bdce letterhead - memory institute · web viewidentify key word in passage. summarise the...

BDCE (Pty) Ltd.A Business Development Centre of Excellence

Head Office : Cape Town5 Mountain View CrescentDurbellDurbanville, 7550

PO Box 2115, Durbanville, 7551Tel: +27 21 975-1107Fax: +27 21 979-2157

Gauteng OfficeBenchmark Office Park1 Larch Nook RoadZwartkop Ext 4Centurion, 0157PO Box 11203, Zwartkop, 0051Tel: +27 12 663-1995Fax: +27 86 619-3607

Organisational Development ● Training ● Human Resource Management

Project Management & Project Assurance - Consulting & Services

Email: [email protected]: www.bdce.co.za

Research Project: Study Method intervention for grade 6 learners

Summary

The intervention on Study methods of grade 6 learners were implemented in the eight listed primary schools. In order to determine if there is any significant impact, it stands to reason that an independent survey was required. The evaluation consisted of two questionnaires of equal difficulty and was administered consistently throughout the process. It was assumed that learners passed the grade 5 departmental exams. The measurement instrument consisted of the following sections: Self-Image and Motivation, Memory, Calculation, Pattern Completion, Problem Solving, Written text comprehension, Identify key words in passage and Summarise the passage.

The study method improvement intervention consisted of the following: Memory improvements, Higher ability to identify key words, study methods, Improved ability to summarise and understand, Higher reading scores, Tasks and projects and Examination techniques.

The results mentioned below in more detail, showed an improvement of the experimental group in mainly three areas: The ability to memorise and recall, the ability to identify key words, summarise a text and answer questions about that text as well as the learners perception of their ability to study.

For the ability to memorise and recall the outcomes are as follow:

For all schools the experimental group showed a 10.7% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 7.7% increase in their ability to use memory effectively

Executive Director: PE van TonderCompany Reg. No. 2011/011954/07VAT No. 4200 220 111

The schools where there is the most improvement on the ability to use memory effectively are the following:For Fanie Theron Primary, the memory category also showed an improvement for the experimental group of 10%. For Protea Primary the memory category the experimental group showed an improved from 14%. For the control group the memory category decrease with 3.54%. For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 25.17% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 11.17% increase in their ability to use memory effectively. It is interesting to note that at Kenmere Primary, the experimental group showed a 5.40% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed an 11.07% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively. This means the experimental group still scored 6 % higher than the control group For Wavecrest Primary the experimental group showed a 31.79% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 4% decrease in their ability to use memory effectivelyAt Rosemoor Primary, the experimental group showed a 0.23% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 35.71% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively. This means that the experimental group scored 35.94 % more than the control group.

Another category where the intervention seemed to make a difference is in the comprehension skills of the learners. The following schools showed improvement on this category: For all schools the experimental group showed a 31.8 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 14.8 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 13.91 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 39.76% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text. For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed an increase in the comprehension category from 39% to 69% which is an increase of 30%. For Fanie Theron Primary School the experimental group showed a reduction of their ability to comprehend written text with only 1.64% while the control group showed a much higher reduction of 23.04% which means that the learning that took place with the intervention resulted in 21.4%. For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed an increase of 21% in the comprehension category. For Hillcrest Primary the

of 61

experimental group showed a 2.42 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 29.63% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text. For De Vije Zee Primary the experimental group showed an increase in the comprehension category 14% For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 36.14 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 19.12% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.

