 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 1, Article 6 (Jun., 2017) |
The data, obtained from the pre-post test results of the experimental and control groups, were analyzed and the following findings were obtained. AAT, SLMS and SCAS pre-test scores of the experimental and control group students were compared by using independent samples t-test and the findings are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of experimental and control groups' pre-test scores
AAT
SLMS
SCAS
Group
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Exp. Group
8.72
3.04
102.48
6.81
90.68
9.83
Control Group
8.70
3.12
97.08
16.94
86.50
13.19
Following the application of the AAT, SLMS and SCAS post-test scores of the experimental and control groups, students were compared with the help of the independent samples t-test to determine whether there is a difference between post-test scores of the experimental group and control group. The findings of the independent t-test results are displayed in Table 2.
When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that there was no significant difference between the pre-test AAT scores of experimental and control groups (t(47)=0.013; p=0.99>0.05), there was no significant difference between the pre-test SLMS scores of experimental and control groups (t(47)=1.473; p=0.14>0.05) and there was no significant difference between pre-test SCAS scores of experimental and control groups (t(47)=1.261; p=0.214>0.05). These findings show that the groups display similar characteristics according to the pre-test scores and that there is no significant difference between the groups.
Table 2. Comparison of experimental and control groups' post-test scores
AAT
SLMS
SCAS
Group
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Exp. Group
17.28
4.10
103.84
7.32
95.64
10.35
Control Group
11.29
4.45
98.33
10.59
90.16
13.28
Independent samples t-test results displayed that post-test AAT mean scores of the experimental group (M=17.28) were higher than those of the control group (M = 11.29) and that the difference was significant (t(47)=4.89; p=0.00 <0.05). Similarly, post-test SLMS mean scores of the experimental group (103.84) were higher than those of the control group (M=98.33) and the difference was significant (t(47)=2.12; p=0.03<0.05). No meaningful differences were detected between the post-test SCAS mean scores of the experimental group (M=95.64) and the post-test SCAS mean scores of the control group (M=90.16) (t(47)=1,612; p=0.114>0.05).
Paired samples t-test was carried out undertaken to identify whether there were significant differences among the AAT, SLMS, and SACS pre and post-test scores of the experimental group and the findings are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of pre and post-test scores of the experimental group
AAT
SLMS
SCAS
Exp. Group
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Pre-test
8.72
3.04
102.48
6.81
90.68
9.83
Post-test
17.28
4.10
103.84
7.32
95.64
10.35
Table 3 displays that there is a significant difference between the AAT pre-test and post-test mean scores of the experimental group in favor of the post-test (t(24)=-15.53; p=0.00<0.05). Paired-sample t-test results displayed that there is no significant difference between the SLMS pre-test and post-test mean scores of the experimental group following the jigsaw application (t(24)= -0.83; p=0.415>0.05). The results display that there is a significant increase between the SCAS pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group in favor of the post-test ( t(24)=-3.014; p=0.006<0.05).
Covariance analysis (ANCOVA) was implemented on data to determine whether statistically meaningful differences existed between experimental and control groups’ post-test AAT scores when the pre-test AAT, SLMS and SCAS scores were controlled. Findings are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4. ANCOVA analysis results when the pre-test scores are controlled*
Source of Data
MS
df
F
Sig.
Model
212.061
4
20.604
0.000
Intercept
13.200
1
1.283
0.264
AATpretest**
406.755
1
39.521
0.000
SLMSpretest**
4.053
1
0.394
0.534
SCASpretest**
1.895
1
0.184
0.670
Group
407.119
1
39.556
0.000
Error
10.292
44
*R2= 0.652 (Adjusted R2 = 0.620) **Controlled variables
According to Table 4, the implemented model is meaningful (p=0.00) and the model explains 65 % of the academic achievement (R2= 0.652). The results of ANCOVA analysis display that the jigsaw technique had a meaningful impact on the experimental group students’ academic achievement when the pre-test scores of groups were controlled (p = 0.000 < 0.01).
