Chapter IV Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation With a view to fulfil the Objectives of the study and to test the Hypotheses, data were collected on Errors committed in English language and on various other aspects related to social, personal and psychological areas from the selected sample of 400 XI grade students of 19 schools of the three randomly selected districts of Punjab namely Amritsar, Hoshiarpur and Sangrur. These were collected as per the tools and means mentioned in Chapter III and Appendices 1 to 4 and quantified and subjected to Descriptive and Differential analyses as mentioned also in Chapter III. The data thus quantified and processed are presented in this chapter in the form of Tables pertaining to different variables. The presentation of Data follows in Seriatim.
4.1
Errors of students of Grade XI in written English: To achieve Objectives 1 and 2, a self-constructed test, Test of Errors in
Written English language, as described in Chapter III, was administered to XI grade students of Punjab. The students had Punjabi as their Mother Tongue and medium of instruction. The test was administered to 400 students of three randomly selected Districts of the Punjab as per the Sample description in Chapter III. It calls for mentioning here that each of the five areas of the test, namely Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar, carries 20 marks and a subject can, thus, get a maximum of 100 scores on this test. Also, since it is a test of errors, a higher score on this test shows a lower proficiency in the target language. The scores of individual areas and the total score for the entire test were computed separately as well as collectively and entered in the slots at the end of the test as per the decided procedure fixed in Chapter III.
4.1.1 Distribution of Scores of Errors in English To check normality of distribution of scores, descriptive statistics namely Distribution of Frequencies, Mean, Median, SD, Skewness and Kurtosis were worked out on the scores of Total Errors in English language of Total Sample (N=400). The values have been entered in Tables 2 and 3 (on page 104) and presented graphically in Figure 2 (on page 105).
103
Table 2: Distribution of Absolute and Smoothed Frequencies of Scores on Total Errors (N=400). Multiple Type Error Scores
Absolute Frequencies
Smoothed Frequencies
73 – 77
5
7.33
68 - 72
17
21.33
63 – 67
42
38.00
58 – 62
55
50.66
53 – 57
55
50.00
48 – 52
40
43.66
43 – 47
36
45.66
38 – 42
61
48.00
33 – 37
47
41.66
28 – 32
17
26.00
23 – 27
14
12.66
18 – 22
7
8.33
13 – 17
4
3.66
Table 3: Mean, Median, SD, Skewness and Kurtosis for Scores of Multiple Type Errors in English by Grade XI students (Total Sample). Variable Total Errors in English
Mean
Median
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
48.45
49
13.07
-0.23
-0.68
As posted in Table 3 above, the value of Mean of Errors in English by the Grade XI students of Punjab was 48.45 and the Median was 49. A minor difference of 0.55 was observed in the values of Mean and Median which is also borne out by the numerical determinant of Skewness which stands at -0.23. Although the distribution is negatively skewed, yet, the value is small to the point of being negligible. The value of Kurtosis is -0.68 which means the distribution is slightly
104
Leptokurtic which means the group is Homogenous; but the value is quite close to .263, the value of Kurtosis for a normal distribution. Thus, very minor divergences were observed in the various measures of Scores of Errors from those of a Normal distribution, but these were not significant enough to be taken as real discrepancies and could safely be attributed to sampling fluctuations. Hence the data were considered normally distributed. This is also confirmed by the Frequency Polygon drawn to show the trend of distribution of Error Scores in Figure 2. 70
Frequencies
60
Frequencies
50 40
Smoothed Frequencies
30 20 10 0 Class Intervals
Figure 2: The Smoothed Curve showing Distribution of Frequencies of Total Error Scores
4.1.2 Large Number of Errors in English A systematic and exact interpretation of the collected errors of students in English by means of the Test of English mentioned above and in Chapter III necessitated first defining “a large number of errors”. As mentioned also in Chapter III, after a lot of research of similar studies, deliberations with experts and taking into account of the practicalities and other issues, it was decided that if the scores of errors by an individual or a particular group in any given area of errors were greater than the Median value of errors by the total sample (N = 400) for that area, the individual or the group would be considered to have committed a large number of errors in that particular area of errors. The number and percentage of the XI grade students of government run schools of Punjab making a large number of errors in Total errors and in specific areas are as given in Table 4 on page 106.
105
Table 4: Numbers and Percentages of Students making large numbers of Errors in English
Mean
Median
Number of Students out of 400
Translation
10.16
10
156
39.00 %
Punctuation
7.52
7
186
46.50 %
Spelling
10.9
11
175
43.75 %
Vocabulary
9.24
9
189
47.25 %
Grammar
10.62
10
199
49.75 %
Total Errors
48.45
49
196
49.00 %
Type of Error
Percentage of Students
Table 4 gives the numbers of students who made large numbers of Errors in Total as well as in specific areas of Errors in English. For this the numbers of students making a higher number of errors than the Median value of errors of that particular type by the Total Sample were considered. The Mean value for Total Errors in English was 48.45 and the Median value for the same was 49 and a total of 196 students or 49.00 % of the studied sample committed a large number of errors. The number and percentage of students making a large number of errors in specific areas of errors viz., Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were also calculated and recorded in Table 4. As Table 4 further indicates, the Mean value of errors in the area of Translation stood at 10.16 and the corresponding Median value was 10, and 156 or 39.00 % students made a large number of errors in this area. Further, the Mean value of errors in the area of Punctuation was 7.52 and the Median value stood at 7. The number of students making a large number of errors in this area was 186 or 46.50 %.
106
In the area of Spellings, the Mean of scores on errors was the highest at 10.9. The Median, also at the highest, was at 11 and 175 or 43.75% students made a large number of errors in this area. The Mean score of errors in the area of Vocabulary was found to be 9.24 with a Median value of 9. The number of students making a large number of errors in the area of Vocabulary was 189 or 47.25%. In the area of Grammar, the values of Mean score on errors and Median were 10.62 and 10 respectively and a total of 199 or 49.75% students made a large number of errors in this area. The above discussion leads to the inference that large numbers of errors are committed by students of grade XI in written English work in vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, functional grammar and translation. The above finding is also in tune with the Punjab School Education Board Matric class results of (Regular) students in the subject of English as presented in Table 5 (below) and Table 6 (on page 108). Here, it is pertinent to mention that the students comprising the sample for the present investigation were those who passed their Matric examination in the year 2006 in which year 39.70 percent of students could not achieve as little as 33 % of marks, the cut off limit by the PSEB to pass the examination. Table 5: Pass percentage of Punjab School Education Board (Regular) students in English in Matric class for years 2005 to 2009 Subject
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
English
60.42
60.30
65.08
75.02
86.08
Table 5 above also indicates that the PSEB students’ pass percentage in the subject of English, though steadily increasing over the years, is yet far from satisfactory because keeping in mind the importance of English language at the
107
international levels, the number of students failing in this subject is still around 14 percent which by any standards is quite large. Table 6: Analysis of marks of the Punjab School Education Board (Regular) students’ in English in 2009
Marks in English
Between 0 and 20
Between 21 and 40
Between 41 and 60
Between 61 and 80
Between 81 and 100
Percent of Students
8%
37 %
37 %
15 %
3%
Table 6 analyses the marks in English in the year 2009 by showing the percentage of students getting marks below a particular number or between two numbers. Table 6 reveals that although the percentage of students getting marks between 0 and 20 marks is 8 percent, which means that out of a total of 234473 students taking the exam, 18758 students got 80 percent or more things wrong in their exams. Similarly, the percentage of students getting marks between 21 and 40 is 37 percent. We must remember that the minimum pass marks in this exam are 33 and at 13.92 percent, 32639 students failed to get 33 percent things right. The percentage of students getting marks between 41 and 60 was also 37 percent and the students securing marks between 61 and 80 percent was only 15 percent which by all standards is low and needs to be improved substantially. Just 3 percent of the total students could manage to score 81 or more marks; obviously, this also is a very small figure of students in a subject where international levels of competence is required to be counted successful. Further, the test scores were analyzed in light of the different variables of the study also and subjected to Descriptive and Inferential statistical analyses as detailed earlier in Chapter III. Description of the same is as follows:
4.1.3 Errors in English in relation to Locale A school or student was identified as either Rural or Urban on the basis of the records of local administration. Semi-urban and semi-rural localities were excluded to avoid any confusion.
