INTERPRETATION OF DATA

3.5.4 TEST ANALYSIS .1 INTRODUCTION

3.5.4.4 INTERPRETATION OF DATA

I interpret the data obtained by drawing comparisons between the two groups in terms ofeach ofthe tests and then thefinaltotal. Before I do this however, the promotion requirements need to be pointed out so that the category of perfonnance of the pupils is understood. The promotion requirements for ESL are:

34% >: pass

25% - 33% : converted pass 25% <: fail

In terms ofevaluation, for the purposes ofmy discussion I look at 80%> as excellent, 70% >, very good, and 60%>, good, and at the other extreme, 25%<, very weak. It also needs to be noted that the teacher who marked the scripts, marked for ideas and pupils were not penalized for poor sentence construction.

(a) THE SUIT:

The comparative analysis of 'The Suit' shows that an equal number of pupils, constituting 51 %, of each group scored 60% and above. This is to say that the performance ofjust over

halfof the class in each group is good. On the lower end of the scale however, there is a difference of 8.6% failure between Group C and Group E, with the greater percentage of failures in Group E. Normally one would expect that the class where CS is used would perform better than the control group. Iwill however, return to this issue in chapter 4. A close examination of answers of those who performed poorly in Group E reveal a lack of understanding of plot and main ideas, inability to draw inferences concerning character, and inability to pass judgement.· In addition, these pupils appear to lack the ability to construct coherent sentences. For example, in response to question 4, "Do you think that Philemon really loved Matilda? Explain your answer fully", one pupil responded:

'PVlLLeVVlolI\, l'eClLLtj Lovec{ MCltLLc{CI ~ec,Cluse CllI\,tj

tLVVle

VlLVVl

c,Vlec,R. tVle VIeI'

c{o

1I\,0t VIeI' c,Vlec,R.

VlLVVl."

In response to question 5, "Ifyou were Matilda at this point ofthe story, what would be your feelings for Philemon? Explain your answer", another pupil resorted to using Zulu in his answer:

I ClVVl feeLLlI\,g so _~Clc{;

sOVVletLVVles we R.ee-p tVle

_Lo~oLo to LlI\,tl'oc{uc,es

VlOW

Love tj0UI' wLfe

Clftel' sVle

feeLLlI\,g so ~Clc{."

Itis interesting to note that the second pupil needed to resort to using his NL in an effort to express himself This would suggest the need for the use the learners' NL in the classroom.

There is a need for teachers to discuss vocabulary, providing English equivalents for Zulu words, so pupils have the necessary English vocabulary accessible to them. Afterall, as some interviewees point out, papers are set in English and pupils are expected to write in English.

Anexamination of the means of both groups however, shows no difference. Hence, one can conclude that there is no difference in performance between the control and experimental groups of this study, on the test 'The Suit'.

(b) PROMISE:

Anexamination of the comparative analysis ofthe test on "Promise", shows that while 71% of pupils of Group C achieved 60% and above, 46% ofthose in Group E achieved this result.

The most striking difference in this category is the performance in the 80% category. While 40% ofGroup C achieved 80% and above, only 14% ofGroup E did so. There were also more failures in Group E than Group C; 14% failed in group C and 26% failed in group E. In addition, an examination ofmeans for this test between the groups shows a difference of 16%.

Group C displayed superior performance to Group E on measurement of raw scores. Once again, as I have indicated, one would normally expect the class that employs CS to perform better than the class which is taught through the medium of English only. The poor performance of Group E may be attributed to, among other reasons, their lack of basic understanding ofthe poem and inability to interpret vocabulary in context. This, however, does not mean that CS does not facilitate learning in the literature classroom. On the contrary, for pupils who are really struggling with the language, there is a greater need for a deliberate switch to their NL, as proposed by Jacobson in his "Concurrent Theory", which I shall briefly explain in the next chapter.

(c) FOLLOWER:

Anexamination of results ofthe test on "Follower" also reveals that pupils ofGroup C show a higher performance than Group E. The comparative analysis reveals that 46% of Group C scored 60% and above, and 37% of Group scored 60% and above. However, on the lower scale there is only 3% difference between the two groups, favouring Group C. As with 'Promise', Group C demonstrates a higher mean, 53%, compared to Group E, which has a mean of 47%. Once again, pupils' poor performance may be attributed to their lack of understanding ofthe main idea ofthe poem and poor interpretation ofvocabulary in context.

(d) TOTAL SCORES:

An examination of the comparative analysis for overall performance between the groups reveals that pupils ofgroup C achieved higher in the 60% and above category; 51 % ofGroup C achieved 60% and above, and 31 % in Group E achieved this. There is however, only a 3%

difference in scores of failures between the groups - Group E had the greater percentage of failures. However, on using the t-test, and determining the t-values, as I have noted, there is no significant difference between the means of each group, and the null hypothesis will therefore have to be accepted. Thus, I conclude that for the given groups under study, the use of CS in the classroom does not necessarily promote scholastic achievement compared to the use of English only.