CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter consists of the presentation and analysis of data, which were

gathered from the respondents. These data were analyzed and interpreted to

come up with the results of this study. The data are presented in tables according

to the problem stated at the start of this study.

Development, Modification and Validation of the Physics Tricks and

Games

20%

internet

books and journals

20% 60% suggestions from

teachers in physics

Figure 1.The Bases for the Tricks in Learning the Concepts of Newton’s Laws of
Motion

Figure 1 elucidates the pie-graph data of the sources of tricks in learning

Newton’s laws of motion. As can be gleaned, a big percentage of tricks

developed in this research were taken from the Internet. This may be partly due

to its accessibility and timeliness. But, the researchers did a deliberate selection

to assure the effectiveness of the tricks in teaching the concepts on Newton’s

 22

laws of motion. They found more appropriate tricks from the Internet than from

other sources. Moreover, they used their self-made rubric for a preliminary

survey of the list of tricks they selected from a variety of sources and it boiled

down to the final list of tricks used for this research. These were then subjected

to a validation through expert teachers in physics.

33% 34% internet

suggestions from
teachers in physics
researcher's idea

33%

Figure 2 The Bases for the Games in Learning Newton’s laws of Motion

Similarly, this figure provides the pie-graph data for the games. The

researchers did a preliminary survey for the games and they make sure that the

games are appropriate in discussing the concepts without compromising the

enjoyment and active participation of students. They still made use of the rubric

in assessing the games by themselves before the formal validation process

through experts.

Below is the table containing the list of tricks and games directly taken from its

original sources, another list of tricks and games developed and modified by the
 23

researchers, and finally, a list with further modification after the validation

process.

Table 1. The list of Tricks and Games Developed, Modified and Validated

Tricks and Games Tricks and Games with Tricks and Games with
without Modification researcher’s modification further modification after
the assessment of
experts
1.

Further modification was made to ensure the quality of the developed

tricks and games as means of teaching the concepts of Newton’s laws of Motion.

This is likewise in response to the comments and suggestions of the validating

experts and on their rates they gave in the rubric for assessing the tricks and

games. The succeeding table reveals the rates of the validating experts for every

criterion and summarizes the overall outcome of assessment. Its accompanying

table supplements the rates through comments and suggestions.

Table 2. Rates of the Validating Experts on the Developed Tricks and

Games
 24

Tricks Criterion Validating Validating Validating Overall

Expert A Expert B Expert C Percentage
per criterion
1.Availability of 20 pts. 20 pts. 13 pts. 17.66%
Materials, 20%

2.Affordability of 20 pts. 20 pts. 15 pts. 18.33%

Materials, 20%

3. Content, 35% 15 pts. 20 pts. 14 pts. 28.58%

4.Functionality, 25% 15 pts. 20 pts. 16 pts. 21.25%

Overall Rate: 85.82%

Games Criterion Validating Validating Validating Overall
Expert A Expert B Expert C Percentage
per criterion
1. Availability of 20 pts 20 pts 14 pts 9%
Materials, 10%

2. Affordability of 20 pts 20 pts 16 pts 9.3%

Materials, 10%

3. Content, 30% 15 pts 20 pts 15 pts 25%

4. Functionality, 25% 15 pts 20 pts 12 pts 19.58%

5.Student 20 pts 15 pts 17 pts 21.67%

Involvement, 25%

Overall Rate: 84.55%

 25

Table 3. Comments and Suggestions by Validating Experts

Validating Expert Comments and Suggestions

A The “upside down trick” should be practiced
well before the demonstration so as to achieve
success. It should be explained well to the students
the concept behind it and use it as a springboard for
the lesson. The researchers must find an appropriate
trick for the second law of motion, which is not found
in the list of their tricks.
Statue dance is a nice game for all but the first
law of motion is not clearly emphasized in it. Instead,
I suggest that the researchers must find an activity or
game that involves translational motion for the
student to grasp the concept of inertia.
B It really enhances the student’s interest of the lesson.
As a teacher, it gives me an idea of a unique way of
teaching my students in a form of tricks and games.
C None
Based on table 3, the researchers found the need to further improve the

content of the tricks. As mentioned in the table, the researchers should find an

appropriate trick for Newton’s second law of motion. As a consequence, they

changed the trick “ Newton’s law in a Mug” to “ Newton’s law in a Box, which is

similar to the game “ Coin Transfer”.

