6.2 ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT DATA . 43
6.2.4 Longitudinal Analysis of Language Assessment Scores Using ANCOVA 68
One year teaching effect
For afl pupils in 2nd cohort 2nd administration
0.0 "BOTH
Longitudinal effect: November 1999 to May 2000
Analytical investigation of all the language assessment scores, however, revealed that there was no interaction of teaching mode and time for the writing scores, the listening or the coordinated oral and listening scores. However there was a significant finding for the oral scores.
In the second cohort, the teaching mode effect was interacting with the time effect for oral scores. The effect was significant (p - 0.003 Eta Squared = 0.063), but the magnitude was very small. This finding suggests that the influence of the NET was significant in producing higher oral assessment scores than those of local teachers or a combination of local teachers and NETs.
In other words, pupils taught by a NET scored significantly higher in the oral assessments than pupils taught by other teachers*
the language assessments. Whenever a significant effect of the analysis involves a teaching mode effect it is reported first, otherwise, the largest effect in the model is reported.
6.2.4.3 Findings
(A) Secondary (i) 1st cohort group
Dependent variables Coordinated Oral &
listening
Coordinated Oral Coordinated Listening Writing
ANOVA Model F-statistic
N/A 15.91
26.5 6.6
ANCOVA Model F-statistic
N/A 28.8
33:8
6.6
Box test p-value or Levene's test
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001 0.002
Significant effect Interaction of School level and teaching mode 1 admin oral
1* admin listen School level
Effect, p-value 0.035
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Effect Eta squared
value 0,024 0.225 0.191 0.135
Results in the above table suggest that after controlling the effect of the 1st administration, in the 2nd administration, the interaction effect of school level and teaching mode was significant in the analysis of the coordinated oral and listening scores. In the analyses of other dependent variables, no significant effect of teaching mode effect was observed.
School level
Low
Medium
High
Dependent variables
Oral Listening
Oral Listening
Oral Listening
Teaching effect p-value
0.027 0.001
0.036 0.799 0.003 0.082
Effect Eta squared value
0.06 0.1
0.055 0.007 0.082 0.069
Levene's test 0.077 0.004
0.679 0.344 0.396 0.013
Significant comparison Local to Local > NET to NET Local to Local > Local to NET
NET to NET > Local to Local NETtoNET>LocaltoNET NET to Local > Local to NET
NETtoNET>NETtoLocal NETtoNET>LocaltoNET NET to NET > Local to Local
None
NET toNET>NET to Local Ixx^toNET>NETtoLocal Local to Local > NET to Local NET to Local > Local to Local
p-value 0.009 0.011 0.001 0.004 0.042 0.008 0.034 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.001 0.017 Results in the above table show that after controlling the effect of 1st administration, in the 2nd
administration, the following two-year effects were suggested.
In the two-year period, 1998-2000, all students in low ability schools, who were taught by a local teacher for each of the two years had better oral scores than those taught by either a NET for two years or a local teacher in the first year and a NET in the second Those who were taught by a NET for two years had bettor listening scores than those taught by either local teachers or both local teacher and NETs. Those who were tau^t by a NET m
a local teacher in the second had better listening scores than those taught by a local teacher followed by a NET.
Students in medium ability schools who were taught by a NET for two years, had better oral scores than those taught by a NET and a local teacher, or by local teachers for two years.
All students in high-level schools who were taught by either NETs or local teachers for two years had better oral scores than those taught by a NET and a local teacher. Those who were taught by a NET and a local teacher had better listening scores than those taught exclusively by local teachers.
(IS) I"4 cohort group
Dependent variables Coordinated Oral &
listening
Coordinated Oral Coordinated listening Writing
ANOVA . Model
F-statistics N/A
63 28.7
0.9
ANCOVA Model F-statistics
N/A
37.1 44.9
1.8
Box test p-value or Levene's test
< 0.001
0.127 0.007 0.065
Significant effect Interaction of school level, form level &
teaching mode
Interaction of school level, form level &
teaching mode
Interaction of form level
& teaching mode 1* admin writing
Effect p-value
< 0.001
< 0.001 . 0.001
0.001
Effect Eta squared
value 0.031
0.031 0.029 0.147
Results in the above table shows that after controlling the effect of 1st administration, in the 2nd administration, the interaction effect of school level, fonn level and teaching mode was significant in the analysis of both the coordinated oral and listening scores and coordinated oral scores. The interaction effect of form level and teaching mode was significant in the analysis of the coordinated'listening scores.