In all schools the ability to calculate the experimental group increased with 3.44% while the control group increased with 1.96%. In the category Pattern completion for all schools the experimental group showed a 22.26% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 30.52% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. In the category of Problem Solving for all schools the experimental group showed a 95.12 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 130.3 % increase in their ability to solve problems. In the category of Self-Image for all schools the experimental group showed a 3.97% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.69% increase in their self-image. This means that the experimental group showed slightly more of an improvement of 2%. For Motivation to Achieve, in all schools, the experimental group showed a 0.31% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 2% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks.For Social Behaviour in all schools, the experimental group showed a 1.23% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.24% increase in their improvement of social behaviour.The category where the is also a significant improvement is the ability to study

For all schools the experimental group showed a 4.9% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 0.16% decrease in their perception of ability to study.

of 61

Table of ContentsIntroduction:.................................................................................................................................... 5

Schools involved:.............................................................................................................................5

The purpose of the measurement instrument..................................................................................6

Test application...............................................................................................................................7

Measurement Instrument Construction............................................................................................7

The length of the instrument/s.........................................................................................................7

Requirements of the measurement.................................................................................................8

Assumption...................................................................................................................................... 8

Child Outcomes................................................................................................................................8

Additional Factors to be considered.................................................................................................9

General findings for all schools......................................................................................................10

Analyses per School.......................................................................................................................16

Fanie Theron Primary School.................................................................................................16Protea Primary School...........................................................................................................22Diazville Primary School........................................................................................................28Hillcrest Primary School........................................................................................................34Kenmere Primary School.......................................................................................................40

De Vrije Zee Primary School..................................................................................................46Wavecrest Primary School....................................................................................................52Rosemoor Primary School....................................................................................................55

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 61

of 61

Introduction: The intervention on Study methods on grade 6 learners were implemented in the listed eight primary schools. The need to evaluate the impact of the intervention resulted in the following outcomes as detailed below. The evaluation used were two questionnaires of equal difficulty and applied consistently throughout the participating schools.

Schools involved:The following schools participated in the project:

Number of Learners

School

Date1st

Question-naire2014

Date2nd Question-

naire2014

Headmaster Teachers

1 48 Protea Primary 24/02 17/6Mnr James Salmoen

Mnr A MentoorMe C van Geem

2 144Fanie Theron Primary

26/02 23/6 Mnr Toerien

H SwartO van JaarsveldR PretoriusC PeplerC van Eeden

3 132Hillcrest Primary

27/02 20/6 Mnr C de Jongh

W SolomonsH CuttingsS T WilliamsJ Pietersen

4 157Diazville Primary

04/03 19/6 Mnr A Hector

Mev TigerMe C EdwardsMe V PisholoMe M Hibbert

5 115Kenmere Primary

05/03 24/6Mnr AW Johannesen

Ms C HeynsMrs P van ReenenMr N Burch

6 150De Vrije Zee Primary

17/03 11/6 Mnr Van der Spuy

Lynn NunesJolinda MostertSonja RogottaJanice OvermeyerWialize Blake

7 62 Wavecres 25/04 25/6 Mnr V Africa I Braaf

of 61

Number of Learners

School

Date1st

Question-naire2014

Date2nd Question-

naire2014

Headmaster Teachers

Primary P Serelina

8 66Rosemoor Primary

26/04 18/6 Mnr MillerMnr McKenzieMe Joseph

Key:

Orange indicates teachers and their classes taking part in the experimental group

Blue (light and darker) indicates the control groups

The purpose of the measurement instrument

This evaluation was not intended to be psychometric tests, merely to measure the impact of the training intervention in study methods for grade 6 learners at the abovementioned eight schools.

The evaluation consists of two questionnaires of equal difficulty.The instrument is designed to measure the current competence per child and to evaluate whether the study methods that were taught to the experimental group had any positive outcome during the second evaluation.

The evaluation reflects comparisons per child, per school and per group as well as comparison between the experimental and control groups.

The completion per section in each questionnaire was measured per child to indicate whether there is any improvement in self-confidence, confidence in study methods, memory, thinking patterns, reasoning, reading etc.

of 61

Test application

The questionnaire was consistently administered at all the schools with the same methodology applied.The preparation and explanation prior to each section seemed to be easily understood by the learners.Most learners were eager to complete the questionnaires without any complaints

There were no pre- evaluation runs done to test the measurement tool.