108
Since the sample was collected through the Proportionate to Population Size (PPS) sampling technique, there were 280 rural and 120 urban students. To compare the Errors in English by Urban and Rural students, the numbers and percentages of students making “large number of errors” in the total and separate areas were computed for each group and compared as in Table 7. Table 7: Numbers and Percentages of Urban and Rural Students making large numbers of Errors in English
Error Type
Urban (N =120)
Median
Rural (N = 280)
Mean
Number
%age
Mean
Number
%age
Translation
10
9.20
30
25.00%
10.74
146
52.14%
Punctuation
7
5.79
17
14.17%
8.37
176
62.86%
Spelling
11
8.52
17
14.17%
12.00
164
58.57%
Vocabulary
9
7.48
18
15.00%
10.05
172
61.63%
Grammar
10
8.42
26
21.67%
11.73
177
63.21%
Total Errors
49
40.33
22
18.33%
51.93
182
65.00%
From Table 7, it follows that the Median for Total Errors by the total sample (N = 400) was 49 and the Medians for Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 10, 7, 11, 9 and 10 respectively. The number of Urban students making a large number of errors in the Total errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 22, 30, 17, 17, 18 and 26 in the same order. In terms of percentages, 18.33%, 25%, 14.17%, 14.17%, 15%, 21.67% of Urban students made a large number of errors in English. The corresponding numbers and percentages of Rural students for the Total errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 182, 146, 176, 164, 172, 177 and 65%, 52.14%, 62.86%, 58.57%, 61.63%, 63.21%, respectively. A perusal of the above numbers and percentages illustrates that between 14 and 25 percent of Urban students make large number of errors in English whereas among the Rural students, between 52 and 65 percent students make a large number of errors. This suggests that quite high numbers (or percentages) of both Urban and Rural students make large numbers of errors in English.
109
Figure 3 plots the Mean scores of the Urban and Rural students’ errors in different areas of English language. 14
Mean Scores of Errors in English
12 12
11.73
Urban
Rural
10.74 10.05
10
9.2 8.37
8.52
8.42 7.48
8 5.79
6 4 2 0
Translation Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Errors in different areas of written English
Figure 3: Bar graph showing difference in Errors in English of Urban and Rural students.
To find out the statistical significance of the differences between group means for the Urban and Rural students, t tests were applied. The findings are tabulated in Table 8. Table 8: Significance of Difference between the Mean Scores of Errors in English of Urban and Rural students Urban (N = 120) Mean SD
Rural (N = 280) Mean SD
Translation
9.20
2.80
10.74
Punctuation
5.79
1.96
Spelling
8.52
Vocabulary
Types of Errors
t- Value
Level of Significance
2.08
6.05
**
08.37
2.50
10.05
**
2.89
12.00
3.60
9.34
**
7.48
2.45
10.05
3.08
8.06
**
Grammar
8.42
3.19
11.73
3.47
8.94
**
Total Errors
40.33
10.57
51.93
12.49
9.51
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant
110
Table 8 shows that the Mean scores on Errors in the areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors of the Urban students of grade XI of government run schools were respectively 9.2, 5.79, 8.52, 7.48, 8.42 and 40.33 while the SD’s for the same were 2.8, 1.96, 2.89, 2.45, 3.19 and 10.57. The corresponding Mean scores on Errors in the areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar and Total Errors of the Rural students were 10.74, 8.37, 12, 10.05, 11.73 and 51.93 whereas their respective SD’s were 2.08, 2.50, 3.60, 3.08, 3.47 and 12.49. As is evident also from Table 8 above, the Mean scores of Urban students were less than the Mean scores of their Rural counterparts across all six areas of Errors in English under study: Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors. This means that the Urban students make fewer errors in their use of English as compared to the Rural students. It may also be noted that the mean scores of Rural students across all areas of Errors are uniformly 1.54 (Translation) to 3.48 (Spelling) Mean scores higher than those of the Urban students. This gives a fair idea of how much more errors Rural students make in their written English. It also reveals that the pattern of errors for the Rural and Urban students is nearly the same. In other words, the areas like Translation, Spelling and Grammar where Urban students make more errors, Rural students also make more errors; likewise, in the areas like Vocabulary and Punctuation, where the Urban students make comparatively fewer errors, Rural students also make fewer errors. The t-values calculated in respect of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors were 6.05, 10.05, 9.34, 8.06, 8.94 and 9.51 and, for all areas of Errors are Significant at .01 level. Statistically, these differences, studied through t-tests, are significant at .01 level in all areas of errors. Inferences From the above discussion it can be concluded that: 1. Urban and Rural students differ significantly in their Errors in English. 2. The Rural students make significantly more errors in their use of English language than the Urban students. These findings are corroborated by the finding of study by Bose (2005) which stated that there exist real differences in the performance of language of the Urban
111
and Rural students. The study also showed that for all the classes, Urban students displayed better competence in English than the rural students. The result is confirmed by empirical data of the PSEB matriculation results also. Table 9 below compares the pass percentages of Urban and Rural students for the years 2007 to 2009. Table 9: Comparison of Pass percentages in English of Urban and Rural students in PSEB Matric Examination Year
Pass percentage of Urban Students
Pass percentage of Rural Students
2009
89.26
82.86
2008
77.16
72.91
2007
67.68
62.47
The table provides evidence that the Urban students have a better pass percentage as compared to the Rural students. Even in general classroom behaviour and tests, it is observed that the Urban students score better in English than the Rural students which implies that the Urban students make fewer errors in their use of English language. The better achievement of Urban students in English language could possibly be attributed to a number of factors like high level of motivation to learn the language; higher levels of competition at school, better teachers and teaching environment at schools (being easily accessible, the government schools in urban areas are far more consistently monitored by the supervising authorities than the remote rural ones); easy access to private tutors; comparatively higher socioeconomic status than that of their rural counterparts and a better linguistic environment to learn from and practice in the English language. It must be added here that the above reasons have not been listed as the results of this study and having been proposed purely on hypothecation on the basis of the review of previous studies, they may require validation from further research. 4.1.4 Errors in English in relation to Gender The number of Male and Female students in the final selected sample was 200 each.
112
Comparison of the errors in English by Male and Female students in terms of numbers and percentages of students in either group making a “large number of errors” in the different studied types of errors is tabulated in Table 10. Table 10: Numbers and Percentages of Male and Female Students making large numbers of Errors in English
Types of Errors
Median
Translation
Male (N = 200)
Female (N = 200)
Mean
Number
%age
Mean
Number
%age
10
11.14
115
57.50%
9.41
61
30.35%
Punctuation
7
8.20
112
56.00%
6.99
81
40.50%
Spelling
11
12.23
120
60.00%
9.68
61
30.50%
Vocabulary
9
10.44
127
63.50%
8.12
68
34.00%
Grammar
10
11.95
128
64.00%
9.52
75
37.50%
Total Errors
49
52.35
129
64.50%
44.56
75
37.50%
As is evident from Table 10, the Median values for Total Errors by the total sample (N = 400) was 49 and the Median values for Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 10, 7, 11, 9 and 10 respectively. The numbers and percentages of Male students making a large number of errors in the Total errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 129, 115, 112, 120, 127, 128 and 64.50%, 57.50%, 56.00%, 60.00%, 63.50% and 64.00% respectively whereas the corresponding numbers and percentages of Female students making large number of errors in the Total errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were 75, 61, 81, 61, 68, 75 and 37.50%, 30.35%, 40.50%, 30.50%, 34.00% and 37.50% respectively. A scrutiny of the above numbers and percentages reveals that among the Female students, between 30.35% and 40.50% students make large number of errors; however, in case of the Male students the percentages of students making large number of errors run between 56.00 and 64.50 This suggests that fairly high percentages of both Male and Female students make large numbers of errors in English. Figure 4 (on page 114) represents the Mean scores of the Male and Female students’ errors in different areas of English language in graphic form.
113
14
Male
Mean Scores of Errors in English
12.23 12
11.95
11.14
Female
10.44 10
9.68
9.41
9.52
8.2 8
8.12 6.99
6 4 2 0 Translation Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Errors in different areas of written English
Figure 4: Bar graph showing difference in Errors in English of Male and Female students.
To analyze the statistical significance of the differences in the Mean scores of Errors of different types in English by Male and Female grade XI students of Punjab, t tests were applied whose findings are as given in Table 11. Table 11: Significance of Difference between the Mean Scores of Errors in English of Male and Female students Types of Errors
Males (N = 200) Mean SD
Females (N = 200) Mean SD
Translation
11.14
2.15
9.41
Punctuation
8.20
2.56
Spelling
12.23
Vocabulary
t- Value
Level of Significance
2.37
7.60
**
6.99
2.57
4.72
**
3.57
9.68
3.5
7.24
**
10.44
2.86
8.12
2.96
7.92
**
Grammar
11.95
3.38
9.52
3.63
6.92
**
Total Errors
52.35
12.31
44.56
12.67
6.23
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Table 11 reports and compares the Mean scores of errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar and Total Errors by the Male and
114
Female grade XI students of government run schools of the three randomly selected districts of Punjab. The Mean scores on Errors of the Male students in Total Errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar were respectively 52.35, 11.14, 8.2, 12.23, 10.44 and 11.95 while the SD’s for the same were 12.31, 2.15, 2.56, 3.57, 2.86 and 3.38. The corresponding Mean scores on Errors in the areas of Total Errors, Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar of the Female students are 44.56, 9.41, 6.99, 9.68, 8.12 and 9.52 whereas their respective SD’s are 12.67, 2.37, 2.57, 3.5, 2.96 and 3.63. The mean scores of Male students were higher than those of the Female students in all six studied types of Errors which means that the Male students make more errors in writing English than the Female students. However, like in the case of the errors of Urban and Rural students, the areas of Highest incidence of errors for the Male and Female students are also Translation, Spelling and Grammar and the areas of comparatively Lower incidence of errors are Vocabulary and Punctuation; Punctuation being the area of the Lowest incidence of errors. The t-values calculated in respect of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total errors were 6.23, 7.60, 4.72, 7.24, 7.92, 6.92 and 6.23 and, for all areas of Errors were Significant at .01 level. The obtained t-values in all five areas of Errors namely Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar being found to be much higher than 2.58, the value for significance at .01 level, implies that the two groups of Male and Female students differ significantly in their Errors in English. Inferences From the above results, it can be safely inferred that: 1. Male and Female students differ significantly in their Errors in English. 2. The Male students make more errors in their use of English language than the Female students. The findings are supported by the results of
the previous researches by
Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), Denno (1982), Boyle (1987), Joshi (1995), Cole (1997) and Dua and Sharma (2006) which collectively suggest that Females show better performance in use of Languages, their own or foreign.
