A Comparative Study of the Satisfaction Levels, Academic and Test Performance of Grade

12 STEAM students using Online and Classroom Examinations in General Chemistry 1 of

SUSHS

Research Final Paper

Submitted by:

Fia Vina Rianne B. Balbuena

Timothy Eraham

Katrina Melina E. Hamoy

Helery E. Narciso

Grade 12 - H

Submitted to:

Dr. Nadia P. Abesamis

I. Introduction
 It is undeniable that the internet is taking over the globe. Advancements can be seen

everywhere especially in the fields of business, communication, and entertainment as they

embrace the online world. Education is also slowly taking advantage of the internet with the

implementation of online assignments, teacher-student interaction through social media, and

online examinations. But with this new digital transformation of learning, a new challenge is also

given to the educators: to make sure that the same or a higher quality of education is acquired by

the students even with this change.

On the second semester of last year, the Chemistry department of Silliman University

Senior High School decided to adapt an online midterm assessment for the grade 11 STEAM

students. From a no-talking, closed notes, proctored paper-pen examination to a free interaction,

open book, done-at-home online examination. However, this change raised a number of concerns

for both students and teachers. There were aspects that needed consideration, like the availability

of resources, internet connection and the likelihood of cheating. Due to this, the department

opted for the traditional classroom examination in the final assessment.

These different examination approaches done by the department for both quarters

resulted to the uncertainty for the students on which type of examination they will adjust to.

While it is true that both assessments have their fair share of advantages and disadvantages, the

researchers would still want to know which type is most favorable for the students by assessing

these important factors: their satisfaction level and, academic and test performance that are

mainly influenced by the examination environment.

In this study, the researchers will compare the academic performance of students, using

two different examination approaches – online and classroom. The researchers would also want

to find out if there is a relationship between the examination environment and the test

2
performance of the students taking the test, if there are significant differences in the satisfaction

levels of students between taking their Chemistry examinations online and in the classroom, and

if the student’s satisfaction level affects his or her academic performance.

Furthermore, this study is only limited to the grade 12 STEAM students of SUSHS, who

are the grade 11 of last year, since they are the first batch to experience the online and traditional

paper-pen exams for Chemistry without biases from the preceding batches. The researchers hope

that this study can help evaluate which examination environment meets the satisfaction levels of

students more to help them improve their academic performance. In this way, the department

will also be aware which approach they would use to cater the needs of the students.

By the end of this study, the researchers aim to answer the following questions and prove

or reject these hypotheses:

1) Is there a relationship between the examination environment and the test performance of

the students taking the test?

H0: There is no relationship between the examination environment and the students taking

the test.

Ha: There is a relationship between the examination environment and the students taking

the test.

2.) Are there significant differences in the satisfaction levels of students between taking their

Chemistry examinations online and in the classroom?

H0: There are no significant differences in the satisfaction levels of students between

taking their Chemistry examinations online and in the classroom.

Ha: There are significant differences in the satisfaction levels of students between

taking their Chemistry examinations online and in the classroom.

3
 3.) Does the satisfaction level of a student on the different examination environments affect

his or her academic performance?

H0: The student’s satisfaction level on the different examination environments does not

affect his or her academic performance.

Ha: The student’s satisfaction level on the different examination environments affects his

or her academic performance.

Definition of Terms

4
 ● Academic Performance – the extent of a students’ achievement determined by their

midterm or final grades

● Test performance – the extent of a students’ achievement determined by their test score

in the mock chemistry classroom and online examinations

● Satisfaction Level – measurement of the students’ contentment on the different factors

that make up the examination environment

● Examination environment - an examination setup influenced by the time, place, class

size, presence of teacher and accessibility of resources during a test

a.) Classroom examination environment – a scheduled simultaneous exam done

inside the classroom with approximately 40 students per class; it has

corresponding time limit, a teacher proctors the exam and students cannot access

their academic resources

b.) Online examination environment – a scheduled simultaneous exam that can be

answered anywhere by students as long as there is internet access; it has a

corresponding time limit but there is no teacher presence during the test and

students are able to access their academic resources

II. Review of Related Literature

5
 According to Crooks (1988), classroom evaluation is important in promoting discipline,

motivation and development among students. It also allows direct student-teacher interaction

where concerns can be easily addressed within the classroom setting. He emphasized that it

needs careful preparation and organization in the part of the teachers since sometimes, classroom

evaluation is given less attention when in fact it is an educational aspect that should further be

enhanced and used. However, Williamson (2018) disagrees and believes that teachers should

move away from traditional classroom methods and welcome new methods for success in an

online teaching and learning environment.

