Pretest. The manipulation of item type (statements and questions) was objective and straightforward to establish. The second manipulation, namely that of time pressure, required pretesting. The first pretest was conducted with 5 items per block and 30 seconds for those who had a counter. The choice of 30 seconds was based on the average reading speed. With a mean speed of average readers being 173 words per minute and an average item consisting of 9 words, a participant should be able to read the 5 items in 15 seconds (Xxxxxxx, M. D., & XxXxxxxxxx, X. X., 1979). Having 30 seconds would mean that they, the average readers, should not be able to read the items twice and still have time left to choose an answer. Although the average duration to fill in the questionnaire declined significantly, the respondents did not indicate any pressure from the time limit. Therefore, the second pretest was conducted with 7 questions with a 30 seconds time limit. Here, some people indicated not having enough time to answer, while others indicated that they were not influenced a lot by the time pressure. In the final survey, the 7 questions were accompanied with 35 seconds, equal to 6 questions in 30 seconds. The aim of taking the average, was to make sure everyone was able to answer all the questions within the time limit. When the questionnaire was conducted, too many participants reported not having enough time and multiple participants reported not keeping track of the countdown clock after the first set. A second questionnaire was conducted with a 50 seconds counter for 7 item sets. This was based on the average responding time per item set of the previous survey, which was 49,95 seconds. A second method was included in this survey in order to obtain a method where everyone feels pressure despite differences in reading level, intelligence, or other personal characteristics. This was entered because of the big difference in responding to the questions asking how they experienced the time pressure. It seemed interesting to test not two methods of applying time pressure. The measurement techniques also required pretesting. Two sets of questions or statements were provided in the first pretest. The first being a range of heterogeneous items from different marketing scales obtained from a selection used in Cabooter, E. (2010). The second being pairs of contradicting items obtained from Xxxxxx, M., Xxxxxxx, M., & Xxxxxxxxxx, X. (1986). These items are direct opposites with the same wo...
Pretest. In this part, the class of control class who taught before using zoom as a learning tool. This pretest was conducted to determine the results of the writing test before being treated. There are 17 students as control group score was 72 and the lowest score was 40. Based on the SPSS 22.0, it is shown that the mean of students’ score of control class was 60, the mode was 60, the median was 60 and the standard deviation was 9.4244.
Pretest. Experimental class is the class who taught using WhatsApp as a tool in teaching and learning process. A pretest was conducted to determine the results of the writing test before using WhatsApp as a learning tool. There are 17 students as control group pretest. From the test there was result of students’ writing that the highest score was 75 and the lowest score was 37.5. Based on the output of SPSS, it is shown that the mean of students’ score of control class was 55.9, the mode was 41, the median was 56.5 and the standard deviation was 11.0588. Figure : 3 The graph student’s writing score of pretest in experimental class Based on the figure 3 above, it is known that there is no one who got score 90 ≤ 100(excellent), 80 ≤ 89 (good), there was three students who got score 70- 79(fair), fourteen students who got the score ≤ 69(poor). From the result above can be concluded into two grades, namely poor and fair.