115
The fact is also borne out by the comparison of the PSEB Matric pass percentages in English of Male and Female students for the years 2007 to 2009 as given below in Table 12. Table 12: Comparison of Pass percentages in English of Male and Female students in PSEB Matric Examination Year
Pass percentage of Male Students
Pass percentage of Female Students
2009
83.88
88.28
2008
71.94
78.08
2007
60.04
70.12
The entries in Table 12 confirm that the pass percentages of the Male students are lower than those of the Female students for all three years from 2007 to 2009. It again verifies the result of the study that the Male students make significantly more errors in English than the Female students. The potential explanation for why Females commit fewer errors in use of languages may lie in the fact that with quite restricted opportunities for recreation, Females usually tend to become more voracious readers than the Males and it has been repeatedly established that more extensive a learner reads, the better he becomes at use of that language. Also, possessing higher levels of motivations to achieve in academics, Females are routinely observed to put in far more labor than the Males in learning of languages which are an integral part of the school curriculum. Females may also have a knack for a more skillful use of language because they are more socializing by temperament and also because it may help them in their roles as mothers. Since the above reasons are just hypothesized explanations of the phenomenon, they may be validated through further researches.
4.1.5 Errors in English in relation to Caste
116
For identifying Non-SC and SC students, castes notified as Scheduled in The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (C.O. 19) and mentioned in the school records was considered. The number of Non-SC students was 288 and that of SC students 112. Errors in English by SC and Non-SC students were compared and differentiated in terms of numbers and percentages of students making a large number of errors and test of significance of Means of test scores. Comparison of numbers and percentages of SC and Non-SC students making large number of errors in different types of errors is presented in Table 13. Table 13: Numbers and Percentages of SC and Non-SC Students making large numbers of Errors in English Types of Errors
Median
Translation
SC (N = 112)
Non-SC (N = 288)
Mean
Number
%age
Mean
Number
%age
10
11.12
64
57.14%
9.51
112
38.89%
Punctuation
7
8.96
84
75.00%
7.07
67
23.26%
Spelling
11
13.30
80
71.43%
10.04
101
35.07%
Vocabulary
9
10.80
85
75.89%
8.69
110
38.19%
Grammar
10
12.98
91
81.25%
9.86
112
38.89%
Total Errors
49
54.48
88
78.57%
46.10
116
40.27%
Table 13 divulges that respectively 57.14% (64), 75.00% (84), 71.43% (80), 75.89% (85), 81.25% (91), 78.57% (88)
of SC students made large number of
errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar, Total Errors while among the Non-SC students, 38.89% (112), 23.26% (67), 35.07% (101), 38.19% (110), 38.89% (112), 40.27% (116) made large number of errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar, Total Errors. These data reveal that between 23.26 and 40.27 percent of Non-SC students and between 57.14 and 81.25 percent of SC students make large number of errors in English implying that very high percentages of both SC and Non-SC students make large numbers of errors in English.
117
Figure 5 represents the Mean scores of the SC and Non-SC (General) students’ errors in different areas of English language. 13.3
Mean Scores of Errors in English
14 12
12.98 SC
11.12 9.51
10
Non-SC
10.8 10.04
9.86
8.96
8
8.69
7.07
6 4 2 0 Translation Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Errors in different areas of written English
Figure 5: Bar graph showing difference in Errors in English of SC and Non-SC students.
Table 14 below posts and compares the Mean scores of errors in different areas in English viz. Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar of the SC and General (Non-SC) students of XI grade of government run schools. Table 14: Significance of Difference between the Mean Scores of Errors in English of SC and Non-SC students Types of Errors
SC (N = 112) Mean SD
Non-SC (N = 288) Mean SD
Translation
11.12
2.09
9.51
Punctuation
8.96
2.13
Spelling
13.30
Vocabulary
t- Value
Level of Significance
2.45
6.11
**
7.07
2.61
6.72
**
2.93
10.04
3.64
8.47
**
10.80
2.11
8.69
3.26
6.35
**
Grammar
12.98
2.81
9.86
3.62
8.21
**
Total Errors
54.48
9.69
46.10
13.47
6.93
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant
118
As is observable from Table 14, 112 SC students’ errors were studied, their Mean scores for the areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors were respectively 11.12, 8.96, 13.30, 10.80, 12.98 and 54.48 and their SD’s for the same were 2.09, 2.13, 2.93, 2.11, 2.81 and 9.69. The analogous Mean scores of errors by the 288 General (Non-SC) students were 9.51, 7.07, 10.04, 8.69, 9.86 and 46.10. The corresponding SD’s for the General students were 2.45, 2.61, 3.64, 3.26, 3.62 and 13.47. The differences in the Mean scores of the SC and the General (Non-SC) students vary from 1.61 (Translation) to 3.26 (Spelling) Mean scores and is in favour of the SC students. Since the Mean scores of the SC students are higher than those of the NonSC students in all areas of errors, it is suggested that the SC students make more errors in their use of English language. The t-values in areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar stood at 6.11, 6.72, 8.47, 6.35, 8.21 and 6.93 and, for all types of Errors were Significant at .01 level. The t-values obtained to establish the significance of differences in the errors of the two groups in the different areas are all significant at .01 level which means that the differences between the errors of the two groups are statistically significant. Inferences The above discussion leads to the inferences that: 1. SC and Non-SC (General) students differ significantly in their Errors in English. 2. The SC students make more errors in their use of English language than the Non-SC (General) students. Though there have been no previous studies to directly affirm or rebut/ contend the findings, several studies have repeatedly confirmed the positive correlation between high SES and achievement in language. Since most of the times the SC students aren’t seen to possess high SES, the high incidence of errors is in their English writings is explainable. The result is in compliance with the empirical data of the PSEB matriculation results for the past 3 years as given in Table 15 on page 120 which compares the
119
pass percentages of the SC and the Non-SC (General) students’ results in English language in the Matric examination in the years 2007 to 2009. Table 15: Comparison of Pass percentages in English of SC and General (NonSC) students in PSEB Matric Examination Year
Pass percentage of SC Students
Pass percentage of General Students
2009
80.60
91.56
2008
68.56
81.48
2007
59.14
71.02
Entries in Table 15 confirm that the pass percentages of the SC students are lower than those of the Non-SC students for all three years from 2007 to 2009. It verifies the result of the study that the SC students make significantly more errors in English than the Non-SC (General) students. The higher number of errors in use of English by the SC students may be explained by the facts that usually belonging to comparatively lower Socio-economic status, these students have neither the supportive socio-linguistic conditions nor the means to get private tuitions. Also, owing to their typical socio-psychological circumstances, they are often times observed to possess lower levels of motivation to excel in academics, hence the lower achievement in language also. There might be more plausible reasons to explain the phenomenon and those listed above have been extended by the investigator purely on his hypothecation on the basis of his study of related researches; as such, these may be properly investigated and established first before being utilized for any purposes.
4.1.6 Errors in English in relation to Cognitive Style Cognitive Style: The present investigation used the Field Dependent-Field Independent construct of Cognitive Styles and used the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to extract the relevant data on the variable/ dimension. As already mentioned in detail in Chapter III, the GEFT was developed by Herman A. Witkin, Philip K. Oltman, Evelyn Raskin and Stephen A. Karp in 1971 in the USA and at present is perhaps the most widely accepted test of measurement
120
for the cognitive styles of field-independence and field-dependence, particularly for research in second language acquisition. Scoring of the GEFT: The score on GEFT is the total number of simple forms correctly traced in Second and Third Sections combined. Subjects with a score of 12 or more are classified as FI individuals, and subjects with a score of 11 or less are classified as FD individuals. Out of a total sample of 400 XI grade students, 253 students were identified as Field Dependent and 147 students as Field Independent. The same is presented in tabular form as below: Percentages of FI and FD students in the sample: Cognitive Style
Field Independent
Field Dependent
Total
Number of Students
254
146
400
Percentage
63.50%
36.50%
100%
Researches like those by Jantarska (2006), Nodoushan (2006), Shermila (2006 c), Altun and Cakan (2006), Mancy and Reid (2004), Honeyman and Miller (1998), Brenner (1997) attest that these ratios are quite normal for any sufficiently large and varied group. The Field Dependent students prefer discussion method, are less adept at learning and using rules and perform best on intuitive tasks. In comparison, the Field Independent students prefer the lecture method, are more adept at learning and using rules and perform best on analytical language tasks. In other words, Field Independent students usually perform better in the formal classrooms and exams. As earlier, Errors in English by Field Dependent and Field Independent students were compared and differentiated in terms of numbers and percentages of students making a large number of errors and test of significance of Means of test scores.
