24

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the Respondents

Table 2 reveals the results of the respondents’ personal profile in terms of age,

sexual category, monthly family income and GPA (Grade Point Average).

In terms of age, it appears that greater percentage of the respondents are at the age

bracket of 15-17 years old with a frequency of 103 or 83.06 percent and the least are in

the age bracket of 26 and above with a frequency of 1 or 0.83 percent of the total

population of respondents. This means that majority of the freshmen students of the

College of Computer Science is a newly high school graduates since it is in the age norm.

Moreover, the table indicates that the study was female dominated with 68 or

54.84 percent of the total population, while male was only 56 or 45.16 percent. This only

shows that majority of the respondents were female.

The table likewise conveys that 55 or 44.35 percent of the respondents belongs to

Php 5,000 and below, while 1 or 0.81 percent of the respondents belongs to Php 25,001

and above. Greater percentage of the respondents was from 55 or 44.35 percent. As

stipulated by Bautista et al. (2013), families with a monthly income of Php 5,000

belonging to the poverty line as classified by the National Economic Development

Authority (NEDA). This indicates that most of the respondents of the study belong to

low-incomed family.

Table 2. Personal Profile of the Respondents as to Age, Sex, Monthly Family Income

and GPA
 25

Personal Profile Frequency Percentage

Age
15-17 years old 103 83.06
18-20 years old 16 12.91
21-22 years old 2 1.61
23-25 years old 2 1.61
26 and above 1 0.81
Total 124 100
Sex
Male 56 45.16
Female 68 54.84
Total 124 100
Monthly Family Income
Php 5,000 below 55 44.35
Php 5,001 to 10,000 45 36.29
Php 10,001 to 15,000 18 14.51
Php 15,001 to 20,000 4 3.23
Php 20,001 to 25,000 1 0.81
Php 25,001 and above 1 0.81
Total 124 100
GPA
75-78 4 3.23
79-82 39 31.45
83-86 60 48.39
87-90 19 15.32
91-94 2 1.61
95 and above 0 0
Total 124 100

It can also be gleaned from table 2 that majority or 48.83 percent of the

respondents belongs to 83-86 brackets in terms of their general point average in fourth

year high school. This means that most of the respondents have done average work

during their high school days. Whereas, 2 or 1.61 percent of the respondents has done

excellent work and has mastered the subjects in their secondary level of education.

Furthermore, it can be manifested from table 3 that most of the respondents

preferred auditory as a learning style which has a score of 37.64 which only signifies that
 26

most respondents learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, oral explanations,

talking things through, and listening to what others have to say (Albay, 2009). The

finding of this study agrees with Gilakjani (2012), that these auditory learners discover

information through listening and interpreting information by the means of pitch,

emphasis and speed. These learners gain knowledge from reading out loud in the

classroom and may not have a full understanding of information that is written. Whereas,

individual as a learning style has a least score with 35.33 and it can be summed up that

this learning style is somewhat not accepted by the respondents since it has the lowest

score. The result of this study runs parallel to the study of Alharbi et al. (2011) wherein

the study included an analysis of the individual learning style and it was discovered that

the least number of respondents uses individual as their learning style.

Table 3 . Personal Profile of the Respondents as to Learning Styles

Category Score

Visual 36.74

Tactile 37.32
Auditory 37.64
Group 35.35
Kinesthetic 37.50
Individual 35.33

Moreover, table 4 summarizes the results of the respondents as to their learning

personality. Sensing category posted the highest score of 94, concludes that most of the

learners takes-in information and arranges it in a sequential way. While a small number

of the respondents associated to the category of intuition which has a lowest score of 30.
 27

The result of this study corroborates to the study of Alharbi et al. (2011), wherein

the majority or 65.8% were sensing learners, with 39.5% having a moderate or strong

preference to that learning style. However, 21.0% of students have a moderate or strong

preference to intuitive learning over sensing learning.

According to Nag (2012), sensing learners tends to organize his information

through the use of the five senses. They learn more effectively from observable facts and

figures. The strength of such learners lies in the fact that they are willing to process

information in a systematic way while intuitive learners take more interest in theories and

possibilities. Often they make good guesses without following the sequential steps of

learning. Intuitive learners learn more effectively through their deep insights, using their

imagination and their command over general concepts instead of going to the depth of the

matter and their strength lies in their ability for conceptualization.

Table 4. Personal Profile of the Respondents as to Personality

Category Frequency

Extrovert 78
 28

Introvert 46
Sensing 94
Intuition 30
Thinking 44
Feeling 80
Judging 92
Perceiving 32

Performance of the Respondents in Pretest and Posttest

Table 5 recapitulates the results of the pretest and posttest examination (Refer to

Appendix N for the detailed results). Grade ranging from 75-80 has the majority of the

respondents which implies that most of the respondents do not have enough knowledge

and background towards the subject Computer Concepts and Fundamentals that is why

no one from the respondents acquired an equivalent grade of 96-100. However, in

posttest, 49 of the respondents obtained an equivalent grade of 81-85 which shows that

25 of the respondents enhanced their knowledge towards the said subject through

discussion strategy. Furthermore, none of the respondents failed after conducting the

posttest examination.

