Recibido: 03-03-2021 / Revisa= do: 11-03-2021 / Aceptado: 06-04-2021 / Publicado: 04-05-2021

The portfolio resource in the development of the English writing process=

DOI: <= span style=3D'color:#0563C1;mso-themecolor:hyperlink'>https://doi.org/10.33262/a= p.v3i2.1.47

<= /span>

El recurso del portafolio en el desarrollo del proceso de escritura en inglés

Gabriela del Rocío Armijos Ango. ^[1], Alexandra del Rocío Saquinga Yanchapanta. = ^{^[2]}, Mónica N= arciza Orbea Peñafiel.^{^[3]}<= /span> & Luis Eduardo Burbano Santamaría.^{^[4]}

Abstract.                  �= �             <= /h3>

Introduction. <= /span>The portfolio is an educational resource widely applied in English learning process due to its versatility in compil= ing to evidence of a student’s academic work. It also contributes to an exhau= stive follow-up on the students’ goals achievement and their skills development= . Objective. The study points out the benefits of the portf= olio in the development of the writing skill among students from A1 Starter leve= l of the Universidad Técnica de Ambato during the academic semester September 2= 017 – February 2018. Methodology. During the research project a quantitative qualitative methodology was applied. Moreover, correlational variables helped to determine the students’ deficiency in their writing p= rocess through the application of a pre-test and post-test. To obtain a significant sample of the research population four parallels belonging to A1 level were randomly selected with a total of 119 learners which were divided into experimental and control group. Results. After applying the evaluation instruments, the finding analysis showed a meaningful improvement in the development of writing English skill= s in the experimental group over the control group. Conclusion. It was evident that portfolio’s usage helps learners to be more aware and indepe= ndent in their learning progress, this was reflected in their writing production.

Keywords: Portfolio, meaningful improvement, written production.

Resumen.

<= /span>

Introducción. El portafolio= es un recurso educativo ampliamente aplicado en el proceso de aprendizaje del inglés debido a su versatilidad a la hora de recopilar las evidencias del trabajo académico del alumno. Además, contribuye a un seguimiento exhaust= ivo del cumplimiento de los objetivos de los alumnos y del desarrollo de sus competencias. Objetivo. El estudio señala los beneficios del portaf= olio en el desarrollo de la habilidad de escritura en estudiantes del nivel A1 Starter de la Universidad Técnica de Ambato durante el semestre académico septiembre 2017 - febrero 2018. Metodología. Dura= nte el proyecto de investigación se aplicó una metodología cualitativa cuantita= tiva. Además, las variables correlacionales ayudaron a determinar la deficiencia= de los estudiantes en su proceso de escritura a través de la aplicación de u= na prueba previa y posprueba. Para obtener una muestra significativa de la población investigada se seleccionaron aleatoriamente cuatro paralelos pertenecientes al nivel A1 con un total de 119 alumnos que se dividieron en grupo experimental y de control. Resultados. Tras la aplicación de = los instrumentos de evaluación, el análisis de los resultados mostró una mejora significa= tiva en el desarrollo de las habilidades de escritura en inglés en el grupo experi= mental con respecto al grupo de control. Conclusión. Es evidente que el us= o del portafolio ayuda a los alumnos a ser más conscientes e independientes en su progreso de aprendizaje, lo que se refleja en su producción escrita.

Palabras claves: Portafolio, mejora significativa, producci= ón escrita.

Introduction.

Nowadays, daily international communication is possible through Engl= ish because it simplifies business and trades among different countries, which = do not share a mutual mother tongue. In public education systems, English has = an immense demand worldwide since it has become a requirement to international education access. Also, it has been making a notable influence in professio= nal and personal life in the global development during last decades. (The Engli= sh effect, 2013). In this sense, some academics such as: = Alkhaldi, Davies, Timmis, Hann, Tron= coso and Yong (2014) comment that English can provide people a sense of universal citizenship which is restrained to non-native speakers.
British Council (2013) estimated that two billion people worldwide s= peak English by different purposes. Correspondingly, Dearden (2014) highlighted = that English is considered as the academic lingua franca what attracts people fr= om all over the world, unfortunately not all students have the occasion to lea= rn in English speaking real contexts, for that reason education has taken advantages from different sources and methodologies to increase quality in teaching languages. Jindapitak (2015) agrees wi= th this statement and confirms that the number of non-native speakers is exceedingly over native, increasing the challenge during the acquisition of= the fundamental skills.

