5.4.1.1 Sub Hypothesis 1

5.2 The Equivalent Group for the Study 5.3 Collection of Data 5.3.1 Design of the Data Collection 5.3.2 Statistical Measures Used for the Study 5.4 Ob...

0 downloads 143 Views 240KB Size
CHAPTER V ORGA ISATIO & A ALYSIS OF DATA

5.1

Introduction

5.2

The Equivalent Group for the Study

5.3

Collection of Data

5.4

5.3.1

Design of the Data Collection

5.3.2

Statistical Measures Used for the Study

Objective I 5.4.1

Hypothesis I 5.4.1.1 Sub Hypothesis 1.1 5.4.1.2 Sub Hypothesis 1.2 5.4.1.3 Sub Hypothesis 1.3 5.4.1.4 Sub Hypothesis 1.4

5.5

Objective II 5.5.1

Hypothesis II 5.5.1.1 Sub Hypothesis II.1 5.5.1.2 Sub Hypothesis II.2 5.5.1.3 Sub Hypothesis II.3

5.6

Objective III 5.6.1

Hypothesis III

5.7

Effect Sizes of the Variables under Study

5.8

Conclusion of the Analysis

CHAPTER 5 ORGA ISATIO A D A ALYSIS OF DATA

5.1 Introduction The research is intended to study the effect of Concept Mapping on the Cognitive Processes and Scholastic Achievement of Standard Seven Students in Pune city. The target (actual) population is standard seven students of ICSE schools in Pune city. The subjects were enrolled in the academic year 2007-08 in Spicer Memorial Higher Secondary School, Pune - 411007. The two groups were comparable within the parameter of quasi experimental measures at pre-experimental stage. Initially the sample consisted of 83 subjects which were gradually reduced to 73 students of the academic session 2007- 08. A few students dropped out. Thus there were 34 students in the experimental group and 39 in the control group. Due to the matching the group according to the PGTI Score, 30 students each were selected from the experimental and control group for the study. All these students were pursuing the same course of study with latest syllabus prescribed by the Inter-State Board for Anglo Indian Education, New Delhi and National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi with the medium of instruction as English. The research specifically aims to understand the following issues: 1. The impact of lesson sequences designed using Concept Maps on the cognitive processes of standard VII students.

2. The impact of lesson sequences designed using Concept Maps on the achievement of students in General Science ( Chemistry, Biology) during the course of study as compared to the traditional method of teaching 3. The attitude of students towards a new pedagogical tool.

This chapter deals with the presentation of actual data, analysis of the data and the testing of the hypotheses. The questionnaires used for the analysis of the data are presented in the appendix - C and the raw data and calculations are given in appendix E. The scholastic achievement was measured using the post test achievement scores of the Unit test I. The cognitive processes were measured using researcher made measuring instruments, such as THMAGS. Test score of Unit test II also gives more data on the cognitive processes for the specific unit which is under study.

5.2 The Equivalent Group for the Study The intact classes (section A & B) were taken and they were subjected to Group Test of Intelligence (PGTI) for 9 to 13 years. On the basis of the score, a matched group of 60 students (30 experimental and 30 controls) were taken for the study. Randomly selected experimental group denoted a mean test score of (69.73) and the control group denoted a mean test score of (69.6) for the PGTI test. The t-test shows that there is no significant difference between the two matched groups (t = .393 at .05 level). (Best & Kahn 1996, 2003).

210

5.3 Collection of Data To study the effect of concept mapping on the development of cognitive processes, two tests, THMAGS, and Unit test II were administered. THMAGS measures the higher mental ability in general science and Unit test II measures the mental abilities in selected units taught during the treatment period. THMAGS was constructed by the researcher, based on the NCERT syllabus up to standard VII. A detailed method of construction is given in Chapter IV. Unit test II is a teacher made achievement test, based on Bloom’s taxonomy only measuring higher mental abilities. Whereas Unit test I is also an achievement test with test items ranging from knowledge, understanding levels (lower levels) as well as application level. The test items were selected from the units taught during the treatment. The test construction is explained in Chapter III. The sample was given a pre test to ascertain their general higher mental ability in Science (THMAGS). The achievement tests and Unit test II were not given as a pre test to avoid perception by the students that teacher has given a test without teaching the selected unit as well as to “avoid boredom and test learnedness” (Odum & Kelly 2001). After teaching for a duration of 12 weeks, the students were given a post test on THMAGS, Unit test II and Achievement test (Unit test I), and then the data was statistically analyzed. Pre tests of the control and experimental groups were checked to ascertain that they both were alike and then the post tests were analyzed to check whether there is a significant difference statistically and then the mean gain score and effect sizes were also calculated. Thus data were collected, analyzed and t-values were computed for the pre scores and post scores to assess the significant difference between the means of the matched samples.

