Chapter 4

Data Analysis
Activity based learning can be a great tool for motivating and engaging students. It has a

positive impact on education and it can strengthen teaching. It can be a powerful tool for

teachers to use in the classroom. There are many usages of activities into education.

When children learn by doing their learning is long lasting.

The major purpose of the study was to compare the difference between the performance/

achievement of the groups taught by traditional method and who were taught by using

different activities in art at elementary level. This chapter deals with the analysis and

interpretation of data obtained. The study had the pretest posttest control group

experimental design. The study was conducted to determine the effect of activity based

learning in Arts on the achievement of the intact group of 54 students. The researcher

randomly selected one group as experimental group of 25 students and one as a control

group of 29 students. Then the researcher applied the pre-test to both groups on 10-04-13

having total score = 10. The test was based on drawing skills. It consisted of 3 items. In

which students had to draw a robot, boat and hens’chic. After taking pretest, experimental

group was taught by researchers by using different art activities. Control group was

taught by their existing teacher by using their traditional method. After one month

posttest was conducted. Posttest consisted of the same activities that were used in the

pretest. After obtaining scores of both tests, the researchers subtracted the pretest scores
from the posttest scores for calculating the gain scores. Then the pretest, posttest and gain

score were tabulated.

Following are presented the results of data analysis:

Table No.1

Group Statistics of Pretest

Groups N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean

Pretest 25 6.4800 3.31813 .66363

Experimental

Pretest Control 29 5.8276 2.20501 .40946

group

Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for the pretest

experimental and control group. Measures of dispersion were computed to understand the

variability of scores for the pretest experimental and control group.

In the Group Statistics box, the mean for group 1 (Pretest Experimental Group) is

M=6.48. The mean for group 2 (Pretest Control Group) is M=5.82. The standard

deviation for pretest Experimental group is SD=3.32 and for pretest control group is

SD=2.20. The number of participants in experimental group (N) was 25 and in control

group (N) was 29. The researcher included intact groups already reading in two sections

of Lady Griffon High School so the number of participants was different.

 Table No. 2

Independent sample T-Test for pretest of experimental and control group

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. Sig. (2- Mean Std. 95% Confidence
tailed) Difference Error Interval of the
Differen Difference
ce Lowe Uppe
r r

Pretest Equal 4.046 .049 .862 52 .393 .652 .75729 .86720 -2.17
variances
assumed
Equal .837 40.69 .408 .652 .77978 .92274 -2.23
variances 6
not assumed

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pretest experimental group

and pretest control group. There was no significant difference in the mean scores,

however, for pretest experimental group (M=6.48, SD=3.31813) was greater than the

mean score of pretest control group (M=5.82, SD=2.20501). There is statistically no

significant difference in pretest experimental group and pretest control group t (.862)

=652, p = .393 in the beginning of the experiment. These results suggested that

performance of both groups at the beginning of the experiment was more or less equal.

The Sig. (2-Tailed) value is p=.393. This value is more than .05. Because of this, it is

concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean for the
pretest experimental group and pretest control group. Since it is revealed that the Mean

for the pretest experimental group was greater than the Mean for the pretest control

group, it is concluded that participants were slightly different at their art performance

before the study commenced.

Graph No 1

Pre-Test of Experimental and Control Group

Experimental control
Interpretation

1st bar of graph shows the mean for experimental group and second declares the mean for

control group. These groups were intact group. The mean score of experimental group

was 6.4800 and mean of control group was 5.8276. The two groups were slightly

different at their pretest performance.

Table No.3

Group Statistics for Post test

Groups N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
posttest Posttest Experimental 25 10.4000 3.32916 .66583
Group
Posttest Control Group 25 6.2800 1.81475 .36295

Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for the posttest

experimental and control group. Measures of dispersion were computed to understand the

variability of scores for the posttest experimental and control group.

In the Group Statistics box, the mean for group 1 (Posttest Experimental Group) is

M=10.4. The mean for group 2 (Posttest Control Group) is M= 6.28. The standard

deviation for posttest Experimental group is S.D= 3.29 and for posttest control group is

S.D=1.81. The number of participants in each group (N) was 25.