Regarding this matter, some academics have different perspectives wh= ich underlying skills are more difficult to acquire. Harmer (2007) mentions that writing provides more thinking time to learners than other skills which inc= lude unprompted conversations. In addition, Likaj (2= 015) states the importance of writing in society development, considering the us= e of it in diverse aspects of the ordinary life such as: medical reports, academ= ic essays, business letters, written advertisements, and e-mails, all these fa= cets allow people language processing during the interaction. Furthermore, Aydoğan and Akbarov (2014) comment writing is a complex skill even for native speakers, because it includes graphic illustrations of language and presents opinions and thoughts in an ordered system.

In academic aspects, writing plays an important role during learners= ’ advance. In this line, Puengpipattrakul (2014) considers that writing process provide learners a large quantity of tools to efficiently and methodically writings, due to the fact this skill implies t= he knowledge and application of an extensive grammar structures, vocabulary, a= nd punctuation rules. The academic also remarks that process-oriented writing instructions face learners to the language accuracy and the same time it increases their motivation and confidence. Ali (2017) observes that sometim= es writings are not successfully, and it can cause learners’ frustration bec= ause students are unable to express their ideas in words appropriately. In relat= ion to this aspect Lines (2014) concludes that writing is an intricate activity because learners must take into consideration singular features such as: knowledge about the topic, audience, and purpose, all of this will influenc= e in the use of the appropriately grammar and vocabulary.

Considering the arguments provided by different academics, it was po= ssible to determine the importance of the writing skill development in learners. Currently, there are diverse strategies and resources apply in English class hours to increase the skill mentioned. Nevertheless, this research study was based on the application of portfolios to support learners with the advance= ment of this skill, considering the benefits and expressive compensations during= the learning process.

Nakayama (2012) mentions that portfolios can make the language progr= ess more observable, which offers teachers a clear image of students’ develop= ment. In this respect Melek and = Hatice (2014) identify that portfolios donate fundamentals to the constructivist learning theory, because learners require a structure in their minds for ea= ch activity carries on, giving them a reflection about their advance. It is meaningful to mention that portfolios have the capacity to involve learners during the writing procedure, and stimulate them on their development as writers (Parsons & Taylor, 2011)

Metodologia.

Basic Method of Research

The research was based on qualitative and quantitative approach. It = is centered on the qualitative approach because this research project highligh= ted the human aspects of the educational improvement. Furthermore, it was also a quantitative approach because the analysis of statistical procedures was necessary.

As Walliman (2011) noted, a qualitative research is centered on people, who can be in social groups or as individua= ls. Students from level A1 played an important role in the development of this research project and thanks to them; it was possible to reach such conclusi= ons. In addition, Patten (2005) clarifies that a qualitative research is usually based on published literature which includes reviews of them. In this study, bibliographic research about writing process development and portfolios was done to have a better idea about the variables of the project.

Otherwise, MacDonald and Headlam (2000) concluded that quantitative research focuses on data and analyzes results f= rom a sample of the participants. A pre-test and a post-test were included duri= ng the process to have statistical data of the results gathered. Data examinat= ion is involved in this study because of the quantitative approach. =

Research Modality

Bibliographical –Documentary Research

The information collected in this study was essential to have a better understanding about what other researchers have investigated on this study area. Additionally,= Walliman (2011) puts a great importance on the develo= pment of bibliographical research due to the valuable data with different sources= to reflect throughout a research project.

Field Research

It is a field research because this project was developed in the pl= ace where the problem presented took place. In this research project four A1 classes at the Language Center of Universidad Técnica de Ambato were consi= dered to collect the information. Moreover, Walliman = (2011) states that this type of research is fundamental to facilitate the data collection and analysis.