Measurement Instrument Construction

The questionnaires were constructed by using relevant information that a grade 6 learner will have studied, using information from Department of Education’s prescribed handbooks and the difficulty level were pithed at a beginner grade six learner

The measurement instrument consists of the following sections:

Self-Image and Motivation Memory Calculation Pattern Completion Problem Solving Written text comprehension Identify key word in passage Summarise the passage

The length of the instrument/s

The time to evaluate 30 to 40 learners per group is 1 hour.The length of the measurement seems to be adequate to measure the desired results, therefore perceived to be reliable as possible regarding a measure of this form

of 61

Requirements of the measurement

Each item in the measurement is direct to the purpose of the evaluationThe first section dealing with Motivation and Self Image requires opinions and is more subjective than the rest of the measurement.The rest of the questions have only one correct answer.Answers could not be deducted from the questions.The scoring of the measurement is easy and accurate and could be done by any detailed person

Assumption

The assumption is made that all learners submitted to the evaluation have passed the grade 5 exams of the education department, can read and write and understand Afrikaans or English

Child Outcomes

Improved Self-esteem and higher motivation to achieve To enhance and improve 6 study methods To reduce study time

The study intervention included the following: Memory improvements (various techniques including visualisation, rhymes

and stories, association, mnemo hanger- technique) Higher ability to identify key words SQR3 study methods Improved ability to summarise and understand (columns and mind maps) Higher reading scores Tasks and projects Examination techniques Prosocial behaviour Quality work habits

of 61

Additional Factors to be considered

The following factors were not measured but could have a significant effect on the improvement per learner:

Parenting Parent–child relationship Linkages with the community

Home–School Relationships Communication Participation in school events and formal parent involvement programs

Responsibility for Learning Outcomes Supporting literacy Helping with homework Managing children’s education Maintaining high expectations

of 61

General findings for all schoolsNote that some learning took place overall regarding the first and the second evaluation, which could reasonably be expected.

The overall score for memory improved with 3% of the experimental groups.

For all schools the experimental group showed a 31.8 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 14.8 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text. Which means that the overall comprehension improvement is 47% for the experimental groups

For all schools the experimental group showed a 3.97% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.69% increase in their self-image. This means that the experimental group showed slightly more of an improvement of 2%.

The experimental group showed a 4.9% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 0.16% decrease in their perception of ability to study. This means that the experimental group showed 5% increase in this section.

Memory:For all schools the experimental group showed a 10.7% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 7.7% increase in their ability to use memory effectively. It can be concluded that the experimental group performed 3% better than the control groupThe score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 6.8% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 9.7% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Calculations:

of 61

For all schools the experimental group showed a 3.4 % increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 1.9 % increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.25% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.2 % where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Pattern Completion:For all schools the experimental group showed a 22.26% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 30.52% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 9.72% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.78 % where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Problem Solving:For all schools the experimental group showed a 95.12 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 130.3 % increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 14.4% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.5 % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Comprehension:

of 61

For all schools the experimental group showed a 31.8 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a -14.8 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 8.63% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 68.13% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Self- Image: For all schools the experimental group showed a 3.97% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.69% increase in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.19% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.43% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For all schools the experimental group showed a 0.31% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 2% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.13% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 4.9% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For all schools the experimental group showed a 1.23% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.24%

of 61

increase in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.35% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.34% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Ability to study:

For all schools the experimental group showed a 4.9% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 0.16% decrease in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.75% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.17% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61

Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2Control 64.36 69.34 70.86 72.25 53.39 69.68 16.09 37.06 39.57 33.71 84.55 85.98 76.92 75.38 78.32 79.29 63.48 63.38Experimental 68.73 76.09 70.69 73.12 58.58 71.62 18.41 35.93 42.99 56.68 84.71 88.07 79.33 79.08 78.59 79.55 61.73 64.75

