ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSSIONSshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12703/13/13...Arithmetic Mean...

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSSIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION

TEST SCORES (T-TEST)

5.2 COMPARISON OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION

TEST SCORE: ANALYSIS OF CO-VARIANCE

5.3 VIEWS OF HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS REGARDING

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING OF

ENGLISH

5.4 RATINGS OF PUPILS ON THE SUITABILITY OF

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL IN DEVELOPING THE

SUB-SKILLS OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION

5.5 EVALUATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL

PREPARED FOR DEVELOPING

LISTENING COMPREHENSION IN ENGLISH AT

HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL BY EXPERTS

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

A systematic organisation, classification and tabulation of data are the bench

marks of a good research study. Analysis of data means studying such organised material

in order to discover inherent facts. Goode and Hatt (1952) points out that “analysis is

among the first of the methods which a researcher will call upon his effort to reduce a

field of size, that is, to extract a manageable chunk from the infinite complexity of real

world”.

Explaining the importance of analysis of data, Aggarwal (1966) remarks,

“However valid, reliable, and adequate the data may be, it does not serve any worthwhile

purpose, unless it is carefully edited, systematically classified and tabulated, scientifically

analysed, intelligently interpreted and rationally concluded”. Analysis thus involves

breaking down existing complex factors into simpler parts and putting the parts together

in new arrangements for purposes of interpretation. It is the study of data from as many

angles as possible to explore new facts.

Discussion or interpretation is the critical examination of the results obtained in

the study. The data collected for the present study are analysed with the specific aims of

eliciting findings which are necessary to arrive at definite conclusions in relation to the

objectives of the study.

The major purpose of this study is to determine experimentally the effectiveness

of the prepared Instruction Material in developing listening comprehension in English at

Analysis and Discussions

212

the High School Level. As a preliminary step to this, an attempt was made to study the

views of high school teachers of English regarding various aspects of teaching - learning

of English, and teaching of listening comprehension at present and to collect suggestions

for improving the teaching of listening comprehension.

Experimental cum Survey method was adopted for the study. ‘Non-equivalent

pre-test – post-test control group’ design was used for the study in which the experimental

group (N=94) was exposed to the prepared Instructional Material and the control group

(N=96) was not given any treatment. The data relevant for the survey were collected from

high school English teachers (N=50).

A group of subject experts (N = 10) validated the prepared Instructional Material

and Listening Comprehension Test. The data thus collected were analysed using

appropriate statistical technique, so as to verify the hypothesis of the study. The details of

the analysis carried out are presented below:


213

SECTION I

5.1. COMPARISON OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES:

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP

(TOTAL SAMPLE AND SUB-SAMPLES)

This section of analysis is intended to test the effectiveness of the Instructional

Material (IM) in developing Listening Comprehension (LC) by comparing the pre-test

and post-test scores, of Listening Comprehension Test (LCT), of the experimental group

and control group for total sample, and for sub-samples (experimental group) based on

gender, locality of school and management of school

The mean and standard deviation of Pre-test and Post-test scores of LCT of the

experimental and control groups were computed and the difference in means was tested

for significance. The details are given under the following heads:

5.1.1 Comparison of Pre-LCT scores: Experimental and Control groups.

5.1.2 Comparison of Post-LCT scores: Experimental and Control groups.

5.1.3 Comparison of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores: Experimental group.

5.1.4 Comparison of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores: Control group.

5.1.5 Comparison of Post-LCT scores: Experimental group (Sub-samples).


214

5.1.1 COMPARISON OF PRE-LCT SCORES:

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

The details regarding the data and results of comparison between Pre-test scores

of LCT of Experimental group and Control group are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1

t-test between the means of Experimental and Control groups:

Pre-LCT scores

Treatment groups Number

(N)

Arithmetic

Mean

(AM)

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

Critical

Ratio

(CR)

Level of

Significance

Experimental

group 94 12.64 4.03

0.36

(P>0.05)

Not

Significant Control

group 96 12.88 5.14

Statistical analysis of the data (Table 5.1) revealed that, there is no significant

difference (CR = 0.36; P>0.05) between Experimental and Control group with regard to

their Pre-LCT scores. It can be concluded from the analysis that the Experimental and

Control groups are more or less equal, with regard to Pre-LCT scores.

Tenability of Hypothesis

The t-test between the means of Experimental and Control groups revealed that,

the two groups do not differ significantly with regard to Pre-LCT scores. Hence

hypothesis formulated in this content viz., H1 (There will be significant difference

between the experimental group and control group with regard to the pre-LC test scores.)

is rejected.


215

5.1.2 COMPARISON OF POST-LCT SCORES:

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

The details regarding the data and result of comparison between Post-test scores

of LCT of Experimental and Control Group are given in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2

t-test between the means of Experimental and Control groups:

Post-LCT scores

Treatment groups Numbers

(N)

Arithmetic

Mean

(AM)

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

Critical

Ratio

(CR)

Level of

Significance

Experimental

group 94 21.94 6.31

9.83

(P<0.01) 0.01

Control

group 96 13.27 5.83

Statistical analysis of the data (Table 5.2) revealed that, there is significant

difference (CR = 9.83; P < 0.01) between Experimental and Control Group with regard to

Post-LCT scores. The difference is in favour of the Experimental group.