Observational r= esearch

This research is observational due to the direct analysis and exploration which can be done in the field of study. Additionally, being in contact with the behavior of the participants was an advantage because there was the opportunity to identify causes for the problem and look for strateg= ies to help in the development of this project.

Level or Type of Research

Correlational Research

Due to the connection between the portfolios and the writing process,= it was necessary to apply the correlational research. Moreover, being in conta= ct with the problem into the real context was the main point for this project.= Additionally, doing social or educational research in general demand= s an analysis of relationships among the direct variables. (Cohen, L., Manion, L. & K. Morrison,2005).

Quasi-experimen= tal research

It was quasi-experimental because the principal objective of this ty= pe of research was to find out the principles of study topics. Patten, (2016) mentions that experimental processes are used to discover reasons and consequences. Thus, the researcher considered essential the use of two samp= ling groups. The first group was controlled and the second one was experimental.=

Population an= d Sample

The present research took place at public universities in higher education in Ambato. The participants in this research were from the A1 sta= rter level.

Population

The entire population in the A1starter level at the Language Center = of Universidad Técnica de Ambato was 1575 students in the semester September = 2017 – February 2018.<= /span>

= Method of Collection<= /span>

The present study took place at the Universidad Técnica de Ambato = at the Languages Center, in which 119 students in their first English level we= re involved. The data was gathered through the application of a pre-test and a= post-test to the experimental and control group. The results were analyzed and presen= ted statistically at the end of the process. Furthermore, the portfolio as a cl= ass resource was employed during the academic period September 2017 – Februar= y 2018 with all the participants.

Data Collection and Analysis

As an activity of the pre-test the participants of the experimental= and control group were asked to develop a short paragraph between 60 to 80 words about a topic determined by the academic. To evaluate the students’ performance, a rubric was designed considering the parameters in formal evaluations over 20 points. The rubric mentioned was validated by the Acade= mic Coordinator of the Languages Center.

In addition, to collect data about students’ progress during the process, an= other written paragraph was requested in the post-test using the rubric mentioned above. When all the data was gathered, the Student t-test was applied as a statistical analysis method.

