In which: XY : sum of each point X multiplied by point YN: total number of pairs of points
X : mean score of the distribution of scores X
Y : mean of Y score distribution
x : standard deviation of the distribution of points x
y : standard deviation of the y-point distribution.
This coefficient has a value from -1 to +1 indicating the strength and direction of the relationship. A positive value (r > 0) indicates a positive relationship between two variables. A negative value (r < 0) indicates a negative relationship between two variables. When r = 0, the two variables have no relationship. Based on the probability coefficient (p), we can know the significance level of the relationship. Here, we choose α = 0.05 as the significance level. When p
If r < 0.05, the value of r is accepted as significant for the analysis of the correlation between two variables.
- Qualitative: In addition to quantitative assessment and analysis, we use observation, in-depth interviews and analysis of pedagogical products to further clarify the research problem.
4.2. Processing and analyzing experimental results
4.2.1. Analysis of experimental results of phase 1
4.2.1.1. Verify the equivalence of the first round of input results
* Analysis of first-round learning results
To survey the learning outcomes of students before the exam, we synthesized the learning outcomes of students in all subjects (only counting the first exam scores) that were evaluated in the second semester of the 2010-2011 school year and divided them into 4 levels: excellent (average learning score of 8.0 or higher); good (average learning score of 6.5 to 7.9); average (average learning score of 5.0 to 6.4); poor (average learning score of below 5.0). The results were obtained (Appendix 22).
57.14
57.14
34.28
31.43
5.71
5.71
2.86
5.71
TN 1
DC 1
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Weak, poor Average Good Excellent
Chart 4.1. Chart of learning results of TN1 and DC1 groups in the first round
54.29 52.78
40 38.89
5.71
2.78
2.86
5.56
TN 2
DC 2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Weak, poor Average Good Excellent
Chart 4.2. Chart of learning results of TN2 and DC2 groups in the first round
Through charts 4.1 and 4.2, it can be seen that the percentage of students with good, average, and poor scores in the experimental and control classes is similar. Specifically, in the experimental class 1 and control class 1, the percentage of students with poor scores is 5.71%; the percentage of students with average scores is 57.14; the percentage of students with good scores is 34.28% and 31.43%. Only the percentage of students with excellent scores between the experimental class 1 and control class 1 is 2.86 and 5.71. Although there is a difference, the percentage is not much because the experimental and control samples are small, in fact the difference is only 1 student, so it is still acceptable to conduct the experiment. In the experimental class 2 and control class 2, the percentage of students with good scores is 40% and 38.89%; the percentage of students with average scores is 54.29% and 52.78%; The percentage of students with poor scores is 5.71% and 2.78%. There is also a slight difference in the percentage of students achieving excellent grades TN2=2.86 and DC2=5.56, but it is not significant because the experimental sample is small.
The synthesis of the first-round learning results shows that the overall academic levels of students in the experimental and experimental classes are similar. In fact, dividing into smaller groups for discussion hours from large classes in theory hours with a variety of students from different faculties participating at Hong Duc University has created favorable conditions for choosing appropriate experimental and experimental classes that meet the requirements of the experimental process.
* Analysis of the first round of input KNHTHT results
Table 4.3: Assessment of KNHTHT of students in the 2 groups of experimental and control students in the first round
Group
N | KNHTHT Group | ||||
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | ||
TN | 70 | 3.57 | 3.27 | 3.06 | 2.84 |
Address | 71 | 3.59 | 3.27 | 3.05 | 2.86 |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Results in Increased Knowledge and Skills in Self-Monitoring Blood Pressure -
Practical Research Results on Event Organization Skills of Tourism Students -
Testing and Evaluating the Results of Training on Differentiated Teaching Skills for Teachers -
Evaluation of Experimental Results and Verification Experiments -
Impulse-Response Results Of Vcbxrate To Vngold In Phase 2
3.57
3.59
3.27
3.27
3.06
3.05
2.86
2.84
TN Group
DC Group
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Chart 4.3: Chart of average results of the KN groups of TN2 and DC2, round 1
(Group 1: group of skills to establish individual position and role in the group; Group 2: group of skills to express and receive learning information; Group 3: group of skills to build an atmosphere of trust and sharing; Group 4: group of skills to resolve disagreements in learning)
Looking at chart 4.3, it shows that the skills of the groups are not significantly different. The results of the initial survey of the KNHTHT before the experiment of the two experimental and control groups are also consistent with the general survey results on a large scale of students of the University of Education as presented in the current situation section. With this data, we see that the research sample has enough basis to represent the subject of the students of education to conduct the experiment.
