25

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the interpretation and analysis of data gathered

from the students’ science process skills and achievement in a differentiated
instruction using mastery learning strategy.

Students’ Process Skills Under a Differentiated Instruction Using Mastery

Learning Strategy

Table 1 presents the findings on the different subscales of the students’

process skills after exposure to differentiated instruction using the mastery
learning strategy.
As gleaned from the table, the overall mean of process skills of the
students after exposure to differentiated instruction using mastery learning
strategy was 2.74 which indicates "usually" identifying the students' application
of their skills was "high" in the teaching of biological science. This implies that
the students attained an improvement in their process skills after they were
exposed to the activities. Educators cited that skills are greatly improved
whenever students are exposed to inquiry-based activities (Barro, 2010 and
Gonzales, 2016).
According to Rauf et al., (2013) the acquisition of science process skills
can be achieved by providing opportunities to inculcate such process skills on
their respective lessons. He added that the students discover meaningful
information and experiences, and accumulate knowledge by constructing their
understanding within the science classroom setting (Lee et al., 2002). As Dirks
and Cunnigham (2006) explained that reinforcement of science process skills
in the classroom environment is necessary for the success of introductory
biology courses. Moreover, students "learn how to learn" by thinking critically
and using information creatively and continue to making observations,
organizing and analyzing facts or concepts giving reasons to learning
outcomes, evaluating and interpreting results, drawing justifiable conclusions
and predicting results (Martin et al., 2001).
 26

Table 1. Mean scores of the students’ process skills after exposure to

Differentiated Instruction using Mastery Learning Strategy

Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
Questioning
1. I can use
scientific
knowledge to 2.36 Sometimes Low 2.72 Usually High
form a
question.
2. I can ask a
question
that can be 2.45 Sometimes Low 2.75 Usually High
answered
by collecting
data.
sub mean 2.41 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Designing
3. I can design a
scientific
procedure to 1.76 Sometimes Low 2.36 Sometimes Low
answer a
question.
4. I can use data
to create a
graph 1.91 Sometimes Low 2.42 Sometimes Low
for
presentation to
others.
sub mean 1.84 Sometimes Low 2.39 Sometimes Low
Communicating
5. I can
communicate 2.33 Sometimes Low 3.00 Usually High
scientific
procedures to
others.
6. I can create a
display to 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.72 Usually High
communicate
my data and
observations.
sub mean 2.14 Sometimes Low 2.86 Usually High
Recording
7. I can record
data 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.667 Usually High
accurately
sub mean 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.67 Usually High
 27

Table 1. continued…
Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
Analyzing
8. I can analyze
the results of 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
a scientific
investigation.
sub mean 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
Explaining
9. I can use
science terms 2.48 Sometimes Low 2.94 Usually High
to share my
results.
10. I can use
models to 2.45 Sometimes Low 2.82 Usually High
explain my
results.
sub mean 2.47 Sometimes Low 2.88 Usually High
Interpreting
11. I can use
the results of
my 2.58 Usually High 2.94 Usually High
investigation to
answer the
question that I
asked.
12. I can interpret
the results
after an 2.61 Usually High 2.97 Usually High
exploration of a
specific activity.
sub mean 2.6 Usually High 2.95 Usually High
Over-all Mean 2.24 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description
4 3.51-4.00 Always Very High Acquisition
3 2.51-3.00 Usually High Acquisition
2 1.51-2.50 Sometimes Low Acquisition
1 1.0-1.50 Never Very Low Acquisition

The process skills on questioning showed a mean value of 2.74 which

indicates "high" in the questioning technique that students used. This shows
that students are quite proficient in questioning as means to acquire knowledge
and ability to form questions that can be answered by collecting data while
discussing experimental laboratory results; also, students were asked to
demonstrate specific skills and observations that could be potentially
investigated (Harlen, 2006). Letsholo (2014) cited Peacock (1986) that
 28

