CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data obtained from the survey

questionnaires answered by the respondents, the analyses and

interpretations leading to the answers to the research

problems stated in the first chapter.

Brain-Based Learning Practices

This section presents, analyzes and interprets the

public and private secondary school English teachers’ and

grade 10 students’ responses on the different brain-based

learning practices in terms of orchestrated immersion

relaxed alertness, and active processing.

Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based

learning method in terms of orchestrated immersion

Table 2 shows the secondary school English teachers’

responses on the different brain-based learning practices in

terms of orchestrated immersion.

 58

With obtained overall weighted mean of 3.94, generally,

the respondents often practice the brain-based learning

methods in terms of orchestrated immersion.

“I create activities based on the interests of my

students” obtained the highest mean of 4.75 with a verbal

interpretation “always practiced”. This reveals that among

the brain-based learning practices, secondary English

teachers both in private and public schools, always create

activities based on the interest of the students.

This implies that interests of learners are given

significance by the teachers in their instruction and

practices inside the classroom. Teachers are aware of the

importance of students’ interests in the success of the

classroom activities and instructions.

It is important for a teacher to examine the type of

learners that he or she has before considering teaching

strategies in the classroom. According to Barnes and Ferris

(2007), the millennial generation, the type of learner that

we have today can be characterized as diverse, independent,

empowered, and technologically savvy. Prensky (2010) stated

that today's generation thinks and processes information

 59

fundamentally differently. Howe and Strauss (2013)

identified additional traits of the millennial generation as

learners. These characteristics described the learner's

fascination with technology, a need for group activity and

extracurricular activities, and their focus on grades (Howe

and Strauss, 2013). These characteristics demand a new

learning paradigm (Skiba & Barton, 2016).

According to Peprah (2009), a mentor is more effective

in teaching if he/she manages to incorporate students’

interests in the lectures and that curiosity and learning

thrive when connected to the context which are familiar and

meaningful to the learner. Peprah justifies that interest of

students is an important consideration in designing lessons

and activities that will result in effective teaching.

Next to “I create activities based on the interests of

my students” are “I create realistic situations for my students”

with a weighted mean of 4.67 and “I work at making a real life

connection of the topics being taught” with a weighted mean of

4.54, verbally interpreted as “always practiced” and “often

practiced”, respectively.

Meanwhile, “I invite guest speakers to discuss the

topics”, obtained the lowest weighted mean of 1.79 with a

 60

verbal interpretation “never practiced” which means that the

said method is never used by the teachers. This implies that

teachers teach lessons, concepts, and implement classroom

activities by themselves.

This is supported by Leor (2015) who said that although

inviting guest speakers to discuss the topic could be a

great tool in improving a class, it is rarely used in

classrooms because of various reasons. First, due to time

constraint, teachers tend to leave out the possibility to

have someone come and help with lectures because they need

to follow a “set schedule” that tells them what to cover

within the few months of duration of the class. Second, it

might be difficult to find guest speakers that can travel to

where the class is taking place or finding a time that

matches their schedule and the time needed. Third, it can

also be expensive especially if the guest speaker does not

live anywhere nearby the school, travel expenses and

accommodations must be taken care of. Lastly, there might be

a shortage in technology in a given classroom, making it

more difficult to invite a speaker in case they need to use

specific equipment for their presentations.

 61

However, since this is also an activity that might

increase the performance of students if given attention,

Querijero (2017) stated that it is also helpful to invite

speakers in a class when discussing a topic which needs the

knowledge of an expert to expose students on specific

details. For instance, a lawyer might be invited when

discussing topics about bullying and cybercrime law, or a

media practitioner when discussing topic about news and

broadcasting.

Table 2. Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of orchestrated immersion.
Orchestrated Immersion Verbal Interpretation
Weighted Mean
1. I pre-expose my students to content and context of a 3.63 Often Practiced
topic at least one week before introducing it.
2. I use real-life, immersion-style multi-path learning 4.21 Often
over traditional learning in my classroom. Practiced
3. I work at making a real life connection of the topics 4.54 Often Practiced
being taught.
4. I create realistic situations for my students. 4.67 Always Practiced

5. I create activities based on the interests of my 4.75 Always Practiced

students.