121
Comparison of the numbers and percentages of students making “large number of errors” in English is presented as in Table 16. Table 16: Numbers and Percentages of FI and FD Students making large numbers of Errors in English Types of Errors
Median
Translation
Field Independent (FI) (N = 146)
Field Dependent (FD) (N = 254)
Mean
Number
%age
Mean
Number
%age
10
9.03
34
23.29%
11.00
142
55.91%
Punctuation
7
6.22
39
26.71%
8.39
154
60.63%
Spelling
11
9.52
47
32.19%
11.79
134
52.76%
Vocabulary
9
8.01
48
32.87%
10.02
147
57.87%
Grammar
10
9.01
47
32.19%
11.74
156
61.42%
Total Errors
49
41.17
50
34.25%
52.63
154
60.63%
Table 16 divulges that respectively 23.29% (34), 26.71 (39), 32.19% (47), 32.87% (48), 32.19% (47) and 34.25% (50) of the Field Independent students made large number of errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors while among the Field Dependent students, 55.91% (142), 60.63% (154), 52.76% (134), 57.87% (147), 61.42% (156) and 60.63% (154) made large number of errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors. The above numbers and percentages point up that between 23.29 and 34.25 percent of FI students make large number of errors in English whereas among the FD students, between 52.76 and 61.42 percent students make a large number of errors; implying thereby that high numbers (or percentages) of both FI and FD students make large numbers of errors in English. Figure 6 (on page 123) presents in relief the Mean scores of the Field Dependent and Field Independent students’ errors in different areas of English language.
122
Mean Scores of Errors in English
14 11.79
12 10
11.74
FI
FD
11 9.03
9.52 8.39
10.02 9.01 8.01
8 6.22 6 4 2 0 Translation Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Errors in different areas of written English
Figure 6: Bar graph showing difference in Errors in English of Field Independent and Field Dependent students.
The Mean Scores of Errors in English of the Field Independent and Field Dependent grade XI students of Punjab were also compared to examine whether there exists any Statistically Significant difference in their Errors in English. The results are given in Table 17 hereunder. Table 17: Significance of Difference between the Mean Scores of Errors in English of FI and FD students FI (N = 146) Mean SD
FD (N = 254) Mean SD
Translation
9.03
2.37
11.00
Punctuation
6.22
2.30
Spelling
9.52
Vocabulary
Types of Errors
t- Value
Level of Significance
2.14
8.52
**
8.39
2.48
8.67
**
3.90
11.79
3.42
6.09
**
8.01
3.08
10.02
2.93
6.43
**
Grammar
9.01
3.76
11.74
3.30
7.56
**
Total Errors
41.17
12.77
52.63
11.31
9.02
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Table 17 above records and compares the Mean scores of errors in different areas in English viz. Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and
123
Total Errors of the Field Dependent and Field Independent students to establish the significance of differences in the errors of the two groups in the different areas. Mean scores of errors of Field Dependent students (N = 254) in the areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors were respectively 11, 8.39, 11.79, 10.02, 11.74 and 52.63 and their SD’s for the same were 2.14, 2.48, 3.42, 2.93, 3.3 and 11.31. The Mean scores of errors in the same areas by the Field Independent students were respectively 9.03, 6.22, 9.52, 8.01, 9.01 and 41.17. The corresponding SD’s for the same students were 2.37, 2.3, 3.9, 3.08, 3.76 and 12.77. The differences in the Mean scores of Field Dependent and Field Independent students varied from 1.97 (Translation) to 2.73 (Grammar) Mean scores and was in favour of the Field Dependent students. Since the Mean scores of the Field Dependent students were higher than those of the Field Independent students in all areas of errors, it implies that the Field Dependent students make more errors in their use of English language. The t-values in areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Grammar are 8.52, 8.67, 6.09, 6.43, 7.56 and 9.02; all of which were Significant at .01 level which means that the differences between the errors of the Field Dependent and Field Independent students as groups are statistically significant. Inferences The above discussion leads to the deductions that: 1. Field Dependent and Field Independent students differ significantly in their Errors in English. 2. Field Dependent students make more errors in their use of English language than the Field Independent students. These findings are in consonance with the general Theory of Field Dependence/ Independence and Language by Garger and Guild (1987), Willing (1988), Chen and Macredie (2002), Pithers (2002) which has repeatedly affirmed that the FI learners have a clear advantage in formal L2 classrooms and final written exams (Brown 1994 c, Chapelle 1995). The results also go with the findings of the previous studies like those by Devaki and Ramaswamy 1990 which unequivocally states the relation of degree of FD and the proneness and incidence of errors in English as Second Language; by Jamieson (1992) which also provided continuing evidence for the positive
124
relationship between FI and English-as-Second-Language Proficiency and by Tinajero and Paramo (1997) which studied 408 middle school students’ achievement in English and other subjects and once again asserted that FI students outperformed their FD counterparts. The reason why the FI learners outperform the FD learners in linguistic achievement at school is that the FI learners prefer the lecture method; are more adept at learning and using the rules; perform best on analytical language tasks like understanding and using correct syntactical structures, semantic ordering of words, etc; perceive analytically; have self defined goals and handle the abstract and impersonal material quite well – all of which give them a distinct edge in the common classroom teaching and learning of all subjects in general and in languages in particular.
4.1.7 Errors in English in relation to Hemisphericity Hemisphericity: The present investigation used the term Hemisphericity as synonymous to Cerebral Dominance to mean Left, Right or Whole Brain dominance in a subject’s Style of Learning and Thinking; which meant that the students could be Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant. For the purpose of gathering quantifiable data on the hemishpericities or cerebral dominance of the students, the Indian version of the SOLAT (Style of Learning and Thinking) test developed by Dr D. Venkataraman in 1994 was employed. Scoring on SOLAT In the SOLAT test, for each item, there are two statements, checking of the first item indicates right hemisphere; second item indicates left hemisphere and checking of both the items indicates integrated hemisphere or whole brain. For every student, the total number of Left, Right and Whole indicated statements were counted and the student was declared Left, Right or Whole brain dominant on the basis of the highest score in the three categories of dominance. Out of a studied sample of 400 XI grade students drawn from 19 Senior Secondary Schools of 3 randomly selected districts of Punjab, 126 students or 31.5 % were found to be Left Brain Dominant, 245 students or 61.25 % were Right Brain Dominant and 29 students or 7.25 % were Whole Brain Dominant students. All of
125
these figures are quite close to the normally occurring percentages of Hemishpericity or Cerebral Dominance (Holder 2005; The Encyclopedia Britannica (g) 2006). The split up of the sample in terms of Brain dominance is presented in tabular form as given below: Cerebral Dominance
Left Brain Dominant
Right Brain Dominant
Whole Brain Dominant
Total
Number of Students
126
245
29
400
Percentage
31.50%
61.25%
7.25%
100%
The Left Brain is usually associated with verbal processing i.e. responding to speech and uses words whereas the Right Brain is associated with non-verbal or visual, spatial processing i.e. responding to pictures, colors, shapes, creativity. So, it is usually inferred that the left-brained analytical thinkers will make good linguists but will lack communicative fluency or that the right brained global thinkers will be inaccurate or that those with bilateral dominance will have an advantage in language learning. Comparison of Errors in English by the Left, Right and Whole brain dominant students in terms of the numbers and percentages of the students making “large number of errors” in different areas of English is made vide Table 18 on page 127. As is evident from Table 18, the percentages of Left Brain dominant students making a large number of errors in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors were 19.05 % (24), 23.81% (30), 30.16% (38), 30.16% (38), 29.37% (37) and 30.16% (38). The analogous percentages for the Right Brain dominant students stood at 56.73% (139), 61.63% (151), 53.06% (130), 58.37% (143), 62.45% (153) and 62.04% (152) whereas the corresponding percentages for the Whole Brain dominant students were found to be 44.83% (13), 41.38% (12), 44.83% (13), 48.28% (14), 44.83% (13) and 48.28% (14). A scrutiny of the above data underlines that between 19.05 and 30.16 percent of Left Brain dominant students, between 41.38 and 48.28 percent of Whole Brain dominant students, and between 53.06 and 62.45 percent of Right Brain dominant students make “large number of errors” in English; implying thereby that high numbers (or percentages) of Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students make large numbers of errors in English.
126
Table 18
127
Figure 7 represents (and compares) the Mean scores of errors in different areas of English language by Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students. 14
Left Brain 11.88
Mean Scores of Errors in English
12 10
11.06 10.1 8.79
11.87
10.86 10.11 9.19
8.86
8.46
9.97 8.7
7.77
8
Right Brain
Whole Brain
7.1 6.02
6 4 2 0 Translation
Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Errors in different areas of written English
Figure 7: Bar graph showing difference in Errors in English of Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students.
