25

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data in relation to the problem of the study and

their corresponding analyses and interpretations.

The Academic Performance of the Students

The following tables show the academic performance of the students. The

mean identified in this study were classified as: the hypothetical mean which was

taken from the 75% standard of the school and the actual mean which was taken

from the scores obtained by the students in their pretest and posttest.

Table 1 shows the academic performance level of the experimental and

control groups in the pretest for both phases.

Table 1. The Pretest Performance Level of the Grade Seven Students in Statistics

Compute p- Descriptio
Phase Group n HM AM SD
dt value n
Experimenta 8 Below
15a 2.272 1.073 106.809* 0.000
Phase l 1 Average
1 8 Below
Control 15a 2.250 1.530 74.522* 0.000
0 Average
Experimenta 8 Below
7.5b 0.488 0.941 66.638* 0.000
Phase l 0 Average
2 8 Below
Control 7.5b 0.482 0.743 84.960* 0.000
1 Average
a – 75% of the 20 item test * - significant
b – 75% of the 10 item test
 26

In phase 1, Group 1 was the experimental group and Group 2 was the control

group. The hypothetical mean of 15 was taken from the 75% of the total score of 20

in the pretest and posttest given in this phase. The experimental group had an actual

mean of 2.272 which was lower than the hypothetical mean. The control group had

an actual mean of 2.250 which was also lower than the hypothetical mean. The

result showed that the actual mean was lower than the hypothetical mean in both

groups. Both of their p-values are 0.000 which were less than the critical value of

0.05. In phase 2, Group 2 was the experimental group and Group 1 was the control

group. The hypothetical mean of 7.5 was taken from the 75% of the total score of 10

in the pretest and posttest given in this phase. The experimental group had an actual

mean of 0.488 which was lower than the hypothetical mean. The control group had

an actual mean of 0.482 which was lower than the hypothetical mean. The results

showed that the actual mean was lower than the hypothetical mean in both groups.

Both their p-values are 0.000 which were less than the critical value of 0.05.

Thus, Ho1.1 was rejected for both phases, which means that there was a

significant difference between the hypothetical mean and the actual mean of the

pretest scores. Both groups had Below Average performance level in Statistics in the

two phases given. Both groups were way below the expected criterion of 75%. This

implies that the students in both groups have little or no background at all about the

topic and both groups could have performed below average because it was still the

pretest and the topics were not yet discussed. Put an implication here and RRL

support (substantiation).
 27

Table 2 shows the academic performance level of the experimental and

control groups in the posttest for both phases.

Table 2. The Posttest Performance Level of the Grade Seven Students in Statistics

Compute p- Descriptio
Phase Group n HM AM SD
dt value n
Experimenta 8 17.70 Above
15a 2.353 10.342* 0.000
Phase l 1 4 Average
1 8 13.32 Below
Control 15a 2.609 5.743* 0.000
0 5 Average
Experimenta 8 Above
7.5b 8.950 0.940 13.797* 0.000
Phase l 0 Average
2 8 Below
Control 7.5b 6.630 1.427 5.490* 0.000
1 Average
a – 75% of the 20 item test * - significant
b – 75% of the 10 item test

In phase 1, the hypothetical mean of 15 was taken from the 75% of the total

score of 20 in the pretest and posttest given in this phase. The experimental group

had an actual mean of 17.704 which was higher than the hypothetical mean. The

control group had an actual mean of 13.325 which was lower than the hypothetical

mean. The result showed that in the experimental group, the actual mean was higher

than the hypothetical mean with a p-value of 0.000 which was less than the critical

value of 0.05. On the other hand, the control group had an actual mean which was

lower than the hypothetical mean with a p-value of 0.000 which was less than the

critical value of 0.05. In phase 2, the hypothetical mean of 7.5 was taken from the

75% of the total score of 10 in the pretest and posttest given in this phase. The

experimental group had an actual mean of 8.950 which was greater than the

hypothetical mean. The control group had an actual mean of 6.630 which was lower

than the hypothetical mean. The results showed that in the experimental group, the
 28

actual mean was higher than the hypothetical mean with a p-value of 0.000 which

was less than the critical value of 0.05. The control group had an actual mean which

was lower than the hypothetical mean with a p-value of 0.000 which was less than

the critical value of 0.05.

