Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.6. Data Analysis
During the experiment, both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered. The quantitative data were students’ scores from pretest and posttest on Mandarin
vocabulary performance. A two-way analysis of covariance was conducted to see if
45
the three different groups performed differently, while the covariate is the students’
summative score in the previous semester. The score from the two different teachers on the comics’ creation of each group was also collected as part of the quantitative
data. Then this score will be analyzed using one-way anova, while qualitative data consists of in-class observation about students behaviors. Data were collected from the video recording, and then rated by two raters, noted on the in-class observation list;
later on the data was analyzed by using Chi-Square analysis. Students’ attitude toward comics online learning and collaborative learning data were also gathered as part of the qualitative data. Statistic descriptive was conducted to analyze this qualitative data.
46
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter provides the result of the experiment which include the result of the experiment of 3 groups consisting of pre and posttest of Mandarin vocabulary performance and comics creation; the result of in-class observation, questionnaire and interview. A summary is also provided in this chapter.
4.1. Mandarin Chinese Vocabulary’s Performance
This section displays the development of Mandarin Chinese vocabulary of the control group, the individual comics group, and collaborative learning group. The two-way analysis of covariance was applied to their vocabulary performance between pre and posttest, while the covariate was the score of previous semester and the comics’ creation of three different groups.
4.1.1. Pretest and Posttest of Vocabulary Performance
Before and after the treatment, all students were given individual test about their vocabulary performance. Alpha was set at the .05.
47
Table 4-1 lists the descriptive statistics results of the pre and posttest vocabulary performance. Regarding to the score of pretest and posttest, the homogeneity test was significant (F(4.790)=.001, p<.05). Based on the data listed on the Table 4-1, there was improvement of mean between pretest and posttest in each group.
Table 4-1. The Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Pretest and Posttest’s Score
Test Control Group (N=16)
Individual Comics (N=14) Collaborative Learning (N=16)
M SD M SD M SD
Pretest 60.68 17.12 60.00 12.61 60.25 13.65
Posttest 63.43 19.57 62.21 15.64 68.18 11.37
Table 4-2 presents a summary of the two-way analysis of covariance on students’ scores in pretest and posttest of vocabulary performance, with the score of previous semester as the covariates. The table shows that the interaction effect between test and group is not significant (F(0.91)=0.409, p>.05). This means that there are no differences varied according to levels. The group factor is not significant (F(0.88)=0.41, p>.05). This means that no difference exists between the scores between pretest and posttest in the three groups. The test factor is significant (F(9.67)=0.007, p<.05), this means that the grouping of control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning gives significantly different score between pre
48
and posttest. Test within group (1) which is control group is not significant (F(0.85)=0.359, p>.05) neither is the test within group (2) which is individual comics (F(0.48)=0.489, p>.05). This means that both groups still made some improvement due to the training, but does not vary. While the test within group (3) which is collaborative learning is significant (F(7.10)=.009, p<.05), means that the experiment significantly benefited students’ vocabulary performance in collaborative learning group.
Table 4-2. Two-Way Analysis of Covariance of Vocabulary Performance Source of Variation Type III sum
of squares
df Mean square
F Sig.
Within Cells 6037.84 85 71.03
Test by Group 135.98 2 67.99 .91 .409
Group 131.97 2 65.99 .88 .419
Group within Test (1) 2.69 2 1.35 .02 .981
Group within Test (2) 304.42 2 152.21 2.14 .124
Test 458.11 1 458.11 9.67 .007**
Test within Group(1) 60.50 1 60.50 .85 .359
Test within Group(2) 34.32 1 34.32 .48 .489
Test within Group(3) 504.03 1 504.03 7.10 .009**
Error 710.79 15 47.39
Note *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001`
4.1.2. Comic Creation
This section provides the comics creation done by control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning. First, each comics creation will be scored based
49
on writing rubric (Jacobs et als, 1981), and then after being scored by two teachers, the final comics score stood as the dependent variable in one-way analysis of variance.
Firstly, the score of two teachers were collated by operating the Pearson correlation. With the significance value of .992** meant that the score of two teachers was highly correlated with p<.01 (2-tailed), therefore the score of these teachers can be used. The Table 4-3 shows scores from two teachers on comics creation.
