Chapter 8: Research Methodology
8.3. Research design
The procedure for the study was as follows:
Figure 11. The experimental outline.
Firstly, the participants were selected randomly at the site. The informed consents were then delivered and obtained from the participants and the participants’ parents or guardians.
The procedure then followed a number of steps:
- The researcher observed the students in the classroom and recorded field notes regarding the students’ English speaking competences.
- The pre-questionnaire was administered to participants to report on their motivation and attitudes.
- The pre-test was administered to see the levels of the primary school students’ speaking competences.
Pre-test
•Speaking competence test
•Attitudes and motivation questionnaire
Treatment
•Control group received 4 months of regular instruction
•Experimental group received 4 months of drama-based instruction
•Observe both groups
Post-test
•Speaking competence test
•Attitudes and motivation questionnaire
Statistical Analysis
•T-tests comparing the pre- and post-test within the groups
•T-tests comparing the pre- and post-test between the groups
Class observation
•Class observation of both groups
Results
•Discussion of results
•Conclusion
•Recommendations
- The participants participated in the drama-based instructional program. The researcher took notes of her observation after each drama-based lesson.
- The post-questionnaire and post-test were administered to the participants to report on their speaking competence levels, in terms of their knowledge, skills, motivation, and attitudes.
- Observe the class of both groups of students in order to determine the differences between the two methods of teaching.
The empirical research method was chosen for this research study. Empirical research is implemented by observing and measuring the phenomena and knowledge that were derived from the actual experience. In other words, it is “a plan for assigning experimental units to treatment levels and the statistical analysis associated with the plan” (Kirk 1995,1).
In this design, there are two groups: the experimental (E) and control (C) groups. The experimental group received a treatment called the “drama-based lesson plan”, while the control group received regular instruction, called the “non-drama-based lesson plan” (both groups were assessed on a pre-treatment measure (i.e., pre-test), then the treatments were administered, before the post-treatment effect was measured (i.e., post-test) (Gay 2006).
Figure 12 illustrates the experimental design.
The control group received regular instruction from the classroom teacher. The regular instruction was described as the traditional approach, with an emphasis on grammar and the grammar-translation method. On the other hand, the drama-based program was taught by the researcher,13 who is more familiar with the knowledge and theory of drama activities. The researcher did not rely on the textbook but used the drama-based program, which was explained in more detail in Chapter 7.
To find the baseline speaking competence level, checks of the primary school students’
speaking competences were administered at the beginning of the study (i.e., pre-test: C1 or E1; and questionnaire ). The baseline was compared to the student’s speaking competences (i.e., post-test: C2 or E2: and questionnaire) measured at the end of the four months of instruction, in order to determine any changes in the mean scores and in the change of attitude and motivation (see Table 10 for a schematic representation).
13 The limitations were discussed in the last chapter
Table 12. The pre- and post-test control and experimental group design.
As a result, several conditions were possible, involving the mean scores within each group (Table 12). If the mean pre-test score was equal to the mean post-test score (i.e., C1 = C2 or E1 = E2), then there was no change in speaking competence after the study. If the mean pre-test score was greater than the mean post-pre-test score (i.e., C1 > C2 or E1 > E2), then there was a decrease in speaking competence after four months. The other condition was when the mean pre-test score was less than the mean post-test score (i.e., C1 < C2 or E1 < E2), then there was an increase in speaking competence. Since the only independent variable is the drama-based lesson plan treatment, then no change in the speaking competence levels meant that the lesson plan made no difference, a decrease meant that it possibly deteriorated speaking competence levels, and an increase meant that it may be beneficial for speaking competence levels. It was also possible to compare the speaking competence levels between the two groups (see Table 13). When the mean pre-test or post-test scores were equal between the two groups (i.e., C1 = E1 or C2 = E2), then both groups were at comparable speaking competence levels at the beginning or at the end of the study, respectively. When the control group’s score was greater than the experimental group (i.e., C1 > E1 or C2 > E2), then the control group had a higher speaking competence level than the experimental group at the pre-test or post-test, respectively. When the experimental group’s score was greater than the control group (i.e., C1 < E1 or C2 < E2), then the experimental group had a higher speaking competence level than the control group at the
Conditions
pre-test or post-test, respectively. It was important to compare both of the groups’ mean pre-test scores, because if they were not equal, then it would be difficult to delineate the effect of the independent variable. Since the drama-based lesson plan was the only independent variable, then the differences in the post-test scores can be linked to the drama-based lesson plan.
Table 13. Speaking competence analysis.
Condition Conclusion
Pre-test = Post-test C1 = C2
E1 = E2
No change
Pre-test > Post-test C1 > C2
E1 > E2
Speaking competence decreased
Pre-test < Post-test C1 < C2
E1 < E2
Speaking competence improved
Control = Experimental C1 = E1
C2 = E2
Speaking competence equal
Control > Experiemntal C1 > E1
C2 > E2
Speaking competence better in control group
Control < Experimental C1 < E1
C2 < E2
Speaking competence better than experimental group