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control 4.98 7.75% 1.39 1.96% 16.29 30.52% 20.97 130.30% -5.86 -14.82% 1.43 1.69% -1.54 -2.00% 0.97 1.24% -0.10 -0.16%Experimental 7.36 10.70% 2.43 3.44% 13.04 22.26% 17.51 95.12% 13.69 31.84% 3.36 3.97% -0.25 -0.31% 0.97 1.23% 3.02 4.90%

All Schools Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 1 Eval 2

Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

All Schools

Control Experimental

of 61

Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control ExperimentalEvaluation 1 64.36 68.73 70.86 70.69 53.39 58.58 16.09 18.41 39.57 42.99 84.55 84.71 76.92 79.33 78.32 78.59 63.48 61.73Evaluation 2 69.34 76.09 72.25 73.12 69.68 71.62 37.06 35.93 33.71 56.68 85.98 88.07 75.38 79.08 79.29 79.55 63.38 64.75

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 4.38 6.80% -0.18 -0.25% 5.19 9.72% 2.32 14.44% 3.42 8.63% 0.16 0.19% 2.41 3.13% 0.27 0.35% -1.75 -2.75%Evaluation 2 6.75 9.73% 0.87 1.20% 1.94 2.78% -1.13 -3.05% 22.97 68.13% 2.09 2.43% 3.70 4.90% 0.27 0.34% 1.37 2.17%

Comprehension Self-ImageAll Schools Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental


All Schools

Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2

of 61

Analyses per School

Fanie Theron Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS

The most prominent improvement for Fanie Theron Primary School lies in the Comprehension section. The experimental group showed a reduction of their ability to comprehend written text with only 1.64% while the control group showed a much higher reduction of 23.04% which means that the learning that took place with the intervention resulted in 21.4%. This could have a significant effect on the exam results of learners.

Although the motivation to achieve went down for the experimental group with only 0.27% the motivation to achieve for the control group dropped with 4.95%

The memory category also showed a good improvement for the experimental group, while it was already high from the first evaluation at 74.63% went up another 13.41% to 84.64%. It is interesting to note that the control group went up with 26.6%.

FINDINGS PER CATEGORY

Memory:For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 13.41% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 28.68% increase in their ability to use memory effectively. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 26.82% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 11.77% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Calculations:

of 61

For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 6.46 % increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 2.79% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.1% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 5.75 % where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Pattern Completion:For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 13.03% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 31.59% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 15.74% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.58 % where the experimental group scored slightly lower than the control group

Problem Solving:For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 180.0 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 182.66 % increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.74% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.78% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Comprehension:For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 1.64 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 23.04% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 23.07% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 57.29% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Self- Image: For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 4.76% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 3.74% increase in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.53% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.54% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 0.27% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 6.85% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.63% where the experimental group also scored slightly lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.39% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 2.06% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.33% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.43% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.9% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Ability to study: For Fanie Theron Primary the experimental group showed a 4.58% decrease in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 5.46 % decrease in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.9% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.8% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control 16.88 28.68% 2.19 2.79% 18.90 31.59% 29.27 182.66% -11.67 -23.04% 2.99 3.73% -4.95 -6.85% -1.09 -1.33% -3.68 -5.46%Experimental 10.01 13.41% 5.18 6.46% 9.02 13.03% 29.35 180.00% -1.02 -1.64% 3.85 4.76% -0.19 -0.27% 1.64 2.06% -3.18 -4.58%

Fanie Theron Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00



Fanie Theron Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 15.78 26.82% 1.65 2.10% 9.42 15.74% 0.28 1.74% 11.69 23.07% 0.43 0.53% -0.46 -0.63% -2.00 -2.45% 1.96 2.90%Evaluation 2 8.91 11.77% 4.64 5.75% -0.46 -0.58% 0.35 0.78% 22.33 57.29% 1.28 1.54% 4.31 6.39% 0.73 0.90% 2.45 3.85%

Self-ImageFanie Theron Primary Memory Calculations Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to StudyPattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00



Fanie Theron Primary


of 61

Protea Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS

The memory category showed a good improvement for the experimental group, and improved from 47% to 60.5%. The control group memory category decrease with 3.54% and went from 47% down to 43.6%.

