Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS
4.1.1.2. Difference in the post-test
Following 8 weeks of implementing distinct treatments for the two groups, the researcher conducted another test (post-test) after the course. Similar to the earlier section addressing the pre-test results, this section succinctly presents the outcomes of the post-test, including the mean, standard deviation, range, and frequency of various scores obtained by the two groups. Subsequently, a comparison between the results of the two groups was conducted to ascertain whether a statistically significant difference occurred or not.
Table 4.4 illustrates the values for the mean, standard deviation, range, and frequency of scores.
Table 4. 4 Post-test results for the control group
Mean Standard deviation
Range Types of
scores Frequency Percent
Min Max
5.829 .9310 4.5 8.5
4.5 3 8.6%
5 9 25.7%
5.5 3 8.6%
6 13 37.1%
6.5 1 2.9%
7 3 8.6%
7.5 2 5.7%
8.5 1 2.9%
The data in Table 4.4 indicated a slight change in the mean value of the post- test results for the control group. The average score remained low, registering a mean value of 5.829. The scores did not exhibit proximity to the mean due to the standard deviation value of .9310. The score distribution spanned a range of 4, with the highest
score being 8.5 and the lowest score being 4.5. In terms of frequency for each score, 4.5, 5.5, and 7 were obtained by 3 students (4.9%), 5 by 9 students (25.7%), 6 by 13 students (37.1%), 7.5 by 2 students (5.7%), and 6.5 and 8.5 by 1 student each, constituting 2.9%. Similarly, the post-test scores for the experimental group were calculated to determine their values, and the results are presented in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5 Post-test results for the experimental group
Mean Standard deviation
Range Types of
scores Frequency Percent
Min Max
6.814 .7773 5 8.5
5 1 2.9%
5.5 1 2.9%
6 6 17.1%
6.5 10 28.6%
7 6 17.1%
7.5 7 20.0%
8 3 8.6%
8.5 1 2.9%
As described in Table 4.5, the experimental group students achieved relatively high scores, as indicated by the mean value of 6.814. The spread of the score distribution was confined to a range of 3.5. However, the lowest score within this range was 5, and the highesttinker score was 8.5. The score of 3.5 was notably absent from the table, while 3 students obtained a score of 8 (constituting 8.6%), and 1 student secured 8.5 (2.9%). The majority of average scores (ranging from 5 to 6) were obtained by 8 students (22.9%). Finally, a significant portion of students, totaling 23 (65.7%), achieved scores between 6.5 and 7.5.
Following a period of implementing the reading comprehension program, an examination of the statistical data from the preceding tables (Tables 4.4 and 4.5) reveals a distinction in the outcomes of the two groups. The experimental group demonstrated a comparatively superior performance in reading comprehension compared to the control group. As evidence, the average score of the control group was lower than the mean of the experimental group, with a difference of 0.985
(6.814–5.829). Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the distribution of score types between the two groups. In the control group, scores ranging from 4.5 to 5.5 tended to predominate, constituting 42.9%, while in the experimental group, the dominant scores fell within the range of 6.5 to 7.5, accounting for 65.7%. Therefore, it can be asserted that a discernible difference in reading comprehension performance existed between the two groups. Specifically, the reading comprehension proficiency of the experimental group appeared to have improved compared to that of the control group. However, to determine whether the toce of 0.985 between the means of the two groups held statistical significance, the researcher conducted another T-test using SPSS 2.5 for Windows. The outcomes of the T-test are presented in the table below.
Table 4.6 Compare means of the post-test results of the control group and the experimental group
Independent Samples Test Levene's
Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2- taile
d)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95%
Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
Posttest
Equal variances assumed
.346 .558 4.808 68 .000 .9857 .2050 .5766 1.3948
Equal variances not assumed
4.808 65.900 .000 .9857 .2050 .5764 1.3950
To evaluate the uniformity of variances in a variable computed for the mentioned groups, Levene’s Test played a crucial role. The data in Table 4.6 above indicates that the sig. value of Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was sig. = 0.558. This value surpasses the significance level α = 0.05, allowing the assertion that
the variances in both groups were equal. Since there were no discrepancies in the variances, the test of Equal Variances Assumed was utilized to ascertain if the difference in the means of the two groups was statistically significant. The sig. value of equal variances assumed was sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000 < α = 0.05. This implies a noteworthy difference in the means of the two groups. Students in the experimental group demonstrated greater progress in reading comprehension than those in the control group, attributed to the incorporation of video in reading instruction. In summary, the post-test scores of the two groups exhibited variance, with the experimental group achieving superior results. It is conclusively affirmed that this difference was statistically significant, underscoring the efficacy of using video materials in enhancing students’ reading comprehension abilities.