211

5.3.1 Design of the Data Collection The design is a blue print of procedures that will help the researcher to test hypothesis of a study. Best & Kahn (1996) has said “selection of a particular design is based upon the purposes of the experiment, the type of variables to be manipulated, and the conditions or limiting factors under which it is conducted.” The problems a design will deal are: •

How subjects are to be assigned



The way the variables are to be manipulated and controlled



The way extraneous variables are to be controlled



How observations are to be made



The type of statistical analysis to be employed in interpreting the data relationships.(Best & Kahn, 2003)

Two types of design were used in collection of data. Since Unit test I & II are based specifically on the units to be taught during the treatment period, it has been decided these tests will be given only after the treatment. This will prevent boredom and test learnedness whereas THMAGS was given as pre and post tests. THMAGS was based on the concepts students learned till standard seven. It is not on a specific unit. These test items were based on the general themes given in the NCERT syllabus. Hence a prior test is given to ascertain where the two groups stand at the beginning of the study and then a post test to ascertain if any change has taken place. The table 5.1 shows the plan of test administration for the experimental and control groups. The design for the analysis is as follows:

212

Table: 5.1 Design used to collect data for variable A – Cognitive processes. Variable tested Cognitive process

Group

Pretest

Treatment

Post test

Experimental

THMAGS

X 1

THMAGS

Control

THMAGS

nil

THMAGS

The table 5.1 denotes the plan of the tests given for studying Cognitive processes. THMAGS (see appendix C.9) was given as a pretest and then a post test. Pre test helps to ascertain the beginning level of the students. Unit test II ( see appendix C1 & C.2) was basically an achievement test on the selected units but dealing with higher levels of cognitive domain as mentioned in the Bloom’s taxonomy. Unit test II was given after the teaching the selected units for 12 weeks. Hence this test can be taken as a measure of cognitive processes as well as for scholastic achievement. The second variable under study was the scholastic achievement, the subjects were taught for duration of 12 weeks using the selected units and then achievement tests were given to ascertain their scholastic achievement in the selected area.

Table: 5.2 Design used to collect data for variable B – Scholastic Achievement. Variable tested Scholastic achievement

Group

Pretest

Treatment

Post test

Experimental

---

X 1

Control

---

nil

---

X 1

Achievement test (Unit test I) Achievement test (Unit test I) Unit test II

-----

nil

Unit test II

Scholastic Experimental achievement& Cognitive Control processes

213

The table 5.2 denotes that the scholastic achievement was measured using Unit test I (Achievement test) and Unit test II. These tests were based on the specified units selected for the study and were given at the end of the experiment. Pre test were not given because the students were not aware of the contents of the units prior to learning.

5.3.2 Statistical Measures Used for the Study. The data collected using the achievement test scores for the unit tests I and the Unit test II were subjected to statistical analysis. The statistical measures used are the ones applicable for the matched or correlated samples (Best & Kahn, 2003 p. 384, 418). The t – value was ascertained between the two matched samples to find the significant difference. To assess the significant difference in the mean, t – value was computed for the two matched group sample (experimental and control). The t - test was found out using the following formula (Best & Kahn 2003 p.419)

X1 − X 2

t=

2 2  S S1 S2 + − 2r  1   1  2 1 

 S 2    2 

   

Further mean gain score between the experimental and control group were also found out. The effect size of the study was found out. Haller & Kleine (2001, p.174) suggested the following formula for calculating the Effect Size. ES= (Mean of the experimental group- Mean of the control group)/Average standard deviation. To test each hypothesis the data were tabulated and the analysis is given in the following sections.