With the category in pattern completion the experimental group went from 50.8% to 75% average which indicates a very good increase of 48% while the control group also increased but only with 26% to an average of 50%


Memory:For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 29.68% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 7.51% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.06% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 38.72% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Calculations:For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 0.09 % decrease in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 4.59% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.17% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.44 % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

of 61

Pattern Completion:For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 48.73% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 26.87% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 28.90% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 50.4 % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Problem Solving:For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 108.33 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 220.0 % increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 40.80% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 8.33% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Comprehension:For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 13.91 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 39.76% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 17.69% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 68.18% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Self- Image: For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 1.34% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 3.14% increase in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 6.41% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 4.58% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 0.72% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 3.74% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 69% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.67% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 0.91% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.09% increase in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 6.81% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.62% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Ability to study:

of 61

For Protea Primary the experimental group showed a 11.19% decrease in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 2.53 % decrease in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 13.33% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.83% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control -3.55 -7.51% 2.77 4.59% 10.59 26.87% 25.00 220.00% -13.50 -39.76% 2.91 3.14% 3.19 3.74% 0.84 1.09% 1.46 2.53%Experimental 13.85 29.68% -0.06 -0.09% 24.40 48.03% 17.33 108.33% -5.56 -13.91% 1.32 1.34% 0.64 0.72% 0.75 0.91% -7.35 -11.19%

Protea Primery Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00



Protea Primery


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 -0.50 -1.06% 1.92 3.17% 11.39 28.90% 4.64 40.80% 6.01 17.69% 5.94 6.41% 3.14 3.69% 5.22 6.81% 7.72 13.33%Evaluation 2 16.90 38.72% -0.91 -1.44% 25.20 50.40% -3.03 -8.33% 13.95 68.18% 4.35 4.55% 0.59 0.67% 5.13 6.62% -1.09 -1.83%

Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to StudyPattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-ImageProtea Primery Memory Calculations

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00



Protea Primery


of 61

Diazville Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS Note: One Xhosa class did not attend the second evaluation due to internal school problems

The memory category showed a good improvement for the experimental group, and improved from 58% to 73%.

The self-image category showed a good improvement for the experimental group.

The ability to study category showed an improvement for the experimental group from 49% to 62%

The experimental group showed an increase in the comprehension category from 36% to 57%


Memory:For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 25.17% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 11.17% increase in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.7% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 15.64% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61

Calculations:For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 7.57 % increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 2.77% decrease in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 11.03% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.56% % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Pattern Completion:For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 24.07% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 58.37% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 18.59% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 7.10 % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Problem Solving:For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 41.33 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 266 % increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 73.08% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 33.29% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

of 61

Comprehension:For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 57.61 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 12.29% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 27.23% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 78.58% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Self- Image: For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 5.49% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.88% decrease in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.46% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.78% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 0.53% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 4.90% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.78% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 2.72% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 0.7% increase in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 4.67% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.76% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Ability to study: For Diazville Primary the experimental group showed a 25.87% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 18.33% increase in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.47% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.83% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control 6.34 11.17% -2.02 -2.77% 25.39 58.37% 29.63 266.66% 3.53 12.29% -1.60 -1.88% -3.79 -4.90% 0.48 0.72% 9.37 18.33%Experimental 14.69 25.17% 4.90 7.57% 12.42 24.07% 7.95 41.33% 21.03 57.61% 4.50 5.49% 0.41 0.53% 1.89 2.72% 12.87 25.87%

Social Improvement Ability to StudyDiazville Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Diazville Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 1.53 2.70% -8.02 -11.03% 8.08 18.59% 8.12 73.08% 7.81 27.23% -2.94 -3.46% 0.78 1.01% 3.09 4.67% -1.40 -2.74%Evaluation 2 9.88 15.64% -1.11 -1.56% -4.89 -7.10% -13.56 -33.29% 25.32 78.57% 3.15 3.78% 4.99 6.78% 4.50 6.76% 2.10 3.47%

Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-ImageMemoryDiazville Primary Calculations Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Diazville Primary


of 61

Hillcrest Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS

The memory category showed a good improvement for the experimental group, and improved from 75% to 79%.