Table 4-3. Pearson Correlation of Two Teachers’ Score on Comics Creation
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Rater 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .992**
Rater 2 Pearson Correlation .992** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4-4 presents the 5 items of writing rubric and the percentage of score got by each group which are control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning. With the maximum score of 5 for each items, the collaborative learning got the highest score for each criterion. Consecutively, the mean of the content/ idea development was 3.6 out of 5 in collaborative learning; 1.9 in control group; and 1.7 in individual comics. The item of organization, the mean got by collaborative
50
learning was 1.7; individual comics was 0.7; and control group was 0.6. The mean in vocabulary or word choice, the highest was 2.2 by collaborative learning; 1.2 by individual group; and 1.1 by control group. The mean in the item of language use/
grammar was 2.1 for collaborative learning; 1.0 for individual comics; and 0.9 for control group. The mean of the last item which is mechanics was 2.2 for collaborative learning; 1.1 for individual comics,; and 0.6 for control group.
51
Table 4-4. Items of Writing Rubric
Items
52
Comic creation done by control group, individual group, and collaborative learning students are then being commented by the teachers. Figures 4-1 to 4-3 show some examples of teachers’ comment to students’ comic creation.
Control Group’s Comic Creation
Writing Rubrics
Content/ Idea Development The plot of the scene unclear delivered. The student, female student wanted to tell that after her friend left, she met a new friend, and then they become close friend.
The used of 我的 xin*), instead of 新
Organization Opening, development, and closing is developed although was so limited.
Vocabulary/ Word Choice There was no feeling expression (難過，開心)
Language Use/ Grammar 搬到……*)
Mechanics All sentences was written in Chinese character, except xin*)
Figure 4-1. Example of Control Group’s Comic Creation
53
Individual Comic Creation
Writing Rubrics
Content/ Idea Development The student is a female student. The idea is not about 搬家, but rather than 旅行.
新家破*)should be 新加坡。
Organization There is no completed story
Vocabulary/ Word Choice The student mixed about 要 and 有; mentioned 新加坡, 真 的啊，but no other vocabulary.
Language Use/ Grammar 我也有去*) should be 我也要去。
Mechanics There is no development in the story. And it is impossible for people to say good bye just too close to the aircraft.
Figure 4-2. Example of Individual Comics’ Comic Creation
54
Collaborative Learning’s Comic Creation
Writing Rubrics
Content/ Idea Development The main character is chosen by a male student Story can be developed a bit longer
Some exclamation word were not written in Mandarin such as “yipi”, and “uh”
Organization There is an opening, development, but still need closing Vocabulary/ Word Choice There is no feeling expression (開心，難過)
Language Use/ Grammar No related story between picture 4 and 5 Mechanics More Chinese character is applied in the comics
Figure 4-3. Example of Collaborative Learning’s Comic Creation
Table 4-5 presents a summary of the one-way analysis of variance on students’
scores of comics creation. The score stands as the dependent variables. The table of homogeneity variance was insignificant (F(33.5)=0.498, p>.05). This means that
55
there is difference scores among the three groups due to the different treatment. The variance between group is significant (F(33.5)=0.000, p<.001, this means that the different treatment in comics creation for control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning gives different score.
This analysis then is followed by the post hoc analysis. Table 4-6 serves the post hoc analysis that show the collaborative learning students outperformed and significant towards the other 2 groups. The individual comic shows insignificant, neither does the control group.
Table 4-5. One-way Analysis of Variance of Comic Creation Source of Variation Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 428.826 2 214.413 33.523 .000***
Within Groups 275.027 43 6.396
Total 703.853 45
Note *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001`
56
Table 4-6. Post Hoc Analysis
(I) Students_Group (J) Students_Group
Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
57
Table 4-7. Chi Square Analysis Result
Groups Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Control Group Pearson Chi-Square 495.000 25 .000***
Likelihood Ratio 230.067 25 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 72.094 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 99
Individual Comics Pearson Chi-Square 500.000 25 .000***
Likelihood Ratio 319.851 25 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 84.017 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 100
Collaborative Learning Pearson Chi-Square 400.000 25 .000***
Likelihood Ratio 235.901 25 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 76.320 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 100
Note *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001`
In a brief, in-class observation can be seen in the Table 4-8 below.