214

5.4 Objective I To study the effect of concept mapping on the development of Cognitive Processes (higher mental abilities) of standard VII students in General Science

5.4.1

Hypothesis I There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the cognitive

processes between the experimental group (received instruction using concept map) and control group (Traditional instruction). Since this hypothesis encompasses a vast area of study, in the present study, sub hypotheses were taken into consideration. They are as follows:

5.4.1.1

Sub Hypothesis I .1 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the Cognitive

Processes (mental abilities), between experimental group and control group.

Table 5.3 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ pre –test scores for THMAGS THMAGS – PRE SCORES Group



Mean

SD

Experimental

30

4.7

1.78

S

to

3.16 0

Control

30

4.7

SD =standard dev: ; S = variance; to = observed t - value ;

1.41

te

2.048

1.99

te = expected t – value

The table 5.3 shows that both the control and experimental group had similar scores for the pre tests thus denoting that the subjects were similar in perception of the

215

concepts before the treatment. This again shows that the two groups are equivalent. (Appendix E.1) The table 5.3 scores again denote that both control and experimental groups are comparable and the entry level before the treatment was similar. Similar means does not necessarily show they are statistically similar (Best & Kahn 1996). The pre scores of experimental and control groups were analyzed and it was found that there is no significant difference (t =0 at 0.5 level df = 29) between the means of the two samples at the beginning of the study (see appendix E.1). This shows statistically, at the entry level the two matched group samples were similar and their perceptions of the concepts were similar.

Table 5.4 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for THMAGS

THMAGS – POST SCORES Group



Mean

SD

S

Experimental

30

6

2.06

4.27

to

9.89 Control

30

4.7

SD =standard dev: ; S = variance; to = observed t - value ;

1.6

te at .05

2.048

2.69

te = expected t – value

After the treatment spanning 12 weeks, the THMAGS was given again to find whether the treatment had any effect on their performance. The scores are given in Table 5.4. The t – value observed is 9.89, which is above the expected t – value (2.048). The post mean score shows there is a difference, experimental (6.00) and control (4.7) .The difference in post mean score between the experimental and control

216

is 1.3. The difference between the experimental and control shows that there is a significant difference for the experimental group after the treatment. This difference suggests that the treatment had a positive impact on the higher mental abilities of the students. The concept mapping as a pedagogical tool was effective for the experimental group to enhance their cognitive processes.

Figure: 5.1 PRE & POST PERFORMA CE FOR THMAGS THMAGS PERFORMANCE

6

5

4

EXP CON

MEAN SCORE 3

2

1

0

PRE

5.4.1.2

POST

EXP

4.7

6

CON

4.7

4.7

Sub Hypothesis I.2 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the Cognitive

Processes (mental abilities) of the experimental group and control group, in the selected units of General Science (Chemistry & Biology). .

Both the groups of students were subjected to teaching by the researcher in

two methods (traditional & concept mapping strategy), and after 12 weeks of

217

instruction they were given Unit test II. Unit test II was constructed by the researcher, based on selected units for instruction. These test items were given to experts to analyze, to check the content validity and to ascertain the level of cognitive domain. The test items were from application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation category. Test construction is dealt in detail in chapter 3.

Table 5.5 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test II – General Science

Unit Test II – POST SCORES Group



Mean

SD

Experimental

30

18.6

4.83

S

to

23.28 3.83

Control

30

13.73

5.17

SD =standard dev: ; S = variance; to = t – value observed

te at .05

2.048

26.8 te = t- value expected

The data in table 5.5 shows the performance of the students to Unit Test II after the treatment for a period of 12 weeks. The Unit Test II was formulated with test items falling in the higher mental levels according to the Bloom’s taxonomy. The means for the experimental was (18.6) and control was (13.73). The t – value computed was (t = 3.83 at df = 29, see appendix E). The observed t – value was above the expected t – value (t = 2.048 at df = 29) and it is significant.