Form level
Forml
Form3 School
level Medium
High Low Medium
High
Dependent variables
Oral Listening
Oral T ^$teninci[
Oral Listening
Oral listening
Oral Listening
Teaching effect p-value
0.143 0.272
<0.001 0.855 0.004 0.234 0306 0.006 0.025 0.059
Effect Eta squared value
0.037 0.025 0338 0.004 0.146 0.04 0.022 0.091 0.086 0.062
Levene's test 0.128 0.485 0.741 0.016 0.536 0.636 0.477 0327 0.01 0581
Significant comparison None
None Local>NET Local > Both
None Local>NET
None None NET>Local
NET>Botii Bo!h>Local
None
p-value
< 0.001 0.003 0.003
0.03 0.005 0.025
Results in the above table show that after controlling the students* performance in the 1st
administration, in the 2nd administration, the following effects were suggested.
Fl students in high ability schools who were taught by a local teacher had better oral scores than those taught by a NET or by a combination ofNETs and local teachers. F3 students in low ability schools taught by local teachers had better oral scoresthan those taught by NETs. F3 students hi medium ability schools, who were taught by NET teachers, had better listening scores than those taught by local teachers or a combination of local teachers and NETs. F3
70
students in high ability school who were taught by a combination of local teachers and NETs had better oral scores than those taught by local teachers alone.
(B) Primary pupils (i) 1st cohort group
Coordinated Oral &
listening
Coordinated Oral Coordinated Listening Writing
ANOVA Model F-statistics
N/A 6.3 15.8
2.7
ANCOVA Model F-statistics
N/A 36.1 38.2 6.3
Box test p-vaiue or Levene's test
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0,001 0.283
Significant effect Interaction of form level and teaching mode Interaction of both form level and school level with teaching mode 1st admin listen 1st admin writing
Effect p-value
0.01 0.011 0.012
<0.001 0.004
Effect Eta squared
value 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.206 0.143 Results in the above table suggest that after controlling the effect of the 1st administration, in the 2nd administration, the interaction effort of form level and teaching mode was significant in the analysis of both the coordinated oral and listening scores and coordinated oral scores. In addition, the interaction effect of school level and teaching mode was significant in the analysis of the coordinated oral scores
P4 P6
Dependent variables
Oral Listening
Oral Listening
Teaching effect p-value
0.071 0.008
< 0.001 0.784
Effect Eta squared value
0.026 0.055 0.234 0.003
Levene's test
< 0.001 0.162 0.203 0.002
Significant comparison none
Local to Local > NET to NET Local to Local > NET to NET NET to Local >NET to NET
None
p-value 0.008
< 0.001 0.001
In the above table, the results suggest that after taking account of the pupils* performance in the 1st administration, in the 2nd administration, P6 and P4 pupils who were taught by local teachers for two years had better oral and listening scores than those taught by NETs for the same period. However, P6 pupils taught by aNET in the first year and a local teacher in the second had better oral scores than those taught by a NET for two years
(ii) 2nd cohort group
Coordinated Oral &
listening
Coordinated Oral Coordinated Listening Writing
ANOVA Model F-statistics
9.1 10.1
5.4
ANCOVA Model F-statistics
383 14.4
•S3,
Box test p-value or Levene's test
0.046 0.151 0.03 0.022
Significant effect
1* admin. Oral l*admHLOral 1* admin. Oral School level
Effect p-value
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001 0.049
Effect Eta squared
value 0.446 0.39 0.153 0.123 Results in the above table suggest that after controlling the effect of the 1st administration, in the 2nd administration, no significant effect of teaching mode was observed.
Conclusion
The e ffect o f different t caching m odes w as s hown t o h ave i nfluenced se condary s tudents' performance in the 2nd administration of the 1st and 2nd cohorts, and primary pupils' performance in the 2nd administration of the 1st cohort, when account was taken of their performance in the 1st administration.