Table 4-8. The Frequency of the Learning Behavior (in %)
Group Learning-Related Behavior Learning-Unrelated Behavior Create
58
Table 4-8 presents the frequencies of the behavior from control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning. The Chi-Square analysis results X²=
56.50>18.307, df=25 reveals that there are significant differences in the learning–
related behavior and learning-unrelated behavior. The frequencies of learning-unrelated behavior such us playing with other, moving around, and playing alone in the collaborative learning group is the lowest in compare with the individual comics and control group. The control group students behave better than the individual comics. In learning-related behavior the collaborative learning group got the highest percentage, followed by control group, and the last one was the individual comic
4.3. Students’ Perception about Comics Learning
By the end of the experiment, the students from three groups were given questionnaire about the usability of comic. Students’ perspective about Comics learning is presented in the Table 4-8. Based on the mean of each group the collaborative learning students show the highest in every dimension. Then the individual comics students show highest mean at every dimension to be compared with the control group students. The data also notes that satisfaction dimension was
59
the highest mean among the three groups. The control group and individual comics have the same preference towards their perception that, usefulness of comics learning has the lowest mean. While towards the collaborative learning students, the easiness was the lowest dimension.
Table 4-9. Usability of Comic Learning Questionnaire Dimensions Control Group
(N=16) Individual
Comics (N=14) Collaborative Learning (N=16)
M SD M SD M SD
The whole questionnaire 3.122 0.678 3.259 0.652 3.396 0.626 Usefulness 2.990 0.692 3.208 0.649 3.426 0.606 Easiness Ease of Using
3.185 0.693 3.223 0.692 3.262 0.692 Ease of Learning
Satisfaction 3.188 0.658 3.381 0.597 3.574 0.535
The percentage of the usability of the online comics learning is presented in the Table 4-10 below. In the dimension of usefulness, the collaborative learning got higher percentage of 27.5, then the individual comics of 26.11. However, individual comics got higher percentage on the easiness of using online comics of 22.79, then collaborative learning of 21.89. In the dimension of satisfaction, the collaborative learning was more satisfactory group with the percentage of 28.69, then individual comics of 27.84.
60
Table 4-10. Usability of Online Comic (in %)
No Dimension
GROUP Individual
Comics (N=14)
Collaborative Learning
(N=16) 1 Usefulness 26.11 27.5
2 Easiness 22.79 21.89
3 Satisfaction 27.84 28.69
Besides multiple questions, the questionnaire also provided with the essay.
Based the other opinion about the application of online comics in individual comics group, there are 12 student express their satisfaction in operating online comic and 2 students did not give any other comments. Somehow, there are 8 students who also said that the internet connection was too bad, and 1 student said that the computer needs to be upgraded, 3 students said need much more time to create online comics. While in the collaborative learning group 10 students shows their satisfaction by rating that online comics is fun, interesting and that they love working on online comics. Somehow 7 students state that the internet connection was very unsupported, 7 students mention about the limited time given, 2 students say that online comics was easy, and 1 students declares that online comics is fun but a bit difficult.
61
4.4. Interview
There are also interview to get deeper information from the individual comics and collaborative learning students about the application of online comics and collaborative working. Table 4-11 listed the interview report.
Table 4-11. Interview
Questions Individual Comics Group (N=14)
There are 29% of students from individual comics who did not practice at home due to their class activity. While there are 25% of students from collaborative learning who did not practice online comics due to the absence of internet
62
connection, and that their parents or other family members do not allow them to operate any online activity at home.
Question 4 has been elaborated based on individual comic activity and collaborative learning activity. 50% of individual comics students wish to know what about collaborative learning, or prefer to work together rather than working alone as they cannot solve the problem all by themselves. There are 40%
collaborative students said they do not enjoy the collaborative activity, due to the unfamiliarity of students towards working together, discussion, and individuality preference.
There are 42% of individual comics who will introduce about online comics to their friends while they are doing their homework, playing together, or when practice their wushu 武術(martial art) activity. While 58% said they do not have time to introduce it to their friend, and they forgot to do so. While there are 75% of collaborative students told about the online comics to their friends, bother/ sister, neighbor, or relatives when they play together. Their also introduce about the online comic to their relatives. 25% said they have not introduced about the online comics, but there was no specific reason.
Question 6 about the advantages of applying Toondoo can be categorized into 3
63
aspects. They are aspect of entertainment (cool, fun, interesting), learning support, and simplicity (easy to use, can create comics). Consecutively there are 43% of individual comic declare the entertainment, 28.5% of learning support, and 28.5% of simplicity factor. While in the collaborative learning students feel the entertainment of 12.5%, 62.5 of learning support, and 25% of simplicity.