questioning helps in the stimulation of the development of a curious and

questioning attitude allowing the learner to fully understand the atmosphere in
a science laboratory.
In “designing” as a process skill, a mean score of 2.39 reflecting
“sometimes” showing a “low” acquisition of the skills by the students. This
indicates that with designing as a process skill in science seemed to be not fully
developed by the students. These results appeared to show that students
struggled when designing scientific procedure to answer a question and
creating specific presentation were found quite difficult, hence, students
acquired a low mean score value. Research in science education described
designing as a skill to include procedures to collect reliable data and requires
planning to test hypotheses and the extent to identify and control variables, and
using measuring instruments. The result concurs with the findings of Pewnim
et al., (2011), designing experiments was found difficult by the students. As a
result, this study suggests that students may be given the opportunity to design
a scientific procedure to answer questions.
Another process skill is “communicating”. As shown the students
obtained a mean score of 2.86 described as “high”. This means that the
students can communicate scientific procedures to others as well as create a
display to communicate their data and observations. In addition, the students
generally were observed to create drawings, models, constructing data tables,
and record and organize experimental results. These data findings were
supported by Hallahan and Mercer (2007) that science process skills
acquisition affects the organization on the use of verbal and non-verbal
information.
Basic “recording skill” had an overall mean score of 2.67 indicating
“usually” or “high acquisition” of skills. Also, it implies that students can record
data accurately. Zeidan and Jayosi (2015) claimed that recording is associated
with the process of experimentation which requires hypothesis testing, noting
the effects on variables, and interpreting and presenting results in the form of a
report that others can follow to replicate the experiments. This is congruent with
the study of Hinampas (2017) and Gonzales (2016) who reported that recording
 29

is one of the process skills known to show a “high” results when the students
were exposed to inquiry-based teaching strategy specifically on using concepts
maps and 5E learning cycle model in relation to science process skills.
The use of “analyzing” as a process skill was noted to have a mean score
of 2.64 which indicates "high acquisition”. This integrated science process skill
allows the students to analyze the results of a scientific investigation. Likewise,
organizing data, drawing conclusions and stating the indicated expected
outcomes from a science experiment (Dela Cruz, 2015). The results suggest
that students are proficient in terms of analyzing data, identifying experimental
errors, evaluating the hypothesis, and formulating conclusions and
recommendations.
The process skill on explaining had a mean score of 2.88 described as
“high acquisition”. This implies that the students possess such skill to explain a
phenomenon. More importantly, students are capable of hypothesizing
inferring, constructing models to help clarify ideas, and expound on evidences
behind a hypothetical statement (Harlen, 2006).
The data on interpreting as a skill showed a mean score of 2.95
described as “high”. With the two indicators, the students have the ability to
interpret and use the results of their investigation to answer the question that
they asked after the exploration of a specific activity. More so, interpretation of
data involves a rational explanation about an object, events, and patterns
derived from collected data (Shahali et al., 2012). It is an integrated science
process skill that has been most inculcated (Rauf et al., 2013). According to
Zeidan and Jayosi (2015), interpretation of data involved explanations of
inference or hypothesis from data that had been graphed or experimental data
placed in a table.
The study may suggest that teachers should provide an avenue for
science students to learn how to interpret data. Doing this, it would help the
students develop their critical thinking skills for better learning outcome.
Table 2 presents the summary of the science process skills of the
students as exposed to differentiated instruction using the mastery learning
strategy. As gleaned on the data table, an overall mean score of 2.74 was
 30

obtained. The following are the process skills in their order of acquisition:
interpreting (2.95), explaining (2.88), communicating (2.86), questioning
(2.74), recording (2.67), analyzing (2.64) and designing (2.39).

Table 2. Summary of students’ process skills as exposed to differentiated

instruction using mastery learning strategy

Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
1. Interpreting 2.6 Usually High 2.95 Usually High
2. Explaining 2.47 Sometimes Low 2.88 Usually High
3. Communicating 2.14 Sometimes Low 2.86 Usually High
4. Questioning 2.41 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
5. Recording 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.67 Usually High
6. Analyzing 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
7. Designing 1.84 Sometimes Low 2.39 Sometimes Low
Over-all Mean 2.24 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description
4 3.51-4.00 Always Very High Acquisition
3 2.51-3.00 Usually High Acquisition
2 1.51-2.50 Sometimes Low Acquisition
1 1.0-1.50 Never Very Low Acquisition

