Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered. The data
are presented in tabular and graphical form, after which, the discussion, analysis and
interpretation followed the sequential order of the specific problems in chapter 1.
The respondents of this study were the grade 5 pupils of Dalirig Elementary
School of the school year 2019-2020. This consists of two heterogeneous sections with
30 students each. The study was conducted from August-September 2018.
Problem 1. What is the performance of the respondents in pretest and posttest?
Pretest - Posttest is a quasi-experimental where pupils are studied before and
after the fill-me-up strategy manipulation. This can be hampered by the practice effect,
defined as an influence on performance from previous experience. Overall, the study is
determining whether fill-me-up strategy affects students’ academic performance in
science.
Before the intervention was implemented the two groups have the same level of
intellect, as seen in the table below during pretest the score both groups doesn’t differ
too much. The controlled mean score is 8.1 while the experimental group has a mean
score of 7.767 showing that the controlled means score does not really have high
difference from the mean score of the experimental. The researchers chose the group
with lower mean score to become the experimental group, by doing this the effect of the
intervention will be more visible.
Figure 4. Distribution of Controlled Group According to their performance in Pretest and
Posttest
Control group
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
l1 l3 l5 l7 l 9 l 11 l 13 l 15 l 17 l 19 l 21 l 23 l 25 l 27 l 29
upi upi upi upi upi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi
P P P P P Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu
pretest posttest
Figure 4 represents the performance of Control Group According to their Pretest
and Posttest through Line Graph. The horizontal label across the bottom is the number
of pupils who respond in the pretest and posttest. The vertical label alongside is the
score with the highest of 40. The horizontal scale across the bottom and vertical scale
along the side tells us how many points they got. The blue line represents the Pretest in
which pupil 15 got the highest score of 32 and three pupils got the lowest score of 3 one
of this is pupil 11 in which control group in pretest have the mean score of 8.1. In the
post test pupil 03 got the highest score of 37 and pupil 21 got the lowest score of 20 in
which the experimental group in pretest got the mean score of 19.73.
Figure 5. Distribution of Experimental Group According to their performance in Pretest
and Posttest
Experimental group
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l1 l1 l1 l1 l1 l2 l2 l2 l2 l2
upi
upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi upi
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
pretest posttest
Figure 5 represents the performance of Experimental Group According to their
Pretest and Posttest through Line Graph. The horizontal label across the bottom is the
number of pupils who respond in the pretest and posttest. The vertical label alongside is
the score with the highest of 40. The horizontal scale across the bottom and vertical
scale along the side tells us how many points they got. The blue line represents the
Pretest in which pupil 25 got the highest score of 16 and pupil 14 got the lowest score of
2 in which experimental group in pretest have the mean score of 7.767. In the post test
pupil 03 got the highest score of 37 and pupil 21 got the lowest score of 20 in which the
experimental group in pretest got the mean score of 28.067.
Table 5. Distribution of Pupils’ Performance in post-test in the Traditional Method of
instruction
Level of Performance Frequency Percentage(%)
Did not meet expectation
27 90%
(Beginning)
Fairly satisfactory
0 0%
(Developing)
Satisfactory
2 6.6%
(Approaching Proficiency)
Very satisfactory
1 3.3%
(Proficient)
Outstanding
0 0%
(Advanced)
Total 30 100%
Table 5 represents the pupils’ performance in the Posttest Traditional Method of
instruction. As seen from the table, 27 or 90% of the pupils did not meet expectation or
still in the beginning level, 0 or 0% have fairly satisfactory performance or developing
level, 2 or 6.6% have satisfactory performance or proficient level, 1 or 3.3%. The table
further shows that most of the students did not meet the expectation or in the beginning
level. Thus, it implies that traditional method of instruction is less effective as a tool of
instruction in the classroom.
According to Arzel (2012), it is also deemed that traditional method is restricted
to some degree. Having such method will intend to have a teacher-centered classroom
which makes students to be passive for just listening. This kind of set-up prone students
to miss important part of lessons.