The t-test between the means of Experimental and Control group revealed that, the

two groups differ significantly with regard to Post-LCT scores. Hence hypothesis

formulated in this content viz., H2 (There will be significant difference between the

experimental group and control group with regard to the post-LC test scores.) is accepted.


216

5.1.3. COMPARISON OF PRE-LCT AND POST-LCT SCORES:

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

The details regarding the data and results of comparison between Pre-test and

Post-test scores of LCT of Experimental Group are given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3

t-test between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores:

Experimental Group

Test Numbers

(N)

Arithmetic

Mean

(AM)

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

Critical

Ratio

(CR)

Level of

Significance

Pre-test 94 12.64 4.03 12.04

(P<0.01) 0.01

Post-test 94 21.94 6.31

Statistical analysis of the data (Table 5.3) revealed that, there is significant

difference (CR = 12.04; P < 0.01) between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores of

Experimental group. The difference is in favour of Post-LCT scores.


The t-test between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores revealed that, there

is significant difference between the Pre- and Post-LCT scores of Experimental group.

Hence the hypothesis formulated in this context viz., H3 (There will be significant

difference between the means of pre-LC test and post-LC test scores of the experimental

group) is accepted.


217

5.1.4 COMPARISON OF PRE-LCT AND POST-LCT SCORES: CONTROL GROUP

The details regarding the data and results of comparison between Pre-test and

Post-test scores of LCT of Control group are given in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4

t-test between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores: Control Group

Test Numbers

(N)

Arithmetic

Mean

(AM)

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

Critical

Ratio

(CR)

Level of

Significance

Pre-test 96 12.88 5.14 0.49

(P>0.05)

Not

Significant Post-test 96 13.27 5.83

Statistical analysis of the data (Table 5.4) revealed that there is no significant

difference (CR = 0.49; P > 0.05) between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores of

Control Group.


The t-test between the means of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores revealed that, there

is no significant difference between the Pre and Post-LCT scores of Control Group.

Hence the hypothesis formulated in this content viz., H4 (There will be significant

difference between the means of pre-LC test and post-LC test scores of the control group)

is rejected.


218

5.1.5 COMPARISON OF POST-LCT SCORES:

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (SUB-SAMPLES)

To determine whether variables like gender, locality of school and management of

school affect the Post-LCT scores of pupils, the differential effect of the above mentioned

variables was studied. The details regarding the data and results of the test of significance

for difference between the means of Post-LCT scores for the sub-samples of

Experimental group are given in Table.5.5.

Table 5.5

t-test between the means of Post-LCT scores:

Experimental Group (Sub-samples)

Sl.

No. Variable Category

Number

(N)

Arithmetic

Mean

(AM)

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

Critical

Ratio

(CR)

Level of

Significance

1 Gender Male 46 21.43 5.47

0.76 Not

Significant Female 48 22.42 7.04

2

Locality

of

School

Rural 68 21.88 6.38

0.14 Not

Significant Urban 26 22.08 6.23

3

Manage-

ment of

School

Government 34 24 6.3

2.42 0.05 Aided 60 20.77 6.05

Statistical analysis of data (Table 5.5) revealed that there is no significant

difference (CR = 0.76; P > 0.05) between the means of Post-LCT scores of male and

female pupils.


219

It also revealed that there is no significant difference (CR= 0.14; P > 0.05)

between the means of Post-LCT scores of pupils belonging to rural and urban schools.

It was found that there is significant difference (CR= 2.42, P < 0.05) between the

means of Post-LCT scores of pupils studying in government and aided schools. The

difference is in favour of pupils studying in government school.

It can be concluded that Post-LCT scores were influenced by the variable viz.,

management of school. As regards gender and locality of school, no significant difference

was noted. Hence it can be concluded that Post-LCT scores were influenced only by the

management of school.


The t-test between the means of Post-LCT scores of experimental group (sub-

sample) revealed that, there is significant difference between pupils studying in

government and aided schools. Hence hypothesis formulated in this context viz.,

H5(iii) (There will be significant difference between pupils studying in government schools

and in aided schools with regard to post-LC test scores) is accepted.

The t-test between the means of Post-LCT scores of experimental groups (sub-

sample) also revealed that, there is no significant difference between male and female

pupils, and pupils belonging to urban and rural schools. Hence hypotheses formulated in

this contest viz., H5(i) (There will be significant difference between male and female

pupils with regard to post-LC test scores) and H5(ii) (There will be significant difference

between pupils studying in schools in urban locality and rural locality with regard to post-

LC test scores) are rejected.