6.2.5 Alternative Analysis of Oral and Listening Scores
6.2.5.1 Paired Samples T-tests
*
Paired samples t-tests were performed on both the first and second cohort of secondary students* oral and listening assessment scores. The aim was to establish any possible gain between the pre and the post test scores and if so to establish any possible patterns in teaching modes over the given time period. The analysis was done by school level (high, medium and low), with the following results:
(A) Secondary
(i) First cohort group Listening Assessment Form 1 students High level schools F1-F2 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year!
NET Local NET Local
n
32 53 11 6
Pre-test
32.57 26.98 30.95 34.75
s.d (pre test) 6.849 6.533 6.547 4.782
Post-test
35.85 31.45
• 32.72 40.75
s.d (post
test) 8.013 8.107 7.281 7.789
Pre-post TestR2
0.565 0.529 0.945 0.880
t value (*ig.) -2.648 p=0.013*
-4.500 p=<0.001*
-2.448 p=0.034*
-3.464 p=0.018*
72
Medium level schools Fl - F2 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
n
20
67 10 45
Pre-test
22.50 22.72 18.75 21.93
s.d (pre test) 4,793 6.097 3.952 3.579
Post-test
2L22 24.69 22.75 20.82
s.d (post
test) 3.715 6.944 5.029 5.739
Pre-post TestR2
0.093 0.50 -0.459 0.263
t value
0.986 p=0.337 -2.458 p=0.017*
-1.644 p=0.134
1.261 p=0.214
* significant at p = < 0.05
Low level schools Fl - F2 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Yearl NET Local NET Local
n
34
23 11
12
Pre-test
18.57 14.86 15.68 15.87
s.d (pre test) 5.514 4.973 2.795 5.214
Post-test
21.75 16.43 13.90 14.00
s.d (post
test) 7.397 9.747 3.555 3.908
Pre-post TestR2 0.496 0.010 -0.257 0.187
t value («gO -2.770 p=0.009*
-0.689 p=0.498
1.163 p=0.272
1.101 p=0.295
* significant at p = < 0.05
In lower secondary schools (F1-F2), there was significant gain in the mean scores of the listening assessment hetween the pre and post tests in five cases. For the higji level schools, student taught by either a teaching transition of NET to NET, Local to NET or Local to Local had higher scores in the post test than in the pie test For the medium level schools, student taugjht by a teaching transition of NET to Local had M^o: scores in the post test than in the pre test. For the low level schools, student taught by a teaching transition of NET to NET had higjier scores in the post test than in the pre test
Form 3 and Form 4 students High level schools
F3 -F4, F4 - F5 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
n
43
Pre-test
27.95
s.d (pre test) 4.545
Post-test
31.00
&d (post test) 4.472
Pre-post TestR2
0.650
t value (sig.) -5.295 p=<0.001*
No relevant data 22
14
30.77 30.14
3.544 4.435
34.45 29.21
3.081 9.463
0346 0357
-4.533 p=«0.001*
0390 p=0.703
* significant at p = < 0.05
Medium level schools F3 - F4, F4 - F5 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year!
NET Local NET Local
n
24 28 35 2
Pre-test
20.41 21.53 20.22 15.50
s.d (pre test) 3.034 3.834 5.303 4.949
Post-test
23.37 20.50 21.71 23.50
s.d (post
test) 5.156 5.821 6.871 3.535
Pre-post TestR2
0.384 0.419 0.728 -1.00
t value (sigO -2.972
^=0,007*
L002 p=0.325 -L861 p=KX071 -1333 p=0.410
* significant at p = < 0.05 Low level schools
F3-F4, F4-F5 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
n
53
Pre-test
17.03
s*d (pre test) 3.546
Post-test
19.81
s.d (post
test) 3.858
Pre-post TestR2
0.535
t value . <«g*) -5.637 p=<0.001*
No relevant data No relevant data
11 17,54 5.768 17.72 6.117 0.733 -0.138 p=0.893
* significant at p = < 0.05
In upper secondary schools (F3-F4), there was significant gain in the mean scores of the Estening assessment in four cases. For high-level schools, student taught by a teaching transition of NET toNET or Local toNEThadtogfrerscoiramtte
For medium-level schools, student taught by a teaching transition of NET to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test For low-level schools, student taught by a teaching transition of NET to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test.