Online examinations are more helpful to students and teachers due to its many benefits

that are not found in traditional classroom examinations, such as, being able to easily randomize

order of questions and sets of answers, allowing students to answer questions multiple times and

access hints, and getting quick feedback of test scores after completing the tests (Spivey &

McMillan, 2014). With all the advantages of the online examinations, students are assumed to

perform academically better to this new examination method, however, the following studies say

otherwise:

The studies of Spivey & McMillan (2014), Brallier, et. al. (2015), Hollister & Berenson

(2009) found no significant differences on the students’ effort and performance given the

different procedures of assessment. All three studies compared academic results of exams taken

in a proctored environment versus an unproctored environment. Furthermore, their studies

showed that factors such as the materials that students’ were permitted to access during both tests

and the time limit given mainly influenced their studies’ result. Specifically, students who had

open access to their notes and books during the exam had higher test scores compared to those

who weren’t able to access their resources. But because of the time limit which required

6
students’ the effort to study prior even though the online exams are open-book suggests that both

type of examination approach had the same level of difficulty, hence the insignificant difference

in results.

On the other hand, a study by Englander & Fask (2014) showed difference in student’s

performance when taking online exams and introduced ‘cheating’ as the factor contributing to

this result. The present paper utilizes an experimental design to assess the difference in student

performance between students taking a traditional, proctored exam and those taking an online,

unproctored exam. This difference in performance is examined in a manner which considers both

the effect of the different physical test environments and the possible effect of a difference in the

opportunity for students to cheat. This study, utilizing regression models that also account for

relevant control variables, examines 44 undergraduate statistics students, finds evidence that the

difference in the testing environment creates a disadvantage to students taking the online exam

which somewhat offsets the advantage that the unproctored students gain from greater

opportunities to cheat. In addition, King, Guyette, & Piotrowski (2009) also concluded in their

study, “Online Exams and Cheating: An Empirical Analysis of Business Students’ Views”, that

students in the sample held a perception that it is easier to cheat in an online exam. However,

Hollister & Berenson (2009) revealed that no evidence of cheating behavior was found in their

study.

Nonetheless, there is always potential for unethical behavior by students in an online

environment where students use their electronic devices in their own homes, according to

Williamson (2018). To address this issue, she stated in her journal, “Online Exams: The Need for

Best Practices and Overcoming Challenges”, that there are many sources available to help the

teachers develop online quizzes and exams to reduce the risk of cheating and other forms of

7
academic misconduct. These strategies include: (1) creating exam questions from the information

directly from the book and not publisher’s information that can be acquired by students on the

Web, (2) restricting the quiz so students are allowed to only see one question at a time, (3)

including essay questions, (4) setting a time limit, (5) allowing students to take their quiz

anytime within a 24 hour period, (6) disabling right-click option, (7) releasing students’ test

score only when the quiz is over, (8) releasing information to students only if they answered

questions incorrectly and (9) creating a ‘Code of Conduct’ or academic integrity policy and

discuss it with the students earlier in the course. Using some or all of the discussed strategies

might not completely eliminate academic misconducts but it will minimize the risk of cheating.

From the line of research described above, another factor comes to mind that unlike the

other factors already mentioned, focuses on the psychological aspect. One study revealed that

there is a relation between students’ motivation and/or satisfaction and their learning outcomes

(Bryant et al., 2005; Eom, Wen, & Ahill, 2006). The lack of motivation and satisfaction results to

anxiety which is why the researchers would like to consider Stowell & Bennett’s (2010) study

that assess the effects of online testing on student performance and test anxiety. It was revealed

that students who have high classroom anxiety performed better in online testing and those who

have low classroom anxiety had a difficult time adjusting to online exams. They concluded that

online testing should still be considered an alternative for classroom testing, regardless of the

fact that some are still not open to this idea. Furthermore, For students to have an effective

learning environment, Zhu (2012) recommends that online courses and the online environment

should be designed to also satisfy students, which is why it is very necessary to identify the

factors relevant to the students’ satisfaction level for maximization of student learning.

8
 In addition, a study by Nuangchalerm, Prachagool, & Sriputta, P. (2011) found that

students’ online learning experience was less effective due to the lack of technical assistance. Ku

et al. (2011) reported similar findings with 21 graduate students (in-service teachers), who felt

less satisfied with online learning since they lacked the skills and knowledge in using

technology. The researchers’ study, however, will focus on senior high students who are

assumed to be internet-savvy so different results of satisfaction level may be expected.

In summary, this review of literature revealed that factors such as time limit, sources

accessed during examination, and cheating showed little contribution to the difference of

academic performances between online exams and traditional paper-pen exams. However,

considering anxiety and satisfaction levels, more positive effects on academic performances are

observed when it comes to online examinations.

9
III. Materials and Methods

Research Participants

The participants of this study were the officially enrolled grade 12 STEAM students of

Silliman University Senior High School of academic year 2018-2019. Since there were two

different methods in gathering data – through conduction of mock Chemistry examinations and

online survey questionnaires, there were also two different sample populations. As a main

prerequisite for all the respondents, they should have been able to take up General Chemistry 1

in the previous academic year (AY 2017-2018). The respondents in both data gathering methods

were chosen through simple random sampling. For both Chemistry examinations, there were 25

respondents which are 3% of the STEAM population. For the online survey on the other hand,

there were a total of 104 respondents which are 15% of the STEAM population. Moreover, 17

out of the 25 respondents who participated in the mock Chemistry examinations also answered

the online survey questionnaire. Thus, the total sample population for both data gathering

methods was 129 students which represent 18% of the entire STEAM population.

Research Instruments

The researchers designed an online survey questionnaire and an examination in separate

online and paper formats as data collection instruments for this study. In the online examination,

the researchers made use of Google forms. As long as the students have with them a laptop, a

computer, or any gadget that has internet access, their location while taking the test does not

matter. Instructions were given right upon the start of the test to assure that students were

informed on what to do. The entire duration of the test was 45 minutes, no more, no less and

finished or unfinished. With that said, it was not possible for a student to retake the test. The test

10
material was composed of 15 multiple choice items, 10 of which were objective questions and 5

that needed computation. Two test sets with the same questions but not in the same order, were

made so as to minimize the likelihood of cheating. All questions were based from a certain

chapter in the General Chemistry book used by SUSHS.

On the other hand, the classroom examination was very particular of the location, the

presence of proctors and observance of rules. Although the same specifications were applied to

the test paper itself, from the instructions to the source of information, the questions were

changed to avoid repetition of answers. Also, there were three test sets this time so as to

minimize the tendency of cheating. Rest assured that the test questions in the online and

classroom exams were in the same level of difficulty. The students still needed to answer the

exam within 45 minutes, again, no more, no less and finished or unfinished.

For the survey, the researchers used online survey questionnaires via Google forms. The

questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section, namely section A, was the

information on the academic performance and satisfaction level of the students’ in the online

assessment in General Chemistry 1. The researchers also asked for their midterm grades where

the assessment was done online. After, they answered a set of questions that measure their

satisfaction level regarding online testing. Subsequently, in section B, the information was on the

academic performance and satisfaction level of the students’ in the classroom assessment. The

researchers again inquired about their grades in the last quarter where the Chemistry department

opted for a classroom assessment. Then, the respondents answered another set of questions that

evaluate their satisfaction level on going back to the traditional paper-pen examination.

11
Data Collection Procedure

For this study, the researchers made use of two data gathering means. Firstly, mock

examinations were conducted in the form of two different examination platforms; traditional

classroom paper-pen exams and technology-driven online exams. The second data collection

procedure involved the distribution of online survey questionnaires through Google Forms.

Since this is a comparative study between online and traditional classroom examinations,

it is a must to properly assess and reasonably compare both approaches. The mock examinations

were successfully conducted with the participation of 25 students of whom were chosen through

random sampling. The researchers, by all means, maximized all available resources to assure that

the overall testing measures, including test materials, rules and regulations, and the examination

questions, were as realistically similar to that of the Chemistry department that ensures the

legitimacy of the study. The testing procedure became a two-part process given that it involved

two examination environments.

Last month, on the 6th of September, the chosen sample population was gathered in one

classroom where the paper-pen test proper was held. Prior to the day of examination, exam

coverage was given to the students for study preparations. The test participants were given the

necessary testing materials, the actual test paper and a periodic table, exclusive of a pen and

calculator of which the students were required to bring individually. The test material was

composed of multiple choice questions only, with the specification of 10 objective and 5

computation questions, formulated from a chapter of the General Chemistry book. The

researchers took the place as proctors of the exam. Before the distribution of test papers, students

were required to put all their bags in front. Within a time frame of 45 minutes, they were able to

answer the 15 item test without access to any study materials while observing a no talking

12
policy.

Succeedingly, two days after the classroom examination, on the 8th of September at

exactly nine o'clock in the evening, the online aspect of the study commenced. Still, on the

scheduled time, the students were required to answer a 15 item test on Google forms, the closest

examination platform the researchers were able to utilize to replicate Pearson, the official online

testing platform of the Chemistry department. A new set of questions were provided, however

with the same level of difficulty and specifications as to the one answered before. Time limit of

45 minutes was still observed, nevertheless, the students were given the freedom as to where

they prefer to take the test and were free of access to any study materials without the presence of

teachers or proctors.

After completing the first data collection procedure which was the mock examination

experiment, the researchers proceeded to the second part of the data collection process which

was the distribution of online survey questionnaires to random grade 12 STEAM students. A

total of 104 students were able to respond to the said survey. With the use of Google forms, the

researchers were able to disseminate the online surveys to the SU email addresses of students.

The questionnaires were used to collect data that assessed the satisfaction levels and academic

performances of students from their previous experiences in General Chemistry 1.

Data Analysis Procedure

To determine which examination approach best serves the students’ satisfaction and

academic needs, the researchers made use of correlational research design to assess the extent of

the relationship between the following variables: the examination environment, the students’

satisfaction levels and their test and academic performances.

13
 On finding the relationship between students’ test performances and examination

environment, and the relationship between students’ satisfaction levels on the two examination

environment and its corresponding academic performance, this study conducted two (2) data

analysis procedures: Analysis on the relationship between test scores and examination

environment and analysis on the relationship between academic performance and satisfaction

level. The researchers also analyzed the relationship between test performances from the mock

exam, and satisfaction level on the different examination environments, to find a more accurate

result since it did not have the unnecessary factors that affected students’ chemistry 1 academic

performances such as the included scores for attendance, lab exams, etc.

On analyzing the relationship between test scores and examination environment, the

researchers used paired t-test to determine if there was a significant difference between the

scores from the online exam and classroom exam and see which examination environment

produced higher scores.

On determining the differences between satisfaction levels of students on the different

examination environments and analyzing the relationship between these satisfaction levels and

students’ academic performance, the researchers examined the results they gathered on the

online survey, which was automatically tabulated in the Google Forms. They observed which

examination environment the respondents were more satisfied with, and see if it reflected in their

academic performances.

To gain a more statistical impression on the differences between satisfaction levels of the

two examination environment and its relationship to students’ academics, the researchers further

compared the test scores and satisfaction levels of the seventeen (17) students who participated

in the mock chemistry exam and the online survey. To measure the satisfaction levels, numerical

14
values ranging from 1-4 were assigned to the 4 point responses of the survey, where Dissatisfied

= 1, Somewhat dissatisfied = 2, Somewhat satisfied = 3, and Satisfied = 4. They computed the

median of each participant’s satisfaction level on the different examination environments and

compared its difference using the paired t-test technique. The researchers also correlated the said

data with the test scores from the mock chemistry exam done online and in classroom using the

Spearman rho correlation technique.

15
IV. Results and Discussion

On the relationship between test scores and examination environment, the paired t-test

showed that participants scored statistically significantly higher (p < 0.05) on the mock

chemistry online exam (mean = 11.12, SD = 3.54) than on the classroom chemistry exam (mean

= 9.04, SD = 2.41). From this, the researchers rejected the first null hypothesis and accepted the

alternative hypothesis which states that there is a relationship between test scores and

examination environment, and that is, higher test scores are produced in an online Chemistry 1

exam than in a classroom Chemistry 1 exam, given the class size of approximately 30 students.

Even though most students scored high on the mock online chemistry exam, the

researchers would still want to give awareness that some also scored alarmingly low due to slow

or no internet access, according to those participants.

On the difference between satisfaction levels in online examination environment and

classroom examination environment in Chemistry 1, the researchers concluded that students are

more satisfied with the former, based on the results of the survey displayed as tables and graphs.

The researchers also found out that the two factors of online examination environment that

mostly satisfied the students include the access to study materials, notes, and other resources, and

the freedom to talk to others during online exams, garnering 79% satisfied votes and 77.1%

satisfied votes, respectively (Figure 1.5, Figure 1.6). However, these results do not necessarily

mean that the students are not at all satisfied with classroom examination environment, for

majority responded “somewhat satisfied” to classroom examination environment.

On a more statistical approach, based on the paired t-test using the data from the 17

particular students, there is no significant difference between satisfaction levels on the online and

classroom exams (p > 0.05). With this, the researchers fail to reject the second null hypothesis

16
which states that there are no significant differences on the satisfaction levels of students

between taking their Chemistry 1 examinations online and in the classroom.

Regarding the academic performance of the students, survey results showed that more of

them had higher grades in midterms (where the online exam was administered) than in finals

(where the classroom exam was administered) in Chemistry 1 subject, but with only a slight

difference (Figure 1.10). The researchers came to an interpretation that since there is no big

difference on the satisfaction levels of both examination environments, there is also no big

difference on the academic performance of students on both examination environments, hence

the students’ academic performance is affected by the satisfaction levels on the different

examination environment. This interpretation is further proven statistically through Spearman

rho correlation technique using data from the particular 17 respondents. Results from this

technique showed that the online chemistry test score is positively correlated to the satisfaction

level on online examination environment, and the classroom chemistry test score is also

positively correlated to the satisfaction level on classroom examination environment. However,

both correlations are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the researchers reject

the third null hypothesis and accept the third alternative hypothesis which states that the

student’s satisfaction level on the different examination environments affects his or her academic

performance.

In summary, the researchers conclude that SUSHS students score significantly better

when taking Chemistry 1 exams in an online examination environment than in a classroom

examination environment because they are more satisfied with the factors that make up the

online examination environment, although this lacks statistical significance.

17
 For those who want to pursue this study further, the researchers recommend the

following:

 Bigger sample size for the mock examination

Since in one classroom there are approximately 40 students taking the test, it is

best if this is the class size that is really used so as to effectively provide a more exact

examination environment. It is very essential that this factor should be exactly met

because the exam environment plays a vital role in this study. Additionally, if the sample

size is bigger, the results would be more accurate.

 Bigger sample size for the online survey

The results showed that the null hypothesis in the study’s second objective was

not rejected so the researchers recommend that to address this, the sample size for the

online survey should be bigger. Moreover, in the last objective where the data is based on

the online survey as well, the researchers were able to prove the alternative hypothesis

and reject the null hypothesis. However, the difference was not that significant, so it is

still recommended that it is better to have a bigger sample size. Since the survey answers

two of the main objectives, 15% of the entire population is not enough to get more

accurate results.

 Time limit of the mock exam should be proportional to the number of items and difficulty

of test questions

It is important that the time limit should be proportional to the number of items

and difficulty to test questions so that the time allotted is sufficient for the students to

finish and review their test papers without an ample amount of wasted time. With the

study's aim to realistically replicate the examination environment of a real Chemistry

18
 exam, shortening the time limit, of course with the consideration of its level of difficulty,

will provide students the same time pressure as they had in a real exam. Also, with this,

the researchers can avoid wasting time for them to utilize and fully maximize the

remaining time for data analysis.

Parenthetically, based on the results of the study, these are issues that need to be taken

into consideration by the Chemistry department if they opt to pursue with the online

examination:

 Students with limited internet access

Results showed that even though most students scored high on the mock online

Chemistry exams, there are some who also scored alarmingly low due to slow or no

internet access, according to those participants.

 Higher tendency of cheating

The researchers also found out that the two factors of online examination

environment that mostly satisfied the students include the access to study materials,

notes, and other resources, and the freedom to talk to others during online exams,

garnering 79% satisfied votes and 77.1% satisfied votes, respectively. Obviously, this

somehow becomes a form of cheating which defeats the purpose of examinations.

19
V. Bibliography

Brallier, Sara A., et. al. (2015). Online Testing: Comparison of Online and Classroom Exams in

an Upper-Level Psychology Courses. American Journal of Educational Research 3.2

(2015), 3(2), 255-258. doi: 10.12691/education-3-2-20

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review of

Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481. Retrieved from http://jstor.org/stable/1170281

Englander F., & Fask A. (2014). Do Online Exams Facilitate Cheating? An Experiment

Designed to Separate Possible Cheating from the Effect of the Online Test Taking

Environment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 101. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-014-9207-1

Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored Versus Unproctored Online Exams:

Studying the Impact of Exam Environment on Student Performance. Decision Sciences

Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271-294. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00220.x

King, C., Guyette, R., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online Exams and Cheating: An Empirical

Analysis of Business Students’ Views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1).

doi:10.9743/jeo.2009.1.5

Ku, H., Akarasriworn, C., Glassmeyer, D. M., Mendoza, B., & Rice, L. A. (2011). Teaching an

online graduate mathematics education course for in-service mathematics teachers.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 135-147.

Nuangchalerm, P., Prachagool, V., & Sriputta, P. (2011). Online professional experiences in

teacher preparation program: A preservice teacher study. Canadian Social Science, 7(5),

116-120. doi:10.3968/J.css.1923669720110705.298

Spivey, M. F., & McMillan, J. J. (2014). Classroom Versus Online Assessment. Journal of

20
 Education for Business, 89(8), 450-456. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2014.937676

Stowell, J., & Bennett, D. (2010). Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test

anxiety. J. Educational Computing Research 42(2), 161-171. doi: 10.2190/EC.42.2.b

Williamson, Margaret H. (2018). Online Exams: The Need for Best Practices and Overcoming

Challenges. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology 10(1), 1-8. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=jpps

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online

collaborative learning. Learning Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136.

21
 Appendix A
LETTER TO RESPONDENT

Dear Respondent,

Good day!

We are grade 12 STEAM students of Silliman University Senior High School and we are
conducting a survey entitled A Comparative Study of the Satisfaction Levels, Academic and Test
Performance of Grade 12 STEAM students using Online and Classroom Examinations in General
Chemistry 1 of SUSHS. In partial fulfillment of our study, we are inviting you to partake in our research
by answering the attached survey. It is divided into two main parts; the first part is for the assessment of
your satisfaction of the Chemistry 1 online exam and the second part is for the assessment of your
satisfaction of the Chemistry 1 traditional paper-pen exam. We would also like to request for your 3rd and
4th quarter Chemistry grades last semester S.Y. 2017-2018.

Rest assured that it is our utmost priority to keep your answers as confidential as possible. Thank
you for taking the time to help us in our educational endeavors.

Sincerely,

Fia Vina Rianne B. Balbuena Katrina Melina E. Hamoy

Timothy Eraham Helery E. Narciso

Noted by:

DR. NADIA P. ABESAMIS

Research Teacher

22
 Appendix B
MOCK CHEMISTRY 1 PAPER-PEN EXAMINATION

Name: _____________________________ Date:__________ Score: ___________

MULTIPLE CHOICE. Shade the circle that corresponds to your answer.

Chapter 3: Chemical Reactions and Reaction Stoichiometry

1. The starting substances in a chemical reaction are called _________.

O precipitate O reactants
O products O coefficients
2. Which of the following symbols indicates that the substance is dissolved in a water
solution?
O (s) O (g)
O (l) O (aq)
3. Hydrogen gas reacts with oxygen gas to form water. The product(s) in this reaction is/are
______.
O water O hydrogen only
O oxygen only O hydrogen and oxygen

4. Convert 0.433 mole of CaSO4 to grams.

O 59 g O 82 g

O 65 g O 100 g

5. Which symbol indicates a reversible reaction?

O equal sign O plus sign

O arrow sign O double arrow sign

6. Convert 5.38 g of C6H12O6 to moles.

O 0.02989 mole O 0.0111 mole

23
 O 0.05000 mole O 1.0000 mole

7. You can’t live without iron. Where in the body is most of the iron located?

O blood O bone

O brain O skin

8. What evidence of chemical reaction takes place in the reaction of vinegar and acetic acid?

O precipitation O production of light

O gas formation O change in color

9. What is the molar mass of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) if it has a molecular weight of 98.1 amu?

O 66.4 g/mol O 98.1 g/mol

O 71.3 g/mol O 180 g/mol

10. How many atoms are in 3 g of copper (Cu)? (1 mol = 6.02 x 1023)

O 3 x 1022 atoms O 7 x 1026 atoms

O 5 x 1024 atoms O 9 x 1028 atoms

11. It is the area of study that examines the quantities of substances consumed and produced in
chemical reactions.

O stoichiometry O alchemy

O biochemistry O electronegativity

12. What type of reaction can form two or more products from a single reactant?

O combination O double replacement

O combustion O decomposition

13. An airbag is an example of what kind of reaction?

24
 O combination O double replacement

O combustion O decomposition

14. Who among the following had given the Atomic Theory?

O Antoine Lavoiser O Madam Curie

O John Dalton O Dmitri Mendeleev

15. Compute for the molar mass of Ca(NO3)2.

O 115 g/mol O 164 g/mol

O 180 g/mol O 195 g/mol

***THIS MOCK EXAMINATION IS INTENDED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY

(SET A)

Appendix C

25
 MOCK CHEMISTRY 1 ONLINE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
(Administered in Google Forms)

1. It is the study of quantitative relationships between chemical formulas and chemical

equations.
a) Chemistry
b) Stoichiometry
c) Chemical bonding
d) Thermochemistry

2. This law states that the total mass of the products of a chemical reaction is the same
as the total mass of the reactants.
a) Law of conversion of energy
b) Boyle’s law
c) Law of definite proportion
d) Law of conservation of mass

3. A ______ shows equal numbers of atoms of each element on each side of the
equation.
a) Chemical formula
b) Molecular formula
c) Balanced chemical equation
d) Unbalanced chemical equation

4. The type of reaction in which two reactants combine to form one product.
a) Decomposition reaction
b) Combination reaction
c) Combustion reaction
d) None of the above

26
5. The type of reaction in which a substance, typically a hydrocarbon, reacts rapidly
with O2 to form CO 2 and H2O.
a) Decomposition reaction
b) Combination reaction
c) Combustion reaction
d) None of the above

6. The type of reaction in which a single reactant forms two or more products.
a) Decomposition reaction
b) Combination reaction
c) Combustion reaction
d) None of the above

7. The _____ of a compound equals the sum of the atomic weights of the atoms in its
formula.
a) Formula weight
b) Molecular weight
c) Atomic weights
d) Elemental composition

8. The _____ of a reaction is the quantity of product calculated to form when all of the
limiting reactants react.
a) Excess reactant
b) Limiting reactant
c) Percent yield
d) Theoretical yield

9. A _____ is completely consumed in a reaction.

a) Excess reactant
b) Limiting reactant

27
 c) Percent yield
d) Theoretical yield

10. Equations are balanced by placing coefficients in front of the chemical formulas for the
reactants and products of a reaction, not by changing the subscripts in chemical
formulas.
a) True
b) False

11. What is the mass, in grams, of 0.105 mol sucrose (C12H22O11)?

a) 359 g
b) 35.9 g
c) 0.359 g
d) 3.59 g

12. Calculate the number of moles of Zn(NO3)2 in 143.50 g of this substance.

a) 75.766 mol
b) 0.75766 mol
c) 0.91099 mol
d) 9.1099 mol

13. Calculate the number of N atoms in 0.410 mol NH3.

a) 3.08 x 1023
b) 3.71 x 1023
c) 2.47 x 1023
d) 9.10 x 1023

14. How many moles of water are in 1.00 L of water, whose density is 1.00 g/mL?
a) 66.7 mol
b) 55.5 mol

28
 c) 23.6 mol
d) 91.0 mol

15. Calculate the molar mass of Ca(NO3)2.

a) 250.0 g/mol
b) 125.5 g/mol
c) 910.0 g/mol
d) 164.1 g/mol

29
 Appendix D
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
(Administered in Google Forms)

Part I.
Students' Satisfaction Level towards Online Exams in Chemistry 1

Using electronic devices in taking the exam.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Needing internet access to take the online exam.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

The place where I take the online exam.

(i.e. Internet cafes, house, dorm, coffee shop, etc.)
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

The people I'm surrounded with when taking the online exam.
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied

30
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

The absence of proctors/monitoring teachers in online exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Having access to study materials, notes, and other resources when taking online exams.
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Having the freedom to talk to others during online exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

The strict time limit of the online exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Not being able to change my answers on individual questions once I click the submit button.
o Satisfied

31
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

My mood when I take online exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat disatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Specify mood: ______________

(i.e. relaxed, stressed, happy, etc. )

My Grade 11 Midterms grade in Chemistry 1 is:

o Below 75
o 75 - 84
o 85 - 94
o 95 – 100

PART II.
Students' Satisfaction Level towards Traditional Classroom Exams in Chemistry 1

Using pen/pencil and paper in taking the exam.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Not needing any internet access in taking the exam.

32
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Taking the exam inside a classroom.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Being in a class size of about 40 students when taking the exam.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

The presence of proctors/monitoring teachers in classroom exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Observing strict 'closed-notes' policy during the exam.

o No access to study materials, notes, and other resources
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

33
Observing the 'no talking' policy during the exam.
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Having flexible time limit on answering classroom exams depending on the teacher.
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat disatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Being able to change answers to individual question before the time limit.
o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

My mood when I take classroom exams.

o Satisfied
o Somewhat satisfied
o Somewhat dissatisfied
o Dissatisfied

Specify mood:________________
(i.e. relaxed, stressed, happy, etc. )

My Grade 11 Finals grade in Chemistry 1 is:

o Below 75

34
o 75 - 84
o 85 - 94
o 95 - 100

35
 Appendix E

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

36
Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

37
Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6

38
Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8

39
Figure 1.9

Figure 1.10

40
 Appendix F

RAW SCORES

Mock Chemistry 1 Exam Scores Satisfaction Level Scores

Table 2.1 Table 2.2

41
 Appendix G

PAIRED T-TEST RESULTS

Between scores from mock Chemistry 1 exam done online and in classroom

Figure 3.1

Table 3.1

Between satisfaction level scores on online examination environment and classroom

examination environment

42
 Figure 3.2

Table 3.2

Appendix H

SPEARMAN RHO CORRELATION RESULTS

43
 Figure 4.1

Relationship between Satisfaction Level on Online Chemistry Examination Environment and

Online Chemistry 1 Exam Score

Table 4.1

Figure 4.2

44
Relationship between Satisfaction Level on Classroom Chemistry Examination Environment and

Classroom Chemistry 1 Exam Score

Table 4.2

45