220

SECTION II

5.2 COMPARISON OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORE:

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP

USING ANALYSIS OF CO-VARIANCE

The experimental group exhibited better performance after being exposed to the

Instructional Material. Though it could be tentatively decided that the prepared

Instructional Material is effective in developing listening comprehension, it was difficult

to decide whether the difference between the pre-LCT and post-LCT scores resulted from

the experimental factor or from other variables, as it was highly inconvenient to equate

the group before the experiment. Therefore, it become necessary that the scores be

analyzed using the technique of Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA), which is a

statistical contrivance used to compare groups that are initially unlike, either in the

variable under study or some presumably related variable. Difference in the initial status

of the groups can be removed statistically using ANCOVA, so that they can be compared

as though their initial status has been equated. The use of ANCOVA is thus justified for

the analysis of the scores in the present study. The statistical procedure of ANCOVA, as

suggested by Garrett (1981), is strictly followed.


221

5.2.1 COMPARISON OF PRE-LCT AND POST-LCT SCORES:


USING ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

In this part of the analysis the pre-LCT and post-LCT scores, sum of squares,

mean square variance and F-ratios for the Pre- and Post-LCT scores of the experimental

and control group were computed as follows:

Step 1: Correction Term

There are three correction terms to be applied to the sum of squares – correction

for X (pre-test scores), correction for Y (post-test scores) and correction for XY. Cx, Cy,

and Cxy are calculated using the formulae:

= = 30950.66

= = 58573.14

= = 42577.89

Step II: Sum of Squares for Total (SS)

There are three SS’s for Total: SSX, SSY, and SSXY.

Total SS for X; SSX = ΣX2 − = 34971 – 30950.66 = 4020.34

Total SS for Y; SSY = ΣY2

− = 69068 – 58573.14 = 10494.86

Total SS for XY; SSXY = ΣXY − = 47139 – 42577.89 = 4561.11


222

Step III: Sums of Squares among Means

Sum of squares among the group means are calculated using the formulae:

SS among Group Means for X =

= = 2.43

SS among Group Means for Y =

= = 3566.28

SS among Group Means for XY =

= = (– 93.03)

Step IV: Sum of Squares within Group

Sum of squares within groups are calculated as follows:

SS within Groups for X = Total SS for X − SS among Group Means for X

= 4020.34 – 2.43 = 4017.91

SS within Groups for Y = Total SS for Y − SS among Group Means for Y

= 10494.86 – 3566.28 = 6928.58


223

SS within Groups for XY = Total SS for XY − SS among Group Means for XY

= 4561.11 – (– 93.03) = 4654.14

Step V: Analysis of Variance of X and Y scores, taken separately

The ‘F’ test is applied to the initial and final scores, to decide whether the scores

approach closer to significance.

Degrees of freedom (df)

Among Group means df = Total number of groups – 1 = 2 – 1 = 1

Within group df = Total sample – Number of groups = 190 – 2 = 188

Mean Square Variance

MSx

MSx Among group means = = = 2.43

MSx Within group = = = 21.37

MSy

MSy Among group means = = = 3566.28

MSy Within group = = = 36.85


224

Fx = = = 0.114

Fy = = = 96.78

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the Pre- and Post-LCT scores of the

experimental and control groups are given below in table 5.6.

Table 5.6

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores:

Experimental and Control group

Source of

Variation df SSx SSy MSx MSy

Among

means 1 2.43 3566.28 2.43 3566.28

Within

Groups 188 4017.91 6928.58 21.37 36.85

Total 189 4020.34 10494.86 23.8 3603.13

Fx = 0.114 from table F, for df 1/188

Fy = 96.78 F at 0.05 = 3.90

F at 0.01 = 6.81

The F-ratios for the Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores were tested for significance.

The Fx value obtained is 0.114 (Fx = 0.114; P>0.05) and is very low. Fx value obtained

revealed that, there is no significant difference between the Pre-test scores of the

experimental and control groups. The two groups are more or less equal with regard to the

Pre-LCT scores.


225

The Fy value obtained is 96.78 (Fy = 96.78; P<0.01) is very high. This indicates

that, there is significant difference between the Post-LCT scores of experimental and

control group.


Analysis of Variance between the experimental and control groups revealed that,

the two groups differ significantly with respect to Post-LCT scores. Hence the hypothesis

formulated in this contest viz., H6(i) (There will be significant difference in the Analysis

of variance (ANOVA) between the experimental and control group with regard to post-

LC test scores) is accepted.

5.2.2 COMPARISON OF PRE-LCT AND POST-LCT SCORES:


USING ANALYSIS OF CO-VARIANCE (ANCOVA)

Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) represents an extension of ANOVA to allow

for the correlation between initial and final scores. ANCOVA was applied for analysing

the data in order to effect adjustments in final or terminal scores to determine the extent

of difference between the experimental and control group and hence determine the

effectiveness of the prepared Instructional Material.

For correcting the post-LCT scores (y-scores) for the difference in the pre-LCT

scores (x-scores), the adjusted sum of squares, and adjusted mean square variance were

computed. The F-ratio was also calculated as follows and the results are presented below

in Table 5.7.


226

Step VI: Computations of Adjusted SS for Y (SSY.X)

The computations of adjusted SS carried out in this step are for the purpose of

correcting the final (Y – post-test) scores for differences in initial (X – pre-test) scores.