CONTROL G= ROUP

EXPERIMEN= TAL GROUP

No.<= /o:p>

Pre-Test<= o:p>

Post-Test=

Differences

No.<= /o:p>

Pre-Test<= o:p>

Post-Test=

Differences

1

16

17

1

1

9

16

7

2

15

18

3

2

13

20

7

3

12

15

3

3

13

18

5

4

14

16

2

4

8

19

11

5

13

18

5

5

8

17

9

6

15

16

1

6

10

14

4

7

11

19

8

7

10

15

5

8

8

15

7

8

8

9

1

9

8

18

10

9

8

17

9

10

14

15

1

10

10

18

8

11

13

15

2

11

8

13

5

12

13

13

0

12

15

18

3

13

12

17

5

13

10

18

8

14

12

14

2

14

14

19

5

15

7

10

3

15

10

10

0

16

14

17

3

16

8

15

7

17

14

15

1

17

10

20

10

18

14

15

1

18

15

20

5

19

12

16

4

19

10

17

7

20

12

16

4

20

8

18

10

21

14

18

4

21

12

16

4

22

12

9

-3

22

8

14

6

23

10

12

2

23

15

18

3

24

12

12

0

24

10

13

3

25

10

13

3

25

12

16

4

26

9

12

3

26

8

13

5

27

8

16

8

27

10

15

5

28

12

15

3

28

10

16

6

29

8

12

4

29

8

17

9

30

8

8

0

30

9

16

7

-

-

-

-

31

8

20

12

-

-

-

-

32

9

11

2

-

-

-

-

33

8

16

8

-

-

-

-

34

12

18

6

-

-

-

-

35

10

17

7

-

-

-

-

36

8

15

7

-

-

-

-

37

10

17

7

-

-

-

-

38

18

20

2

-

-

-

-

39

8

15

7

-

-

-

-

40

15

16

1

-

-

-

-

41

15

14

-1

-

-

-

-

42

8

16

8

-

-

-

-

43

8

10

2

-

-

-

-

44

8

14

6

-

-

-

-

45

15

19

4

-

-

-

-

46

8

10

2

-

-

-

-

47

8

10

2

-

-

-

-

48

13

19

6

-

-

-

-

49

8

14

6

-

-

-

-

50

15

18

3

-

-

-

-

51

16

19

3

-

-

-

-

52

8

19

11

-

-

-

-

53

8

18

10

-

-

-

-

54

12

16

4

-

-

-

-

55

8

14

6

-

-

-

-

56

10

14

4

-

-

-

-

57

10

20

10

-

-

-

-

58

10

19

9

-

-

-

-

59

15

18

3

-

-

-

-

60

8

14

6

-

-

-

-

61

15

19

4

-

-

-

-

62

8

16

8

-

-

-

-

63

18

19

1

-

-

-

-

64

7

10

3

-

-

-

-

65

13

19

6

-

-

-

-

66

8

18

10

-

-

-

-

67

5

17

12

-

-

-

-

68

10

18

8

-

-

-

-

69

4

14

10

-

-

-

-

70

5

16

11

-

-

-

-

71

5

13

8

-

-

-

-

72

5

18

13

-

-

-

-

73

5

16

11

-

-

-

-

74

5

13

8

-

-

-

-

75

5

15

10

-

-

-

-

76

15

19

4

-

-

-

-

77

16

18

2

-

-

-

-

78

5

11

6

-

-

-

-

79

5

12

7

-

-

-

-

80

5

14

9

-

-

-

-

81

5

16

11

-

-

-

-

82

5

16

11

-

-

-

-

83

16

20

4

-

-

-

-

84

12

18

6

-

-

-

-

85

14

17

3

-

-

-

-

86

7

15

8

-

-

-

-

87

10

18

8

-

-

-

-

88

8

18

10

-

-

-

-

89

4

9

5

Table 1. Data collection control and experimental group.

<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-fa= reast-font-family: Calibri;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-ansi= -language: EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Source. From “The portfolio as a resource aim= ed at the development of the English writing process in higher education,” by Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armi= jos).

Results.

After comparing the data gathered through the statistical graphics a= nd tables, it was possible to observe that the application of portfolios in the experimental group allowed participants to acquire better outcomes in writi= ng process and improve their language practice according to their English leve= l. Furthermore, during the study and the application of the resource chosen, students were able to foster their originality when they write compared with the control group which a traditional teaching methodology was used.

Paired sample statistics<= /o:p>

Mean=

Standard = deviation

Standard error of the mean<= /b>

ₙ

Control <= span class=3DSpellE>group

Pre-test Total

11.73

30

25.042

0.4572

Post-test Total

14.73

30

27.660

0.5050

Differences (Pre-Pos= t)

3.00=

30

27.165

0.49596

Experimen= tal group

Pre-test Total

9.76=

89

34.871

0.3696

Post-test Total

16.03

89

28.661

0.3038

Differences (Pre-Pos= t)

6.27=

89

31.253

0.3313

T= able 2. Student t= test results.

Source. From “The portfolio as a resource aim= ed at the development of the English writing process in higher education,” by Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos).

          Graph 1. Mean pre-test= and post-test experimental and control groups.

    =       Source. From “The portfolio as a resource aimed= at the development of the English writing process in higher education,” by <= span class=3DSpellE>Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos).

The table showed that differences in the results obtained are more significant in the experimental than in the control group.

Paired sample statistics<= /o:p>

Paired differences

T

df

Sig. (unilateral)

Mean=

Standard = deviation

Standard error of the mean

95% of difference interval of confidence

Lower

Upper

Control <= span class=3DSpellE>group

Pre-test Total - Post-test Total

3.00=

2.716

0.496

1.986

4.014

6.049

29

0.0000005=

Experimen= tal group

Pre-test Total - Post-test Total

6.270

3.125

0.331

5.611

6.928

18.926

88

4,50E-29<= o:p>

T= able 3. Student t test= to paired sample statistics.

