Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This section presents the results generated using the researcher-

developed instrument. It describes the reading engagement of the learners in

English subjects as perceived by the learners and their teachers. Engagement is

gauge in terms of cognitive, behavioral, emotional and social aspect while

experiential learning practices of teachers in engaging the learners were

measured based on the content, learners’ needs, learning strategies or activities

and learning tools or materials.

On Level of Engagement

Kounin (1970) defined "effective teachers" as those who "accurately

handle inappropriate student behavior, create and manage a stimulating

competitive environment, give clear instruction to pace and maintain a focused

group work. Learning occurred most when students were provided opportunities

to do and act, as well as when they were provided opportunities to reflect and

change.

The following tables show the data generated and discuss the results

based on the responses of the both the teachers and the learners, specifically

focusing on English learning area.

 Table 1 Mean Score on the Level of Engagement of Learners
Reading Engagement Mean SD Interpretation
Cognitive Engagement
1. I go through the work for English class and make sure that it’s right. 3.53 .66 Very Good
2. I try to connect what I am learning to things I have learned before. 3.49 .73 Very Good
3. I would rather be told to answer than to have to do the work. 2.58 1.00 Good
4. I don’t think that hard when I am doing work for class. 2.48 .96 Weak
5. When work is hard I only study the easy parts. 2.28 .95 Weak
Subtotal 2.87 .86 Good
Behavioral Engagement
1. I stay focused. 3.23 .84 Good
2. I put effort into learning English. 3.30 .81 Very Good
3. I complete my homework on time. 3.22 .75 Good
4. I keep trying even if something is hard. 3.44 .71 Very Good
5. I do other things when I am supposed to be focused in doing task. 2.58 1.05 Good
Subtotal 3.15 .83 Good
Emotional Engagement
1. I enjoy new things about English. 3.47 .81 Very Good
2. I want to understand what is learned in English. 3.72 .67 Very Good
3. I think that English is boring. 1.87 .91 Weak
4. I often feel down when I am in English. 2.11 .84 Weak
5. I feel good when I am learning English. 3.20 .78 Good
Subtotal 2.87 .80 Good
Social Engagement
1. I try to understand other people’s ideas in English. 3.36 .81 Very Good
2. I try to work with others who can help me in English. 3.36 .78 Very Good
3. I try to help others who are struggling in English. 3.21 .72 Good
4. I don’t share ideas with others. 1.79 .68 Weak
5. I don’t care about other people’s ideas. 2.04 2.04 Weak
Subtotal 2.75 1.00 Good
Grand Total 2.91 .88 Good
Legend:
1.00 - 1.75 Poor/with much less than acceptable performance
1.76 - 2.50 Weak/with less than acceptable performance
2.56 - 3.25 Good/with acceptable performance
3.26 - 4.00 Very good/with full performance

Table 1 presents the mean score on the level of engagement of learners

in the different learning tasks specifically in English subject. As to cognitive

engagement, learners indicated as very good (3.53) in terms of engagement

level on going through with their academic work in the subject and making sure

that it is right. They are also at the same level of engagement (3.49) in

connecting prior knowledge to the present one. For behavioral engagement, the

respondents said that they put effort in learning English which got very good level

(3.30) and keep on trying even it seems to be hard for them (3.44). Nevertheless,
they enjoy new things about learning English (3.47) with the interest of trying to

understand the things they have learned in the subject (3.72).

On the other hand, low mean scores are indicated in statements such as

not thinking too hard and focusing only on easy parts of the subject which got

2.48 and 2.28 respectively. They do not think that English class is boring (1.87)

and do not feel down during the subject (2.11). It is also said that most of them

share ideas with others (1.79) and care about other’s ideas (2.04) as indicated by

low mean scores. This means that the learners have generally good reading

engagement in their English class as to cognitive, behavioral, emotional and

social engagement. Comparatively, they got the highest mean score on

behavioral engagement which could mean that learners really show interest in

doing their tasks in the subject.

 Table 2 Mean Score on the Level of Experiential Learning Practices
by the Teachers
Practices Mean SD Interpretation
Content
1. Designed to engage learners in performing tasks
3.57 .50 Very good
Lessons are designed to engage us in performing tasks
2. Anchored on reflective learning principles/theories
3.58 .50 Very good
Lessons/concepts given allow us to reflect or relate to real life situations
3. Provide activities to master concepts & skills
3.58 .50 Very good
Varied activities are provided to master concepts & skills
4. Consider balance of activities and content
3.60 .49 Very good
Knowledge – Teachers consider balance of activities & knowledge
5. Within knowledge level of the learners 0.79 Very good
3.52
Lessons given are within our level of understanding
Subtotal .57 Very Good
3.57
Learners’ Needs

1. Relate prior knowledge with new contents/concepts. 0.83 Very good

3.47
2. Allow choices or autonomous decisions in doing performance tasks. 0.59 Very good
3.42
3. Diagnose learners needs and evaluate learning outcomes 1.12 Good
3.17
4. Offer rewards/ praise for good /improved performance 0.68 Very good
3.52
5. Provide remedial /make up activities for discouraged/struggling learners. 1.12 Good
3.15
Subtotal .88 Very Good
3.35
Learning Strategies/Activities

1. Utilize experiential / Reflective techniques in doing performance task. 0.68 Good

3.02
a. Interview (pre-recorded/downloaded output )
b. Dialogue (pre-recorded /downloaded output ) 1.11 Good
2.92
c. Talk show/ Broadcasting (recordings/video outputs) 0.99 Good
2.67
d. Role Play (pre-recorded output) 5.59 Very good
3.47
e. Reporting-back/re-telling (pre-recorded output ) 1.06 Good
2.78
2. Reinforce lessons using acrostics, poem /rhyme song /raps(pre-recorded 0.68 Good
3.13
output) fun activities to break monotony.
3. Encourage learners to work independently in doing task. 0.74 Good
3.17
4. Ask learners to express opinions, judge statements/solve problems 1.02 Good
2.98
critically .
5. Give students opportunity to write reflections and insight in diaries / 1.08 Good
3.05
reflective journals to enhance writing skills and achievement using rubrics.
Subtotal 1.44 Good
3.02
Teaching Tools/Materials

