The Pretest and Posttest Results

Having determined the total of the score differences and the squared score differences, the researcher now proceeds to calculating the t value to determine whether or not the mean of the posttest scores are significantly higher than that of the pretest scores. In order to find the t value, the researcher used the formula for the dependent t-test, which can be seen in Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3. From the equation shown in Figure 3.2, the t value equals 1.451. In order to see if this value indicates a significantly higher mean of the posttest scores, the t value has to be matched with the required t value at the .05 significance level for a directional test previously set by the researcher before the experimentation. The t value needed for significance at the .05 level of significance for a directional test with 14 degrees of freedom is 1.761. The t of 1.451 does not exceed the t value needed for significance. This implies that the mean of the posttest scores is not significantly higher than the mean of the pretest scores. a. The Retention of the Null Hypothesis In Chapter III, the researcher stated the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis to this research. Having calculated the t value and consulted the t table, the researcher can now either retain or reject the null hypothesis. Here are the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis once again:  Null Hypothesis H There is no significant difference between the mean of the pretest scores and the mean of the posttest scores.  Alternative Hypothesis H 1 The mean of the posttest scores is significantly higher than the mean of the pretest scores. In order for the researcher to be able to reject the null hypothesis, the t value of the experimentation must exceed the required t value needed for significance at the .05 level. Because the t value did not exceed the given t value needed for significance, the researcher retains the null hypothesis. In conclusion, this implies that the treatment, Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context has failed to significantly improve the vocabulary learning process of the first semester students of the English Extension Course at Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta. b. Two Possible Factors Which May Account for the Failed Experiment Based on what the researcher observed during the implementation of the treatment, which was Clarke and Na tion’s procedure for guessing from context, there could be several possible problems which led to the failure of the procedure to bring about the change on the part of the students expected by the researcher at the beginning of the experiment. The following are the possible problems:  The Lack of Time to Practice Clarke and Nation’s Procedure for Guessing from Context Even though the experimentation lasted for two weeks, the participants only had approximately 220 minutes to practice using Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context in the classroom over the course of two meeting. Not to mention the researcher had already taken 30 minutes off those 220 minutes to conduct the pretest. To anticipate this, the researcher gave them an assignment after the first meeting to practice the technique themselves at home, which was to be discussed the following week, but this did not seem to work out because they mentioned they did not have the time to do the assignment at home. This was understandable because they were all students, either from Sanata Dharma University or other universities in Yogyakarta, and employees. As a result, the assignment, which was supposed to be homework, was done in the classroom under the researcher’s guidance. The researcher might have miscalculated the time needed for the students to thoroughly comprehend and familiarize themselves with using Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context. The procedure was obviously new to the students and one or two more meetings would have been crucial to their attempt in understanding the completely unknown procedure, which eventually, and arguably, would have made them perform better on the posttest to a certain degree. What the researcher failed to take into account was the students ’ limited time to practice using the procedure outside the classroom on their own due to their college activities and work. In addition to this, the researcher also did not want to take too many meetings for the sake of the research because it would have caused discomfort on the part of the Vocabulary I’s lecturer because she would have had to re-arrange her syllabus.  The Students ’ Reluctance to Ask Questions The second major problem which might have caused the treatment to have failed to significantly imp rove the students’ performance on the posttest was their reluctance to ask questions while doing their classroom exercises. A few of them did ask questions, but the majority of them were just sitting quietly not knowing that what they were doing was wrong. As suggested by the posttest results, a lot of them had problems understanding what they were supposed to be doing at certain stages of the guessing procedure, particularly at the second and third step of the guessing from context procedure. The students’ mistakes in using Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context are discussed in more detail in the last part of the chapter.

2. The Results of the Questionnaire

The second part of the chapter discusses the results of the questionnaire filled out by the research subjects following their Vocabulary 1 class final test. Unfortunately, out of a total of 15 students who had already taken both the pretest and the posttest, only 10 of them showed up on the final test day. Therefore, only 10 research subjects completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was written in the first language of the participants, which is Bahasa Indonesia, to enable them to comprehend each and every item of the questionnaire in the best possible way. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of five close-ended items in the form of statements aiming to find out whether or not Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context helped improve their vocabulary learning process. The participants’ possible responses were categorized into Strongly Disagree SD, Disagree D, Agree A, and Strongly Agree A. The second one comprised five questions designed to elicit the research subjects ’ opinions on using the procedure after two weeks’ time of exposure. Table 4.2 displays the research subjects ’ responses to the first part of the questionnaire. The researcher analyzes the tendency of their ’ responses to each of all five items in this part of the questionnaire. Table 4.2 The Students’ Responses toward the First Part of the Questionnaire No. Statement SD D A SA 1. I tend to consult the dictionary upon discovering a new English vocabulary item. 10 80 10 2. I am now able to use the guessing from context technique after learning it for two weeks. 10 30 60 3. I am now able to use the guessing from context technique without having to follow the exact steps which were previously taught. 40 50 10 4. The guessing from context technique helps me find out the meanings of the words I have never encountered before. 70 30 5. I can remember the words whose meanings I found out using the guessing from context procedure in a relatively long period of time. 30 40 30 The students ’ responses to the first statement of the questionnaire show that 10 of them strongly agreed, 80 agreed, while the other 10 disagreed that they tended to consult the dictionary to find out what an unknown word meant. This confirms the students’ reliance on the use of dictionary, which was exactly why the researcher thought it was important to conduct the research and see whether or not the guessing from context procedure would help them find out the meaning of new words on their own. By introducing Clarke and Nation’s guessing from context procedure to the students, the researcher hoped that the students would be able to rely less on the use of the dictionary in the long run. The next two statements of the questionnaire are correlated. They aimed to find out whether or not two weeks of practicing using Clarke and Nation’s procedure for guessing from context were sufficient for the students to be able to use it on their own, without having a look at the steps, and whether or not they were able to do so without following the exact steps of the procedure. Statement number three was meant to confirm the students ’ responses to the second statement. However, the researcher finds their ’ responses to these two correlated statements contradicting each other. As many as seven students 60 out of a total of 10 of them agreed with statement number two. The rest of them 40 disagreed with the statement. This figure is divided into two. 30 disagreed and 10 of them strongly disagreed with the statement. The level of agreement of the statement is as high as 60. The students ’ responses to the next statement are as follows: 10 strongly agreed, 50 agreed, and the other 40 disagreed with the statement. The level of agreement of the statement, therefore, is only as high as 60. This figure is precisely the same as the figure which represents the level of agreement on the previous statement. Statement number three was originally designed to help the researcher find out the percentage of all the students who would admit to have been able to use the procedure after two weeks of exposure who could apply the procedure without following the exact steps described by Nation. As far as the researcher is concerned, it is only logical that one could not possibly use the procedure without following the exact steps while one has not been fully capable of using the procedure. Later, the researcher found out that there were two participants who might have misunderstood the statements.