Of these skills, only four (4) were found similar results with the study of
Jack (2018). The identified skills were on designing, communicating, recording,
and interpreting. He reported that “designing” was found difficult and
“interpreting” was noted simple. The current research is congruent with the
skills presented that designing as a skill which includes identifying/controlling
variables was difficult to develop. This result is supported by Akpokorie (2000)
and Jeenthong (2014) that the variations in difficulty level of science process
skills could be attributed to the type of exposure to varied scientific activities.
In the study of Hinampas et al., (2018) they explained that designing as
a skill was not considered by the students for they find it difficult to design their
own way of doing experiments. It can be further inferred that the students have
not totally mastered the science process skills, such as designing an
experiment and be deemed difficult for the students to design methods in the
laboratory. Both in science classes and laboratory, students encountered
 31

complex and difficult tasks thus may lead to a low level of skill acquisition due
to the lack of experience specifically under inquiry based-activities (Lati et al.,
2012).
On interpreting, a similar result was achieved by Rabacal (2016). As a
practical skill, Karamustafaoglu (2011) claimed that interpreting was found to
be developed effectively as a practical skill and represent as evidence based
on assessing and evaluating data results by the students.
On the whole, whenever students are always exposed to practical
inquiry-based lessons in Biology class, this becomes a reflection on the quality
of teachers’ disposition and good instructional approaches employed and would
significantly find fewer skills difficult. Using science process skills, therefore, is
important in addressing problem-solving activities and is very essential for the
proper understanding of science concepts.

Students’ Academic Achievement as Exposed to Differentiated Instruction

Using Mastery Learning Strategy

Table 3 presents the students' academic achievement on the pretest

and posttest scores when exposed to differentiated instruction using mastery
learning strategy.

As illustrated in Table 3, the students' academic achievement on the

pretest under differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy was
13 (39.39%) indicating "satisfactory" results and a majority of them, 20
(60.61%), demonstrated "fairly satisfactory". This implies that the students lack
conceptual understanding or prior knowledge of the major topics stipulated on
the test items. In addition, the poor performance of the subject taught in biology
may be attributed to inadequate supply of teaching and learning resources such
as chemicals, charts, apparatus, models, local specimens, laboratories,
textbooks, and libraries (Owino et al., 2014; Ali et al., 2014). The students failed
to attain mastery of the concepts in science, hence they could not comprehend
the lessons well.
 32

Table 3. Students’ academic achievement (pretest and posttest scores) as

exposed to differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy

Percent Pretest Posttest Qualitative

Equivalent N % N % Interpretation

90-100 0 0 0 0 Outstanding
80-89 0 0 0 0 Very Satisfactory
70-79 13 39.39% 29 87.88% Satisfactory
60-69 20 60.61% 4 12.12% Fairly Satisfactory
Did not meet
Below 59 0 0 0 0
expectation
Legend:
Percent Equivalent Qualitative Interpretation
90-100 Outstanding
80-89 Very Satisfactory
70-79 Satisfactory
60-69 Fairly Satisfactory
Below 59 Did not meet expectation

These findings is consistent with the results of the study conducted by

Hinampas (2017), Gonzales (2016) and Yder (2017) that students did not meet
expectations during the pretest in chemistry and earth science. While posttest
mean scores were notably improved with a score of 29 (88.88%) indicates
“satisfactory” and 4 (12.12%) was “fairly satisfactory”. This implies that after
exposure to differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy, the
students were able to grasp concepts and learn new ideas in biology. This might
be due to the implemented mastery learning strategy with the students' mastery
of content via corrective feedback and remediation, the students had enough
time to master the objectives and contents of the lesson as presented during
biology classes (Adeyemo, 2014). Through differentiated instruction, it
reinforces content, processes, and products where the learners are exposed to
varied learning activities.
However, it is noted that the increase in the students’ performance was
quite low but is still consequential. The mean scores obtained by the students
may be due to microsystem factors as pointed out by Bertolini (2012) that are
comprised of traits within the student as well as their direct interaction with
 33

teachers and other students. Additionally, the researcher noted that at the time
the students were exposed to mastery learning strategy, they were preoccupied
with their requirements from other subjects during that semester.
Wambugu (2007) implemented a study on the Mastery Learning in a
physics class. His study showed that students with minimal prior knowledge of
material had higher achievement when taught using the strategy as evident in
their posttest score. He added that students who received feedback in mastery
learning strategy with high achievement scores for both immediate
achievement and long-term retention. Similarly, Adeyemo and Babadije (2014)
acquired similar results where the students’ posttest score is relatively improved
over their posttest score after exposure to mastery learning strategy.
Concurring with the results of Wachanga and Gamba (2004) and Ngesa
(2002) Mastery learning approach resulted in high student achievement. This
was due to the fact that in mastery learning, students achieve higher learning
which concentrated on the skills and processes that results in a great difference
in their achievement scores.