The symbol SSy.x, means that the SSy have been adjusted for any variability in Y scores

contributed by X scores, or that the variability in X is held constant. The general formula

for adjusted SS is,

SSyx = SSy −

Total SS = Total SS for Y − = 10494.86 − = 5320.24

Within SS =Within SS for Y − = 6928.58 − = 1537.46

Among Mean SS = Total SS − Within SS = 5320.24 − 1537.46 = 3782.78

Adjusted Mean Squares

From the various adjusted sum of squares of the variance (MSY.X) can be computed

by dividing each SS by its appropriate degrees of freedom. The ‘F’ test is applied to the

adjusted, among and within Y means.

MSY.X (Among means) = = = 3782.78

MSY.X (Within group) = = = 8.22


227

FY.X = = = 460.19

Step VII: Significance of differences among adjusted Y Means SDyx

SDyx = = = 2.87

Table 5.7

Summary of Analysis of Co-variance of Pre-LCT and Post-LCT scores:

Experimental and Control Groups

Source of

variation df SSx SSy SSx.y SSy.x MSy.x SDy.x

Among

means 1 2.43 3566.28 -93.03 3782.78 3782.78

2.87

Within

groups 187 4017.91 6928.58 4654.14 1537.46 8.22

Total 188 4020.34 10494.86 4561.11 5320.24 3791

Fy.x = 460.19 from Table F for df = 1/187

F at 0.05 level = 3.90

F at 0.01 level = 6.81

The obtained value of F-ratio is 460.19 and is greater than the table value at

0.01 level and hence is significant (Fyx = 460.19; P < 0.01). This significant F-ratio for the

adjusted post-LCT scores shows that the post-LCT scores of pupils in the Experimental


228

and Control Group differ significantly after they have been adjusted for the differences in

the pre-LCT scores.

It further necessitates, proceeding to test for the difference between the adjusted

post-LCT means of the experimental and control groups. The adjusted means for the post-

LCT scores of pupils in the two groups were computed using correlation and regression

as follows and the details are given in Table 5.8.

Step VIII: Correlation and Regression Means

The regression coefficients for total, among means and within groups have been

calculated by use of the formula

b ( Within) = = = 1.16

Step IX: Calculation of adjusted Y means

Y means can be adjusted directly for difference in the X means by use of the formula,

My.x = My − b (Mx−GMx)

Where MX = Mean scores of Pre-Test

MY = Mean scores of Post-Test

GMX = General Mean scores of Pre-Test

b = Regression coefficient within groups


229

My.x (Control group) = 13.27 − (1.16 x (12.88 − 12.76)) = 13.13

My.x (Experimental group) = 21.94 − (1.16 x (12.64 − 12.76)) = 22.08

D = My.x (Experimental group) − My.x (Control group) = 22.08 − 13.13 = 8.95

Standard Error SED

The standard error of the difference between two means is calculated using the formula

SED = SDyx x = 2.87 x = 0.42

t-Value

Then the ‘t-value’ is found.

t = D/SED = = 21.31


230

Table 5.8

Data for Adjusted Means of Post-LCT scores:

Experimental and Control Groups

Groups Sample

(N) Mx My My.x(adjusted)

Standard

Error

(SEDy.x)

Experimental 94 12.64 21.94 22.08

0.42 Control 96 12.88 13.27 13.13

Means 12.76 17.61 17.61

From Table D for df 1/187

t at 0.05 level = 1.98

t at 0.01 level = 2.61

D 0.05 = 1.98 x 0.42 = 0.83

D 0.01 = 2.61 x 0.42 = 1.1

As per the Table D, for df 1/187, t-value at 0.05 level is 1.98 and at 0.01 level is

2.61. The difference in the adjusted means of the Post-LCT scores of the Experimental

and Control Group was tested for significance for df 1/187, the D-value obtained is 8.95

and the t-value obtained is 21.31, which is significant at 0.01 level. This shows that the

Experimental group with a mean Post-LCT score (Myx = 22.08) is significantly better than

the Control Group (Myx = 13.13) in their performance in the Listening Comprehension

Test. It may, therefore, be concluded that the prepared Instructional Material is effective

in developing listening comprehension.


231


The test of significance between the means of experimental and control group

revealed that, there is significant difference in the ANCOVA between the experimental

and control group with regard to the Post-LCT scores. Hence the hypothesis formulated in

this context viz., H6 (ii) (There will be significant difference in the Analysis of co-variance

(ANCOVA) between the experimental and control group with regard to the post-LC test

scores) is accepted.

SECTION III

5.3 VIEWS OF HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS REGARDING

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING OF ENGLISH

An attempt is made in this section to study the views and suggestions of high

school English teachers (N = 50) regarding various aspects related to teaching and

learning of English and the teaching of listening comprehension. The percentage of all the

responses for each item was calculated. Details of the analysis are given under the

following heads:

5.3.1 Methods/Approaches adopted by teachers for teaching English in high school.

5.3.2. Reasons for the poor achievement of pupils in English.

5.3.3 Difficulties faced by teachers in teaching English.

5.3.4 Extent of development of the basic skills of English Language.

5.3.5 Importance given to the development of Listening Comprehension.


232

5.3.6 Extent of provision of Pre-listening activities.

5.3.7 Extent of provision of While-listening activities.

5.3.8 Extent of provision of Post-listening activities.

5.3.9 Availability and relevance of Instructional Material to develop listening

comprehension.