Thus, Ho1.2 was rejected for both phases, which means that there was a

significant difference between the hypothetical and actual mean of the posttest

scores. The experimental group had Above Average performance level in Statistics in

the two phases given while the control group had Below Average performance level

in Statistics for both phases. The experimental group was way above the expected

criterion of 75% while the control group was way below the 75% criterion for both

phases. This implies that the students in the experimental group performed better

than the control group for both phases. It also implies that having been integrated

with the AFL, the students in the experimental group’s performance level reached

Above Average compared to their pretest performance which was below average.

This strengthened the study conducted by Guest [ CITATION Gue00 \l 13321 ] that

the students who practiced with AFL performed better than the students without

AFL.
 29

Table 3 shows the mean gain from the pretest to the posttest performance in

Statistics of the experimental and control groups for both phases.

Table 3. The Pre-Posttest Performance of the Grade Seven Students in Statistics

Pretest Posttest Mean Compute P

PHASE Groups N
mean mean difference dt value
Experimenta 81 2.272 17.704 15.432 57.554* 0.00
PHASE l 0
1 Control 80 2.250 13.325 11.075 33.676* 0.00
0
Experimenta 80 0.488 8.950 8.462 57.712* 0.00
PHASE l 0
2 Control 81 0.482 6.630 6.148 35.697* 0.00
0
*significant

Table 3 reveals that in phase 1, the experimental group’s pretest mean score

of 2.272 increased to a posttest mean score of 17.704 with a p-value of 0.000 which

was lower than the critical value of 0.05. In phase 2, the experimental group’s

pretest mean score of 0.488 increased to a posttest mean score of 8.950 with a p-

value of 0.000 which was lower than the critical value of 0.05. Thus, Ho2.1 was

rejected for both phases, which means that there was a significant difference in the

mean gain from the pretest to the posttest performance in Statistics of the

experimental group. This implies that incorporating AFL in class improved the

performance of the Grade 7 seven students in Statistics. This supports the study

conducted by Goode [ CITATION Goo10 \l 13321 ] and Shute [ CITATION Shu08 \l

13321 ] wherein AFL proved to be a helpful tool in improving student performance

in Mathematics.
 30

Table 3 also reveals that in phase 1, the control group’s pretest mean score of

2.250 increased to a posttest mean score of 13.325 with a p-value of 0.00 which was

lower than the critical value of 0.05. In phase 2, the control group’s pretest mean

score of 0.482 increased to a posttest mean score of 6.630 with a p-value of 0.000

which was lower than the critical value of 0.05. Thus, Ho2.2 was rejected for both

phases, which means that there was a significant difference in the mean gain from

the pretest to the posttest performance in Statistics of the control group. This

implies that the students in the control group performed better in their posttest

compared to their pretest. It goes to show that direct instruction increased their

performance from the pretest to the posttest in both phases.

Both the experimental and control group performed well in their posttest

mean scores in comparison to their pretest mean scores. It goes to show that the

experimental group performed better than the control group. This contradicted the

study conducted by McGatha et. al, which stated that integrating AFL in classroom

assessment showed no significant effect on students’ learning and performance in

mathematics (McGatha, Bush, & Rakes, 2009). In this study, AFL has improved

students’ performance in statistics in both phase 1 and 2.

Table 4 shows the mean gains of the experimental and control groups for

both phases.

Table 4. The Posttest Mean Gain Scores of the Grade Seven Students in Statistics

Mean Mean Compute

PHASE Groups N SD P value
Gain Difference dt
Phase 1 Experimenta 81 15.432 2.413 4.357 10.281* 0.000
 31

l
Control 80 11.075 2.942
Experimenta
80 8.463 1.312
Phase 2 l 2.314 10.221* 0.000
Control 81 6.148 1.550
*significant

Table 4 reveals that, in phase 1, the experimental group’s mean gain of 15.432

was higher than the control group’s mean gain of 11.075 with a p-value of 0.000

which was lower than the critical value of 0.05. In phase 2, the experimental group’s

mean gain of 8.463 was higher than the control group’s mean gain of 6.148 with a p-

value of 0.000 which was lower than the critical value of 0.05. Thus, Ho3 was rejected

for both phases, which means that there was a significant difference in the mean

gains between the control and experimental groups. This implies that the

experimental group performed better than the control group, which means that the

students with AFL performed better than the students with direct instruction. This

goes to show that students exposed with the AFL intervention had shown better

improvement in their performance in Statistics compared to their classmates that

were given direct instruction [ CITATION Gue00 \l 13321 ].