Memory:For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 4.90% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 10.30% increase in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 21.59% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 15.64% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Calculations:

For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 0.32 % decrease in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 1.15% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.47% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.91% % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

of 61

Pattern Completion:For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 25.62% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 32.32% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 8.74% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.24 % where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Problem Solving:For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 50.72 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 122% increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 34.88% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 8.52% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Comprehension:For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 2.42 % decrease in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 29.63% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.65% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 39.57% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Self- Image: For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 2.65% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.83% decrease in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.30% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.50% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 4.34% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 0.52% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 7.07% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.96% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 5.90% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 8.11% increase in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 411.09% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.30% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Ability to study:

of 61

For Hillcrest Primary the experimental group showed a 5.08% decrease in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 5.90% decrease in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.03% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 0.84% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control 6.40 10.30% 0.79 1.15% 15.60 32.32% 19.30 122.22% -13.30 -29.63% 1.53 1.83% -0.41 -0.52% 5.73 8.11% -3.83 -5.90%Experimental 3.70 4.90% -0.22 -0.32% 13.44 25.62% 10.80 50.72% -1.09 -2.42% 2.21 2.65% -3.62 -4.34% -4.63 -5.90% -3.30 -5.08%

Hillcrest Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00



Hillcrest Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 13.42 21.59% -1.01 -1.47% 4.22 8.74% 5.51 34.88% 0.29 0.65% -0.25 -0.30% 5.51 7.07% 7.84 11.09% -0.02 -0.03%Evaluation 2 10.72 15.64% -2.01 -2.91% 2.07 3.24% -2.99 -8.52% 12.50 39.57% 0.43 0.50% 2.30 2.96% -2.52 -3.30% 0.51 0.84%

Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to StudyHillcrest Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00



Hillcrest Primary


of 61

Kenmere Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS

The experimental group showed an increase in the comprehension category from 39% to 69% which is an increase of 30%

The experimental group showed an improvement on self-image of 7%. The experimental group showed an improvement on social improvement of

5%. The experimental group showed an improvement in their ability to study of

7.5% while the control group showed a decrease in their ability to study of 9.5%


Memory:For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 5.40% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 11.07% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 9.83% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 3.93% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Calculations:For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 1.03% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 1.54% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.88% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.36% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61

Pattern Completion:For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 13.27% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 29.32% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 18.82% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 4.07 % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Problem Solving:For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 122.22 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 163.33% increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 11.67% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 4.07% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Comprehension:For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 64.91 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 0.04% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.34% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 64.42% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Self- Image: For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 6.98% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 1.53% decrease in their self-image.

of 61

The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 5.78% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.36% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 2.70% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 2.29% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 0.89% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 4.17% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed 5.75% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.78% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 4.50% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.82% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Ability to study: For Kenmere Primary the experimental group showed a 7.51% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 9.54% decrease in their perception of ability to study.

of 61

The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 5.87% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 11.87% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control -0.87 -1.07% 1.13 1.54% 16.58 29.32% 24.38 163.33% -0.01 -0.04% -1.36 -1.53% -1.76 -2.29% -1.49 -1.78% -6.30 -9.54%Experimental 3.94 5.40% 0.78 1.03% 8.92 13.27% 20.37 122.22% 25.69 64.91% 5.82 6.98% 2.05 2.70% 4.62 5.75% 4.67 7.51%