Table 6. Distribution of Pupils’ post-test Performance in the Fill-me-up Strategy of
instruction
Level of Performance Frequency Percentage (%)
Did not meet expectation
18 60%
(Beginning)
Fairly satisfactory
3 10%
(Developing)
Satisfactory
3 10%
(Approaching Proficiency)
Very satisfactory
4 13.3%
(Proficient)
Outstanding
2 6.7%
(Advanced)
Total 30 100%
Table 6 presents the Distribution of Pupils’ Performance in the Fill-me-up
Strategy of instruction. As perceived from the table, 18 or 60% of the pupils did not meet
expectation or still in the beginning level, 3 or 10% is fairly satisfactory or in the
developing level, 3 or 10% proficient or satisfactory level, and 4 or 13.3% highly
proficient performance or very satisfactory level and 2 or 6.7% have outstanding
performance or advanced level. The table implies that although most of the students did
not meet the expectations or in the beginning level, there are still few who are in the
very satisfactory and advanced level. Thus the result means that respondents in the fill-
me-up strategy of instruction have average level of performance. There is a possibility
that students struggle about how much they could contain and in what format it should
be transcribe.
Stacy (2015) stated that some of the discussion revolves around whether
instructor prepared hand-outs so students can concentrate more on what is actually
being said or students learn better by transcribing lectures in their own words. Therefore
there’s a possibility that learners prefers to take lectures by their own words for them to
understand more.
Problem 2. Is there a significant difference in the academic performance of the
pupils who are taught using the Fill-me-up strategy and those who are taught
using the traditional method.
Table 14. The Z-test of Significance Showing the Significant Difference Between the
Academic Performance using the Fill-me-up Strategy and the Traditional Method of
Teaching.
Method
Computed Critical Level of
of N Mean Df
z-value Value Significance
Teaching
Fill-me-
up 30 28.067
strategy 5.5602 +1.96 0.05 29
Tradition
30 19.73
al
Table 14 presents the z-test of significance between the academic performance
of the student using the Fill-me-up and the traditional method of teaching. Using the
x́ 1−x́ 2
z=
formula σ 21 σ 22 , with 95% confidence level or α=0.05 level of significance, the
√ +
n1 n 2
researchers calculated whether there is significance difference between the academic
performance of the student using the Fill-me-up strategy and the traditional method of
teaching. Guided from the table, it shows that there is significant difference in the
academic performance in science using the Fill-me-up strategy and those who are
taught using the traditional method.
With the z-value of 5.5602, this is greater than the critical value + 1.906.
Therefore, decision is to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis
which claims that there is significant difference between the academic performance in
science using Fill-me-up strategy and those who are taught using the traditional
method.
With evidenced of having a higher mean (76.9474) compared to traditional
method of instruction mean (63.3684). The data implies that pupils taught using Fill-me-
up have higher performance compared to the pupils who are taught in the traditional
way.
The result is also true according to Bruner’s Discovery Learning Theory (Bruner,
1995), which states that it is best for learners to discover facts and relationships for
themselves. The fill-me-up strategy in this matter lets the learner discover fact and
relationship for themselves. And with them discovering thing on their own, the students
were able to academically perform well. According to Brown in 2004 humans have the
compulsive need to fill gaps are the reason why it is not difficult to get to take a fill-in-
the-blank worksheets. As the researchers used the fill-me-up strategy it is evident that
learners tend to have fun looking for the answers on each blank
Using guided notes, which have similar concepts with fill-me-up strategy, helps
the students in organizing the content of the lecture and at the same time gives them
the opportunity to actively respond in the class, which in turn positively affects academic
performance. The effects of guided notes in academic performance have been
demonstrated convincingly in several studies. Guided notes have shown that they can
be effective strategy to use in the classroom. They teach students how to take notes
effectively and absorb more course content while the information is being provided.
(Campana, 2009)
