CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter entails the analysis of data collected from the field. It deals with the

responses to the test and interviews presented to learners and teachers. It covers the

demographic characteristics of the respondents. Most of the findings are converted into

percentage to make easier understanding of relations and patterns exhibited by the data for

orderly and systematic presentation; the chapter is divided into headings in accordance with

that of the test and interview.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the respondents such as gender, age and teaching

experience were obtained. Gender of respondent.

Table 1: Gender of Respondents

Gender Number of Pupils Percentage (%)

Male 9 45

Female 11 55

Total 20 100

(Source, Field Data 2024)

Table 1 results revealed that female population in the study stood at 11 representing

55% of the learners while their male counterparts were 9, representing 45% of the learners of

the study. The result is not surprising because the entire student population in Hohoe M/A

Experimental Basic School had 168 representing 60% of female and 112 representing 40% of

males. The implication of this is that the female respondents dominated relatively in the study.

Analyses of Pupils’ Test Items

Table 2: Pre-Test Result

Results Frequency Percentage (%)

Correct spelling 7 35

Incorrect spelling 13 65

Total 20 100
Source: (Pupils Pre-test Marked Scripts, 2024)

Table 2 give an indication that learners have difficulties in spelling some English words

correctly. However, out of twenty learners, only seven (7) representing 35% of the learners

were able to spell the words correctly. 13, thus 65% of basic two learners spelt the words

wrongly.

Table 3: Post-Test Result

Results Frequency Percentage (%)

Correct spelling 16 70

Incorrect spelling 4 30

Total 20 100
Source: (Pupils Post-test Marked Scripts, 2024)

From the above table, there is a clear indication that there is significant change in the

learners’ performance after the intervention process. Comparing the Pre-test and Post-test

implies that, while only seven (7) out of twenty learners were able to pass in the pre-test after

the interventional strategies I employed to help learners of Hohoe M/A Experimental R/C

School basic two (2) learners overcome their spelling problem. This shows that the

intervention strategies were very effective in solving the problem.

Analyses of Data Collected from the Interview

Table 4: Teacher's responses on the number of times spelling is taught within a week

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)

Once 2 100

Twice - -

Total 2 100

(Source, Field Data 2024)

The responses from an interview administered to class two teachers to find how often

they spell within a week reveals that, they only teach it once a week. The responses of the

teachers proves that spelling is not taken as seriously as compared to other topics in English

Language or subjects.

Table 5: Pupils’ performance in spelling exercise during the Pre-test

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)

Good 5 25
Average 6 30

Poor 9 45
Total 20 100
(Source, Field Data 2024)

Table 5 gives a description of pupil’s performances in spelling exercises. After

comparing pupils’ performance from a spelling exercise with their previous exercises revealed

that, 45% of the learners performed poorly in the spelling. 30% of the learners had average

score while only 25% of the learners were good at spelling. This may be due to the fact that

spelling was not taught regularly.

Discussion of Research Questions

Table 6: Teacher’s responses on the causes of spelling difficulty

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)

Language based learning disabilities 1 50

Learners do not have foundations on

alphabets and sounds 1 50
Total 2 100
(Source, Field Data 2024)

From the table above, one class teacher responded that language-based learning

disabilities for learners. The other class teacher also responded that she thought learners did not

get a good foundation in vowel sounds and consonant, they therefore find it difficult to spell

simple words. This shows that the possible causes of basic 2 pupil’s inability to spell correctly

are lack of good foundation in English and L1 interference.

Discussion on the Phonics and Look and Say Method

The Phonics Method is a systematic approach to teaching reading skills, focusing on the

relationship between sounds (phonemes) and letters (graphemes). This method emphasizes

sound-symbol association, blending, segmenting, and decoding skills (Rasinski & Samuels,

2011). By learning the sounds of individual letters and letter combinations, students can decode

unfamiliar words and build a strong foundation in reading. In contrast, the Look-and-Say

Method, also known as the Whole Word or Sight Word approach, focuses on recognizing

words as whole units, without explicit phonics instruction.

One of the primary advantages of the Phonics Method is its emphasis on decoding skills, which

enables students to read unfamiliar words. This approach also helps students understand the

internal structure of words, making it easier to spell and write. On the other hand, the Look-

and-Say Method can lead to faster recognition of high-frequency words, but may not provide a
strong foundation for decoding unfamiliar words (Dehaene, 2009). Additionally, the Look-and-

Say Method relies heavily on memorization, which can be a limiting factor for students who

struggle with memory or have learning difficulties.

Another key difference between the two methods is the role of context in reading

instruction. The Phonics Method often involves practicing phonics skills in isolation, whereas

the Look-and-Say Method emphasizes reading words in context to build comprehension. While

contextual reading is essential for building comprehension skills, it is also important to ensure

that students have a strong foundation in phonics skills to accurately decode unfamiliar words.

A balanced approach that combines elements of both methods can provide students with a

comprehensive reading education (Kuhn and Stahl, 2003).

Despite the differences between the Phonics Method and Look-and-Say Method, both

approaches have been shown to be effective in teaching reading skills. However, research

suggests that a systematic phonics approach is more effective in the long term, particularly for

students who struggle with reading. The Phonics Method provides students with a foundation

in decoding skills, which enables them to read unfamiliar words and build a strong reading

vocabulary. In contrast, the Look-and-Say Method may lead to a reliance on memorization,

which can limit students' ability to read unfamiliar words (Ehri, 2001).

Summary of Discussions

Considering the result in the pre-test score, greater percentage of the learners scored

below the average mark. It was discovered that inadequate reading materials in the school was

a major factor to pupil's inability to read well leading error in their spelling of words because,

wide and regular reading consolidated all that had been gained and accustomed in the mind to
make use of the language as a natural and familiar medium of thought and communication

according to (Dechant, 2014).

Moreover, learner's do not have good foundation on alphabets and sounds which is the

vowel sounds and consonant leading to difficulty in spelling simple words. Example is the

challenges learners encountered during spelling lessons include being unable to spell words

that sounds similar e.g. seat and sit and words that have silent letters e.g. Knife etc. If learners

should have a good foundation in their early childhood education, using vowel sounds and

consonant would have been easier for them to at least pronounce and spell words correctly.

In comparing the Post-test to the Pre-test scores, it is clear that while most learners

scored below the average mark of 50% in the pre-test results, the post-test results presented an

above average mark of 50% indicating a massive improvement in the pupils’ spelling ability.

The results obtained in the post-test supported (Smith & Dechant, 2014) that, when teaching

pupils how to read, the reading programme should focus on the individual needs, individual

experiences and should also provide the opportunities to learn skills to satisfy his or her needs.

In conclusion, both the Phonics Method and Look-and-Say Method have their strengths

and weaknesses. A balanced approach that combines elements of both methods can provide

students with a comprehensive reading education. By emphasizing phonics skills, while also

providing opportunities for contextual reading and comprehension practice, teachers can help

students build a strong foundation in reading and set them up for success in literacy

development. Ultimately, the most effective approach will depend on the individual needs and

learning styles of students, and teachers should be flexible and willing to adapt their instruction

to meet these needs.