Eight out of the above nine groups involve the deployment of NET teachers (and the ninth was made up of only a very small sample size of 6). In fact, five of these groups involved students who were taught by NETs in two consecutive years. Whilst advising caution in the gmeralization^of paired sample t-tests (which are fixed point in time measurements), there is some evidence that there is a NET effect in helping to improve the listening skills of both upper and lower secondary students.
74
Oral Assessment Form 1 students High level schools Fl-F2Oral
teaching mode Year!
NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
n
77 64 17 20
Pre-test
19.75 20.15 2035 20,50
s.d (pre test) 5.171 4.677 4.636 6.202
Post-test
19.37 19.46 21.17 22.30
s.d (post
test) 5.125 4.918 4.720 6.300
Pre-post TestR2
0.419 0.596 0.754 0.886
t value
<*ig.) 0.606 p=0.546
L274 p=0.207 -1.034 p=0316 -2.698 p=0.014*
* significant at p = < 0.05
Medium level schools Fl-F2Oral
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET
Local
n
2 75 12 71
Pre-test .
14.50 17.18 18.50 16.50
s.d (pre test) 2.121 5.082 4.295 6.765
PosWest
18.00 1738 15.66 16.03
s4 (post
test) 2.828 4.434 5.069 5.041
Pre-post . TestR2
-1.000 0.571 0363 0.658
t value (sig.) -1.000 p=0.500 -0377 p=0.707
L844
^=0.092 0.775 p=O.441
Low level schools Fl-F2Oral
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Yearl NET Local NET
Local
n
42 26 12 14
Pre-test
12.83 12.84 15.75 8.28
s.d (pre test) 5.954 4.397 4.515 4.631
Post-test
11.42 14.51 12.41 15.71
s.d (post
test) 4.644 3.853 4.481 3.220
Pre-post TestR1
0.629 -0280 0.347 0.815
lvalue (sig.) 1.930 p=0.061
-1.291 p=0.208 2246 p=0.046*
-10.153 p=<001*
* significant at p = < 0.05
In lower secondary schools (F1-F2), there was significant gain in the mean scores of the oral assessment between the pre and post tests in three cases. For the higji level schools, student taught by a teaching tn^
pre test For the low level schools, student taught by either a teaching transition of Local to Local or Local to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test.
Form 3 and Farm 4 students High level schools
F3-F4,F4-F5Oral
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
n
81 34 27 26
Pre-test
19.32 19.23 25.48 21.38
s<d (pre test) 4.826 5.199 4371 2.926
Post-test
21.29 19.85 25.51 23.11
s.d (post
test) 4.417 6.243 3.714 3.993
Pre-post TestR2
0.640 0.512 0.481 0.533
t value (sig.) -4.516 j»=<001*
-0.629
^=0.534 -0.046
^=0.963 -2.543 p=0.018*
c significant at p = < 0.05 Medium level schools F3—F4,F4-~F5Oral
teaching mode
* Yean NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Yearl NET Local NET Local
n
20 42 47 24
Pre-test
17.65 16.76 16.65 12.54
s.d (pre test) 5.050 4,673 5.506 5.200
Post-test
19.85 20.14 19.38 18.16
s.d (post
test) 4.826 5.089 5.198 5.700
Pre-post TestR2
0.246 0.328 0.503 0.742
t value (rig*) -1.622 p=0.121 -3.755 p-0.001*
-3.494 p=0.001*
-6.988 p=<0.001*
' significant at p = < 0.05 Low level schools
F3~F4fF4-F5Orat
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching
mode Yearl NET Local NET Local
n
82
Pre-test
1432
s.d (pre test) 5.998
Post-test
15.84
sA (post
test) 5.186
Pre-post TestR1
0.556
t value (sig.) -2.585 p=0.012*
no relevant data no relevant data
22 11.18 3.775 15.09 4.770 0.710 -5.426
p=<0.001*
*significaniatp = <0.05
In upper secondary schools (F3-F4), there was significant gain in the mean scores of the oral assessment in seven cases. For the high level schools, student taught by either a teaching transition of Local to Local orNET to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test.