Kenmere Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Kenmere Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 -7.95 -9.83% 2.12 2.88% 10.64 18.82% 1.74 11.67% -0.13 -0.34% -5.12 -5.78% -0.69 -0.89% -3.79 -4.50% -3.88 -5.87%Evaluation 2 -3.15 -3.93% 1.76 2.36% 2.98 4.07% -2.27 -5.77% 25.58 64.42% 2.06 2.36% 3.12 4.17% 2.33 2.82% 7.10 11.87%

Kenmere Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Kenmere Primary


of 61

De Vrije Zee Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS Note: Suicide of one of the children of the experimental group happened between the first and the second evaluation

For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 53.44 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 15.63% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.


Memory:For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 5.47% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 2.07% decrease.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.57% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.02% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Calculations:For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 0.66% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 1.19% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.83% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.30% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61

Pattern Completion:For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 29.68% in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 22.77% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.11% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.79 % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Problem Solving:For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed an 88.87 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 91.11% increase in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 1.18% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 2.32% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Comprehension:For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 53.44 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 15.63% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 4.86% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 73.02% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Self- Image: For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 2.13% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 0.87% decrease in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 5.38% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.68% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 0.38% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 3.92% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.05% where the experimental group scored higherr than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 7.66% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed 2.54% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 1.14% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 7.38% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 8.85% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Ability to study: of 61

For De Vrije Zee Primary the experimental group showed a 10.67% increase in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 9.03% increase in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 3.90% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 5.21% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control -1.43 -2.05% 0.91 1.19% 13.69 22.77% 16.27 91.11% -6.55 -15.63% 0.75 0.87% -3.18 -3.92% 0.94 1.14% 6.18 9.30%Experimental -3.92 -5.47% 0.52 0.66% 18.04 29.68% 15.69 88.89% 21.31 53.44% 1.92 2.13% 0.32 0.38% 2.24 2.54% 7.37 10.67%

De Vrije Zee Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



De Vrije Zee Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 1.79 2.57% 1.40 1.83% 0.67 1.11% -0.21 -1.18% -2.04 -4.86% 4.62 5.38% 2.47 3.05% 6.06 7.36% 2.59 3.90%Evaluation 2 -0.70 -1.02% 1.01 1.30% 5.01 6.79% -0.79 -2.32% 25.82 73.02% 5.79 6.69% 5.98 7.66% 7.37 8.85% 3.78 5.21%

De Vrije Zee Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



De Vrije Zee Primary


of 61

Wavecrest Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS Please note that the second evaluation for this school could not be

completed due to a strike going on and no passage to the school until later. There was then not enough time to administer the evaluation because the school closed earlier.

Memory:For Wavecrest Primary the experimental group showed a 31.79% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 4% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 2.57% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 1.02% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

EVALAUTION NOT COMPLETED

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control -3.73 -4.29% 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.78 27.93% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Experimental 21.09 31.79% 4.32 6.14% 10.15 15.21% 26.92 116.67% 35.81 113.68% 1.01 1.41% -0.01 -0.01% 2.15 2.99% 5.17 9.35%

Wavecrest Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Wavecrest Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 -20.57 -23.66% 70.46 66.77 23.08 3.63 13.03% 71.91 67.72 71.81 55.25Evaluation 2 4.25 5.11% 74.79 76.92 50.00 31.66 88.79% 72.92 67.71 73.96 60.42

Wavecrest Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Wavecrest Primary


of 61

Rosemoor Primary School

GENERAL FINDINGS: In the memory category the experimental group showed a 0.23%

increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 35.71% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively. This means that the experimental group scored 35.94 % more than the control group

The experimental group showed a 146.66 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 15.56% decrease in their ability to solve problems.