For the games, the criteria with poor ratings are content and functionality.

In fact, a validating expert commented that statue dance does not sufficiently

emphasize Newton’s first law. As a result, that game was omitted from the list

and was replaced by a game created by the researchers that involves

translational motion, as suggested by the expert.

 26

Effectiveness of the Developed Tricks and Games in Learning the

Concepts of Newton’s Laws of Motion

Effectiveness, in this research study pertains to the significant difference

between the scores before and after the treatment. the pretest and posttest

scores are first determined and their difference is analyzed by Paired T-test

statistics in SPSS. If the computed probability value for 2-tailed significance at

95% confidence interval is less than 0.05, then it can be said that there is a

significant difference between the scores. This further implies that the developed

tricks and games are effective in learning the concepts of Newton’s laws of

motion.

Table 4 Performances of the Respondents in the Pretest

Scores Frequency Percent

2 10 7.9
3 18 14.3
4 24 19.0
5 34 27.0
6 15 11.9
7 12 9.5
8 7 5.6
Table 9 2 1.6
10 2 1.6
1 suggests 11 2 1.6
Total 126 100.0
that most
Mean: 5.00
respondents scored 5 out of 15 items in the test, which is below the passing

score of 7 and only a few scored higher than 8 to 11 points. In fact only 25 out of

126 students or 19.84% of the total sample population have reached the passing
 27

score, approximately 50 % of the total test items. This means that the

respondents have generally insufficient prior knowledge about the topic on

Newton’s Laws of Motion even they have taken up the topic during the first

grading period. The overall mean is 5, which implies that they have poor prior

knowledge on this particular topic.

Table 5 Performances of the Respondents in the Posttest

Scores Frequency Percent

2 3 2.4
3 9 7.1
4 17 13.5
5 14 11.1
6 18 14.3
7 26 20.6
8 13 10.3
9 15 11.9
10 7 5.6
11 1 .8
13 3 2.4
Total 126 100.0
Mean: 6.51

However, after the intervention, 65 respondents scored in the range

of 7-13 points out of 15 items. The total number of respondents who passed

represents 51.59% of the total population. This is 31.75% higher than the

percentage for pretest performance, which is 19.84%.

 28

Consequently, table 6 presents the statistical analysis of the pretest and

posttest scores using Paired T-test computed by SPSS. The result indicates that

there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest performances of

the respondents. This implies that the developed tricks and games are effective

in learning the concepts on Newton’s Laws of Motion.

Table 6 Paired T-test Between Pre- and Posttest Performances of the

Respondents

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the p-value
Difference Computed Sig. (2-
Mean Lower Upper T df tailed)
Pair 1 -1.508 -7.519 125 - 7.519* 125 .000
Pretest
Score –
Posttest
Score
* Significant at α = 0.05

Ho1: there are no significant differences between the performance of the

respondents in the pretest and posttest.

Effectiveness of the Developed Tricks and Games in Terms of the

Attitudes of the Respondents

To measure the attitudes of the respondents towards Physics as a

subject, the researchers prepared an attitude questionnaire consisting of ten

statements that appeal to their interests, preconceived notions and dispositions

on Physics. During the distribution of the questionnaire, the reliability of the

 29

instrument is unknown. After collecting the response of all respondents, these

were tallied, and then subjected to Cronbach Alpha reliability test. Using SPSS in

computing this, results revealed that all items have acceptable reliability values.

Hence, the effectiveness of the developed tricks and games in terms of attitude

can be determined with confidence on the part of the respondents. Here is the

table showing the reliability result.