For me medium level schools, student taught by either a teaching transition of Local to Local, NET to Local or Local to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test For the low level schools, student taught by eimer a teaching transition of Local to Local or NET to NET had higher scores in the post test than in the pre test.
Although there was a significant gain in the mean scores of the oral assessments between the pre and the post tests, there does not seem to be any discemable pattern with regard to the deployment of NETs. Although NETs were involved in five of me above ten groups it is not
76
possible on the evidence of this analysis to attribute any NET effect to the gains. In lower secondary schools (F1-F2), on balance local teachers were involved in all three significant groups, whilst in upper secondary schools (F3-F4), both NETs and Local teachers were involved in an equal number of groups. This paired samples t-test indicates that there is no evidence of any NET effect in helping to improve the oral skills of either upper or lower secondary students.
(ii) 2nd Cohort Group Oral Assessment
Form 1 students High level schools Fl pre -Fl post Oral
teaching mode NET LOCAL BOTH
n = 61 30 37
mean orall
17.74' 17.20 18.24
mean ora!2 17.34 22.23 17.51
mean difference -0.40 +5.03 -0,73
correlation orall/ora!2 0.760*
0.360 0.628*;
paired samples p value p- 0.390 p = 0.051*
p = 0.296
* significant at p = < 0.05
Medium level schools Fl pre -Fl post Oral
teaching mode NET LOCAL BOTH
n*=
32 67 12
mean orall
17.06 17.06 12.08
mean 0ra/2 17.87 18.91 14.75
mean difference 40.81 +1.85 +2.67
correlation orall/oral2 0.908*
0.578*
0.003*
paired samples p value
^=0.062 p- 0.001*
p = 0.004*
* significant at p = < 0.05 Low level schools Fl pre -Fl post Oral
leaching mode NET LOCAL BOTH
n = mean
orall
mean ora!2
mean difference
correlation orall/oral2
paired samples p value Insufficient data
Insufficient data
83 12.32 13.49 +1.17 0.775* p = 0.014*
1 significant at p = < 0.05
In the nine categories of Fl students above, there was insufficient data for analysis in two cases:
NET, low level; LOCAL, low level. Of the remaining seven categories, the paired sample t-tests showed significant gain in oral assessment between orall and oral2 in four categories:
LOCAL, high level; LOCAL, medium level; BOTH medium level; BOTH low level. In the remaining three categories there was no significant difference in oral assessment between orall apd oral2. We can cautiously conclude ftom these pared sample t-tests that students taught by both local teachers and those taught by a combination of both local and NET show significant gain in their speaking scores, whilst those students taugfrt only by NET teachers do show gain but not at a significant level.
Form 3 Students High level schools
F3 pre test - F3 post test Oral
teaching mode
NET Local Both
n 20 40 60
Pre-test average 27-05 21.05 16.00
Post-test average
2530 20.22 19,82
Post-test average difference
-1.75 -0.83 +3.82
Pre-post Correlation value
0.548 0.810*
0.388*
Paired samples p-value p = 0.024*
p = 0.080 p< 0.001*
* significant at p = < 0.05
Medium level schools
F3pre test-F3post test Oral
teaching mode NET Local Both
n 33 57 52
Pre-test average
16.80 16.78 16.96
Post-test average
19.57 18.45 17.40
Post-test average difference
+2,77 +1.67 +0.44
Pre-post Correlation value
0.724*
0.606*
0.472*
Paired samples p-value p< 0.001*
p = 0.003*
p< 0.001*
* significant at p = < 0.05
Low level schools
F3 pre test - F3 post test Oral
teaching mode
NET Local Both
n 50 28
Pre-test average 1622 1721
Post-test average
16.90 20.46
Post-test average difference
+0.68 +3.25
Pre-post Correlation value
0.848*
0.395
Paired samples p-value p = 0.161 p ~ 0.005*
Insufficient Data
* significant at p = < 0.05
In the nine categories of F3 students above, there was insufficient data for analysis in two cases:
NET, low level; LOCAL, low level. Of the remaining seven categories, the paired sample t-tests showed significant gain in oral assessment between orall and oral2 in four categories:
LOCAL, higji level; LOCAL, medium level; BOTH medium level; BOTH low level In the remaining three categories there was no significant difference in oral assessment between orall and ora/2. We can cautiously conclude from these paired sample t-tests that Fl students taught by both local teachers and those taught by a combination of both local and NET show significant gain in their speaking scores, whilst those students taught only by NET teachers do show gain but not at a significant level.