The experimental group showed a 36.14 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 19.12% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text

The experimental group showed 0.66% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 4.49% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour

Memory:For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 0.23% increase in their ability to use memory effectively, while the control group showed a 35.71% decrease in their ability to use memory effectively.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 117.22% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 60.43% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group

Calculations:For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 5.11% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively, while the control group showed a 12.36% increase in their ability to use calculations effectively. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 54.49% where the experimental group scored higher than

of 61

the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 44.52% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Pattern Completion:For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 17.51% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly, while the control group showed a 25.63% increase in their ability to complete patterns correctly. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 24.32% % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 16.28 % where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Problem Solving:For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 146.66 % increase in their ability to solve problems, while the control group showed a 15.56% decrease in their ability to solve problems. The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 31.18% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 101.02% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Comprehension:For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 36.14 % increase in their ability to comprehend written text, while the control group showed a 19.12% decrease in their ability to comprehend written text.The score difference between the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 112.98% where the experimental group scored lower than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 258.48% where the experimental group also scored higher than the control group

of 61

Self- Image: For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 5.66% increase in their self-image, while the control group showed a 9.84% increase in their self-image.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 19.14% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 14.61% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Motivation to achieve: For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 0.33% decrease in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 13.64% increase in their motivation to achieve and improve school marks.The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 26.20% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 10.69% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Social Behaviour:These test questions asked for indications on how children get along with other in the class as well as how they get along with other friends.It also looked at the behaviour of children when conflict arises in their homes or on the playground.For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed 0.66% increase in their improvement of social behaviour, while the control group showed a 4.49% decrease in their improvement of social behaviour. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 10.35% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 6.31% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

Ability to study:

of 61

For Rosemoor Primary the experimental group showed a 1.81% decrease in their perception of ability to study and improve school marks, while the control group showed a 1.42% increase in their perception of ability to study. The score difference of the experimental group and the control group during evaluation 1 is 10.83% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group while the score difference between the experimental group and the control group for evaluation 2 is 7.30% where the experimental group scored higher than the control group

of 61


ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

ScoreIncr / Decr

% Incr / Decr

Control 13.16 35.71% 5.16 12.36% 11.09 25.63% -3.65 -15.56% -4.06 -19.12% 7.81 9.84% 9.53 13.64% 3.43 4.49% 0.79 1.42%Experimental 0.18 0.23% 3.29 5.11% 9.42 17.51% 23.65 146.66% 16.35 36.14% 5.35 5.66% -0.29 -0.33% 0.56 0.66% -1.12 -1.81%

Rosemoor Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Comprehension Self-Image Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00



Rosemoor Primary


of 61


ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

ScoreDifference

%Difference

Evaluation 1 43.19 117.22% 22.73 54.49% 10.53 24.32% -7.31 -31.18% 24.01 112.98% 15.20 19.14% 18.31 26.20% 7.92 10.35% 6.05 10.83%Evaluation 2 30.22 60.43% 20.87 44.52% 8.85 16.28% 19.99 101.02% 44.43 258.48% 12.75 14.61% 8.49 10.69% 5.04 6.31% 4.13 7.30%

Comprehension Self-ImageRosemoor Primary Memory Calculations Pattern Completion Problem Solving Motivation to Achieve Social Improvement Ability to Study

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00



Rosemoor Primary


of 61

ConclusionOver the elementary school years, children become more autonomous than in early childhood and develop relationships with a wider array of people, including peers and teachers. Children also begin to establish competence in a variety of domains.Primary schools have responsibilities to encourage study methods to be a catalyst in developing a child’s full potential. These activities should include study method education, and when they do, schools can benefit from their outcomes.

Also to remember the following important factors: the role of parents, Home- and School relationships and taking responsibility for the child’s learning outcomes.

Equipped with the tools to be able to study effectively and achieve higher in the exams during the elementary school years, children will be poised for smooth transitions to high school and for success in these even more complex educational settings.

PE van TonderExecutive Director/ PsychomteristPMT 0041750

Sharon SteynEducational PsychologistPS 0099252

of 61

bdce letterhead - memory institute · web viewidentify key word in passage. summarise the...

Documents