Source. From “The portfolio as a resource aimed at the development of the English writing pro= cess in higher education,” by Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos).

Final decision

The t calculated results showed the application of portfolios as a written resource increase students’ development in their writing procedur= e and tasks.



Graph 2. Student t-test distribution experimental g= roup.=

    =     Source. From “The portfolio as a resource aimed at the development of the English writing pro= cess in higher education,” by Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/si= mple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos).

   G= raph 3. Student t-test distribution control group

Source. From “The por= tfolio as a resource aimed at the development of the English writing process in hi= gher education,” by Armijos, 2018. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato, (https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos).

Discussion.

The primary purpose of this study was to establish if the use of portfolios in the English classroom improves the development of the writing process. To verify this statement a pre-test and a post-test were developed. The results of the tests showed the benefits of the use of portfolios in the development of the writing skill since students had the opportunity to use a different teaching methodology. Furthermore, students were able to monitor their learning and improvement when they used their portfolios. As it was mentioned by Nakayama (2012) portfolios make the language improvement more noticeable, which offers teachers a clear image of students’ development.=

During this study, the progress of the writing skill in A1 English students at Universidad Técnica de Ambato was observable. The use of portf= olios contributed to this progress. Moreover, learners were involved in the writi= ng procedure (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). For this reason, it is crucial to u= se portfolios with a purpose because they provide considerable feedback for teachers as well as pupils. On the other hand, it is essential to mention t= hat to appreciate all these benefits students and teachers must be involved in a long-term process.

Conclusions.

·         Through the application of the pre-test was possible to identify participants’ weaknesses in the use of English Language in A1 level and poor development in their writing skill. T= his fact promoted the use of portfolios in which the participants could acquire= the knowledge about the elementary writing components such as punctuation, capitalization, spelling, grammar (according to their level of study) and formatting mistakes. The percentage of the progress was evidenced in the post-test results.

·         Diverse types of writing tasks we= re done by students during the class hour with the purpose of involving participants in the writing process. The writing process in each task covers different stages which allowed participants to be awareness of the applicat= ion of a systematic method of ideas and paragraphs. Every student was responsible to gather all the writing assignments = in a portfolio, which allowed to register and control students’ advance. After= the revision of each portfolio was possible to notice students had better achievements in topics related to themselves written in blogs, e-mails, and journals.

·         A post-test was applied to confirm the students’ progress in writing using portfolios. The control group got= 14.73 and the experimental group 16.03. The results showed the experimental group improved their writing skill over the control group, also it is evident the= use of portfolios increased students’ participation during the process at the= same time increasing their writing micro skills.

References= .

Abreus, A., & Hernández, P. (2016). Nuevos retos para la Enseñanza del Inglés en= la Universidad Ecuatoriana actual. Revista Electrónica Formación y Calidad Educativa (REFCalE), n= ° 3, vol 4.

Ali, K. (2017). Learning and Teaching in Engli= sh: A Case Study of Higher Education     in    Libya. Submitted for degree of Doc= tor of Philosophy, Liverpool John Moores University.

Alkhaldi, A., Davies, B= ., Timmis, I., Hann, N., Troncoso, C., & Yi, Yong. (2014). The impact of English on learners’ wider live= s: B= ritish Council. London

Armijos, G. (2018). The portfolio as a resource aimed at the development of the English writing process in higher education. = [Master’s <= span class=3DSpellE>thesis, Universidad Técnica de Ambato]. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Técnica de Ambato. https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/simple-search?query=3DGabriela+armijos

Aydoğan, H., & Akbarov, A. (2014). The Four Basic Language Skills, Whole Language & Integrated Ski= ll Approach in Mainstream University Classrooms     in Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences n°9, vol 5.

British Council. (2013). The English Effect, London.

British Council. (2015). English in Ecuador: An examination of policy,    perceptions and influencing factors”, Quito.

Brown. (2001). Teaching by Principles and Interactive Approach to Language. New York:        Pearson E= ducation.

Brown. (2001). Language Assessment. New York: Pearson Education.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research Methods in Education. (5^th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dearden, J. (2014). English as= a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon:                �= �                            British Council. London.<= /o:p>

Harmer, J. (1998). How to te= ach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, (1^st ed).

Harmer, J. (2007). How to te= ach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, (3^rd ed.)

Harmer, J. (200= 1). The practice of English Language H= arlow: Pearson     Education Limited, (3^rd ed.).

Jindapitak, N. (2015). English as a Lingua Franca: Learners’ Views on     Pronunciation. Electronic Journal Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching n° 2, vol.12:260-275.

Likaj, M. (2015). Teaching W= riting Through Communicative Approach In Military Engli= sh. Journal of Education and Practice = n° 20, vol. 6: 102-107.

Lines, H. (2014). It’s = a matter of individual taste, I guess: Secondary school for English teachers’ and students’ conceptualizations of qual= ity in writing. Submitted degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education, Exe= ter University.

Mak, P. & Wong, K. (20= 17). Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms. ELT journal: An international journal = for teachers of English to speakers of other languages nº 1, vol. 72, 2018 :49-61.

Melek, D., & Hatice, D. (2014). The Use of Portfolio in English Language Teaching and its Effects on Achievement and Attitude. Procedia - Social             and Behavioral Scie= nces.n°191:2634-2640.

Nakayama, K. (2012). A case study to make langu= age learning more visible at a Japanese Senior High School”, Waseda University 185-19= 0.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Second Languages (1999).       Assessment, Artic= ulation, an Accountability: North Carolina.

Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching E= nglish to Speakers of Other Languages: An     =        Introduction. New York: Routledge.

Ok, S. (2017). Reflections of ELT Students on T= heir Progress in Language and Vocabulary Use in Portfolio Process. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. n° 2, vol 14: 187-200.

Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Uses in Education. n°1, vol. 14:1-32.<= o:p>

Puengpipattrakul= , W. (2014). A Process Approach to Writing to Develop Thai     EFL Students’ Socio-Cognitive Ski= lls. Electronic Journal of Foreign         Language Teaching. n°2= , vol 11:270-284.

Richards & Rodgers. (1999). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards & Schmidt. (2010). Longman Dictionary= of Language Teaching and     Applied Linguistics (forth ed.). Edinburgh: Pear= son Education Limited.

UNICEF. (2013). Documento de Sistematización de la Experiencia Más allá de lo          Imaginado Período 2001-2= 013. Ecuador.                        �= �

= Para citar el artículo indexado=

=

Armijos Ango, G. del R= ., Saquinga Yanchapanta, A. del R., Orbea Peñafie= l, M. N., & Burbano Santamaría, L. E. (2021). The portfolio resou= rce in the development of the English writing process. AlfaPublicaciones, 3(2.1), 27–41. = https://doi.org/10.33262/ap.= v3i2.1.47

=

=

=

=

=

El artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Alpha Publicaciones.

El artículo queda en propied= ad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en otro medio ti= ene que ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Alpha Publicaciones.

=

CONTROL G= ROUP	EXPERIMEN= TAL GROUP
No.<= /o:p>	Pre-Test<= o:p>	Post-Test=	Differences	No.<= /o:p>	Pre-Test<= o:p>	Post-Test=	Differences
1	16	17	1	1	9	16	7
2	15	18	3	2	13	20	7
3	12	15	3	3	13	18	5
4	14	16	2	4	8	19	11
5	13	18	5	5	8	17	9
6	15	16	1	6	10	14	4
7	11	19	8	7	10	15	5
8	8	15	7	8	8	9	1
9	8	18	10	9	8	17	9
10	14	15	1	10	10	18	8
11	13	15	2	11	8	13	5
12	13	13	0	12	15	18	3
13	12	17	5	13	10	18	8
14	12	14	2	14	14	19	5
15	7	10	3	15	10	10	0
16	14	17	3	16	8	15	7
17	14	15	1	17	10	20	10
18	14	15	1	18	15	20	5
19	12	16	4	19	10	17	7
20	12	16	4	20	8	18	10
21	14	18	4	21	12	16	4
22	12	9	-3	22	8	14	6
23	10	12	2	23	15	18	3
24	12	12	0	24	10	13	3
25	10	13	3	25	12	16	4
26	9	12	3	26	8	13	5
27	8	16	8	27	10	15	5
28	12	15	3	28	10	16	6
29	8	12	4	29	8	17	9
30	8	8	0	30	9	16	7
-	-	-	-	31	8	20	12
-	-	-	-	32	9	11	2
-	-	-	-	33	8	16	8
-	-	-	-	34	12	18	6
-	-	-	-	35	10	17	7
-	-	-	-	36	8	15	7
-	-	-	-	37	10	17	7
-	-	-	-	38	18	20	2
-	-	-	-	39	8	15	7
-	-	-	-	40	15	16	1
-	-	-	-	41	15	14	-1
-	-	-	-	42	8	16	8
-	-	-	-	43	8	10	2
-	-	-	-	44	8	14	6
-	-	-	-	45	15	19	4
-	-	-	-	46	8	10	2
-	-	-	-	47	8	10	2
-	-	-	-	48	13	19	6
-	-	-	-	49	8	14	6
-	-	-	-	50	15	18	3
-	-	-	-	51	16	19	3
-	-	-	-	52	8	19	11
-	-	-	-	53	8	18	10
-	-	-	-	54	12	16	4
-	-	-	-	55	8	14	6
-	-	-	-	56	10	14	4
-	-	-	-	57	10	20	10
-	-	-	-	58	10	19	9
-	-	-	-	59	15	18	3
-	-	-	-	60	8	14	6
-	-	-	-	61	15	19	4
-	-	-	-	62	8	16	8
-	-	-	-	63	18	19	1
-	-	-	-	64	7	10	3
-	-	-	-	65	13	19	6
-	-	-	-	66	8	18	10
-	-	-	-	67	5	17	12
-	-	-	-	68	10	18	8
-	-	-	-	69	4	14	10
-	-	-	-	70	5	16	11
-	-	-	-	71	5	13	8
-	-	-	-	72	5	18	13
-	-	-	-	73	5	16	11
-	-	-	-	74	5	13	8
-	-	-	-	75	5	15	10
-	-	-	-	76	15	19	4
-	-	-	-	77	16	18	2
-	-	-	-	78	5	11	6
-	-	-	-	79	5	12	7
-	-	-	-	80	5	14	9
-	-	-	-	81	5	16	11
-	-	-	-	82	5	16	11
-	-	-	-	83	16	20	4
-	-	-	-	84	12	18	6
-	-	-	-	85	14	17	3
-	-	-	-	86	7	15	8
-	-	-	-	87	10	18	8
-	-	-	-	88	8	18	10
-	-	-	-	89	4	9	5

Paired sample statistics<= /o:p>
	Mean=		Standard = deviation	Standard error of the mean<= /b>
ₙ

Control <= span class=3DSpellE>group	Pre-test Total	11.73	30	25.042	0.4572
Post-test Total	14.73	30	27.660	0.5050
Differences (Pre-Pos= t)	3.00=	30	27.165	0.49596
Experimen= tal group	Pre-test Total	9.76=	89	34.871	0.3696
Post-test Total	16.03	89	28.661	0.3038
Differences (Pre-Pos= t)	6.27=	89	31.253	0.3313

Paired sample statistics<= /o:p>
	Paired differences	T	df	Sig. (unilateral)
Mean=	Standard = deviation	Standard error of the mean	95% of difference interval of confidence
Lower	Upper
Control <= span class=3DSpellE>group	Pre-test Total - Post-test Total	3.00=	2.716	0.496	1.986	4.014	6.049	29	0.0000005=
Experimen= tal group	Pre-test Total - Post-test Total	6.270	3.125	0.331	5.611	6.928	18.926	88	4,50E-29<= o:p>