(B) Primary Schools (i) First Cohort Groups
Paired sample t-tests were also conducted for both the first and second cohort of pupils, according to teaching mode. For the first cohort, there were two such modes (Le. the type of teaching (NET, or Local) experienced in year 1 and year 2) but due to ^
not possible to conduct the analysis on all possible group combinations. Results are shown in the tables below:
78
Listening Assessment P3 Listening
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
number
100
Pre-test
1337
Post-test
15.12
Pre-post TestR2
0.528
Pre-post test difference
1.75
t value (sig.) -5.267 p=<0.001*
data not available data not available
40 14.65 15.70 0363 L05 -2371
p=0.023*
P5 Listening teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local Local
number
69 13 63
Pre-test
1639 18.84 14.74
Post-test
1736 1830 17.00
Pre-post testR2
0.596 0.815 0.582
Pre-post test difference 0.97 -0.53 2..2S
t value (sig«) -2.452 p=0.017*
-1.203 p=0.252 -6.096 p=<0,001*
The results in the above table show that in listening, on average four of the five groups that were analysed showed significant positive gain, as follows, but it is not possible to ascribe gain in listening to any particular teaching mode. The gain however does lend support to the reliability of the instruments, since significant gain over time would be predicted.
Oral Assessment
P3toP4Oral
teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode
Yearl NET Local NET Local
number
133
Pre-test
1528
Post-test
15.51
Pre-post TestR1
0.616
Pre-post test difference 0.23
lvalue (sig.) -0.593 p=0.555 data not available
data not available
75 12.89 17.13 0.687 4.27 -11399
p=<0.001* _
P5toP6Oral
Teaching mode Yearl NET NET Local Local
teaching mode Year2 NET Local NET Local
number
94 16
Pre-test
1537 1432
Post-test-16.14 1631
Pre-post TestR2
0.693 0/744
Pre-post test difference 0.79 1.99
t value (sig-) -2289 p=0.024*
-2,271 p-0.038*
data not available — —
78 14.95 1836 0.597 3.41 .7.831
pO.OOl*
The above results show that in speaking, on average, four of the five groups that were analysed showed significant positive gain. From these results, again it is not possible to ascribe gain in
speaking scores as measured by our instruments to any particular teaching mode. As in the listening scores analysis the results again support the reliability of the instruments used, since significant gain over time would be predicated.
(ii) Second Cohort Group Listening Assessment High Level Schools P3 Listening
teaching mode Both
number 12
Pre-test 17.83
Post-test 17.83
Pre-post test R2.
0.785
Pre-post test difference 0.000
lvalue (sig.) 0.000 P=l
P5 Listening
Teaching mode NET Both
number 22 8
Pre-test 19.32 19.37
Post-test 18.27 .18.62
Pre-post test R2
0.682 0.684
Pre-post test difference -1.05 -0.75
t value (sig-) 2.383 p=0.027*
L53 p=0.170
Medium Level Schools P3 Listening
teaching mode Both
number 74
Pre-test 13.53
Post-test 15.48
Pre-post test R2
0.285
Pre-post test difference 1.95
t value (sig.) -4.102
p-<0.001*
P5 Listening
teaching mode Local Both
number 21 46
Pre-test 14.43 16.69
Post-test 15.95 1730
Pre-post test R2
0.071 0.49
Pre-post test difference
1.52 0.61
t value (sig.) -1.657
p=0.113 -1.287
p=0.205
The above results show that in listening, P 3 pupils taught by NET in higji-level school showed significant negative fall, P 3 pupils taught by a combination of NET and Local teacher in medium-level school showed any significant positive gain- However, from these results it is not possible to ascribe gain in listening scores as measured by our instruments to any particular teaching mode.
80