Table 7 Reliability Result for the Researcher-made Attitude

Questionnaire
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.666 .688 10
 30

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted

AQ1 31.32 20.682 .529 .349 .606

AQ2 31.34 21.139 .445 .278 .620
AQ3 31.20 21.568 .334 .241 .640
AQ4 32.45 23.674 .083 .087 .691
AQ5 30.88 20.874 .429 .247 .622
AQ6 31.73 20.903 .480 .290 .614
AQ7 30.95 21.086 .354 .228 .636
AQ8 31.40 20.675 .453 .313 .617
AQ9 31.95 23.806 .036 .125 .708
AQ10 31.41 21.924 .305 .205 .646
 31

Table 8. Attitudes of the Respondents Toward Physics in the Pre-Attitude Test

Attitude Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Highly Mean Remarks

Agree Disagree
Freq Freq Freq Freq Freq
1. I find physics interesting and 17 61 38 6 4 3.64 Agree
worthwhile.
2. I see a connection between 20 6 32 18 0 3.62 Agree
physics and me as a person.
3. I see relevance of physics in my 32 49 32 9 4 3.76 Agree
everyday life.
4. I find physics as a difficult 26 37 42 15 6 3.49 Agree
subject.
5. I consider physics as a tough but 50 50 15 8 3 4.08 Agree
challenging subject.
6. I understand most of the 9 37 60 14 6 3.23 Neutral
concepts in physics.
7. I believe that mathematical 49 49 12 12 4 4.01 Agree
calculations are always involved in
physics.
8. I find physics fun and exciting. 19 54 35 13 5 3.55 Agree
9. I find physics as having less 16 29 36 28 17 2.99 Neutral
relation to what I experience in the
real world.
10. I believe that I learn Physics 22 45 43 12 4 3.55 Agree
more when I am actively involved in
classroom activities.
Overall Mean: 3.592

LEGEND:
1 (1.00 – 1.79) Strongly Disagree
2 (1.80 – 2.59) Disagree
3 (2.60 – 3.39) Neutral
4 (3.40 – 4.19) Agree
5 (4.20 – 5.00) Strongly Agree
 32

Based on table 8, the means for items 1,2,3,5,8,10 which are all positive

statements about physics all belong to the interval for Agree. This implies that the

respondents have generally positive attitude towards physics. However, for items

9 and 6, most of them are neutral or undecided which means they are not sure to

say that physics has less relation to what they experience in the real world and

that they understand most of the concepts in physics. Finally, the respondents

agree to two negative statements that physics is a difficult subject and that

mathematical calculations are always involved in this subject.

 33

Table 9. Attitudes of the Respondents Toward Physics in the Post-Attitude Test

Attitude Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Highly Mean Remarks

Agree Disagree
Freq Freq Freq Freq Freq
1. I find physics interesting and 29 54 28 11 4 3.74 Agree
worthwhile.
2. I see a connection between 25 66 27 6 2 3.84 Agree
physics and me as a person.
3. I see relevance of physics in 31 45 38 7 5 3.71 Agree
my everyday life.
4. I find physics as a difficult 1 4 45 53 23 1.22 Strongly
subject. Disagree
5. I consider physics as a tough 35 67 15 7 2 4.00 Agree
but challenging subject.
6. I understand most of the 30 51 32 11 2 3.76 Agree
concepts in physics.
7. I believe that mathematical 37 54 25 8 2 3.92 Agree
calculations are always
involved in physics.
8. I find physics fun and 29 54 28 11 4 3.74 Agree
interesting.