5.3.10 Suggestions for improving listening comprehension of pupils in High Schools.

5.3.1 METHODS OR APPROACHES ADOPTED BY TEACHERS

FOR TEACHING ENGLISH IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS.

The details of the responses of teachers regarding the methods and approaches

adopted for teaching English are given in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9

Responses of the teachers regarding methods and approaches adopted

for teaching English

Sl.

No. Methods/Approaches No. of Responses Responses in %

1. Direct Method 2 4

2. Bilingual Method 18 36

3. Translation Method 35 70

4. Audio lingual Method 1 2

5. Communicative Approach 8 16

6. Situational Approach 12 24


233

It is evident from the Table 5.9 that, majority of high school teachers (70%) under

study adopt Translation Method, Bilingual Method was adopted by 36% and 24% of

teachers adopt Situational Approach, Communicative Approach was adopted by 16% of

the teachers. Very few teachers adopt Direct Method (4%) and, Audio Lingual Method

(2%). The findings indicate that the pupils are not sufficiently exposed to the target

language by majority of teachers.

5.3.2 REASONS FOR THE POOR ACHIEVEMENT OF PUPILS IN ENGLISH

The details regarding the teachers’ level of satisfaction with the achievement of

pupils in English and their opinion on the reasons for poor performance are presented in

Table 5.10 and Table 5.11

Table 5.10

Teachers’ response regarding their satisfaction with the

achievement of pupils in English

Aspect Dimension Responses in %

Satisfaction with the achievement of

pupils in English

Yes 20

No 80

The data in Table 5.10, reveals that majority of teachers (80%) are not satisfied

with the achievement of pupils in English in the high schools. Only 20% of teachers

reported that they are satisfied with the achievement of the pupils.


234

Table 5.11

Teachers’ response regarding the reasons for poor performance in English

Sl.

No. Reasons

No. of

Responses Responses in %

1. Difficult Subject 21 42

2. Lack of comprehension 24 48

3. Lack of interest in English 18 36

4. Negative attitude of pupils towards English 34 68

5. Unsuitable curriculum 6 12

6. Unsuitable course-book 12 24

It is evident from the Table 5.11 that, majority of teachers (68%) feel that

negative attitude towards English, and 48% of teachers feel that lack of comprehension,

and 42% of teachers feel that English being a difficult subject, are the reasons for poor

performance of pupils. 36% of teachers regard lack of interest of pupils in English and

24% regard unsuitable course-book are the reasons for the poor performance. Only 12%

of teachers regard unsuitable curriculum as the reason for the poor performance of pupils

in English.

5.3.3. DIFFICULTIES FACED BY TEACHERS IN TEACHING ENGLISH

The details of responses of teachers regarding whether they face difficulties while

teaching English is given in Table 5.12, and the various difficulties faced by them are

listed below.


235

Table 5.12

Teacher’s response regarding whether they experience difficulty

in teaching English.


Whether the teachers experience difficulty in

teaching English?

Yes 100

No 0

The data in Table 5.12 reveals that, 100% of teachers reported that they

experience difficulty in Teaching English.

The main difficulties reported by the teachers are:

i. Lack of time to deal with all aspects of language.

ii. Unable to give individual attention.

iii. Lack of development of the four basic skills of language of the pupils.

iv. Unable to use the target language, translation becomes necessary due to the

inability of pupils to understand English, i.e., they lack comprehension skills.

v. Pupils are not aware of the pronunciation, stress or intonation of English

Language.

vi. Course book not suitable in realising all the objectives of teaching English.

vii. Lack of sufficient material resources.

viii. Lack of interest of pupils in English.

ix. Due importance not given to the language.

x. The new pattern of examination and the liberal evaluation system is counteractive

to learning.


236

5.3.4 EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR BASIC SKILLS

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

The details of the responses of teachers regarding the extent of development of the

four basic skills of English Language in pupils are given below in Table 5.13.

Table 5.13

Extent of development of the four basic skills of English language in pupils

Sl. No. Skills

Responses in %

Great

Extent

Some

Extent

Not at

All

1. Listening 4 20 76

2. Speaking 8 26 66

3. Reading 56 44 0

4. Writing 40 60 0

The analysis of data (Table 5.13) reveals that a great majority of teachers (76%)

reported that listening skill and 66% of teachers reported that speaking skill are ‘not at

all’ developed in the classrooms.

The data also reveals that 60% of teachers reported that writing skill, 44% of

teachers reported that reading skill, 26% reported that speaking skill and 20% reported

that listening skill are developed to ‘some extent’.

56% of teachers reported that the reading skill and 40% reported that writing skill

are developed to a ‘great extent’

The findings indicate that listening skill and speaking skill are neglected in the

English classrooms.


