# Research Paper Sample on the Use of Music in Teaching and Learning

Published: 2017-11-30 16:13:58
 Type of paper:Â Essay Categories: Teaching Learning Music Pages: 9 Wordcount: 2255 words
143Â views

5.4 Analysis of the hypothesis

Is your time best spent reading someone elseâ€™s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

This study has three hypotheses. The analysis hypothesis was carried out to conclude whether the hypotheses were declined or accepted. The analyzed hypothesis were all backed by the data from the T-test.

The first hypothesis, there isnâ€™t any compelling comparison between the experimental and control clustersâ€™ average scores in the prior-test prior using music in English teaching and learning by the form four students. The table below indicates the difference between standard deviation and average scores of the prior-test between the control and experimental cluster. The control clusterâ€™s average score is 50.4 marks. The experimental clusterâ€™s average score is 54.1 marks. The experimental clusterâ€™s average score is 3.7 marks greater than the control clusterâ€™s average score. The control clusterâ€™s standard deviation is 9.619 while the experimental clusterâ€™s standard deviation is 7.145.

 Group N Mean Standard deviation Standard error mean Pretest Control Experimental 30 30 50.4 54.1 9.619 7.415 1.986 1.863

Figure 5.7: Participantâ€™s mean score performance for the pre-test between the control and experimental cluster

The pre-testâ€™s significance (2 tailed) is 0.169 and the level (p) of significance is more than 0.05, hence the hypothesis is acknowledged. The control clusterâ€™s t-value and experimental clusterâ€™s t-value is -1.833. In the table above, it indicates that the associated probability for the test is 0.169, > a=0.05. Hence the first hypothesis is accepted. So we can deduct that there is no significant comparison between control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score prior using music in English teaching and learning by form four students. We can also conclude that the participantâ€™s prior knowledge of the English language for the control and experimental cluster is almost the same at the start of the study.

 Levenâ€™s Test for Equality of variances t-test for Equality of Means f Significance t difference Significance (2-tailed) Mean comparison Standard error comparison 95% confidence break of the comparison lower Upper Posttest equal variance 3.639 .091 -1.833 61 .169 -3.500 2.462 -7.904 .987 Assumed equal variance not assumed -1.833 55.730 .170 -3.500 2.462 -7.914 .997

Figure 5.8: Distinction between the control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the prior-test

The second hypothesis, there is no significance comparison between the control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the post test is declined. The table below indicated the standard deviation and average scores of the after-test between the experimental cluster and control cluster. The control clusterâ€™s average score is 65.5 marks, while the experimental clusterâ€™s average score is 71.6 marks. The experimental clusterâ€™s average score is 6.1 marks greater than the control clusterâ€™s average score. The control clusterâ€™s standard deviation is 8.514. The experimental clusterâ€™s standard deviation is 8.979.

 Group N Mean Standard deviation Standard error Mean Posttest Control Experimental 30 30 65.5 71.6 8.514 8.979 1.392 1.496

Figure 5.9: Mean score of participantâ€™s performance between the control cluster and experimental cluster for the after-test

For the post test, the significant (2 tailed) is 0.037 and the level (p) of significant is less than 0.05, and hence the hypothesis is declined. The control and experimental cluster have the same t-value which is -2.469. The table below also indicates the associated probability for the test which is 0.037, <a=0.05. Hence the second hypothesis is rejected. So we can deduct that there is a significant comparison between the control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score after using music in teaching English language.

 Levenâ€™s test for equality variance T-test for equality of Means f Significance t difference Significance (2 tailed) Mean comparison Standard error comparison 95% confidence break of the comparison Lower Upper Posttest Equal variance Assumed equal variance not assumed .136 .862 -2.469 -2.469 59 58.763 .037 .037 -4.986 -4.986 2.183 2.183 -8.911 -8.912 -.803 -.803

Figure 5.10: Difference in the post-test between control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score

The third hypothesis, there is significant comparison for the experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the prior-test and after-test is rejected. The table below indicated the experimental clusterâ€™s standard deviation and average score of the prior-test and after-test. The pre-testâ€™s mean score is 54.1 marks while the after-testâ€™s average score is 71.6 marks. The post-testâ€™s mean score is 17.5 marks greater than the prior-testâ€™s average score. The pre-testâ€™s standard deviation is 7.463 while the post-testâ€™s standard deviation is 7.910.