9. I find physics as having less 5 28 25 38 30 2.52 Disagree

relation to what I experience in
the real world.
10. I believe that I learn Physics 35 40 36 8 7 3.70
more when I am actively
involved in classroom activities.
Overall Mean: 3.415
LEGEND
1 (1.00 – 1.79) Strongly Disagree
2 (1.80 – 2.59) Disagree
3 (2.60 – 3.39) Neutral
4 (3.40 – 4.19) Agree
5 (4.20 – 5.00) Strongly Agree
 34

Table 9 evidently shows that there is a change in the attitude of the

respondents after the treatment. Generally, they agree to statements 2,3,5,8

and10 which are all positive statements about physics, similar to their pre-attitude

response but of higher mean values. This suggests that they like physics more

than before they witnessed the presentation of tricks and their game

performance. However, they disagree to statements 4 and 9, which are both

negative statements. This only means that they find physics not difficult as they

first view it and physics is now seen as having a relation to what they experience

in the real world. This positive change in attitude is caused by the simplicity of the

content and presentation of the tricks and the games they participated, which

connects them to real-life experiences. This claim is founded based on an

interview with the respondents. For item no. 7, their response is consistent to that

of their pre-attitude response. This is to say that they are firm in stating that

mathematical calculations are always involved in physics.

 35

Table 10 Paired T-test Between Pre- and Post-Attitude Responses of the

Respondents
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the p-value
Difference Computed Sig. (2-
Mean Lower Upper T df tailed)
Pair 1 -0.2658 -0.5 0.06 -1.843** 9 .098
Pretest
Score –
Posttest
Score
** Not Significant at α = 0.05

Ho2: There is no significant difference between the attitude of the respondents in

the pre-attitude and post-attitude test.

The mean scores for pre-attitude and post-attitude tests do not show

significant difference in accordance to the result showed in table 10. Thus, the

developed tricks and games do not significantly improve the respondents’

attitudes toward Physics.

 36

Table 11 Relationships Between the Pretest Performances and Pre-Attitude

Responses
Attitude 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Compute Tabulat df
Response d Chi- ed Chi-
Square Square
Value Value
42-52 3 4 2 4 25.31* 12.592 6
(3.1 (7.74) (1.44) (0.62)
9)

31-41 22(2 62(55. 9 1

3.13 95) (10.44) (4.48)
)
20-30 6 9 3 1
(4.6 (11.31) (2.11) (0.90)
7)

* Significant at α = 0.05

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between the pretest performance and

pre-attitude response.

Based on Table 11, there exists a significant relationship between the

performance and attitude response of the respondents before the treatment.The

respondents’ performance in the pretest is dependent on how they first view

physics as a subject. The more positive their attitudes toward Physics before the

treatment, the higher their pretest scores.

 37

Table 12 Relationships Between the Posttest Performances and Post-

Attitude Responses

Attitude 1-5 6-10 11-15 Computed Tabulated Degree

Response Chi- Chi- of
Square Square Freedom
Value Value
42-52 7 19 3 15.08* 9.488 4
(9.90) (18.18) (0.92)
31-41 32 55 1
(30.03) (55.17) (2.79)
20-30 4 5 0
(3.07) (5.64) (0.29)
* Significant at α = 0.05

Ho 4: There is no significant relationship between the posttest performance and

post-attitude response.

Based on Table 12, there is a significant relationship between the posttest

performance and post-attitude response of the respondents. We can conclude

that the respondents’ posttest performance is generally affected by their attitude

towards physics after the treatment. The more positive their post-attitude towards

Physics, the higher their posttest scores.

 38

Table 13 Analysis of Variance among Schools in their Pretest

Performances

Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
Between 51.879 3 17.293 4.735* .004
Groups
Within Groups 445.550 122 3.652
Total 497.429 125
* Significant at α = 0.05

Ho5: There is no significant difference in pretest performance among the

schools.

Based on Table 9, there is a significant difference in pretest performance

among the schools. Hence, at least one mean for pretest performance is different

from the other schools. To pinpoint which school differs from the other three, the

Duncan test is used. According to table 14, MSU-IIT Coop Academy has a

different mean for pretest performance as compared to St. Therese Academy,

Sacred Heart High School and Corpus Christi Parochial School. In fact, its mean

value is higher than the other three schools which indicate that the group of

respondents in MSU-IIT Coop Academy has high prior knowledge on Newton’s

laws of motion even before the treatment.