To determine the significance of differences among means of errors in areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors of the Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students concurrently, the inferential statistical technique of Analysis of Variance was employed. Since it was imperative to test the Mean scores and other measures of each area of errors as distinct and separate, Analyses of Variance were carried out / made for each area of errors separately. This necessitated use of One Way version of ANOVA with Hemisphericity as the Independent variable, the error scores of the Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students as the three statistically independent samples of subjects and the areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors each as the continuous or dependent variable. The ANOVA was employed in two steps: first, an over-all F test was carried out to determine if there was any significant difference existing among any of the means. If this F score was statistically significant, a series of Tukey's post-hoc tests were run to determine which means were significantly different from which other means.
128
In the following pages, for each of the six areas of Errors, the first table represents the ANOVA (F test) Summary, followed by the table of Summary of the Follow Up Tukey test. Hemisphericity and Translation Table 19 below lists the relevant Summary statistics of the F test to determine whether the three types of Hemisphericities – Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominance – have different (and significant) effects on the errors in Translation. The Sum of Squares value for Between the Groups (also called “explained” or “systematic”) variance representing the difference among the three groups (of the Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students) due to the Independent variable is 428.79. The Within Groups (or the “Error”) variance due to differences in individual samples is 1907.41. The Total Variation comprising the Sum of the Squares of the differences of each mean with the grand mean is 2336.20 and the degrees of freedom (df) are 2 and 397. The F score (ratio) is 44.62 and P, the Probability value for an F of this magnitude is less than 0.01. Since the Observed value of F (44.62) is far greater than the critical Table value of F with 2 and 397 degrees of freedom (4.66), it is interpreted as Significant at .01 level which indicates that the groups are statistically significantly different; implying that Hemisphericity or Cerebral Dominance has a significant effect on the number of errors a student makes in the area of Translation. Table 19: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Translation by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source between groups [Treatment] within groups [Error] Total [Corrected]
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
428.79
2
214.40
44.62
**
1907.41
397
4.80
2336.20
399
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Since the Analysis of Variance is intrinsically non-directional and doesn’t tell between which means the difference lies, for further evaluation of Mean differences, Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Singnificantly Difference) test – the commonest test to be applied in conjunction with an ANOVA – was applied.
129
The Tukey test tests all pairwise comparisons among means and finds which means are significant from one another. Since it is a single step multiple comparison test, the probability of Type I Errors stands significantly reduced than in multiple comparisons through t tests. Summary of Tukey’s test studying the significance of difference between the Mean scores of errors in Translation of Left Brain and Right Brain dominant students, Left Brain and Whole Brain dominant students and Right Brian and Whole Brain dominant students is given below in Table 20. Table 20: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Means of Errors in Translation by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
0.91
.01
1.13
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
8.79
Left vs Right
2.27
**
Right
11.06
Left vs Whole
1.31
**
Whole
10.10
Right vs Whole
0.96
*
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant As shown by Table 20, the required Critical measure of Q (the mean indicated absolute / unsigned difference values) which any group means difference (Larger Smaller) must be equal to or greater than to be considered significant at .05 and .01 levels are .091 and 1.13 respectively. The differences between the means of Left and Right, Left and Whole and Right and Whole Brain dominant groups stand at 2.27, 1.31, and 0.96 respectively and are considered significant at .01, .01 and .05 levels ad seriatim. Putting it in a different way, the differences in the errors in Translation of Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students are statistically significant. A perusal of the Mean Scores of Errors in Translation by students of different Hemisphericities (Left, Right and Whole Brain) connotes also that the Whole Brain students make more errors in Translation than the Left Brain students and the Right Brain students commit more errors in Translation than both Left and Whole Brain students. Hemisphericity and Punctuation
130
The multiple comparison Analysis of Variance F test was applied on the on scores of Errors in Punctuation by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students also, the summary of which is presented in Table 21 below. Table 21: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Punctuation by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source between groups [Treatment] within groups [Error] Total
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
506.78
2
253.39
44.56
**
2257.61
397
5.69
2764.39
399
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Table 21 above shows that for df (degrees of freedom) 2 and 397, the measure of F, signifying interaction among Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students stands at 44.56 and is significant at .01 level for the area of Punctuation. This implies that the studied Means of the groups differ substantially. To further determine which means are significantly different from which other means and what are the actual scores, Tukey’s HSD test was employed the results of which are summarized in Table 22 below. Table 22: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Means of Errors in Punctuation by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
0.99
.01
1.23
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
6.02
Left vs Right
2.44
**
Right
8.46
Left vs Whole
1.08
*
Whole
7.10
Right vs Whole
1.36
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Table 22 indicates that the required mean differences or values of Q at .05 and .01 levels are 0.99 and 1.23 respectively and comparing the actual mean differences between Left and Right, Left and Whole and Right and Whole Brain dominant students’ errors in Punctuation (2.44, 1.08 and 1.36 respectively) the
131
differences between the means of Left and Right and Right and Whole Brain dominant students are found to be significant at .01 level both whereas the difference between the means of Left and Whole Brain dominant students is found to be significant at .05 level. Table 22 further indicates that the Mean Scores of errors in Punctuation by Left, Right and Whole Brain students are 6.02, 8.46, 7.10 respectively; this implies that the Whole Brain students make more errors in Punctuation than the Left Brain students and the Right Brain students make more errors than both the Left and Whole Brain students. Hemisphericity and Spelling Summary of the results of the ANOVA F test on scores of Errors in Spelling by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students is presented in Table 23 below. Table 23: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Spelling by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source between groups [Treatment] within groups [Error] Total
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
601.07
2
300.54
23.72
**
5029.20
397
12.67
5630.28
399
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Table 23 shows that the calculated value of F is 23.72 and P is less than .01. Since the observed value of F is greater than the table value of an F with df 2 and 397, the aggregate differences among the means of the three samples – Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students – are regarded as significant beyond the .01 level and therefore necessitating the use of Tukey HSD test as a next step. Results of the HSD test on Means of Errors in Spelling by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students are summarized in Table 24 on page 133.
132
Table 24: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Means of Errors in Spelling by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
1.48
.01
1.84
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
9.19
Left vs Right
2.69
**
Right
11.88
Left vs Whole
1.69
*
Whole
10.86
Right vs Whole
1.02
NS
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant In Table 24, the Q values at .05 and .01 levels are 1.48 and 1.84 respectively. Comparing the measures of the observed differences between the Means of different pairs, it is observed that Means of Errors in Spelling by Left and Right Brain dominant students differ at .01 level of significance and those of Left and Whole Brain dominant students differ at .05 level of significance; however, no significant differences were observed in the Means of Errors in Spelling by the Right and Whole Brain dominant students. In the same table, the Mean Scores of Left, Right and Whole Brain students Spelling are 9.19, 11.88 and 10.86 respectively. It suggests that the Whole Brain students commit more errors in Spelling than the Left Brain students and the Right Brain students commit more errors in the same area than the Left and Whole Brain students. Hemisphericity and Vocabulary Interaction of Hemisphericity on errors in Vocabulary was also analysis through an analysis of variance F test on scores of Errors in Vocabulary by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students. Table 25 reports the summarized results of the test. Table 25: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Vocabulary by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
459.63
2
229.81
26.41
**
within groups
3455.01
397
8.70
Total
3914.64
399
between groups
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant
133
Table 25 indicates that the value of the F ratio is 26.41 and P is less than .01. The Observed value of F is far greater than the critical Table value of F with and alpha level of .01 and 2 and 397 degrees of freedom, and is therefore interpreted as Significant at .01 level which indicates that the groups are statistically significantly different. However, to determine whether the three means are all different or which of the three means is different from the other two, and by how much, Tukey’s post hoc test was employed a summary of which is presented in Table 26 under. Table 26: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Mean Scores of Errors in Vocabulary by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
1.22
.01
1.52
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
7.77
Left vs Right
2.34
**
Right
10.11
Left vs Whole
1.09
NS
Whole
8.86
Right vs Whole
1.25
*
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant Comparing the Mean differences in the Scores of Errors in Vocabulary by the different Hemisphericity groups with the computed Q values (1.22 at .05 level and 1.52 at .01 level), it is observed that the differences in Errors (in Vocabulary) of Left and Right and Right and Whole Brain dominant students are significant at .01 and .05 levels respectively, though the difference in the Errors in Vocabulary of Left and Whole Brain dominant students was not statistically significant. However, a comparison of the Mean Scores of the Left, Right and Whole Brain students (which stand at 7.77, 10.11, and 8.86) makes it evident that the Whole Brain students make more errors in Vocabulary than the Left Brain students, and the Right Brain students make more errors in Vocabulary than the Left and Whole Brain students. Hemisphericity and Grammar Analysis of Variance F test was also employed on the scores of Errors in Grammar by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students to
examine the
significance of differences in the three sample Means. Table 27 (on page 135) presents a summary of the results of the F test.