4.2.1.2. Analysis of learning outcomes of the experimental and control groups after the first round of experiments
After verifying the correlation between the experimental and control classes in terms of both learning outcomes and the level of KNHTHT, we conducted the first exploratory and impact experiment from August 2011 to December 2011, meaning that for the experimental class, we conducted teaching with the application of the researched and identified teaching methods. After the end of the experiment, we took the final exam scores to compare between groups and evaluate the effectiveness of teaching.
(1) Analysis of learning outcomes of GDH subject after the first experiment
The results are shown in ( Appendixes 23 and 24 ).
50
40 28.57
30
31.43
TN1
DC1
20
10
0 2.86
14.27
8.56
11.43
2.86
22.86 22.86
11.43
8.56
2.86
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chart 4.4: Frequency curve of GDH semester exam scores of TN1 and DC1 groups, round 1
50
40
30
20 11.43
10 2.85 13.89
0 2.86
41.67
28.57
42.86
33.33
8.33
11.43
2.86
TN2
DC2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Chart 4.5: Frequency curve of GDH semester exam scores of TN2 and DC2 groups
Looking at charts 4.4 and 4.5, the graphs showing the results of the GDH exam of groups TN1 and DC1 show that: The learning results of the GDH exam of students in the 2 groups
There are differences between TN1 and DC1. The frequency of weak and poor scores in the experimental group is lower than that of the control class and the average score in the control group is higher than that of the experimental group. Meanwhile, the frequency of good and excellent scores in the experimental and experimental classes is higher than that of the control and DC groups. In particular, the frequency of students achieving good scores in the experimental group on both curves is much higher than that of the two control groups. That shows that the learning results of students in the TN1 group are different, specifically higher than that of the Control1 group.
(2) Analysis of learning results of PPNCKHGD subject after the first round of testing
Continuing to evaluate the experimental results for verification, we took the final exam results of the subject PPNCKHGD and analyzed the results obtained in appendices 25 and 26.
40
28.57
28.57
TN1
DC1
22.85 22.85
11.43
14.5
8.57
11.43
5.71
5.71
2.86
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chart 4.6: Frequency curve of final exam on PPNCKHGD subject of TN1 and DC1 class, first round
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 11.11
10
5.55
36.11
28.57
45.71
38.88
8.33
14.28
TN2
DC2
2.86
5
5.71
2.28
0 0
4 5 6 7 8 9
Chart 4.7: Frequency curve of final exam on PPNCKHGD subject of TN2 and DC2 class, first round
Looking at charts 4.6 and 4.7, the graphs show the scores of the PPNCKHGD subject of the two experimental and control classes. The frequency of weak and poor scores in the experimental class is lower than that of the control class. The average score in the control class is higher than that of the experimental class, the frequency of good and excellent scores in the experimental group is higher than that of the control class, especially the frequency of students scoring 8 in the experimental class 1 is different from that of the control class 1 (accounting for 22.85%, 2 times higher than that of the control class 1 11.43%). That shows that the learning outcomes of the experimental class students have a difference, specifically higher than that of the control class.
Through the above statistics, we can conclude as follows: 1/ The proportion of students with average scores in groups 1 and 2 is higher than the proportion of students with average scores in groups 1 and 2; 2/ The proportion of students with good scores in groups 1 and 2 is higher than the proportion of students with good scores in groups 1 and 2; 3/ The proportion of students with excellent scores in groups 1 and 2 is higher than the proportion of students with excellent scores in groups 1 and 2.
(3) Analyze statistical parameters of standard deviation, median, coefficient of variation... of final exam results of GDH and PPNCKHGD subjects after the first round of testing
To support the analysis and interpretation of experimental results, we analyzed the statistical parameters of the final exam results of the subjects of Education and Training and PPNCKHGD using SPSS 16.0 statistical software. The parameters obtained for the conclusions (shown in appendices 34 and 35) are as follows:
+ The average score of the experimental class 1 in both subjects is higher than the average score of the control group 1 specifically: the difference is 0.53 (6.86-6.23) and 0.31 (6.54-6.43). The score (median) is in the middle position in the series of scores arranged in ascending order of the group with experimental group is 7 (good score); Control group 1 is 6 (average score), meaning that the experimental group's score concentrates more good scores than the control group. That shows us that through the process of experimental impact, the score of the experimental group 1 was higher than the score of the control group 1. It is affirmed that the learning efficiency of both subjects of GDH and PPNCKHGD of students has been improved, the reason is due to the application of teaching measures in the direction of developing KNHTHT that have been proposed and implemented.