Table 14 Duncan Test of Pretest Performances Among Schools

Subset for alpha = 0.05
Schools N 1 2
 39

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Duncan STA
Schools N 30 4.40
SHHS 60 4.60
CCPS 16 4.88
MSU-IIT Coop Academy 20 6.30
Sig. .416 1.000

MSU-IIT Coop Academy’s mean for pretest performance is different from

other schools based on table 14.

Table 15 Analysis of Variance among Schools in their Posttest

Performances

Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
Between 52.588 3 17.529 3.433* .019
Groups
Within Groups 622.904 122 5.106
Total 675.492 125
* Significant at α = 0.05 is 2.6049

Ho6: There is no significant difference in posttest performance among the

schools.

Based on Table 15, there is no significant difference in posttest

performance among the schools. Hence, at least one mean for posttest

performance is different from the other schools.

Duncan Test for posttest performances of the respondents shown in Table

16 unleashes that St. Therese Academy ‘s posttest mean is different from the

three other schools by having the lowest mean value. This result shows that, as

compared to the rest of the population sample, St. Therese Academy group of
 40

respondents has been left behind in terms of progress in performances. Tricks

and games may not be most effective in their learning of the concepts of

Newton’s laws of motion. On the other hand, Sacred Heart High School and

Corpus Christi Parochial School prove that they learned the concepts on

Newton’s laws of motion very well and have progressed, as depicted in their

mean scores. Though the group of respondents from MSU-IIT Coop Academy

belongs to the same group of SHHS and CCPS, its gain of improvement is lower

than the aforementioned schools since it has already high mean value in the

pretest.

Table 16 Duncan Test of Posttest Performances Among Schools

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Schools N 1 2
Duncan STA 30 5.77
SHHS 60 6.30 6.30
MSU-IIT Coop Academy 16 7.44
CCPS 20 7.50
Sig. .409 .080
St. Therese Academy’s mean for posttest performance varies from other

schools.

Table 17 Analysis of Variance among Schools in their Pre-Attitude

Responses
 41

Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
Between 110.891 3 36.964 1.404** .245
Groups
Within Groups 3185.077 121 26.323
Total 3295.968 124
* Not Significant at α = 0.05

Ho7: There is no significant difference in pre-attitude response among the

schools.

As shown in the table, there is no significant difference in pre-attitude

response among the schools. This is further supported by Duncan test results,

which indicate that there is no school that varies from among the other schools.

This only means that the respondents share similar attitudes toward Physics.

Table 18 Duncan Test for Pre-attitude Response Among Schools

Subset for alpha

= 0.05
Schools N 1
Duncan CCPS 20 33.85
STA 29 33.90
MSU-IIT Coop Academy 16 35.19
SHHS 60 35.90
Sig. .208

Table 19 Analysis of Variance Among Schools in their Post-Attitude

Responses
 42

Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
Between 347.123 3 115.708 4.479* .005
Groups
Within Groups 3151.417 122 25.831
Total 3498.540 125
*Significant at α = 0.05

Ho8: There is no significant difference in post-attitude responses among the

schools.

However, Table 19 reveals that there is a significant difference in post-

attitude responses among schools. Then, it can be concluded that, at least one

mean for post-attitude responses is different from other schools.

The table below elaborates which among the schools makes the

difference. As can be seen, St. Therese Academy differs from the rest of the

group of schools. This goes to show that the respondents have no longer linger

to the whole population’s general attitude about physics. Their attitudes may

have considerably changed either negatively or positively.

Table 20 Duncan Test for Post-Attitude Responses Among Schools

 43

Subset for alpha =

0.05
Schools N 1 2
Duncan STA 30 35.03
SHHS 60 37.75 37.75
MSU-IIT Coop Academy 16 38.50
CCPS 20 40.20
Sig. .063 .113

St. Therese Academy’s mean for post-attitude response is different from

other schools as what Table 20 implies.