 Group N Mean Standard deviation Standard error mean Experimental group Pre-test Post-test 30 30 54.1 71.6 7.463 7.910 1.794 1.994

Figure 5.11: Mean score of the experimental clusterâ€™s participant performance in the prior-test and after-test

The post-testâ€™s significant (2 tailed) is 0.011, and the level (p) of the significant is less than 0.05, p<0.05, thus the hypothesis is declined. The pre-testâ€™s t-value and the post-testâ€™s t-value is the same which is -13.604. The table below indicates the associated probability for the test is 0.011, <a=0.05. Hence the third hypothesis is rejected. So we can deduct that there is a compelling comparison for the experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the prior-test and after-test.

 Paired difference T difference Significant (2 detailed) Pair 1 Pre-test Post-test Mean Standard deviation Standard error mean -18.300 8.031 2.618 -13.604 37 .011

5.6 Summary

The first hypothesisâ€™ associated probability is 0.169, >a=0.05. There is no significant comparison for the control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the pre-test before using music in teaching English language, thus it is accepted. The second hypothesisâ€™ associated probability is 0.037, <a=0.05, hence the hypothesis was declined. Thus, we concluded that there is a significant comparison for the control clusterâ€™s average score and experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the post-test. The third hypothesisâ€™ associated probability is 0.011, <a=0.05, thus the hypothesis was rejected. Hence, we concluded that there is a compelling comparison for the prior-testâ€™s average score and the after-testâ€™s average score for the experimental group.

Chapter 6

Discussion

6.1 Introduction

The outcome achieved will be used to find out whether there are any comparisons between the control and the experimental group after teaching using music had been adopted in the real classroom. Challenges faced in an ESL classroom will be discussed also.

6.2 Discussion

There is no significant comparison between the control clusterâ€™s average score and the experimental clusterâ€™s average score in the pre-test prior using music in teaching English. This may be possibly because both the control and experimental cluster had the same prior knowledge about English language.

Almost 94% of the students from both the experimental and control group stated that they could not comprehend what the questions were all about, they simply guessed. Due to this, there is no large difference between both groups in their achievements. The control groupâ€™s average score is 47.43 while the experimental groupâ€™s average score is 50.73 with a difference of only 3.3 marks.

They were noted for having less interest in learning English for both the control and experimental groups before any teaching and learning was undertaken. English language creates fear in them since they might believe that it is difficult to learn and understand. Therefore, the percentage of participants who portrayed negative attitude were the same for both the experimental and control group.

They both improved their outcomes in the after-test. However, the experimental cluster showcased better improvement than the control cluster. In the control group, there were more participants who portrayed negative attitude than positive attitude towards English. The experimental groupâ€™s average score which is 67.93 is higher by 4.46 marks than the control groupâ€™s average score which is 63.47.

The post-testâ€™s significant (2 detailed) is 0.026, the level (p) of significant is less than 0.05 and hence there is a significant comparison for the control groupâ€™s mean score and experimental groupâ€™s mean score in the post-test. The deduced conclusion is that the experimental group understood English language better than the control group due to the use of music.

Visual aids play a key role in teaching and learning. It helps the students understand, what they are taught. It increases interest in English and the students will participate and engage the teacher more which will assist them in learning. This will result into an increased interaction and relationship between the students and the teacher thus facilitating learning.

There is a significant comparison between the control groupâ€™s mean score and experimental groupâ€™s mean score in the post-test. This concluded that the students prefer learning English through music. The students are motivated and this facilitates learning.

This study has shown that definitely, use of music and songs in teaching and learning English will simplify the educatorsâ€™ effort in teaching and also accelerate English learning by the students in a classroom. Hence use of music is an effective strategy.