134
Table 27: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Grammar by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
857.33
2
428.66
36.72
**
within groups
4634.58
397
11.67
Total
5491.91
399
between groups
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant The test statistic is the F value of 36.72. Using an alpha of .01, we have that F.01; 2, 397 = 4.66. Since the test statistic is much larger than the critical value, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant difference among the population means or in other words, there is a significant difference in the errors in Grammar by the Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students. To further determine which group or groups were different from one another, paired post hoc comparison was done through Tukey’s HSD test summary of the results of which is presented in Table 28. Table 28: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Mean Scores of Errors in Grammar by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
1.42
.01
1.76
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
8.70
Left vs Right
3.17
**
Right
11.87
Left vs Whole
1.27
NS
Whole
9.97
Right vs Whole
1.90
**
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant As observed from Table 28, the Mean differences in the Scores of Errors in Grammar by Left and Right (3.17) and Right and Whole Brain Dominant students (1.90) being both higher than the value of Q (1.76), are significant at .01 level, but the Mean difference in the Scores of Errors in Grammar by Left and Whole Dominant students being less than 1.42 (the value of Q at .05 level), the difference is considered Not Significant. It is evident also from Table 28 that the Mean Scores of errors in Grammar by Left, Right and Whole Brain students are 8.70, 11.87 and 9.97. A comparison of
135
these values shows that in the area of Grammar, Whole Brain students make more errors than the Left Brain students and that the Right Brain students make more errors than Left and Whole Brain students. Hemisphericity and Total Errors Table 29 below presents a summary of the results of ANOVA F test on scores of Errors in Total Errors by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students. Table 29: Summary of the results of ANOVA on scores of Errors in Total Errors by Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Source
SS
df
MS
F
Significance
between groups
13998.39
2
6999.19
40.6
**
within groups
68437.99
397
172.39
Total
82436.39
399
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant It is evident from Table 29 that the computed value of F is 40.6. It is significant at .01 level, hence Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students differ significantly in their Total Errors in written English language. Summary of the pairwise post hoc comparison probing the differences in the Means further through Tukey’s HSD test is given in Table 30 hereunder. Table 30: Summary of the Tukey HSD test on Mean Scores of Total Errors of Left, Right and Whole Brain Dominant students Level of HSD
Q
.05
5.45
.01
6.77
Level
Mean
Groups
Mean Differences
Significance
Left
40.06
Left vs Right
12.94
**
Right
53.004
Left vs Whole
6.35
*
Whole
46.41
Right vs Whole
6.59
*
** = Significant at .01 level; * = Significant at .05 level; NS = Not Significant As detailed by Table 30, the critical measures of Q are 5.45 and 6.77 which means that for the difference between the Means of any two particular groups must be larger than these values to be regarded as significant at .05 and .01 levels respectively. The Mean differences in the error scores of Total Errors by Left and Right, Left and Whole and Right and Whole Brain Dominant students are
136
respectively 12.94, 6.35 and 6.59. A comparison of the actual and allowed Mean differences shows that the Mean differences of the above three groups are significant at .01, .05 and .05 levels of confidence respectively. Table 30 also records that the Mean Scores of errors by Left, Right and Whole Brain students in area of Total Errors stand at 40.06, 53.004 and 46.4. A comparison of the same leads to the inference that the Whole Brain students make more errors than the Left Brain students, and that the Right Brain students make more errors than Left and Whole Brain students in the area of Total Errors in English. Inferences The above discussion directs to the following deductions: 1.
Students with different Hemisphericities (Cerebral Dominance) differ
significantly in their Errors in English. 2.
Left Brain and Right Brain Dominant students differ significantly in their
Errors in English. 3.
Right Brain dominant students make more errors in their use of English
language than the Left Brain Dominant students. 4.
Left Brain and Whole Brain Dominant students differ significantly in
only some areas of Errors in English. 5.
Whole Brain Dominant students make more errors in their use of
English language than the Left Brain dominant students. 6.
Right Brain and Whole Brain Dominant students differ significantly in
only some areas of Errors in English. 7.
Right Brain Dominant students make more errors in their use of English
language than the Whole Brain Dominant students. These findings are in significant consonance and agreement with the general Hemisphere or Cerebral Dominance and Language theories which have repeatedly provided evidence that although each Hemisphere is specialized for certain functions, “language is represented on booth sides of the brain” (Hellige 1990) and that “both hemispheres are needed for a normal”, quality “use of language” (Castro 2006). This study is further substantiated by other researches like Neuromyth 6 (2007), Blatchley (1998), Mc Crone (2000), The Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2006 j), The Encyclopedia Britannica (2006 f), SIL module (2007), etc which maintain the position that for quality “use of language,” both hemispheres are
137
needed and thereby implying that Dominance of a particular Brain Hemisphere has no effect on the overall quality of language. However, in the formal classroom conditions, the Left Brain dominant students have a discrete advantage over the Right Brain or Whole Brain dominant learners of language because most of the tasks like Speech, Reading, Writing, and synthetic and semantic analysis, other core aspects of speech such as lexical and grammatical abilities and word production and structures are associated with the Left Brain.
4.1.8 Patterns of Errors in English: Objective Two of the study was “To study the patterns of errors committed by learners in relations to locale (urban, rural), gender (male, female) and caste (SC and Non-SC).” For this, Mean scores of Errors of Different Types committed by different Groups or subgroups of XI Grade students were compared. The different Types of Errors included errors in the particular areas of Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary and Functional Grammar, mentioned only as Grammar and Total Errors in all the above areas. The various Groups and Subgroups of students comprised the groups of Total Sample, Males, Females, Urban, Rural, SC, Non-SC, Field Dependent (mentioned as FD), Field Independent (mentioned as FI), Left Brain Dominant (mentioned as Left Brain), Whole Brain Dominant (mentioned as Whole Brain) and Right Brain Dominant (mentioned as Right Brain). The values of Mean Scores of different Types of Errors by the different Groups of Students are given in the form of a grid in Table 31 (on page 139) for a quick and easy investigation/ understanding. For Patterns or Trends in Errors of Different Types, Mean values in the different Columns of the table were compared and for Patterns of Errors by Different Groups, the values in the different Rows of the table were compared. Perusal of the Table 31 led to observation of the following major Patterns: 1. The Highest Ranking Types of Errors To establish hierarchy of Types of Errors, the Mean scores in different types of errors by the different groups were compared and ranks computed as given in Table 32 (on page 140).
138
Table 31
139
Table 32
140
A comparison of the values in the different columns of Table 32 clearly establishes that the emergent pattern of Hierarchy of the Highest to Lowest Type of Error across all groups is: Spelling, Grammar, Translation, Vocabulary and Punctuation. A comparison of the values in the different columns of Table 32 clearly establishes that in spite of a few inconsequential aberrations breaking the array – particularly in the cases of Grammar and Translation – the emergent pattern of Hierarchy of the Highest to Lowest Type of Errors across all groups is: Spelling, Grammar, Translation, Vocabulary and Punctuation. 2. Differences in Ranks A comparison of the Mean error scores of different groups and in different types of errors also led to the observation that there were very small differences in the Mean scores of the different Ranks. A careful study reveals very small differences from 0.01 (in Means of Errors in Spelling and Grammar by the Right Brain Dominant students) to 2.18 points only (in Means of Errors in Translation and Spelling by the SC students) are found in the Mean values of Spelling, Grammar and Translation, the first, second and third Ranking Types of errors as a pattern. In other words, the emerged pattern is that the Mean scores of errors in the first, second and third ranking Types of Errors were quite close to one another. Another Pattern based on the comparisons of Means of Error scores of different studied groups of students was that the Mean scores of the groups of the Right Brain Dominant students and the Field Dependent students were the closest and of the Urban and SC groups, the farthest in all Types of Errors. 3. Range of Mean Scores in different Errors Table 31 also reveals that the Mean values of Errors of different Types fall between 6.02 and 13.30 out of a possible 20 maximum marks. 4. The Highest Ranking Error Groups To find out the hierarchy of the Highest to Lowest error-making Groups, the Mean scores of errors of these groups in different Types of Errors were compared and Ranks were computed and assigned. A comparison of these Ranks, presented in Table 33 (on page 142) indicates the resultant Pattern of Hierarchy of error making groups.
141
Table 33: The Highest Ranking Error Groups Total Errors
Translation
Punctuation
Spelling
Vocabulary
Grammar
Males
4
1
5
2
2
2
Females
8
8
8
8
8
8
Urban
10
9
11
11
11
11
Rural
5
5
4
4
4
5
SC
1
2
1
1
1
1
Non-SC
7
7
7
7
7
7
FI
9
10
9
9
9
9
FD
3
4
3
5
5
4
Left Brain
11
11
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
3
2
4
3
3
Groups
Right Brain Whole Brain
Accordingly, the group with the dubious distinction of making the highest number of errors is that of the Schedule Caste (SC) students. There are no distinctly second, third, fourth and fifth ranking groups, but the groups of the Males, the Whole Brain, the FD and the Rural students, clearly comprise the pack of the five highest error-making groups. The groups at ranks from six to eleven are Right Brain, Non-SC, Females, FI, Left Brain and Urban students. It is interesting to note that these groups – more of less - uniformly stand at the same ranks in all types of errors. Since a low rank equates with higher proficiency, the Non-SC, Females, FI, Left Brain and Urban students make up the groups of the students making the least number of errors of all types in English, with the Urban students standing out as the single distinct group that makes the least number of errors in English.