218

Figure: 5.2 Mean Score in Unit Test II – General Science UNIT TEST II

20 18 16 14 12

MEAN

10 8 6 4 2 0

UNIT TEST II

EXP

CON

18.6

13.73

The data shows that the intervention using the pedagogical tool, concept mapping had a positive effect on mental ability levels for the selected units. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.

219

5.4.1.3 Sub Hypothesis I. 3 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the Cognitive Processes (mental abilities), of the experimental group and control group in the selected units of Chemistry.

Table 5.6 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test II – Chemistry

Unit Test II – POST SCORES Group



Mean

SD

S

Experimental

30

10.5

2.86

8.18

to

te at .05

4.054 Control

30

7.8

2.71

2.048

7.29

SD =standard dev; S = variance; to = t – value observed ; te = t- value expected ;

The data tabulated for Chemistry in table 5.6 shows that the gain mean score is 2.7 and the t value is (t = 4.054 at 0.05 level, df =29 see appendix E.). Because the t – value (t =4.054) exceeds the expected t – value (2.048 at 0.05 level with a df = 29), the null hypothesis can be rejected at 0.05 level of significance. This shows the degree to which the null hypothesis is rejected. The treatment had a strong effect on the learning of Chemistry. The effect size computed denotes (ES = 0.96) a very large variation, denoting the treatment had a positive effect on the experimental group.

220

Figure.5.3 Mean scores of Experimental and Control groups for Unit test II for Chemistry.

UNIT TEST II - CHEMISTRY- POST SCORES

12

10

8

MEAN

6

4

2

0

UNIT TEST II - CHEMISTRYPOST SCORES

EXP:

CON:

10.5

7.8

5.4.1.4 Sub Hypothesis I.4 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the cognitive Processes (mental abilities) of the experimental group and control group in the selected units of Biology. The scores collected using Unit test II for Biology were tabulated and computed, and it is given in a tabular form in table 5.7. The table shows that the experimental group has got a higher mean score (8.10) than the control group (5.93). The matched samples (Experimental & Control) were subjected to the t – test. The t – value (t = 3.46 at 0.05 level at df = 29).

221

Table 5.7 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test II – Biology

Unit Test II – POST SCORES Group



Mean

SD

Experimental

30

8.1

2.34

S

to

te at .05

5.47 3.46

Control

30

5.93

2.94

2.048

8.62

SD =standard dev; S = variance; to = t – value observed ; te = t- value expected ;

The t value (t =3.46) is higher than the expected value (2.048 at 0.05 level , df =29. see appendix E). Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. The treatment had an effect on the experimental group. The mean gain score 2.17 is seen for the experimental groups. The effect size calculated for biology is (ES= 0.83) large denoting the strategy had a positive impact on the experimental group and the null hypothesis is rejected.

222

Figure.5.4 Mean scores of Experimental and Control groups for Unit test II – Biology.

UNIT TEST II - BIOLOGY- POST SCORES

9 8 7 6 5

MEAN 4 3 2 1 0

UNIT TEST II - BIOLOGYPOST SCORES

EXP

CON

8.1

5.93

5.5 Objective II To study the immediate impact of teaching through Concept Mapping on the achievement of standard VII students in General Science. (Chemistry, Biology).

5.5.1 Hypothesis II There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the achievement, between the experimental group and the control group. Since this encompasses Chemistry and Biology sub hypotheses were formulated for them as follows.

223

5.5.1.1 Sub Hypothesis II. 1 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 levels in the achievement, between the experimental group and control group, in selected units of General Science,

Table 5.8 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test I – General Science

Unit Test I – POST SCORES – General Science Group



Mean

SD

Experimental

30

59.36

12.58

S

to

te at .05

158.26 4.33

Control

30

47.93

8.97

2.048

80.46

SD =standard dev; S = variance; to = t – value observed ; te = t- value expected ;

The analysis of the two matched samples denotes an observed t – value (4.33 at 0.05 level at df =29, see appendix E) which is significant, the expected t – value is (2.048 at 0.05 level at df = 29). Further the table shows that there is a significant difference in the mean score of the control and experimental group and the graph denotes that the mean score of the general science (Chemistry, Biology) were profoundly affected due to the intervention done using concept mapping. A mean score gain of 11.44 is seen between the experimental and control group. The effect size calculated shows (ES = 1.1) very large effect. This shows the treatment had a profound effect on the achievement score in General Science.