1. Use Self - learning Modules ( SLM) / Activity worksheets 2.60 1.06 Good
2. Consult other additional sources aside from ( SLM) and other printable
3.00 0.96 Good
materials.
3. Utilize intervention materials to address underachievers’/ struggling
2.88 1.09 Good
learners needs
4. Make use of multi-media sources such as recorded video/ppt presentation
2.97 0.52 Good
and audio sources.
5. Design assessment portfolio to evaluate learners performance skills and
3.33 0.66 Very good
achievement using rubrics.
Subtotal 2.96 .86 Good
Grand Total 3.22 .93 Good

Legend:
1.00 - 1.75 Poor/with much less than acceptable performance
1.76 - 2.50 Weak/with less than acceptable performance
2.56 - 3.25 Good/with acceptable performance
3.26 - 4.00 Very good/with full performance

Table 2 shows the mean score on the level of experiential learning

practices of the teachers. It appears that teachers have the highest mean score

in terms of content as far as experiential learning practices are concern, which

got the mean score of 3.57. Although, with the same level of practice, the area on

teaching tools or materials is at the bottom in terms of mean score (2.96).

Specifically, teachers indicated highest level of practices as to considering the

balance between the content in English subject and the activities given to the

learners (3.60). They also anchored their practices on reflective learning

principles and theories (3.58) and have the highest practice in providing activities

to learners with the goal of making them master the concepts and skills in the

learning area.

In contrast, weak points where interventions must be focused on are

attributed to practices such as the maximum use of self-learning modules and

activity worksheets (2.60) in providing experiential learning experiences to pupils.

Relatively, the use of strategies such as talk show (2.67), reporting back (2.78)

and dialogue (2.92) also got lower scores. The utilization of intervention materials

and making use of the multi-media (2.97) is also indicated with lower mean

scores.
 This implies that teachers are equipped with the use of different strategies

to provide experiential learning experiences to the learners as well as they also

have mastery of the concepts and skills which are necessary to transfer them to

the learners during the teaching and learning processes, either in face-to-face set

up or in the implemented modular distance learning delivery modality. However,

the maximum utilization of instructional materials or teaching tools is not explored

by the teachers. This could also mean that they may use some materials in their

instruction, but the proper use and appropriateness of the materials to the

content is not taken into consideration.

Table 3 Significant Difference in the Reading Engagement

between the Learners and Teachers
Reading
Respondents Mean SD Interpretation t Sig. (2-tailed)
Engagement
Teacher 3.17 .39 Good
Cognitive 30.83 .000
Learner 2.87 .55 Good
Teacher 3.18 .41 Good
Behavioral .144 .705
Learner 3.15 .54 Good
Teacher 3.17 .36 Good
Emotional 36.19 .000
Learner 2.87 .42 Good
Teacher 2.99 .37 Good
Social 22.495 .000
Learner 2.74 .50 Good

Table 3 reveals the significant differences in the reading engagement of

the learners as perceived by the learners and their teachers. It appears that

teachers indicated good engagement of learners in the experiential learning

practices implemented across all categories of engagement - cognitive (3.17),

behavioral (3.18), emotional (3.17), and social (2.99) - compared to the

perception of the learners’ level of engagement.

 The differences in the mean scores on the engagement level as indicated

by teachers and learners was statistically tested applying the Welch Independent

t-test of unequal variance, the following were found to be significant obtaining the

t values with the corresponding significant values which include; t 30.83 at .000

(< α .05) for cognitive, t 36.19 at .000 (< α .05) for emotional engagement and t

22.495 at .000 (< α .05) for social engagement, thus rejecting the null hypothesis.

However, the mean difference in behavioral engagement between teachers and

learners was found to be not significant with the t.144 at .705 (> α .05), thus

accepting the null hypothesis.

This means that the teachers perceived learners to be engaged in their

academic tasks at a higher level compared to the learners’ perception of

engagement level in terms of cognitive, emotional and social aspect. On the

other hand, teachers and learners perceived to have the same engagement level

of the latter as to the behavioral category. Behaviorally, this implies that teachers

look at the level of focus and efforts given by the learners in doing their work in

English subjects the same way as the learners see and feel. On the contrary,

teachers see the learners as more cognitively involved in their English tasks such

as responding to questions mentally. It can also be said that teachers assumed

more that their learners have learned through cognition. They assume that

learners are enjoying the English tasks given more than what the learners

actually feel. The look at learners as having the tendencies to work with one

another and deal with academic socially than what the learners actually see.
Table 4 Significant Correlation between Experiential Learning Practices and
Learners’ Level of Engagement
Variable Mean SD r Sig. (2-tailed)
Experiential Learning
3.22 .59
Practices .
.964
Level of Learners’ 006
2.13 .35
Engagement

Table 4 disclosed the significant correlation between the experiential

learning practices and learners’ level of engagement. It is observed that the

mean score for the experiential learning practices is 3.22 while the level of

engagement level of learner is 2.13. It could be said that the perception of the

teachers on their practices is at the level of good which is quite the same as the

engagement of level.

This difference in the mean scores were statistically computed to test of

significance for relationship through Pearson correlation test, r observed value .

006 at .964 level of significance which is greater than alpha .05, thus accepting

the null hypothesis. This means that there is no significant relationship between

the practices of the teachers in experiential learning and the level of engagement

of the learners.