237

5.3.5. IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT OF

LISTENING COMPREHENSION IN ENGLISH

The responses of the teachers regarding the importance given to listening

comprehension in English and the reasons for not giving due importance, and the

responses regarding the teaching of sub-skills of listening comprehension are presented in

Table 5.14 and Table 5.15 and Table 5.16.

Table 5.14

Teachers’ response regarding the importance given to the

development of listening comprehension


Do you give importance to the development of

listening comprehension?

Yes 40

No 60

The data in Table 5.14 reveals that majority of teachers (60%) do not give

importance to development of listening comprehension

Table 5.15

Reasons for not giving importance to development of

listening comprehension in English

Sl.

No. Reasons

Responses

in %

1. Not mentioned in course book 10

2. Supposed to be developed in the earlier stages of learning 20

3. Not being evaluated at any point 60

4. Lack of time 50

5. Non availability of suitable materials 60


238

The data in Table 5.15 reveals that, majority of teachers (60%) reported that

listening comprehension is not given importance because it is not being evaluated and

suitable materials are not available. 50% of teachers reported that lack of time was the

reason for not giving importance to development of listening comprehension in English

class.

20 % of the teachers feel that listening comprehension should be developed at an

earlier stage. A small percentage of teachers (10%) reported that they don’t give

importance to listening comprehension because it is not mentioned in course-book

It can be concluded that due to various reasons listening comprehension is not

given importance in English classrooms in the high schools.

Table 5.16

Teachers’ response regarding the teaching of the sub-skills

of listening comprehension

Sl. No. Aspect

Responses in %

Yes No

1. Distinct sound in English 24 76

2. Word stress 15 85

3. Sentence stress 15 85

4. Intonation 0 100

5. Main idea comprehension 100 0

6. Detail comprehension 70 30

7. Inferential comprehension 20 80


239

It is evident from the Table 5.16 that, 100% of teachers do not deal the intonation

patterns in English. A majority of teachers (85%) reported that they do not teach word

stress and sentence stress in English. 80% of teachers do not teach inferential

comprehension and 76% does not deal with the distinct sounds in English. It also reveals

that 100% of teachers reported that they teach main idea comprehension and 70% teach

detail comprehension. It can be concluded that most of the sub-skills of listening

comprehension are not developed satisfactorily in the English classrooms.


240

5.3.6. EXTENT OF PROVISION OF PRE-LISTENING ACTIVITIES

The details of the responses of teachers regarding the extent of providing

pre-listening activities are given in Table 5.17.

Table 5.17

Extent of provision of Pre-listening activities

Sl. No. Aspect

Responses in %

Often Sometimes Never

1. Do you give pre-listening activities? 70 30 0

2. Do you introduce the topic before the

listening exercise/task? 80 20 0

3. Do you ask questions to check previous

knowledge? 10 30 60

3.

Do you give a copy of the material or

passage for listening comprehension to the

pupils before the exercise?

100 0 0

4.

Do you permit the pupils to read the

passage silently before asking the

comprehension questions?

80 12 8

5.

Do you give opportunity to the pupils to

read the comprehension questions before

the listening exercise?

0 10 90

6 Do you help them in selecting the strategy

for listening? 0 10 90


241

The analysis of data in Table 5.17, reveal that 100% of teachers give a copy of the

passage before the exercise, and a majority of teachers (80%) ‘often’ introduces the topic

before the listening task, and permits the pupil to read the passage silently before asking

comprehension questions, 70% of teachers ‘often’ give pre-listening activities.

30% teachers reported they only ‘sometimes’ give pre-listening activities, and ask

questions to check previous knowledge and 20% of teachers ‘sometimes’ introduce the

topic.

Majority of teachers (90%) reported that they ‘never’ give opportunity to the

pupils to read the comprehension questions in advance, and 90% of teachers do not help

pupils in selecting the strategy for listening. and 60% of teachers never ask questions to

check prior knowledge.

The findings reveal that, though majority of teachers reported that they give pre-

listening activities its purpose is not fully achieved as they do not check the prior

knowledge and do not give the comprehension questions in advance in order to prepare

them to listen which are inevitable in effective comprehension. Moreover, when

permitting them to see and read the passage while listening, will only negatively affect

the development of listening skills. The exercises which are meant for developing

listening skills, due to wrong practices, will only develop the reading skill and not

listening comprehension skills.


242

5.3.7 EXTENT OF PROVISION OF WHILE-LISTENING ACTIVITIES


while-listening activities in classroom are given in Table 5.18

Table 5.18

Extent of provision of While-listening activities

Sl. No. Aspect

Responses in %


1. Do you give while-listening activities? 40 60 0

2.

Do you give exercises like cloze-test

exercises, filling in graphs and charts, or

checking off items in a list, etc., while

listening?

10 70 20

3. Do you insist the pupils to look into the

passage during listening exercises? 100 0 0

4.

Do you give tasks or ask comprehension

questions only after completion of the

listening exercise?

90 10 0

The analysis of data in Table 5.18, reveals that 100% of teachers insist the pupils

to look into the passage during listening exercise, majority of teachers (90%) reported that

they ‘often’ give tasks or ask questions only after the listening exercise and 40% of

teachers ‘often’ give while-listening activities.

