5.3.3 Analysis of the result between the control and experimental Cluster

Control Cluster					Experimental Cluster
Grade	Prior-test		After-test		Grade	Prior-test		After-test
	Number of Participants	%	Number of Participants	%		Number of Participants	%	Number of Participants	%
A	0	0	1	3	A	0	0	8	27
B	5	17	23	77	B	3	10	20	67
C	9	30	6	20	C	14	47	2	6
D	6	20	0	0	D	11	37	0	0
E	10	33	0	0	E	2	6	0	0
Total	30	100	30	100	Total	30	100	30	100

Figure 5.5: Prior-test and After-test scores for Control and Experimental clusters

Learning Languages through Music

Table 5.5 indicates the performance of the students in the prior-test and after-test of the control and experimental cluster ranked established on grades. It shows the composition or number of students in each grade. The analysis certainly indicated that there was performance improvement among the participants based on the grades from prior-test to after-test for control and experimental clusters.

For the control group, none of the students attained grade A in the pre-test. Though 1 student (3%) scored grade A in their post test. 5 students (17%) scored grade B in their pretest and the number increased to 23 students (77%) in the post-test. 9 students (30%) attained grade C in their prior-test and reduced to 6 (20%) in the after-test. 6 students (20%) scored D in their  prior-test and no one got a D in their after-test. 10 participants (33%) got E in their prior-test and no one got an E in their after-test.

For the control group the highest improvement in the grade attained is grade B, which rose from 17% to 77%. Students who scored grade A had escalated from 0% to 3%. Students who scored grade C decreased by 10% from the prior-test to the after test. Students who scored grade D decreased by 20%. Students who scored grade E decreased by 33%.

For the experimental group, none of the students scored grade A in their pre-test. Though, 8 students (27%) attained grade A in their post-test. 3 students (10%) obtained grade B in their pre-test and this number rose to 20 students (67%) in the post-test. 14 students (47%) scored grade C in their pre-test and this number diminished to 2 students (6%) in the post-test. There are 11 students (37%) who scored grade D in their prior-test and no one got D in their after-test. 2 students (6%) obtained grade E in their prior-test and no one attained E in their after-test.

In the pre-test, the experimental cluster is slightly weaker than the control cluster. However, the experimental cluster was able to achieve greater improvement in the post-test. 8 students scored grade A in the experimental cluster and only 1 participant from the control cluster. The greatest improvement based on grades is from grade D to A and the experimental group had achieved it.

Grade B is the greatest improvement in the grade attained for the experimental group which escalated from 10% to 67%. Students who scored grade A had risen from 0% to 27%. Participants who had obtained grade C decreased by 41% and the participants who obtained grade D decreased by 37%. Also the students who scored grade E decreased by 6%. 

The performance for the experimental group is indicated in the chart below. The chart will also portray the difference between the control and experimental cluster in the prior-test.

Figure 5.6: Comparison between the experimental and control cluster in the prior-test

Current Research in English Language Teaching

The y-axis shows the number of students. In accordance to figure 5.6, there wasn’t any major distinction between the results for the control cluster and experimental cluster in the prior-test. It indicates that the students had more or less understanding of the English language. Most of the students attained grades C, D, and E in their pre-test prior any teaching and learning was carried out.

The chart below will show the performance difference between the control cluster and the experimental cluster in the after test.

Figure 5.7: Distinction between the control and experimental cluster in the after test.

The y-axis represents the number of students. Figure 5.7 above shows that the experimental cluster participants achieved better than the control cluster participants. 8 students from the experimental group scored grade A, while only 1 participant from the control cluster achieved grade A in their post-test. Even though most students who scored grade B in the after-test were from the control cluster, the mean grade for the control group is between B and C. But for the experimental group, the mean grade is between A and B. Definitely the experimental group had greater performance than the control group.

Modern Method of Teaching English

5.3.4 Analysis of students’ interest and learning satisfaction by using music in English Lessons.

A questionnaire with ten questions about the participants’ interest and learning satisfaction had been administered to the students for the experimental group after the post-test. The data had been compiled, assessed and evaluated to acquire the mean score. The mean score interpretation is as indicated in the table below:

Average Score	Perception
0-1.26	Very Bad
1.27-2.51	Bad
2.52-3.26	Affirmative
3.27-4.20	Very Affirmative

 Table 3.4: Interpretation of the mean score

	Statements	1 Strongly Contend	2 Contend	3 Doubtful	4 Accept	5 Strongly Accept	Mean
1.	Music is a suitable tool for English learning	3 (10%)	2 (6.7%)	8 (26.7%)	14 (46.7%)	3 (10.0%)	3.40
2.	Music can facilitate the process of English learning	1 (3.3%)	3 (10.0%)	6 (20.0%)	10 (33.3%)	10 (33.3%)	3.83
3.	The music brings a lot of information and material alive	4 (13.3%)	9 (30.0%)	8 (26.7%)	5 (16.7%)	4 (13.3%)	2.87
4.	I can learn better through Music	1 (3.3%)	4 (13.3%)	11 (36.7%)	9 (30.0%)	5 (16.7%)	3.43
5.	Music makes the lesson more fun for me	2 (6.7%)	0	10 (33.3%)	11 (36.7%)	6 (20.0%)	3.53
6.	Music makes the lesson more interesting	3 (10.0%)	7 (23.3%)	13 (43.3%)	2 (6.7%)	5 (16.7%)	2.97
7.	I feel comfortable when the teacher uses music in teaching	2 (6.7%)	5 (16.7%)	9 (30.0%)	10 (33.3%)	4 (13.3%)	3.30
8.	I can remember English semantics better if I learn through music	2 (6.7%)	5 (16.7%)	10 (33.3%)	5 (16.7%)	8 (26.7%)	3.40
9.	I can learn faster through music	2 (6.7%)	6 (20%)	16 (53.3%)	4 (13.3%)	2 (6.7%)	2.93
10.	I prefer learning English through the use of music in lessons	2 (6.7%)	0	2 (6.7%)	13 (43.3%)	13 (43.3%)	4.17

Figure 5.1 Respondents’ interest and learning satisfaction for experimental group

Figure 5.1 shows the students’ interest and learning satisfaction by use of music in learning English for the experimental cluster. The average score of the first statement is very positive which is 3.40. The researcher concluded that the students agreed that music is a favorable tool in English learning. The second statement showed a very positive mean score too which is 3.83. Hence the students accepted that music can facilitate English learning process.

The average score of both the third and fourth statement is 2.87 (positive) and 3.43 (very positive) respectively. It certainly indicated that the students concurred that music brings a lot of information and material alive and learn English better through music. The average score for both the fifth and sixth statement is 3.53 (very positive) and 2.97 (positive) respectively. This indicated that music makes the lesson more fun and interesting to the learners.

The seventh statement indicated a very positive average score which is 3.30 hence the researcher concluded that the students feel comfortable when the teacher uses music. The average score for both the eighth and ninth statement is 3.40 (very positive) and 2.93 (positive) respectively. Thus the researcher concluded that the students can learn faster through music and they can memorize the language through music.

The tenth statement indicates a very positive mean score which is 4.17 hence the researcher concluded that the students prefer learning English language through music. Music clearly draws student’s attention and helps them in learning.