Table 5. Performance of the Respondents in the Pretest and Posttest

Range Pretest Posttest

96-100 0 1

91-95 1 20
86-90 7 43
81-85 24 49
75-80 65 11
Below 75 27 0
 29

Table 5 only signifies that most respondents have already improved their

knowledge on the subject Computer Concepts and Fundamentals and it resulted to a

progressive output. Hence, the teaching strategy used by the instructor was effective and

usable.

Mean Gain Score of the Respondents in Pretest and Posttest

Table 6. Mean Gain Score of the Respondents in the Pretest and Posttest

Mean Score
Pretest Posttest Mean Gain Score

26.88 38.97 12.09

Table 6 explains the mean gain scores of the pretest and posttest scores of the

respondents. The respondents obtained a mean score of 26.88 in the pretest. On the other

hand, the respondents acquired a mean score of 38.97 when the posttest examination

conducted. These results indicate that the performance of the respondents had improved

and the teaching strategy of the instructor was effective to the learning performance of

the respondents since the mean score on posttest was higher than that of the mean score

of the pretest. The finding shows that the respondents, having a mean gain score of 12.09,

have developed in the posttest greater than in their pretest examination.

Significant Difference between the Respondents’ Pretest and Posttest

 30

Table 7 manifests that the computed value of the pretest and posttests scores of

the respondents resulted to 2.58. Hence, there is a significant difference on the pretest and

posttest scores of the respondents because the computed value is higher than tabulated

value which is a constant. The results exhibit that the respondents showed an outstanding

performance during the first quarter of the semester. Thus, the null hypothesis which

states that “there is no significant difference between the respondents’ pretest and posttest

score” is rejected.

Table 7. Significant Difference between the Respondents’ Pretest and Posttest

Variables Tabulated Value Computed Level of Significance

Pretest and Posttest 1.65 2.58 Significant

Correlation between Respondents’ Profile and Posttest Scores

Table 8 elucidates the results in determining the relationship of respondents’

profile and their posttest scores.

Table 8. Test of Relationship between the Respondents’ Profile and their Posttest
Scores

Profile Computed X2 Decision

Age 0.999 Not Significant

Sex 0.004 Significant

Monthly Income 0.999 Not Significant
GPA 0.287 Not Significant
Learning Style 0.314 Not Significant
Personality 1 0.054 Not Significant
Personality 2 0.215 Not Significant
Personality 3 0.205 Not Significant
 31

Personality 4 0.252 Not Significant

Legend:

Phi-value = 0.05

As to the significant relationship of respondents’ age and their posttest score, it

can be ascertained that there is no relationship between these two variables since the

computed x2 of respondents’ age is higher that of the phi-value. This indicates that age

has nothing to do with the performance of the respondents on the subject Computer

Concepts and Fundamentals. The finding is similar with the study of Baba Abubakar and

Dokubo Oguguo (2011), wherein it was evidently revealed that age is insignificant as it

relates to CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) and it was responsible for 0.1% of

variance in performance of Mathematics and Science students.

In terms of sex, it verified that this variable has a relationship with regard to the

respondents’ performance because the computed x2 for the respondents’ sex is lower than

the phi-value. This contradicts to the study of Ali et al. (2013), wherein their study did

not reject the null hypothesis and conclude at statistically the performance of students do

not vary with gender either they are male or female.

Moreover, monthly family income does not have correspondence on respondents’

performance on the subject Computer Concepts and Fundamentals as it acquired a

 32

decision of “not significant”. This denotes that even the respondents came from different

financial status, they still performed well on the said subject. The result of this study

disagrees with the findings of Argentera et al. (2007), that the monthly family income

level of parents is directly correlated with academic performance.

Furthermore, the respondents’ general point average has nothing to do with their

performance because it’s computed x2 is 0.287 which is greater than the phi-value. It

means that although the respondents have distinct performances during fourth year high

school this does not affect their performance on the first quarter of the semester. The

findings of this study agrees with Argentera et al. (2007), wherein they found out that

there is no significant relationship between former school background or GPA and

academic performance.

The assortment of the respondents’ learning style does not have a correlation

towards their performance on the said subject as its computed x 2 exceed the phi-value.

Hence, the respondents’ preferred learning styles are suitable and effective in the

teaching-learning process.

Finally, the differences of personality among the respondents are insignificant

towards their performance on the posttest. Therefore, their personality helps them to

become a better student and it suits to the discussion learning strategy of the instructor.