6. I use power point presentations, cartoon strips, video 4.46 Often Practiced
clips etc. to help students grasp lesson.
7. I invite guest speakers to discuss the topics. 1.79 Never Practiced

8. I immerse my students in various activities that cater 4.42 Often Practiced

their different learning styles.
9. I organize inside-the-school tour to help them grasp 2.58 Rarely Practiced
the applications of the topics in real life.
10. I create activities that enable the students to 4.38 Often Practiced
produce real life outputs.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.94 Often Practiced

4.60 – 5.00 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)

3.70 – 4.50 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.80 – 3.60 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.90 – 2.70 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.00 – 1.80 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)
Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based
learning method in terms of relaxed alertness
 62

Table 3 shows the secondary school English teachers’

responses on the different brain-based learning practices in

terms of relaxed alertness. It shows that the respondents

often practice the brain-based learning methods in terms of

relaxed alertness which has a composite mean of 3.91.

The table reveals that “I praise and recognize

students’ positive behavior” obtained the highest mean of

4.50 with a verbal interpretation of “often practiced”.

This means that the respondents often praise and

recognize students’ positive behavior. It indicates that

teachers often provide students with positive praise and

give students positive reinforcement in order to motivate

them to learn and participate in class. It shows increase in

student’s academic performance and safety, and decrease

problem behaviors which result in a positive school culture

(Kelly, 2017).

Moreover, Rhett (2011) suggests that the use of rewards

in the classroom, such as praise, can condition students to

respond positively to tasks. Studies show that praise can

encourage students in many positive ways—like helping them

 63

pay more attention to detail and giving them more incentive

to try harder.

Furthermore, “I create a stress-free classroom where

students are engaged and relaxed”, “I create a supportive,

challenging, and complex environment in the class where

questions are encouraged”, and “I present lessons in a way

that encourages my student to have a positive emotional

connection to the materials”, obtained the mean of 4.1

(often practiced) which indicates that creating a positive

environment to encourage participation and learning among

students is observed among English teachers. According to

the study of Becton (2016), positive, productive learning

environment is the key to students’ academic, emotional, and

social success in school. She stated that there are many

components that go into making a positive learning

environment for students. This includes a climate of safety,

where risk-taking is encouraged, open authentic

conversation, trust, and respect are fostered, and positive

interaction is the norm.

Table 3. Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of relaxed alertness.
 64

Relaxed Alertness Weighted Verbal

Mean Interpretation

1. I encourage some form of movement in my

classroom to help with focus, attention, 3.90 Often Practiced
or learning readiness.
4.20 Often Practiced
2. I use humor when teaching English.
3. I quickly give constructive feedback on 4.00 Often Practiced
assignments or performance tasks.
4. I use music in my English class as part of 2.60 Rarely Practiced
the instruction.
5. I permit change in seating arrangement or 3.90 Often Practiced
groupings.
6. I create a stress-free classroom where 4.10 Often Practiced
students are engaged and relaxed
7. I praise and recognize students’ positive 4.50 Often Practiced
behavior.
8. I create a supportive, challenging, and 4.10 Often Practiced
complex environment in the class where
questions are encouraged.
9. I present lessons in a way that encourages 4.10 Often Practiced
my student to have a positive emotional
connection to the materials.
10. I create a physical environment that 3.70 Often Practiced
indirectly conveys the message of the
content being taught.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.91 Often Practiced
4.60 – 5.00 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)
3.70 – 4.50 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.80 – 3.60 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.90 – 2.70 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.00 – 1.80 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)

Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based

learning method in terms of active processing
Table 4 shows the private and public secondary English

teachers’ response on the different brain-based learning

practices in terms of active processing.

The table reveals that based on teachers’ responses,

English teachers occasionally practice the brain-based

learning methods in terms of active processing with the

 65

composite mean of 3.39 which is the lowest compared to the

first two categories of brain-based learning methods.

Based on teachers’ responses, among the brain-based

learning practices in terms of active processing, the

practice of asking students to elaborate on their responses

is most often done by the secondary English teachers with a

mean of 4.20. This implies that respondents often tried to

test whether students really understand the concepts by

letting them explain and defend their responses or ideas.

This is also a way of training the students to use their

higher order thinking skills.

This is supported by Cox (2009) who stated that higher

order thinking skills require students to really understand

a concept not repeat it or memorize it that is why educators

need to encourage students to elaborate their answers and

talk about what they are learning. In addition, checking for

understanding is foundational to guided instruction, as the

student's response provides the teacher with a decision-

making point whether to further scaffold the learner's

understanding (Fisher and Frey, 2010).

 66

Table 4. Teachers’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of active processing.
Active Processing Weighted Verbal
Mean Interpretation

1.I ask students to elaborate their

responses. 4.20 Often Practiced
2.I use mnemonics or word strategies to 3.60 Occasionally
teach concepts to my students. Practiced
3.I give my students problem-solving 3.70 Often Practiced
tasks that results in different
solutions.
4.I allow my students work in pairs or 4.00 Often Practiced
small groups.
5.My class participates in hands-on 3.60 Occasionally
activities Practiced
6.My students have time to discuss the 3.60 Occasionally
topic of the day with one another. Practiced
7.I prefer a busy and active classroom 4.10 Often Practiced
environment.
8.I allow my students to work outside the 3.70 Often Practiced
classroom when in group activities.
9.I use scaffolding to encourage 3.50 Occasionally
reflection into activities to Practiced
strengthen connection between existing
knowledge and new information.
10. I take the class outside during 2.90 Occasionally
discussion when feasible. Practiced
Occasionally
Overall Weighted Mean 3.39
Practiced
4.6 – 5.0 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)
3.7 – 4.5 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.8 – 3.6 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.9 – 2.7 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.0 – 1.8 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)

Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based

learning method in terms of orchestrated immersion

Table 5 shows grade 10 students’ responses on the

different brain-based learning practices in terms of

orchestrated immersion based on their observation from their

English teachers.
 67

Just like the responses of the English teachers, the

grade 10 students observed that their English teachers often

practice the brain-based learning methods in terms of

orchestrated immersion obtaining a weighted mean of 3.77.

“My teacher uses power point presentations, cartoon strips,

video clips etc. to help the students grasp the lesson”,

obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.42 which means that

their English teachers often use power point presentations,

cartoon strips, video clips etc. to help the students grasp

the lesson.

This practice is supported by the study of Ozaslan and

Maden (2013) who concluded in their study that students

learn better if the course material is presented through

some visual tools. They also reported that teachers believed

that powerpoint presentations make the content more

appealing and therefore help teachers take students'

attention. In addition, 65 percent of learners learn through

visual presentations since humans are visual creatures and

most of us process information based on what we see. 

Table 5. Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of orchestrated immersion.
 68

Verbal
Orchestrated Immersion Weighted
Interpretation
Mean
1. My teacher 3.98 Often
pre-exposes students to content and Practiced
context of a topic at least one
week before introducing it.
2. My teacher uses real-life, 3.98 Often
immersion-style multi-path learning Practiced
over traditional learning in the
classroom.
3. My teacher works at making a real 4.16 Often
life connection of the topics being Practiced
taught.
4. My teacher creates realistic 4.19 Often
situations for the students to Practiced
solve.
5. My teacher creates activities 4.27 Often
based on the interests of the Practiced
students.
6. My teacher uses power point 4.42 Often
presentations, cartoon strips, Practiced
video clips etc. to help the
students grasp the lesson.
7. My teacher invites guest speakers 1.79 Never
to discuss the topics. Practiced
8. My teacher immerses the students 3.85 Often
in various activities that cater Practiced
different learning styles.
9. My teacher organizes inside-the- 3.00 Occasionally
school tour to help students grasp Practiced
the applications of the topics in
real life.
10. My teacher creates activities 4.06 Often
that enable the students to Practiced
produce real life outputs.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.77 Often
Practiced
4.60 – 5.00 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)
3.70 – 4.50 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.80 – 3.60 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.90 – 2.70 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.00 – 1.80 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)
Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based
learning method in terms of relaxed alertness
 69

Table 6 shows the grade 10 students’ responses based on

their observation of their English teachers’ use of brain-

based learning methods in terms of relaxed alertness.

The table reveals that just like the teachers’

responses, among the brain-based learning practices of

private and public secondary English teachers in terms of

relaxed alertness, “My teacher praises and recognizes

students’ positive behavior” is most practiced. It indicates

that teachers often provide students with positive praise

and give students positive reinforcement in order to

motivate them to learn and participate in class.

Furthermore, this study found out that secondary

English teachers rarely use music in their class as part of

instruction which obtain a weighted mean of 2.60. This

implies that teachers are either not aware of the positive

effects music has on students’ ability or teachers are not

yet convinced of its effectiveness. There is much evidence

that supports the positive effects of music on one’s ability

(Zhan, 2008), and in the field of cognitive research, the

mind-body connections between music and language have fueled

 70

continuing debate surrounding the so-called “Mozart Effect”.

This might be explained by the fact that the same parts of

the brain re active when listening to Mozart as when engaged

in spatal-temporal reasoning (Gupta, 2009). However, there

is a study conducted which found that listening to lyrical

music while studying creates a huge distraction and that

means people do not remember certain tasks and bits of

knowledge they need the most for learning (Archuleta, 2011).

It is just a matter of what kind of music the teacher is

using inside the classroom. Some researchers have identified

numerous reasons why teachers tend to stick o traditional

way of teaching and some of these include teachers’ beliefs

about what constitutes effective instruction, availability

and functionality of technology and the lack of time to

explore and experiment new ways of teaching (Herold, 2015).

Table 6. Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of relaxed alertness.
Relaxed Alertness Weighted Verbal
Mean Interpretation

1.My teacher encourages some form of 3.9

 71

movement in the classroom to help with Often Practiced

focus, attention, and learning
readiness.
2.My teacher uses humor when teaching 4.13 Often Practiced
English.
3.My teacher quickly gives constructive 4.00 Often Practiced
feedback on assignments or performance
tasks.
4.My teacher uses music in our English 2.60 Rarely
class as part of the instruction. Practiced
5.My teacher permits change in seating 3.90 Often Practiced
arrangement or groupings.
6.My teacher creates a stress-free 4.10 Often Practiced
classroom where students are engaged
and relaxed.
7.My teacher praises and recognizes 4.50 Often Practiced
student’s positive behavior.
8.My teacher creates a supportive, 4.10 Often Practiced
challenging, and complex environment in
the class where questions are
encouraged.
9.My teacher presents lessons in a way 4.10 Often Practiced
that encourages student to have a
positive emotional connection to the
materials.
10. My teacher creates a 3.71 Often Practiced
physical environment that indirectly
conveys the message of the content
being taught.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.91 Often Practiced
4.60 – 5.00 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)
3.70 – 4.50 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.80 – 3.60 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.90 – 2.70 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.00 – 1.80 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)

Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-based

learning method in terms of active processing

Table 7 shows grade 10 students’ responses on the

different brain-based learning practices in terms of active

 72

processing based on their observation from their English

teachers.

As evidenced by the obtained overall weighted mean of

3.75, generally, the respondents observed that their English

teachers often practice the brain-based learning methods in

terms of active processing.

“My teacher takes the class outside during discussion

when feasible” had the lowest mean of 2.90 with a verbal

interpretation of “occasionally practiced”. This implies

that according to the respondents, their teachers try to

alter their teaching environment at least once a month when

feasible by taking the class outside to discuss lessons.

The study found out that the practice of taking the

class outside during discussion was the least practiced in

terms of active processing. This means that often times the

respondents prefer to discuss inside the classrooms than

outside and allow their students to go outside only during

group activities. This is due to the fact that taking the

class outside during discussion may be impractical for the

teachers because they always have to consider the climate,

 73

the comfort of their students and the absence of

distractions in order to facilitate the discussions well.

According to Sanza (2015), the disadvantage of teaching

outside includes health and safety issues, following

curriculum requirements, absence of distractions, weather

considerations and natural accidents.

Table 7. Students’ level of acceptance on the use of brain-

based learning method in terms of active processing.
Active Processing Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation

1. My teacher asks students to elaborate on their 4.24

responses. Often Practiced
2. My teacher uses mnemonics or word strategies to teach 4.04 Often Practiced
language concepts to the students.
3. My teacher often gives students problem-solving tasks 3.78 Often Practiced
that results in different solutions.
4. My teacher allows the students to often work in pairs 4.12 Often Practiced
or small groups.
5. My teacher allows the class to participate in hands-on 3.94
language activities. Often Practiced
6. My teacher allows the students to have time to discuss 3.87 Often Practiced
the language topic of the day with one another.
7. My teacher prefers a busy, active classroom 3.66 Occasionally Practiced
environment.
8. My teacher allows the students to work outside the 3.77 Often Practiced
classroom when in group activities.
9. My teacher uses scaffolding to encourage reflection 3.17 Occasionally
into activities to strengthen connection between Practiced
existing knowledge and new information.

10. My teacher takes the class outside during discussion 2.90 Occasionally Practiced
when feasible.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.75 Often Practiced
4.60 – 5.00 – Always Practiced (the practice is used in a daily basis)
3.70 – 4.50 – Often Practiced (the practice is used at least once a week)
2.80 – 3.60 – Occasionally Practiced (the practice is used at least once a month)
1.90 – 2.70 – Rarely Practiced (the practice is used at least once in the school year)
1.00 – 1.80 – Never Practiced (the practice is never used)

Level of Performance in Reading Comprehension as Perceived

by the Teachers

Table 8 shows the students’ level of performance in

reading comprehension as perceived by the English teachers.

 74

This includes the twenty-five (25) learning competencies

listed on the K to12 Curriculum Guide (2016) of English 10

under the domain reading comprehension.

With the overall weighted mean of 4.09, teachers tend

to perceive that the competencies in reading comprehension

were “observed” in the students. All of the listed learning

competencies were verbally interpreted as observed.

This indicates that all the skills are evident in more

than half of the students. Among the listed competencies in

reading comprehension, item number 21, “Distinguishing facts

from opinions”, obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.46

which means that this is the most observed competency in

reading comprehension among grade 10 student respondents.

According to Suarez (2017), distinguishing a fact from

an opinion is a challenging skill in reading. Good readers

do more than just read the words. Good readers think,

wonder, reflect, and connect while they read. She said that

helping learners to understand how facts differ from

opinions is crucial in critical reading, writing, listening,

and speaking. It has applications across grade levels and

disciplines and it is a skill that helps one in interpreting

 75

statements necessary in making judgments and decisions in

real-life situations and teachers have important roles to

play in developing this skill. She further stated that

critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process

of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,

analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information

gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience,

reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to

belief and action.

Meanwhile, “Read closely to get explicitly and

implicitly stated information”, obtained the lowest weighted

mean of 3.60 among the listed competencies. This implies

that among the competencies in reading comprehension,

reading closely to get explicitly and implicitly stated

details is the least observed.

By dictionary definition, a detail is a less

significant item or fact; it may also be a minor decorative

feature of a work. Details in a text may be significant

because they contribute to the wholeness of the material;

others, considered insignificant, may be there, but removing

them may not affect significantly the integrity of the text.