224

Figure.5.5 Mean scores of Experimental and Control groups for Unit test I – General Science UNIT TEST I - GENERAL SCIENCE-

9 8 7 6 5

MEAN 4 3 2 1 0

UNIT TEST I - GENERAL SCIENCE-

EXP :

CON :

8.1

5.93

Figure 5.5 shows the difference in mean scores between experimental and control group for Unit test I in general science. The experimental group has a higher score (8.1) than the control group (5.93).

225

5.5.1.2 Sub Hypothesis II.2 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 level in the achievement, between the experimental group and control group, in selected units of Chemistry.

Table 5.9 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test I – Chemistry

Unit Test I – POST SCORES - Chemistry Group



Mean

SD

S

Experimental

30

26.93

5.91

34.93

to

te at .05

3.96 Control

30

20.67

5.01

2.048

25.10

On analysis of the means of the two matched samples (experiment & control) the tvalue (3.96 at 0.05 level at df = 29) exceeds the expected t- value (2.048 at 0.05 level at df =29). Hence the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 levels; it is also significant at 0.01 levels (te at 0.01 level is 2.763). The table 5.9 shows the posttest mean scores, produces a gain score of 6.26. The effect size is (ES= 1.16) large. This implies that the treatment had a positive effect on the students to achieve better score for the selected units.

226

Figure.5.6 Mean scores of Experimental and Control groups for Unit test I Chemistry UNIT TEST I - CHEMISTRY

30

25

20

MEAN 15

10

5

0

UNIT TEST I - CHEMISTRY

EXP :

CON :

26.93

20.67

5. 5.1.3 Sub Hypothesis II.3 There is no statistically significant difference at 0.05 levels in the achievement, between the experimental group and control group in selected units of Biology.

Table 5.10 Analysis of Experimental and Control groups’ post –test scores for Unit test I – Biology.

Unit Test I – POST SCORES - Biology Group



Mean

SD

S

Experimental

30

32.43

7.38

54.46

to

3.57 Control

30

27.27

227

5.15

26.48

te at .05

2.048

In the table5.10 the sample (experimental and control) means were subjected to the test of significance and it was found out that the t- values (t =3.57 at 0.05 level , df =29) exceeds the expected t – value(2.048). Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. The mean score analysis of the experimental and control group shows that there is a significant mean score gain of 5.16 showing experimental students could perform better in the achievement score of the selected units. The effect size (ES=0.84) is large. The data suggests that achievement score in Biology were improved due to the teaching strategy of concept mapping.

Figure.5.7 Mean scores of Experimental and Control groups for Unit test I Biology UNIT TEST I - BIOLOGY

33 32 31 30 29

MEAN 28 27 26 25 24

UNIT TEST I - BIOLOGY

EXP :

CON :

32.43

27.27

Figure 5.7 shows the mean score of experimental and control group for unit test I (Biology). The experimental group has done much better than the control group.

228

5.6

Objective III To investigate the opinion of the students on the use of concept mapping as

pedagogical tool in the learning process.

5.6.1

Hypothesis III

More than 50% of the students subjected to the treatment indicate improvement in their learning process due to the use of concept map as a pedagogical tool as measured by the Trifone ( 2006) Concept Mapping opinionnaire.