 Table No. 4

Independent Samples Test of posttest

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig T Df Sig. Mean Std. 95% Confidence
. (2- Differen Error Interval of the
tailed ce Differen Difference
) ce Lower Upper
Postte Equal 7.64 .00 5.43 48 .000 4.12 .75833 2.5952 5.6447
st varianc 3 8 3 7 3
es
assume
d
Equal 5.43 37.10 .000 4.12 .75833 2.5836 5.6563
varianc 3 6 2 8
es not
assume
d

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the posttest experimental group

and posttest control group. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for

posttest experimental group (M=10.4, SD=3.33) is greater than the mean score of posttest

control group (M=6.28, SD=1.81). There is statistically significant difference in posttest

experimental group and posttest control group t (48) =5.433, p = 0.000. These results

suggest that posttest experimental group had an effect on achievement of students.

The Sig. (2-Tailed) value is 0.000. This value is less than .05. Because of this, it is

concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean for the

posttest experimental group and posttest control group. Since it is revealed that the Mean
for the posttest experimental group was greater than the Mean score for the posttest

control group, it is concluded that participants in the posttest experimental group were the

good achievers than the participants in the posttest control group.

The analysis shows a substantial effect of independent variable, activity based teaching

on students learning in Art subject. In the light of analysis, the null hypothesis, “that there

is no significant difference in the learning achievement of students taught by activity

based art lessons and the learning achievement of students who were taught with

traditional methods was strongly rejected.

Graph No 2

Post-Test of Experimental and Control Group

Experimental Control
Interpretation

1st bar of 2nd graph shows performance of experimental group and 2nd bar shows

performance of control group. Experimental group was taught by researchers with hands

on activities and control group was taught by their existing teacher. Researchers taught

students by using different activities. There is a significant difference between the results

of experimental group. The mean score of experimental group was 10.4000 and mean of

control group was 6.2800.

Table No.5

Group Statistics for Gain Score

groups N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation Mean

Gain Gain score of 25 3.9200 2.78268 .55654

scores experimental group
Gain score of control 25 .4400 1.98074 .39615
group

Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for the gain score

experimental and gain score control group. Measures of dispersion were computed to

understand the variability of scores for the gain score experimental and control group.

In the Group Statistics box, the mean for group 1 (gain score Experimental Group) is

M=3.9200. The mean for group 2 (gain score Control Group) isM= .4400. The standard

deviation for gain score Experimental group is SD=2.78 and for gain score control group

is SD=1.98. The number of participants in each groups was 25.

 Independent Samples Test of gain score

Levene's
Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%
(2- Difference Difference Confidence
tailed) Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper
Gain Equal 2.751 .104 5.094 48 .000 3.48000 .68313 2.10647 4.85
Score variances
assumed
Equal 5.094 43.352 .000 .3.4800 .68313 2.10266 4.86
variances
not
assumed

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the gain score experimental

group and gain score control group. There was a significant difference in the mean scores

for gain score experimental group (M=3.92, SD=2.78) is greater than the mean score of

gain score control group (M=.4400, SD=1.98). There is statistically significant difference

in gain score experimental group and gain score control group t (48) =5.094, p = 0.00.

These results suggest that gain score of experimental group have an effect on

achievement of students.

The Sig. (2-Tailed) value is 0.00. This value is less than .05. Because of this, it is

concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean for the gain

score experimental group and gain score control group. Since it is revealed that the Mean
for the gain score experimental group was greater than the Mean for the gain score

control group, it is concluded that participants in the gain score experimental group were

the good achievers than the participants in the gain score by the control group.

The analysis shows substantial effect of independent variable, activity based teaching on

students learning in Art subject. In the light of analysis, the null hypothesis, “that there is

no significant difference in the learning achievement of students taught by activity based

art lessons and the learning achievement of students who were taught with traditional

methods was strongly rejected.

Graph No 3

Gain score of Experimental and Control Group

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1 2

Experimental Control
Interpretations

1st bar of 3rd graph reveals the mean gain score of experimental group and 2nd bar shows

the mean gain score of the control group. Experimental group was taught by researchers

and control group was taught by their previous teacher. Researchers taught students by

using different hands on activities. This graph represents the difference between

experimental and control group.

The bar graph of gain score of experimental group is higher than the bar graph of gain

score of control group. The mean score of experimental group was An independent-

samples t-test was conducted to compare the gain score experimental M=3.9200 and

mean of control group was M= .4400 . The analysis shows substantial effect of

independent variable, activity based teaching on students learning in Art subject. In the

light of analysis, the null hypothesis, “that there is no significant difference in the

learning achievement of students taught by activity based art lessons and the learning

achievement of students who were taught with traditional methods was also strongly

rejected.