A good percentage of teachers (70%) also reported that they ‘some times’ give

cloze-test exercise etc., and 60% give while-listening activities.

The findings indicate that while-listening activities are only ‘some times’ given in

class rooms. 100% of teachers insisting on looking into the book or passage while

listening is counter active to the development of the sub-skills of listening

comprehension.


243

5.3.8 EXTENT OF PROVISION OF POST-LISTENING ACTIVITIES


post-listening activities are presented in Table 5.19.

Table 5.19

Extent of provision of Post-listening activities

Sl. No. Aspect

Response in %


1. Do you give post-listing activities? 100 0 0

2. Do you lead debates or discussions after

the listening exercises? 60 40 20

3.

Do you ask the pupils to prepare a

summary of the content of the listening

passage?

70 30 0

4. Do you give assignments based on the

listening passage? 90 10 0

The data in Table 5.19 reveals that all the teachers ‘often’ provide post-listening

activities (100%), and majority of teachers (90%) give assignments based on listening

passage, 70% of teachers ask the pupils to prepare summary and 60% lead debates and

discussions.

The findings reveal that majority of teachers provide post-listening activities in

classrooms.


244

5.3.9 AVAILABILITY AND RELEVANCE OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

The details regarding the availability and the relevance of Instructional Materials

to develop listening comprehension skills are given in Table 5.20.

Table 5.20

Availability and Relevance of Instructional Materials

to develop listening comprehension

Sl. No. Aspect Responses in %

Yes No

1. Do you use audio materials to teach English? 10 90

2. Are authentic materials available in school? 5 95

3. Have you developed any material on your own? 0 100

4. Do you borrow materials from other sources? 0 100

5. Do you think Instructional materials are relevant

in developing listening comprehension? 100 0

The data in Table 5.20 reveals that, 100% of teachers do not borrow materials

from other sources, and have not developed materials on their own. Majority of teachers

(95%) of teachers reported that authentic materials are not available in school and (90%)

reported that they do not use audio materials.

All the teachers (100%) under study reported that Instructional Materials are

relevant in developing listening comprehension.

It was concluded that materials to develop listening skills are not available in

schools and based on their opinion regarding the need and relevance, the need for

preparation of instruction material was identified.


245

5.3.10 SUGGESTIONS OF TEACHERS FOR IMPROVING

LISTENING COMPREHENSION OF PUPILS IN HIGH SCHOOLS

In this section, the teachers were requested to give their suggestions for improving

Listening Comprehension of pupils in English in high schools. The major suggestions

given by teachers are:

1. The pupil-teacher ratio should be reduced.

2. Skill development should be given more emphasis in English language class.

3. Adequate time should be allotted for teaching English.

4. Instructional materials with simple, interesting passage and exercises should be

provided in order to motivate the pupils to learn English.

5. Audio-visual materials suitable in realizing the objectives of teaching English

should be made available.

6. Well-equipped language labs should be set-up for skill development.

7. Training in the use of language lab should be given to all teachers.

8. English classes should be handled only by trained graduates or post graduates in

English right from the lower levels of education.

9. Restructure the examination system to include the evaluation of the development

of all the skills of language.

10. Provide training to teachers to prepare instructional materials and audio-visual

materials for language teaching.


246

From the above suggestions given by the teachers, it is evident that the skill

development in language learning should be given more emphasis and that suitable

instructional materials should be made available. In the light of the above findings the

investigator felt the need for the development of instructional material for developing

listening comprehension at the high school level.

SECTION IV

5.4 RATINGS OF PUPILS ON THE SUITABILITY OF THE

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL IN DEVELOPING THE

SUB-SKILLS OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION

This section is an attempt to analyse the rating of pupils of experimental group

(N=94) regarding the effectiveness of the prepared Instructional Material in developing

the sub-skills of listening comprehension. The necessary data were collected by

administering the ‘three point rating scale’ viz., ‘Great Extent (GE), ‘Some Extent’ (SE)

and ‘Not at all’ (NA). For each item in the scale, the percentage of ratings of pupils was

calculated. The details are given in table 5.21.


247

Table 5.21

Ratings of pupils (Experimental group N=94) regarding the suitability of the

Instructional Material in developing sub-skills of Listening Comprehension

Sl.

No. Educational Outcomes

Response in %

Great

Extent

Some

Extent

Not at

All

1. Able to discriminate sounds in isolated words 94.68 5.32 0

2. Able to discriminate sounds in connected speech 88.30 10.64 1.06

3. Able to discriminate stress patterns within words 89.36 7.45 3.19

4. Able to recognise variation in stress in connected

speech 87.23 7.45 5.32

5. Able to recognise the use of stress in connected speech 85.11 10.64 4.25

6. Able to understand intonation patterns 74.47 17.02 8.51

7. Develops the ability to understand the gist of the

message (main idea comprehension) 95.74 4.26 0

8. Develops ability to understand specific details (detail

comprehension) 93.62 5.32 1.06

9. Develops the ability to construct literal meaning

(Literal comprehension) 92.55 7.45 0

10. Develops ability to infer the implied meaning and

intention (Inferential comprehension) 76.6 14.89 8.51

11. Helps to acquire the sub-skills of listening

systematically 90.43 8.51 1.06

12. Helps to develop interest in listening to English

Language 97.87 2.13 0

The analysis of data (Table 5.21) revealed that a great majority of pupils (97.87%)

rated the Instructional Material to be suitable ‘to a great extent’ in developing interest in

listening to English language, 95.74% of pupils rated that it helps to develops main idea

comprehension, , 94.68% rated it to be suitable in enabling to discriminate sounds in

isolated words, 93.62% rated it to be suitable in developing detail comprehension,