After three weeks of orientation and use of concept map in the class room situation, the students were given an opinionnaire constructed by Trifone ( 2006) for assessing the perceptions of the students on how concept mapping (1) affected their level of effort and active role expended in learning science (2) served as an aid to understanding and achievement (3) affected their ability and motivation to learn science

229

Table 5.11 Analysis of opinionnaire on Concept Mapping in the Initial and Final Stage of Treatment

Means (scale of 1-5) ov:2 Jan: 17’ ‘07 08

Ave:

Effort & Active role Q3 Q7 Average

3.1 4.1 3.6

3.5 4.0 3.75

3.3 4.05

Achievement & Understanding Q2 Q1 Q8 Average

4.4 4.3 3.6 4.1

4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2

4.3 4.25 3.85

Ability & Motivation Q4 Q5 Q6 Average

4.2 4.1 3.9 4.06

3.8 4.1 4.1 4.00

4.00 4.1 4.00

The mean value of the questionnaires shows that the students perceive concept mapping as pedagogical tool enhanced their effort and encouraged them to take a more active role in learning Science. The students also feel the use of concept mapping served as an aid in understanding the concepts, helped in their level of achievement and enhanced their pace of learning science positively. Students felt their interest in science was increased due to concept mapping strategy as well as they were able to reflect more on science concepts and enhanced their perceptions of being able to learn science in a better way.

230

Figure.5.8 Opinionnaire on Concept Mapping in the Initial and Final stage of Treatment OPINIONNAIRE ON CONCEPT MAPPING

4.2

4.1

4

3.9

3.8 Nov '02 Jan'17

SCALE 3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

Effort & Active role

Ach; &understanding

Ability & Motivation

The total score of the students in November 2007 as well as in January 17, 2008 was 957 and 963 respectively. This shows that 80% of the students indicate improvement in their learning process due to the use of concept map as a pedagogical tool as measured by the Trifone ( 2006 ) opinionnaire. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.

5.7

Effect Sizes of the Variables Under Study For the individual who is interested in the out come of research, the

importance of the concept of effect size is hard to underestimate. For a practitioner the research makes sense when the question “How much difference did it make from the normal?” is answered.

231

Effect size is the degree to which the null hypothesis is false. In other words, effect size indicates the difference in outcome for the average subject who received a treatment from the average subject who did not (Vogt, 1999, p. 94 Haller :&Kleine,2001 p.174). Cohen and Cohen (1983), Haller &Kleine (2001) offered the following suggested values for effect size: small, ES=0.20; medium, ES=0.50; and large ES=0.80. Haller & Kleine (2001) suggested the following formula for calculating the Effect Size. [ES= (Mean of the experimental group- Mean of the control group)/Average standard deviation. .p.174].

Table 5.12 Percentage Means and Standard Deviations of Cognitive Processes & Scholastic Achievement in Science THMAGS EXP:

M

60%

SD 2.06 CO : M

47%

SD 1.6

U IT TEST II U IT TEST I Chem: Bio: Tot: Chem.: Bio: Tot: 75% 62% 72% 77% 81% 79% 2.81

2.3

4.83

55.7%

46% 53% 60%

68% 64%

2.71

2.89

5.06

5.7

5.82

4.92

Exp: = experimental; Con: = Control; M = mean; S.D = standard Deviation

232

7.25

12.58

8.97

Table 5.13 Effect Sizes for the Experimental and Control Group

Variables under study Cognitive Processes

Tests

Cognitive pro:/ achievement

Achievement

Level

THMAGS

Effect size 0.72

Unit test II (total)

0.92

High

Unit test II(Chem.)

0.96

Large

Unit test II(Bio)

0.83

Large

Unit test I(total)

1.1

Very large

Unit test I (Chem.)

1.2

Very large

Unit test I(Bio)

0.84

Large

High

Table 5.12 denotes the percentage means for the entire study and the standard deviations. Consistently the table 5.13 shows the experimental group has done better than the control group. Table 5.13 denotes how effective was the intervention for the experimental group. The effect sizes indicate that concept mapping as a pedagogical tool had a very high impact on the students’ achievement and cognitive processes.

5. 8 Conclusion of the Analysis The focus of the study was the effect of concept mapping on cognitive processes and academic achievement in science. The analysis of the data shows there is a significant difference between the control and experimental group for the variable under study. The effect size also points a very high measure denoting concept mapping as a pedagogical tool had a profound positive effect on the variable under study. Moreover, the opinion of the students shows that they had a sustained liking for the new instructional tool and in fact the opinionnaire showed a slight increase for the

233

first two areas focused in the questionnaire. Hence the overall effect of concept mapping as a pedagogical tool was positive and assisted students in their overall performance.

234