+ Similarly, the average score of group TN2 in both subjects is higher than the average score of group CDC2, specifically: the difference is 0.26 (6.57-6.31) and 0.41 (6.69-6.28). The score (median) is in the middle position in the series of scores arranged in ascending order of the group with TN2 being 7 (good score); Group CDC2 is 6 (average score), meaning that the TN2 score concentrates more good scores than CDC2. Thereby, it is also affirmed that the learning outcomes of students in both subjects of GDH and PPNCKHGD in group TN2 have been improved, the reason is due to the application of teaching methods in the direction of developing KNHTHT as proposed and implemented.
+ The coefficient of variation of group TN1 in both subjects is lower than the coefficient of variation in
group DC1 (22,419< 28,410) and (20,079< 23,125) and (16,502< 18,757). In group
TN2 is also lower than control group 2 (14.733<15.007) and (16.502<18.757). That once again confirms that the test results in the two subjects of Education and Training and PPNCKHGD in students of groups TN1 and TN2 are more clustered and dispersed around the mean value more than in groups TN1 and TN2. At the same time, it shows the stability of the experimental groups compared to the control group.
* From the above analysis and statistics, we can conclude that the first round of the experiment was effective. The first and second groups had higher learning outcomes in both subjects than the control group 1 and control group 2. This confirms that the learning efficiency of students has been improved not by chance but by the application of teaching measures in the direction of developing the proposed and implemented learning skills.
4.2.1.3. Analysis of the results of developing students' knowledge and skills through the first experiment
i) Analysis of results through questionnaire
After finishing the course, along with checking the academic progress of the experimental and control groups in the first phase, we conducted a test on the progress in the knowledge of learning. To measure the progress, we still used form 2 to survey both teachers and students ( appendices 3 and 4 ). The results were compiled into a common form.
Table 4.4: Comparison of training results of the pre-test and post-test skills of the first group of the experimental group
KN groups
Parameters | Measurements | ||
Before TN | After TN | ||
1. Skill group to establish the position and role of individuals in a cooperative group | Average value | 3.57 | 4.12 |
Standard deviation | 0.35 | 0.3 | |
P value | 0.00 | ||
2. Group of KN expressing and receiving learning information | Average value | 3.27 | 3.78 |
Standard deviation | 0.38 | 0.34 | |
P value | 0.00 | ||
3. KN Group builds an atmosphere of trust and sharing | Average value | 3.06 | 3.56 |
Standard deviation | 0.42 | 0.38 | |
P value | 0.00 | ||
4. The KN group resolves disagreements within the group. | Average value | 2.84 | 3.36 |
Standard deviation | 0.44 | 0.39 | |
P value | 0.00 | ||
4.12
3.57
3.78
3.27
3.56
3.06
3.36
2.84
Before TN
After TN
5
4
3
2
1
0
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Chart 4.8: Comparison of the average values of the KNHTHT groups before and after the experiment of the first experimental group
The results of the two measurements before and after the experiment showed that all groups of students in the experimental class had significant progress (results are shown in Appendix 21). Specifically:
- The KN group establishes the position and role of individuals in cooperative group activities.
: The average has increased since before the TNX = 3.57 after TN increasedX = 4.12. Meanwhile, the DLC gradually decreased from the first measurement (0.35) to the second measurement (0.30). The T-test result p<0.05 showed that: the difference between the average scores of the experimental class through the measurements was very significant due to the impact of the experiment.
- Group of skills in expressing and receiving learning information : the average value of the experimental class also increased gradually through the measurements before the experiment X = 3.27 increased after the experiment X = 3.78; meanwhile , the average score decreased gradually from the first measurement (0.38) to the second measurement (0.34). This proves that through the experiment, students have made quite clear progress in skills in expressing and receiving learning information. The T-test also gave the result p < 0.05, proving that the above difference is not random but due to the impact of the experiment.
- The KN group builds trust and shares with each other : the average value of the experimental class also increased gradually through the measurements before the experiment X = 3.06 increased after the experiment X = 3.56. Meanwhile, the DLC decreased gradually from the first measurement (0.42) to the second measurement (0.38). This proves that through the experiment, students have made quite clear progress in the skills of expressing and receiving learning information, with a concentration around the average value. The tested quantity also