves that use of music in teaching and learning assists the students to understand and comprehend. It also assists the teacher to convey the message better in circumstances that he or she is unable to explain. Thus it enhances teaching too. Hence teachers and more so the Malaysian curriculum, should adopt this strategy in teaching and learning English in the ESL classrooms. The student’s interest towards English increases and also improves their attention. The teachers should have the required skills in using music for him or her to identify the best type of music that will facilitate learning. Students need to be motivated for effective teaching and learning to occur and it will generally benefit the students and society.


References
Alexa, B. (2016). Neural response to grammatically and lexically degraded speech. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 567-574
Allan, P. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Allan, P. (2006). A dual coding theoretical interpretation.
Allan, P.(2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. The psychological Record. 59, 295-300.
Ana, P. (2016). Evaluation and revision of inferential comprehension in narrative texts: an eye movement study. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 549-566
Beak, Y. (1998). Color, graphics, and animation in computer assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction.15(4), 131-135
Benson, J. (1997). Problems in picturing text: A study of visual/verbal problem solving. Technical Communication Quarterly. 6(2), 141-160
Brehm, L. (2016). Empirical and conceptual challenges for neuro cognitive theories of language production. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 504-507.
Chanlin, L. (1997). The effects of verbal elaboration and visual elaboration on students learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(4), 333-339.
Clara, D. (2016). Holiday or vacation? The processing of variation in vocabulary across dialects. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(3), 375-390
Clara, D. (2016). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(2), 206-216
Claudia, S. (2002). The effects of songs in the foreign language classroom on text recall and involuntary mental rehearsal. Louisiana State University Press.
Kleinman, E. (1999). Analysis of computerized visual skills: Relationships to intellectual skills and achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media.26(1), 53-69
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1983). The natural approach. Pergamon Press.
Manaro, L. (2016). Dynamics of word production and processing speed. Journal of Language and, cognition and Neuro-science. 31(4). 463-464
Martin, J. (2016). Prediction and learning in the dynamics of speaking. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 514-516
Mayer, R. (1996). Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instructions. 3(1), 239-245
Rieber, L. (1990). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Educational Psychology.83(3), 318-328
Ries, S. (2016). Serial versus parallel neurobiological processes in language production. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 476-479
Segal, B. (2014). Teaching English as a second language through rap music: a curriculum for secondary school students. University of San Francisco.
Semi, z. (2014). Parallel processing in the brain’s visual form system. Journal of Psychologyand the Open Access of Nero-science.
Shen, C. (2009). Using English songs: an enjoyable and effective approach to ELT. Journal of English Language Teaching. 2(1), 1-7.
Simone, F. (2016). It is better when expected: aligning speech and motor rhymes enhances verbal processing. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(3)
Teresa, S. (2016). The spatiotemporal map of language production towards a dynamic, non-sequential, and interactive neurobiological model. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 511-513
Udo, E. (2012). How the brain process visual information. Journal of Innovation Germany. 22(1)
West, T. (1997). In the mind’s eye. Prometheus Books.

Cite this page

Analysis of the hypothesis. (2017, Nov 30). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/analysis-of-the-hypothesis

Removal

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism