Sultana, Yeasmin. (2013). Development of Linguistic Skills and creativity in English learning at Elementary stage through Technology Supportive Learning: An Experimental study. Unpublished. Ph.D., Language Education. Assam University, Silchar.
i. To develop technology supportive learning (TSL) for the development of linguistic skills, linguistic creativity, and academic performance in English learning. ii. To study the effect of Technology Supportive Learning (TSL) over Usual Learning Method (ULM) for the development of overall linguistic skills, linguistic creativity, and academic performance in English learning with regard to pre-test and post- test scores. iii. To study the effect of TSL over ULM for the development of component-wise linguistic skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), linguistic creativity (fluency, flexibility, and originality) and academic performance (prose, poetry and non-detailed) in English learning with regard to pre-test and post test scores. iv. To study the effect of TSL over ULM for the development of overall linguistic skills and linguistic creativity in different content areas of English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. v. To study the effect of TSL over ULM for the development of component wise linguistic skills and linguistic creativity in different content areas of English learning with regard to pre- test and post- test scores.
i. There exists significant difference between mean scores of overall linguistic skills developed through TSL and mean scores of overall linguistic skills developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. ii. There exists significant difference between mean scores of overall linguistic creativity developed through TSL and mean scores of overall linguistic creativity developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. iii. There exists significant difference between mean scores of overall academic performance developed through TSL and mean scores of overall academic performance developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. iv. There exists significant difference between component wise mean scores of linguistic skills developed through TSL and component wise mean scores of linguistic skills developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. v. There exists significant difference between component wise mean scores of linguistic creativity developed through TSL and component wise mean scores of linguistic creativity developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. vi. There exists significant difference between component wise mean scores of academic performance developed through TSL and component wise mean scores of academic performance developed through ULM in English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. vii. There exists significant difference between mean scores of overall linguistic skills developed through TSL and mean scores of overall linguistic skills developed through ULM in different content areas of English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. viii. There exists significant difference between mean scores of overall linguistic creativity developed through TSL and mean scores of overall linguistic creativity developed through ULM in different content areas of English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. ix. There exists significant difference between component wise mean scores of linguistic skills developed through TSL and component wise mean scores of linguistic skills developed through ULM in different content areas of English learning with regard to pre test and post test scores. x. There exists significant difference between component wise mean scores of linguistic creativity developed through TSL and component wise mean scores of linguistics.
In the present study, the researcher had followed the purposive sampling method in order to select the sample. The researcher took two sections i.e. Section-A and Section-B of class VI of K.V., Malda; one section i.e. Section-A of class VI of K.V, NTPC; and one section i.e. Section-B of D.P.S. for her experiment. Section-A of K.V., Malda and Section-B of D.P.S., Farakka formed the experimental group for the study; and Section-B of K.V., Malda and Section-A of K.V., Farakka were taken as control group in the study. Total 128 students were there in the entire sampling group at the beginning of the experiment. However, 122 students were present in all the stages of experiment. Sixty students from Sec-A of class VI of K.V., Malda and Sec-B of class VI of D.P.S., NTPC constituted the members of experimental group, while sixty two students from Sec-A of class VI of K.V., NTPC and Sec-B of class VI of K.V., Malda formed the control group for the present study. Thus, 122 students comprised the final sample group of the present study.
The study, being an experimental one, necessitated two types of tools as follows: i. Instructional tools ii. Testing tools. The two types of instructional tools used in this present study were: A. Technology Supportive Learning (TSL) B. Usual Learning Method (ULM). Three types of testing tools were used in the study. They were: A. Linguistic Skills Test in English B. Linguistic Creativity Test in English C. Academic Performance Test in English. The reliability of the LSTE was found to be 0.78. The validity of the present linguistic skills test was estimated through the following methods: Content Validity, Item Validity: item difficulty and item discrimination.
The present piece of research was an experimental type of research. In the present study, the researcher had used ‘non- randomized/ unequated-two-groups pretest and post-test design. Independent variables are the effect of Technology Supportive Learning for the development of Linguistic Skills, Linguistic Creativity, and Academic Performance in English learning of class VI elementary students. In the present study, control group was taught through Usual Learning Method (ULM), and the experimental group was taught through Technology Supportive Learning (TSL). Dependent variables are development of Linguistic Skills, Linguistic Creativity, and Academic Performance in English learning.There are certain variables that cannot be measured directly but they may have some effect upon the dependent variables. There were many intervening variables like socio-economic status of the students/teachers, environment in the classroom, teachers competency, tuition of the students, contamination effects, study habits etc. that might have affected the present study.
Researcher has used descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, graphical representation of data etc. and the inferential statistics like t-test, ANOVA, ANCOVA for analysis of the data.
The data analysis referring to all these 40 experimental effects have been made using t test, ANOVA and ANCOVA. The Mean level (Raw Mean Level) analysis of the study shows that out of 40 cases, in 39 cases the experimental group did better than control group whereas in one case the control group did better than experimental group. The ANOVA level analysis of the study shows that out of 40 cases, in 28 cases, the experimental group did better than control group; and in 12 cases, there were no significant difference between the control group and the experimental group. However, in no case it was found that the control group did better than experimental group. The ANCOVA level analysis of the study shows that out of 40 cases, in 12 cases the experimental group did better than control group; and in 28 cases, there was no significant difference between the control group and the experimental group. But, in no case it was found that the control group did better than experimental group. Taking into consideration all these inferences, it is summarized that TSL is a better method than ULM for developing linguistic skills, linguistic creativity, and academic performance in English learning at elementary stage.
The following educational implications can be drawn from the present study: 1. The aim of language education at school level should not be the development of language skills only. It should also aim at developing other important language competencies like language achievement, linguistic creativity etc. 2. Proper care should be taken to develop creative ability of the students through the teaching of different school subjects instead of teaching creativity as a separate discipline. 3. Due care must be taken to use language as a means for the development of creativity among school students. 4. Technology supportive learning method can be used to develop linguistic skills, linguistic creativity, and academic performance in language learning. 5. Appropriate environment should be provided to the children for facilitation of linguistic skills, linguistic creativity and academic performance in language learning. 6. The teaching learning process of language classroom should focus on development of individual as well as corporate/group creativity among the learners. 7. Teachers need to be careful while using technology supportive learning method at different school level for developing various abilities of the students. 8. Policies need to be framed regarding the development of linguistic skills, linguistic creativity, and academic performance in language learning from national to local level.
Keyword(s): Linguistic Skills , English Learning , experimental study, technology supportive learning