6.3 Limitations of the Study

There were some limitations in the study that had been observed during the exercise. One of them is time restraint. Teaching and learning English using music is a new strategy for the students. The students might have gotten used to the strategy within two weeks. Therefore, the learners were not really absorbed into the system. The second limitation was the studentsâ€™ ability standard. The participants were slightly weaker than expected. The researcher had to explain most of the vocabularies in the narrative music thus most of time was used in vocabulary explanation. The third limitation was the attendance of the students. Some of the students did not attend the research lessons thus this might have altered the results.

6.4 Recommendations for Further Study

The achievements of both the control and experimental group can be deduced from the results of the pre-test and post-test obtained. The researcher recommends that the coming studies should be carried out in remote and rural areas and also the research period should be three weeks rather than two weeks. The effectiveness of using music in teaching for the weak students should be studies. The effectiveness of using music in teaching based on the gender should also be studied.

6.5 Conclusion

This research approves that use of music in teaching and learning assists the students to understand and comprehend. It also assists the teacher to convey the message better in circumstances that he or she is unable to explain. Thus it enhances teaching too. Hence teachers and more so the Malaysian curriculum, should adopt this strategy in teaching and learning English in the ESL classrooms. The studentâ€™s interest towards English increases and also improves their attention. The teachers should have the required skills in using music for him or her to identify the best type of music that will facilitate learning. Students need to be motivated for effective teaching and learning to occur and it will generally benefit the students and society.

References

Alexa, B. (2016). Neural response to grammatically and lexically degraded speech. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 567-574

Allan, P. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.

Allan, P. (2006). A dual coding theoretical interpretation.

Allan, P.(2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. The psychological Record. 59, 295-300.

Ana, P. (2016). Evaluation and revision of inferential comprehension in narrative texts: an eye movement study. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 549-566

Beak, Y. (1998). Color, graphics, and animation in computer assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction.15(4), 131-135

Benson, J. (1997). Problems in picturing text: A study of visual/verbal problem solving. Technical Communication Quarterly. 6(2), 141-160

Brehm, L. (2016). Empirical and conceptual challenges for neuro cognitive theories of language production. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 504-507.

Chanlin, L. (1997). The effects of verbal elaboration and visual elaboration on students learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(4), 333-339.

Clara, D. (2016). Holiday or vacation? The processing of variation in vocabulary across dialects. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(3), 375-390

Clara, D. (2016). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(2), 206-216

Claudia, S. (2002). The effects of songs in the foreign language classroom on text recall and involuntary mental rehearsal. Louisiana State University Press.

Kleinman, E. (1999). Analysis of computerized visual skills: Relationships to intellectual skills and achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media.26(1), 53-69

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1983). The natural approach. Pergamon Press.

Manaro, L. (2016). Dynamics of word production and processing speed. Journal of Language and, cognition and Neuro-science. 31(4). 463-464

Martin, J. (2016). Prediction and learning in the dynamics of speaking. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 514-516

Mayer, R. (1996). Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instructions. 3(1), 239-245

Rieber, L. (1990). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Educational Psychology.83(3), 318-328

Ries, S. (2016). Serial versus parallel neurobiological processes in language production. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 476-479

Segal, B. (2014). Teaching English as a second language through rap music: a curriculum for secondary school students. University of San Francisco.

Semi, z. (2014). Parallel processing in the brainâ€™s visual form system. Journal of Psychologyand the Open Access of Nero-science.

Shen, C. (2009). Using English songs: an enjoyable and effective approach to ELT. Journal of English Language Teaching. 2(1), 1-7.

Simone, F. (2016). It is better when expected: aligning speech and motor rhymes enhances verbal processing. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(3)

Teresa, S. (2016). The spatiotemporal map of language production towards a dynamic, non-sequential, and interactive neurobiological model. Journal of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 31(4), 511-513

Udo, E. (2012). How the brain process visual information. Journal of Innovation Germany. 22(1)

West, T. (1997). In the mindâ€™s eye. Prometheus Books.

Research Paper Sample on the Use of Music in Teaching and Learning. (2017, Nov 30). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.net/essays/analysis-of-the-hypothesis

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

Liked this essay sample but need an original one?

Hire a professional with VAST experience!