4.1.9 Percentage Analysis of Causes of Errors In order to gain a better insight into the causes of errors in English and to propose recommendations/ measures for their optimum elimination, a selfconstructed questionnaire (Appendix IV, mentioned in detail in Chapter III) was employed and data were collected from 8 experts and 42 working teachers in the
142
shape of their responses which, for further statistical analysis were subjected to the technique of Percentage Analysis. It was observed that the causes of errors were several and varied and stemmed from a number of personal, social and other factors, however, since the objective was to generate and provide information which may be used for the practical purposes of decision making and planning of educational strategies and policies and improving the methodology of teaching of English in the teacher training programmes, focus was deliberately limited to the factors pertaining to school, methods, methodology and the related policies of the PSEB. A brief summation of the Percent Analysis of the views of Experts and serving Teachers on the large pervasiveness of Errors in different aspects of Written English by the Punjabi speaking PSEB school students is reported below:
Unless the teacher “knows the ultimate end in view,” he “can at best muddle along.” Best. 76% of the respondents believed that there is a general lack of clarity on several policy issues like Why is English being taught; What exactly (in terms of Behavioral Objectives) is expected of the Learners; How to achieve the Objectives as given in the Syllabi; What methods or means to be employed for their achievements; From what Resources to receive Help in case of a difficulty; etc. All these call for an immediate clarity.
Although sops like better salaries and job security consistently attract the best teachers to the State Government schools; there has always been a dire shortage of Good teachers to teach English language in these schools. The words of English Review Committee (1961): “There is a shortage of teachers. Those available have … … themselves studied English … … for 4, 5 or 6 years. They have little idea of correct usage, and none at all of correct pronunciation.” still hold true for teachers of English in the Government Schools. And, the observation of Gokak (1965): “The foundational years for the teaching of English is in the hands of teachers who neither know enough English nor are familiar with the latest or far-reaching developments in the pedagogy of English.” is also not too off the mark. As many as 94% of respondent teachers and 100% remarked that the fault lay with the State Government’s faulty recruitment policies. As a matter of fact, teachers who are specialists in other subjects – mostly, the Social Sciences – are made to teach English. Recently, the State Government has started the practice of
143
appointing “Service Provider” teachers in English but their qualifications and status leave a lot to desire.
An appropriate method is doubtlessly the foremost requirement for fruitful and successful teaching. Since every topic and every class or group requires a different method or approach, an adept teacher needs to know a sufficiently large number of well-researched methods and approaches which he could use deftly with judiciousness and creativity. All 42 (100%) practicing teachers in the survey admitted to knowing and using only the Grammar-Translation method which has often been criticized for its inadequacies.
All 50 (100%) experts and teachers surveyed noted that owing to the Elementary (and Primary) schools being severely understaffed, the students hardly know any English but get promoted to the next higher classes all the same because of the erroneous promotion policies of the Government aimed at minimizing drop out rates and ensuring optimum retention at the Elementary or Primary levels.
A massive 88% of the interviewed experts and teachers observed that the text books recommended by the State Education Board do not “help the teacher”; “do not correspond to the objectives” and also, “are not relevant to the needs of the students.” The Supplementary Reader is there, but instead of being given for Independent Reading by the learners to reinforce the classroom learning; it is used as one more course book and the Class X examination carries questions worth at least 12 marks based on the Supplementary Reader.
The present system of Examination is rigid and stereo-typed and needs thorough and immediate overhauling. Acting upon the recommendations of umpteen Committees and Commissions, as a tentative step, in classes IX and XI, the system of the annual written exams has been discontinued with and Semester system has since been introduced. Although it is too early to comment upon its long-term fallouts, all 42 (100%) teachers reported that although the exams for the first semester under the new scheme were given in September 2009, there was no clarity on issues like how to assess the students, what should be the percentage of Internal Assessment in the overall result, should there be marks or grades, etc, because there were no directions
144
from the PSEB. Further, nearly 96% of the respondents felt the new scheme of semester system of examination is not going to be of much help in its present form and that techniques of Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation should be forthwith adopted instead.
Teaching is an Objective-oriented activity. None of the 42 interviewed teachers of English in Government schools could expound (in concrete terms) the Long or Short term Goals of teaching-learning English at different Secondary classes/ grades. By their own admission, they exclusively depend on the “Guides” for referring to the prescribed syllabus. Nor were they aware if the Punjab School Education Board provides any specific list of the expected General or Specific aims of teaching-learning of the different lessons in the prescribed text-books or of any other curricular or co-curricular activity. All 42 (100%) teachers and a massive (87.5%) experts opined that the PSEB should urgently define the prescribed syllabus of English for Secondary classes in terms of behavioural outcomes as given by Bloom (1956), Mager (1962), Miller (1962), NCERT Regional Institute of English, Mysore (1972), etc and also that adequate devices, activities and other means must be suggested as an integral part of the prescribed syllabus for any class or level of learning.
Lamba, Joshi and Singh (2008) note: “English teachers don’t know the right method; they do not know enough English also. Their knowledge of English is shallow and their methods are faulty.” She further notes: They “keep promoting methods like Grammar-Translation. They encourage cramming.” All 8 (100%) of the experts and 33 (79%) of the interviewed teachers of English admitted that their training does not adequately equip them to meet the requirements or to squarely face the challenges of classroom teaching. The Punjab Education Department requires the In-service teachers to attend 10-15 and sometimes even up to 25 one-day seminars per session. Most of the teachers resent attending them and strongly believe that these are “a mere eye-wash” or at least do not provide the teachers with “usable, practical and suitable skills and abilities.”
Hockett (1977) remarked: “Language is a social phenomenon.” And ErvinTripp (1979) observed: Language “occurs in the context of social learning.” As such, it is quite frequently recommended that Methods and Approaches which
145
emphasize listening and speaking in interesting learning contexts should be adopted. Although 100% experts and 65% (33) teachers agreed with it, in actuality, the teachers were clearly cold to the suggestion as less than 50% teachers showed any enthusiasm for it and some of the problems they listed in adopting these methods and approaches were “lack of time”, “lack of training”, “lack of infrastructure” and the “social background of the students”.
To jack up the Board results, the State Government as a policy allows the examinees to clear any four out of five subjects; and more often than not, the subject in which the students chose not to clear the examination is English language. As it is undoing the good work of other schemes, all 8 (100%) experts and 39 (93%) teachers strongly and urgently felt that passing the examination in English should be made compulsory for all examinees.
At present, an overwhelming percentage/ proportion of teachers is teaching English language as a Content or Knowledge subject which is patently wrong. English, like all languages should be taught as Skill subject. In response to the above, 100% experts and more than 90% (38) of interviewed
teachers
accepted
it
but
responded
that
‘structure
of
examination’, ‘pressures to perform’, ‘lack of time’ and ‘disinterest of the Authorities and students’ were the major reasons for their not incorporating teaching of the various skills in their teaching.
“Attitude, motivation and opportunity are three important variables of Language learning.” (Rubin, 1975) Also, “A good learner is a willing learner.” West cited in Nayyer Shamsi (2005) also observes that: “A language is not a subject which can be taught, it is a subject which must be learnt.” A predominant 96% of the interviewed experts and teachers felt that there is an urgent need for kindling real motivation to learn the English language to achieve real proficiency in the language in the Government school students of Punjab. It is interesting to note that many of the experts and teachers admitted that the students mostly do understand the importance of English, but, they only want to “pass” the exam and are not desirous enough to actually learn it because due to their “socio-economic factors like illiterate
146
parents, English being a Foreign language, etc,” it requires them to put in a lot of “hard work” which they “truly dread”.
The Mid-day Meal scheme has successfully brought the children to the classrooms and has also ensured regular attendance, but, in absence of a real motivation to learn and to excel, this presence is only physical.
A
colossal 96% respondents felt the scheme “won’t help much in improving the falling standards” of education and is actually “breeding” problems of a different type.
96% of the total respondents recorded that the environment in the Classrooms is also non-conducive to learning English because of deplorable Physical and Intellectual environment prevalent in them. However more than 90% of the teachers were unwilling to accept the suggestion that “a little ingenuity and resourcefulness can ensure a much more hygienic and stimulating environment” and instead chose to blame the “schools”, “students” and “lack of funds” as the reason.
100% of experts and nearly 93% (39) of the teachers agreed that the use of Instructional Aids, including Audio-Visual aids, carries an immeasurable importance in learning of a language, especially, a Foreign language and that their increased use in teaching of English in PSEB schools “can” bring down the number of errors in English.
However, “school providing no funds”,
“already heavy workload”, “lack of time to prepare them”, not being “expected to use them”, “making do with other ways or means” were cited as some of the primary reasons by nearly 95% (40) of the teachers for not using them in their teaching.
