Data from Listening Strategy Questionnaires

their listening comprehension than that of less varied strategies. the F table 1, 58 at 0.05 significance level is 4.01 while the F observed was 55,64. Ho is rejected when F observed F table and vice versa. Therefore, this result indicated that the null hypothesis is rejected, that is there is significance difference of the listening comprehension at 0.05 significant level between two classification of listening strategies more varied and less varied strategy. The third result is about the interaction effect technique by listening strategy. The result shows that there is no interaction effect F observed =0,19F table =4.01 and p=0.66=0.05. It indicates that the null hypothesis is not rejected. The results in the table 4.20 can be graphically presented in the figure below. Figure 4.1 The Profile Plots of the Listening Comprehension Mean Score Based on the profile plots above, it can be seen that there is significant main effect for both independent variables learning technique and listening strategy. However, the two lines are parallel. It means that there is no interaction effect. Whenever the lines are parallel, an interaction is not present. Interaction means that the effect of one variable depends on the level of other variable being considered and this would produce non-parallel lines Johnson and Christensen, 2012: 307. Therefore, in the graph above interaction effect is not present. Students who are taught using FLAP always performed better than those taught using Non-FLAP technique regardless of the listening strategy levels more varied or less varied, indicating a main effect of learning technique. Based on the profile plots above, it can also be seen that students with more varied strategy taught using FLAP shows higher achievement in the listening comprehension test than those who are taught using non-FLAP technique. Other comparisons can also be observed from the plots. However, the table below probably can show in more detail the comparison of listening comprehension score in each group of students who have certain level of strategy taught by using certain level of learning technique. Table 4.21 The Comparison of Listening Comprehension Mean Scores A1 Non-FLAP A2 FLAP B2 More Varied Strategy 78.00 91.67 B1 Less Varied Strategy 64.67 76.67 Each cell of the table above contains the mean score of students’ listening comprehension. Although the mean seemsto be different each other, it is still unclear where the difference lies. Therefore, a further analysis using Post Hoc test is necessary to be conducted. Since the sample sizes are the same, I used Tukey Post Hoc Test . The results are presented in table of multiple comparison below.