Main Article Content
The research implemented the principle of using the lesson plans by BBL and
KWL Plus of Reading. The purposes of the study to 1) study the effectiveness of the
lesson plans by BBL and KWL Plus of Reading Matthyomsuksa 1 students had efficiencies
of 80/80, 2) compare the achievement of reading by BBL and KWL Plus 3) compare
the achievement critical thinking by BBL and KWL Plus, and 4) compare achievement
motive of Reading Matthyomsuksa 1 student during the lesson plans by BBL and KWL
Plus. The sample consisted of 70 Matthyomsuksa 1 students from 2 classroom at
Donraedwittaya School, Amphoe ratttanaburi, Surin in the second semester of the
academic year 2012, obtained using the cluster random sampling technique, to be 2
groups, each 35 person. The instruments used for collecting data were 5 kinds 1) 6
plans by BBL and 6 plans using KWL Plus, each plan about 2 hours all in good
level ( X = 4.40 and X = 4.44 S.D. = 0.55). a 30 items achievement test of reading
with discriminating powers ranging 0.26-0.54 and a reliability of 0.79, a 30 items critical
thinking test with discriminating powers ranging 0.20-0.54 and a reliability of 0.83 and
a 15 items 5-rating-scale inventory on achievement motive with discriminating powers
ranging 2.01-4.64 and a reliability of 0.86. The statistics used for analyzing the collected
data were percentage, mean, standard deviation, and t-test (Independent Samples)
for testing hypotheses.
The results of the study were as follows :
1) The lesson plan of by BBL and KWL Plus had efficiencies of 83.01/82.9
and 83.90/82.76 respective ; which met the required criterion of 80/80
2) The students learned using the lesson plans by BBL had more efficiencies
of Reading than KWL PLUS at the .05 level of significance.
3) The students learned using the lesson plans by KWL PLUS had more
Efficiencies the achievement critical thinking the BBL at the .05 level of significance.
4) The students learned using the lesson plans by BBL and KWL Plus
had Achievement Motive of reading did not difference both in good level ( X = 4.45
and X = 4.49).
The content and information contained in the published article in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University represent the opinions and responsibilities of the authors directly. The editorial board of the journal is not necessarily in agreement with or responsible for any of the content.
The articles, data, content, images, etc. that have been published in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University are copyrighted by the journal. If any individual or organization wishes to reproduce or perform any actions involving the entirety or any part of the content, they must obtain written permission from the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University.