On an average, the weekly time spent on learning of English language by students in classes between VI and X is not more than 300 minutes which, 100% of experts and more than 90% of teachers (38) agreed that given the socio-cultural characteristics of our learners, is “awfully short” and thus increasing it can elevate the general standards of teaching English and reducing the frequency of errors in written English in particular.
Different expert forums have repeatedly recognized the pivotal role Literature plays in language learning. Several experts have also recommended use of Literature as a vehicle for teaching language because it stimulates critical thinking and writing. Holloway cited in Alam (1995) held: “Literature gives
147
moral and intellectual judgment, flexibility of mind, maturity of understanding, sense of detail and proficiency in English.” Pattison (1987) expatiated: “Literature shows language in operation.” All the same, literature is not a good device for making a judgment of achievement in language. Even in the recently adopted format of Class X paper in English, Literature carries 45 marks, which, 94% of the respondents believed, though was a welcome step, still needs to be toned down.
Since, unlike in learning of the Mother Tongue or the First language, errors by the learner of a Foreign language don’t get corrected through social interaction, their correction in the classroom assumes substantial importance; however, due to severe lack of time and a lack of motivation and skills, correction of errors by the learners is often one of the most neglected aspects of teaching and learning English in Government schools. Even where correction work is undertaken, it is predominantly in written work and is more or less an exercise in indicating the faulty use of language. Although more than 95% (40) teachers stated that they either “do the correction work or want to do” but owing to “lack of time and other factors” sometimes they “can’t do it as well as they want to”, the experts unanimously averred that correction work in language teaching in PSEB schools is “miserable”.
Although the curricula of English for Classes X and XII have recently been changed on lines of the CBSE pattern, about 95% (40) teachers felt the exercises (in Examinations) like Questions to test Reading Comprehension (10 marks); Questions testing mastery of Vocabulary (5 marks) and Functional Grammar (20 marks) and Questions testing Writing Skills (20 marks), though Good-intended, are forcing the students to resorts to either use Unfair means or rely on rote memory because the students do not possess the basic concepts and abilities.
4.2 Major Findings: The findings of the present study may be summarized as follows: 4.2.1 Large Number of Errors in English For reaching conclusions on the Errors in written English by students of Punjab, errors committed by 400 students of grade XI in written English work in Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors were studied.
148
In Total Errors, 60.50%, 37.50%, 15.00%, 63.57%, 71.43%, 40.28%, 29.46%, 60.24%, 26.98%, 61.22% and 41.38% of Male, Female, Urban, Rural, SC, Non-SC, FI, FD, Left Brain, Right Brain and Whole Brain dominant students scored higher than the Median value of Errors or made “Large numbers of Errors”. In Individual types of Errors in English, the percentages of students making large numbers of errors ranged from 14.17% to
81.25%. Between 14.17% to 25.00% of
Urban, 52.14% and 63.21% of Rural, 56.00% and 64.00% of Male, 30.35% and 40.50% of Female, 57.14% and 81.25% of SC, 23.26% and 38.89% of Non-SC, 23.29% and 32.87% of FI, 52.76% and 61.42% of FD, 19.05% and 30.16% of Left Brain, 56.73% and 62.45% of Right Brain and 41.38% and 48.28% of Whole Brain dominant students made large numbers of errors in English. Thus, the most significant conclusions regarding the incidence of “Large number of Errors” is that quite high percentages of all groups of students make large numbers of errors of different types in English.
4.2.2 Differences in Errors in English For comparisons of Errors in relation to various variables namely locale, gender, caste, cognitive styles and hemisphericities or cerebral dominance, Mean scores of Errors and their corresponding SD’s of different groups were compared and the most prominent finding accruing from these comparisons establishes significant influences of all these variables in the Errors in written English. Putting the above finding in different words, significant differences exist in the errors (in English) of Urban and Rural, Male and Female, SC and Non-SC, FI and FD, Left Brain and Right Brain, Left Brain and Whole Brain and Right Brain and Whole Brain dominant students. The other noteworthy finding in this regard is that in inter-group comparisons, Rural, Male, SC, FD, Right Brain and Whole Brain dominant students make significantly more errors than their counterparts.
4.2.3 Patterns of Errors in English Study of the measures of Errors in different types of Errors in English threw up the following cardinal patterns also: Hierarchy of the Highest to Lowest Type of Error across all groups is: Spelling, Grammar, Translation, Vocabulary and Punctuation.
149
The single Highest error making group was that of the SC students and the group that makes the least number of errors of all types in English is that of the Urban students. Others among the highest error making groups are the Males, the Whole Brain, the FD and the Rural students whereas the Non-SC, the Females, the FI and the Left Brain dominant students incorporate the lowest errors making groups. The Mean scores of errors in the first, second and third ranking Types of Errors were quite close to one another. The Mean scores of the groups of the Right Brain Dominant students and the Field Dependent students were the closest and of the Urban and SC groups, the farthest in all Types of Errors. The Mean values of Errors of different Types fall between 6.02 and 13.30 out of a possible 20 maximum marks.
4.2.4 Causes of Errors (as given by the Experts and Teachers) 1.
Lack of Clarity on Aims and other important Issues: 76% of the total respondents
2.
Faulty Recruitment Policies: 100% of experts and 94% teachers
3.
Overuse of Grammar-Translation method: 100% experts and 79% of teachers
4.
Foundation of English not laid properly in Elementary Schools: 100% of all respondents
5.
Irrelevant and Faulty Text-Books: 88% of total respondents
6.
Recently introduced Semester System not implemented properly: 100% teachers
7.
Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation not implemented extensively: 96% of all respondents
8.
Syllabus not defined in terms of Behavioral Objectives, doesn’t suggest ways and means to achieve them: 87.5% experts and 100% teachers
9.
Pre- and In-Service trainings not adequate: 75% experts and 100% teachers
10.
Dearth of Social Learning Methods and Communicational Techniques: 100% experts and 65% teachers
150
11.
Policy allowing passing Matric without English: 100% experts and 93% teachers
12.
English Not taught as Skill Subject: 100% experts and 90% teachers
13.
Lack of Motivation and Perseverance among students: 96% of all respondents
14.
Failure of Current schemes (like the Mid-Day Meal Scheme): 96% of total respondents
15.
Reluctance among teachers to adapt their teaching to different Recommendations: only 50% teachers were open to adopt these
16.
Uninspiring Physical Environment in the English Classroom: 96% of total respondents
17.
Disuse of Instructional Aids: 100% of experts and 93% of teachers
18.
Inadequate amount of time in Time-Table: 100% of experts and 90% of teachers
19.
Importance to Literature, not Language: 94% of all respondents
20.
Disregard for Correction Work: 100% of experts
21.
Adverse effects of the new changes in Curriculum and Examination System: 95% of teachers
4.3 Verification of the Hypotheses: On the basis of the above discussion of the results and conclusions drawn regarding the Errors in written English, the hypotheses have been verified as under: Hypothesis 1 stating “Large numbers of errors of various types are committed by students.” stands accepted. The hypothesis is retained because for all types of studied errors (Translation, Punctuation, Spelling, Vocabulary, Grammar and Total Errors), the numbers and percentages of students making a higher number of errors than the Median value of errors for that particular type of errors were uniformly high across all groups of students. Hypothesis 2 (a) stating that, “The patterns of errors will not differ in relation to locale.” stands partially accepted and partially unaccepted. The hypothesis is accepted on the basis of the hierarchy of errors for both the groups being nearly the same.
151
The hypothesis is rejected on the basis of significant differences in the errors of both the Urban and Rural students and on the marked differences in their ranks as error committing groups. Hypothesis 2 (b) stating that, “The patterns of errors will differ in relation to gender” stands partially accepted. The hypothesis is unaccepted because the Male and Female students differ significantly in their Errors in English and also because the males have a higher rank as an error making group but the hypothesis is sustained because the hierarchy of errors for both the groups is the same. Hypothesis 2 (c) stating that, “The patterns of errors will not differ in relation to caste” stands partially accepted. This hypothesis is retained on account of the total similarity of the hierarchy of the errors of the SC and Non-SC students. The hypothesis is not retained because of the marked differences in the ranks of the SC and Non-SC students as error committing groups and because of the significant differences in their errors in English. Hypothesis 3 stating that, “The patterns of errors of students with different cognitive styles will differ significantly” stands partially accepted. The hypothesis is accepted because of there being significant differences in the errors by the FI and FD students which are also discernible in the differences in their ranks as error committing groups. However, the hypothesis is not accepted because of there being found a total similarity in the hierarchy of errors of the two groups. Hypothesis 4 stating that, “The patterns of errors of students with different Hemisphericities (Cerebral Dominance) will differ significantly” stands partially accepted and partially rejected. Once again, the hypothesis is rejected because of the hierarchy of errors of all three groups of Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students being exactly the same. The hypothesis is accepted on account of the significant differences being found in the errors of the three groups of Left, Right and Whole Brain dominant students.
152