4.5. Summary
This experiment aimed at investigating the effect of CSCL approach and comics creation on the development of Mandarin Chines vocabulary of CFL elementary school students. The result of the development of Mandarin Chinese’s vocabulary performance of 3 groups which are control group, individual comics, and collaborative learning is all increasing. But the increase of the vocabulary performance in control group and individual comics was not significant, only in the collaborative group increase significantly.
Based on the student attitudes towards the treatment, the collaborative learning group behave the most positive in compare to the other groups. Then the control group behave more positive rather than the individual comics.
Students’ perspective toward online comics in learning Mandarin shows that the satisfaction dimension got the highest mean. This implies that the students are
64
satisfied in applying online comics. Easiness dimension got the second rank in term of mean, students feel it is easy to use and easy to learn the online comic. However, the usefulness dimension got the lowest mean. This might be because the online comic still new, and the students have not got the bigger influence. According to the additional comment about the online comics, students said that comic is cool, fun but need more time to accomplish all the task, and that the internet connection must be stable enough.
65
CHAPTER V
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research is aimed at investigating the development of Mandarin Chinese vocabulary and to know the students perception about online comic learning and collaborative learning. The results for answer “question 1” about the development of Mandarin Chinese vocabulary of control group students who create comic without online resources; individual comics students who create online comics individually;
and collaborative learning students who create online comics collaborately show that there are developments in students’ vocabulary due to the experiment. By comparing the mean in pretest and posttest of students performance shows that all the 3 groups significant increase. The collaborative learning group got the uppermost among the other groups, and that the individual comic shows better performance than the control group. However the increase of vocabulary performance is not obvious between the individual comics and control group. The mean scores of posttest in control group even higher than the one of individual comics. In our evaluation, based on the Appendix J about the school time table, the individual comics group has Mandarin class at 12.00 am -13.30 pm which is the last subject on Wednesday.
66
Students already tired and do not show the best performance during the test. The other reason is that the individual comics students already had 1 or 2 tests before Mandarin class on that day when the posttest had been conducted. The lassitude and the schedule might influence the motivation and performance of those students.
While compared with the collaborative learning students who start the online Mandarin class on Tuesday morning when they are still fresh and the internet connects better to support their online activity.
Based on the comic creation, the collaborative learning group got the best score among the other groups, and that the individual comic performs better than the control group. This finding underlines the researches done by Long (1990), Long and Porter (1985), about the advantages of collaborative learning in accomplishing tasks.
This research also supports the previous research about collaborative learning in improving cognitive and outcome. Moreover this finding also strengthen the research done by Apple and Kikuchi (2007) about working in small group also provide some more benefits such as that the activity will be 1) student-centered, 2) more motivating, enjoyable, and the students increase self-reliance and autonomy, and 3) provide students with real-world tasks that have value outside the language classroom.
67
The result of the research “question 2” about the general attitude the different attitude among CFL elementary-school students towards application of three comic creation approaches (paper-based learning, individually online comics, and online collaborative learning comics) in learning Mandarin Chinese vocabulary shows that comics learning give satisfaction for the students. This findings indeed supports Toondoo motto which is “Toondoo is cool, comic creating tool, a fun site for kids”, argued by the owner of the online tool. Moreover the result supports Jylha-Laide (1994) study about comic can elicit the children interests, entertain them and promote creative skill. This findings on learning language through comics also reinforces the previous research done by Kılıçkaya and Krajka (2012) about comic strip creation tool on reading and writing activity. However the finding did not adjust to the statement that Toondoo is easy to learn. Among the dimensions of online comic usability, the easiness was the lowest percentage among others. This implies that Toondoo online comics does not really easy for this students to learn, especially under the time limit situation and unstable internet connection. Bloomberg international (2013) released that internet speed in Indonesia was the second lowest in the world, which was only around 1.5 Mbps. The control group and individual comics inform that usefulness also regarded lower than the satisfaction dimension. 1
68
student from control group said that not every subject can be represented through comics.
Based on in-class observation, the students in collaborative learning group behave more positively than the other groups. They can maximize the learning time
Based on in-class observation, the students in collaborative learning group behave more positively than the other groups. They can maximize the learning time