Students’ Science Process Skills as Exposed to Differentiated Instruction

Using Mastery Learning Strategy

The students’ process skills before and after exposure to differentiated

learning are presented in Table 4. A t-test was used to get the difference
between two means. The pre-test mean score is 2.24 and the posttest is 2.74
respectively, with a t-value of -5.99 indicating a significant difference at 0.01
level. This means that students have acquired the desired science process
skills when compared before and after exposure to differentiated instruction
using mastery learning strategy, thus rejects the null hypothesis that “there is
no significant difference on the science process skills of the students before
and after exposure to differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy”.
 34

Table 4. Pre-test-posttest of the Science Process Skills of Students as exposed

to differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy

Test Mean Standard Deviation T-value Probability

Pre-test 2.24 0.29

-5.99 0.000**
Posttest
2.74 0.44
**Significant at 0.01 level

The current research result was found consistent with that of Chebii
(2011) whereby students had enhanced the acquisition of science process skills
as compared to those exposed with the conventional teaching method. This
further explains that placing the learners under differentiated instruction using
the mastery learning strategy would enable the learners to master scientific
concepts and skills is likely to improve laboratory performance. Further, the
current results are in accordance with the study of Feyzioglu (2009) where after
employing formative activities and efficient laboratory works would improve the
specific skills on the part of the learner and be applied to new situations. In the
study of Lati et al., (2012), they investigated how science inquiry affects student
progression of higher-order thinking skills. Their results was in congruence with
that of (Zhao & Wardeska, 2011; Green et al., 2004), that both learning
achievement and skills along with post test scores are statistically higher than
the pre-test, which they further concluded that direct participation in the inquiry
process could enhance student’s understanding in science classes and process
skills.

Students Academic Achievement before and after exposure to Differentiated

Instruction using Mastery Learning Strategy

Table 5 presents the academic achievement of the students before and

after exposure to differentiated instruction using mastery learning strategy. The
pre-test mean score was 20.03 with a standard deviation of 2.31 and the
posttest mean score was 24.82 with a standard deviation of 3.78 respectively.
The t-value was -7.34, which resulted in a small range of difference in the pre-
 35

test and posttest scores but still counts as highly significant at 0.01 level. These
findings reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the
academic achievement of students before and after exposure to differentiated
instruction using mastery learning strategy.

Table 5. The t-test of the students' academic achievement before and after
exposure to differentiated learning using mastery learning strategy

Test Mean Standard Deviation T-value Probability

Pre-test 20.03 2.31

-7.34 0.00**
Posttest 24.82 3.78

**Significant at 0.01 level

The results were found consistent with that of Wambugu (2008),

Adeyemo (2014), and Yemi (2018) where students exposed to mastery learning
strategy showed better academic achievement as compared to those who were
taught using the conventional teaching method. Adeyemo (2014) concluded
that the students evidently performed and had an acquisition of more skills in a
physics class laboratory. Further results explained that through the mastery of
content, corrective feedback and remediation gives students more time to
master the content of the lesson. The results conform with the results of
Wambugu (2008) who argued that students taught through the mastery learning
strategy would likely enhance achievement on the contents of the subject.
Additionally, Changeiywo (2010) explained that students being exposed
to mastery learning strategies were academically motivated. There was a
positive attitude in science subjects which lead them to perform and acquire
knowledge and skills which are relevant for future careers. Furthermore,
Hancock (2004) asserted that a motivated learner performs better in class.
Building on that premise, being exposed to the mastery learning strategy and
leads to students who are motivated to do well in class culminates to high
academic achievement.
Similarly, Aydin (2013) and Akinbobola (2009) conducted an
investigation of students academic performance and found out that mastery
 36

learning is effective in improving students' achievement. According to Myers

(2004) that in an inquiry-based laboratory, the process skills, content
knowledge, and academic achievement are acquired by the students with high
marks. This was supported by Feng (2005) that with the mastery learning
approach, the students are encouraged to strive for learning rather than
focusing on achieving a certain grade.
.