248

92.55% rated it to be suitable in developing literal comprehension, 90.43% rated it to be

suitable in acquiring the sub-skills of listening systematically, 88.30% of pupils rated it to

be suitable in developing the ability to discriminate sounds in connected speech, 87.23%

of pupils rated it to be suitable in developing the ability to recognise variation in stress in

connected speech, 85.11% of pupils rated it to be suitable in developing the ability to

recognise the use of stress in connected speech, 76.6% rated it to be suitable in

developing inferential comprehension, and 74.47% of pupils rated it to be suitable to

understand intonation patterns.

17.02% of the pupils rated that IM is suitable in developing understanding of

intonation patterns only ‘to some extent’. It is followed by, develops inferential

comprehension (14.89%), able to recognise the use of stress in connected speech

(10.64%), able to discriminate sounds in connected speech (10.64%), able to discriminate

stress pattern within words and variation in stress in connected speech (7.45%), develops

literal comprehension (7.45%), able to discriminate sounds in isolated words and

develops detail comprehension (5.32%).

8.51% of pupils reported that IM is ‘not at all’ suitable to develop understanding

in intonation patterns as well as to develop inferential comprehension, 5.32% were of the

same opinion regarding the ability to recognise variation in stress in connected speech.

4.25% of pupils rated that IM is ‘not at all’ suitable to develop the ability to recognise the

use of stress in connected speech. It is followed by able to discriminate stress patterns

within words (3.19%).

It can be concluded that the prepared IM is highly suitable in developing the sub-

skills of Listening Comprehension systematically and also to develop interest of pupils in

listening to English Language.


249

SECTION V

5.5 EVALUATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL PREPARED

FOR DEVELOPING LISTENING COMPREHENSION IN ENGLISH

AT HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL BY EXPERTS

In this section an attempt is made to assess the validity and the overall suitability

of the Instructional Material prepared for developing listening comprehension in English

at the high school level. An evaluation schedule (Appendix VII), prepared for this

purpose was given to subject experts (N=10) and the details of the analysis done in this

context are presented in Table 5.22.


250

Table 5.22

Suitability of the prepared Instructional Material to develop

listening comprehension in English at high school level: Ratings of Experts.

Sl.

No. Aspects of evaluation

Response in %

Great

Extent

Some

Extent

Not at

All

1. Appropriateness of the material to develop the sub-

skills of listening 70 30 0

2.

Aptness of the material to develop the ability to

understand the gist of the message (Main idea

comprehension)

60 40 0

3. Aptness of the material to develop the ability to

understand specific details (Detail comprehension) 60 40 0

4. Aptness of the material in developing the ability to

construct literal meaning (Literal comprehension) 70 30 0

5.

Aptness of the material in developing the ability to

infer the implied meaning and intention (Inferential

comprehension)

50 40 10

6. Appropriateness of content selected 70 30 0

7. Suitability of the exercises provided 80 20 0

8. Scope for pupil activity 90 10 0

9. Systematic in structuring the material 70 20 10

10. Quality of the Audio recording 80 20 0

11. Scope in developing interest in listening to English

Language 80 20 0

12. Overall suitability of Instructional Material 80 20 0


251

The subject experts under study feel that the Instructional Material prepared is

suitable to ‘a great extent’ in developing the various skills of listening comprehension.

The data in Table 5.22 reveals that majority of experts (90%) rated that the IM is

appropriate ‘to a great extent’ with regard to scope for pupil activity. It also reveals that

majority of experts rated it is appropriate to ‘a great extent’ with respect to the aspects;

suitability of exercises (80%), quality of audio recording (80%) and overall suitability

(80%), aptness in developing literal comprehension (70%) appropriateness of contents

selected (70%), systematic structuring of material (70%), developing sub-skills of

listening (70%), aptness to develop main idea and detail comprehension (60%).

40% of experts rated ‘to some extent’ the appropriateness of material in

developing inferential comprehension, and aptness in developing main idea and detail

comprehension. 20% of experts were of the same opinion with regard to the quality of

audio recording.

It also revealed that 10% of the experts rated that the material is ‘not at all’ apt in

developing inferential comprehension, and the structuring of the material is not

systematic.

From the above analysis it is clear that the prepared Instructional Material is

suitable and highly effective in developing the sub-skills of Listening Comprehension in

English at High School level.

ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSSIONSshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12703/13/13...Arithmetic Mean...

Documents

Transcript of ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSSIONSshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12703/13/13...Arithmetic Mean...