Home    Courses    Faculty    Useful Links    Publications    Alumni    Articles    Research    Resources

Evaluation of Hypotheses

In the chapter, 'Analysis and Interpretation' which is usually Chapter Four, the data collected are analyzed and the interpretations are presented. The data is presented in tabular and graphical forms. The final part of the chapter is usually devoted to Hypotheses Evaluation. In this section the hypotheses are taken up one by one and they are proved or disproved based on the data collected and analyzed. Cross references are provided, e.g. 1.3.2.,  3.2., App 6a, where ever appropriate. a sample section is given here.

4.4.2       Hypotheses Evaluation

The hypotheses formed in the beginning are reconsidered in the light of the evidence obtained through the present study, so as to either accept or reject them.

Hypothesis 1 :  The teaching of written communication in schools in Gujarat does not engage the learners in meaningful writing tasks.  Composition work is mostly done mechanically and learners are not required to think and write something meaningfully.  ‘The analysis of the data collected through the teacher’s’ questionnaire and interview (1.3.1 & 4.1) and the analysis of learner’s class work note-books (1.3.2 & App 4a, b, c) and test papers (1.3.2 & App 6 a, b ) provide evidence to accept the first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 : It is possible to evolve such techniques which activate actual use of English wherein learners are required to keep the situation and the intended reader in mind when they write something.

The techniques tried in this study (3.2) and the tasks carried out by the learners (3.2.4) have been found effective to activate the learners thinking processes, and make them use the language appropriate to the situation, the intended reader and the message to be conveyed.  The analysis of classroom procedures (4.2.1) and the analysis of learners’ written work (4.2.2) provide evidence to accept the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3 :  It is possible to produce materials which involve natural use of language and which present appropriate models of writing.

The materials produced for the experimental group (3.1.3 b) and the simple dialogues, letters and paragraphs worked out with the help of the learners, using classroom situations (3.2.1 a to g ) involve the use of natural language thereby providing appropriate models of writing.  Based on this evidence the third hypothesis is accepted.

Hypothesis 4 : It is possible to evolve such techniques which can effectively measure learners’ ability to choose the language which is appropriate to the situation, as well as, accurate’.

Tests like dictation and cloze meet the pragmatic naturalness criteria (2.3.6) and hence are effective measures of testing learners ability to use the language appropriately.  The description of test items (3.3.5) provide evidence to support the fact that choosing the appropriate words and phrases has been the focus in the testing techniques used (3.3).  With this evidence and the analysis of test data obtained from dictation and cloze (4.4) hypothesis four is accepted.

Null Hypothesis 1 : The conventional and experimental techniques do not differ significantly from the point of view of learners’ performance in the post-test.

The statistical evaluation of the data obtained from the controlled and the experimental group in Bakrol School 1 and the total sample – schools 1, 2, 3, 4 - provide evidence to reject the null hypothesis.  The ‘t’ value obtained for Bakrol is 4.92, which is significant at .01 level.  Further the ‘t’ value for the controlled group is .77, which is insignificant.  The z value obtained for the total sample is 1.80, which is significant at .05 levels.  The significant difference in the experimental group provides evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis 2 : ‘The achievement level of the learners in the experimental group which is exposed to new techniques and materials will be no better than the achievement level of the controlled group which is to be taught through the conventional techniques’.

The mean difference between the post-test in the controlled and experimental groups when compared provides evidence to test whether the experimental group is better than the controlled group or not.

The difference between the mean values of the post-test and pre-test of the controlled group (School 1 ) is 1.42 as against 11.32 for the experimental group. The test of significance (Z test) is calculated and it is 3.36 which is significant at .01 level.  In the total sample also the difference between the mean values for the controlled and experimental groups are 8.86 and 12.36 respectively.  The Z value is 1.80 which is significant at .05 levels.  With this evidence the null hypotheses are rejected and the research hypotheses are accepted thereby indicating that the new techniques and materials are more beneficial than the conventional techniques and materials.  

H M Patel Institute of English Training & Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar - 388120, Gujarat, India

Phone : 091-2692-230193, 091-2692-230079