Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación”
______________________________________________________________Volumen 5, Número 2, Año 2005, ISSN 1409-4703
14
There is evidence to reject the null hypothesis in 42 of the items (87.5%). Of the
remaining 6 items (12%), it is important to notice that all the students already knew the word
distinct
in item 9 at the time of the pretest, and 20 knew
catch on
in item 20.
This fact
explains the results. However, for item 25,
facet
, there was no significant difference in the
level of acquisition in spite of the fact that the word is a cognate. The rest of the non-
significant items, 42, 44 and 45 (
staples, blip, and swiftly
) were not studied in class. The
results of the analysis of the pre and posttest seem to indicate that the systematic and explicit
teaching of vocabulary in this particular group was effective.
At the end of the course, most of
the students were able to recognize most of the words. In fact, 31 out 39 of the words
explicitly taught were recognized by at least 80% of the students. What is more, all of the
students got 5 of these words correct and 9 words were missed by only one student.
Therefore, it can be concluded that overall the vocabulary items were acquired during the
semester
Tables 5, 6 and 7 focus on the learners’ performance. They present the results of 3
sets of
t-tests
performed on each student’s pre and posttest scores. Table 5 includes all the
items, Table 6 includes only the 39 items studied in class, and Table 7 includes the 9
items
that were not studied.
Table 5: Students’ scores in pre and posttest: all the items
Student
Pretest
48 items
Posttest
48 items
p1
p2
t
0.05 ,94
=1.66
A
8.1
9.4
0.81 0.94 1.93
*
B
5.0
8.7
0.50 0.87 3.90
*
C
3.7
8.7
0.37 0.87 5.05
*
D
4.6
9.2
0.46 0.92 4.87
*
E
4.2
8.9
0.42 0.89 4.84
*
F
1.9
8.3
0.19 0.83 6.27
*
G
4.8
8.3
0.48 0.83 3.61
*
H
3.3
7.9
0.33 0.79 4.54
*
I
6.9
8.7
0.69 0.87 2.13
*
J
8.1
8.7
0.81 0.87 0.80
K
5.0
8.3
0.50 0.83 3.43
*
L
1.4
7.3
0.14 0.73 5.83
*
Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación”
______________________________________________________________Volumen 5, Número 2, Año 2005, ISSN 1409-4703
15
M
5.4
7.9
0.54 0.79 2.59
*
N
6.0
7.9
0.60 0.79 2.02
*
O
3.9
7.7
0.39 0.77 3.77
*
P
5.0
8.1
0.50 0.81 3.19
*
Q
2.1
7.5
0.21 0.75 5.30
*
R
3.9
7.3
0.39 0.73 3.36
*
S
3.7
7.3
0.37 0.73 3.55
*
T
5.6
6.9
0.56 0.69 1.32
U
2.3
6.7
0.23 0.67 4.33
*
V
1.9
6.9
0.19 0.69 4.93
*
W
2.9
6.4
0.29 0.64 3.44
*
X
2.7
5.8
0.27 0.58 3.07
*
Y
4.4
5.8
0.44 0.58 1.37
An alpha level of .05
Does not reject null hypothesis
There is evidence to reject the null hypothesis for 22 (88%) of the students. Their
scores were significantly higher in the posttest than in the pretest, even when nine of the
words were never taught in class. Table 6 presents the results of
the second set of t
-tests.
Table 6: Students’ scores in pre and posttest: 39 items explicitly taught
Student Pretest
30
items
Posttest
39 items
p1
P2
t
c
t
0.05 ,76
= 1.68
A
8.2 9.7
0.82 0.97
2.16
*
B
5.1 9.7
0.51 0.97
4.63
*
C
3.6 9.7
0.36 0.97
5.71
*
D
4.3 9.5
0.43 0.95
4.96
*
E
4.9 9.2
0.49 0.92
4.16
*
F
2.1 9.2
0.21 0.92
6.32
*
G
5.9 9.2
0.59 0.92
3.39
*
H
3.6 9.2
0.36 0.92
5.15
*
Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación”
______________________________________________________________Volumen 5, Número 2, Año 2005, ISSN 1409-4703
16
I
8.5 9.0
0.85 0.90
0.67
J
8.2 9.0
0.82 0.90
1.02
K
5.6 9.0
0.56 0.90
3.38
*
L
1.5 9.0
0.15 0.90
6.63
*
M
5.4 8.7
0.54 0.87
3.20
*
N
6.4 8.7
0.64 0.87
2.36
*
O
4.3 8.7
0.43 0.87
4.07
*
P
5.6 8.5
0.56 0.85
2.81
*
Q
2.3 7.9
0.23 0.79
4.95
*
R
3.8 7.9
0.38 0.79
3.67
*
S
4.1 7.9
0.41 0.79
3.43
*
T
5.9 7.7
0.59 0.77
1.70
*
U
2.6 7.7
0.26 0.77
4.51
*
V
2.0 7.4
0.20 0.74
4.78
*
W
3.3 7.2
0.33 0.72
3.45
*
X
2.6 6.9
0.26 0.69
3.80
*
Y
4.9 6.2
0.49 0.62
1.16
Alpha level of .05
Does not reject null hypothesis
When individual performance is observed, once again, there
is evidence to reject the
null hypothesis for all but 3 of the students (88%). Of these 3 students, 2 are the same as in
Table 5: student J and student Y. In both cases, the
t-test
performed on student J’s scores
was not significant. Although his initial performance was excellent, this
learner made very
little progress throughout the semester. This behavior contrasts with that of other students
such as A, who also knew most of the words from the start but who also showed significant
gains. Student Y, on the other hand, had very limited knowledge of the words at the
beginning of the course, and in spite of the systematic teaching
of vocabulary, showed no
significant vocabulary development. The fact that the treatment was successful for most of
the class points at other possible explanations for the lack of improvement in these two
cases, including poor motivation caused by a class that the learner might have found boring
or not challenging, no effort on the learner’s part,
poor study habits, lack of language aptitude,
Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación”
______________________________________________________________Volumen 5, Número 2, Año 2005, ISSN 1409-4703
17
a clash between the teacher’s teaching style and the student’s learning style among many
others.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