 76

Details in a reading text are small pieces of information

that may support an interpretation, a conclusion or a claim,

an inference, and /or a main idea as explained by Adler

(2017). The categories of details according to Rozakis are

examples, facts, statistics, reasons, definitions,

descriptions. Comprehension strategies are the cognitive

processes and procedures that readers bring to the content

of reading, while comprehension skills are the procedures

they use to grasp the organizational structure of the text.

Readers use varied comprehension strategies before,

during, and after reading a text but comprehension skills

are best employed as readers reread a text and do close

reading (Roit, n.d.). Students should be trained to engage

in close reading of text and to use strategies that help

them comprehend the reading texts more clearly. In

addition, effective comprehension strategy instruction is

explicit. In explicit instruction, teachers tell readers why

and when they should use strategies, what strategies to use,

and how to apply them. The steps of explicit instruction

typically include direct explanation, teacher modeling

("thinking aloud"), guided practice, and application.

 77

Moreover, Roit (n.d.) quoted that teaching

comprehension strategies should focus on thinking, problem

solving, and monitoring understanding. Being strategic is

not a skill that can be taught by drill; it is a method of

approaching reading and reading instruction. Much more is

required than knowing a strategy; becoming strategic calls

for coordinating individual strategies. This coordinating

involves altering, adjusting, modifying, testing, and

shifting tactics as is fitting, until a reading

comprehension problem is solved.

Table 8. Teachers’ assessment on students’ level of

performance in reading comprehension.
Student’s Reading Comprehension
Weighted Verbal
Mean Interpretation
1. Determine the effect of textual aids like advance 4.26 Observed
organizers, titles, non-linear illustrations, etc. on
the understanding of a text
2. Compare new insights with previous learnings 4.00 Observed
3. Transcode information from linear to non-linear texts 3.96 Observed
and vice-versa
4. Explain illustrations from linear to nonlinear texts 4.08 Observed
and vice versa
5. Present information using tables, graphs, and maps 3.88 Observed
6. Scan for needed information 4.21 Observed
7. Read closely to get the author’s purpose 4.13 Observed
8. Read closely to get explicitly and implicitly stated 3.60 Observed
information
9. Evaluate text content, elements, features, and 4.13 Observed
properties using a set of criteria
 78

10. Evaluate the overall artistic value of the 4.06 Observed

structure and elements of the
selection(structuralist/formalist)
11. Identify treatment of underlying or overarching 3.89 Observed
issue concerning human experience (moralist)
12. Identify power struggles of characters (Marxist) 3.93 Observed
13. Identify gender relationships of characters 4.09 Observed
(feminist)
14. Identify relevance of the selection to the 3.77 Observed
historical context during which it was produced
(historical)
15. Determine personal significance of the selection to 4.17 Observed
the reader (reader-response)
16. Identify textual details that affirm or refute a 4.04 Observed
claim
17. Examine biases 4.06 Observed
18. Use locational skills to gather information from 4.25 Observed
primary and secondary sources of information
19. Get vital information from various websites on the 4.17 Observed
internet
20. Synthesize essential information about a chosen 4.21 Observed
issue
21. Distinguish facts from opinions 4.46 Observed
22. Evaluate the accuracy of given information 4.33 Observed
23. Draw conclusions from the set of details 4.33 Observed

24. Draw out inferences and predict outcomes 4.29 Observed

based on details from selected texts
25. Distinguish between general and specific statements 4.21 Observed

Overall Weighted Mean 4.09 Observed

4.60 – 5.00 – Highly Observed (the skill is evident in all of the students
3.70 – 4.50 – Observed (the skill is evident in more than half of the students)
2.80 – 3.60 – Moderately Observed (the skill is evident in half of the students)
1.90 – 2.70 – Fairly Observed (the skill is evident in less than half of the students
1.00 – 1.80 - Not Observed (the skill is not evident in any student)
Level of Performance in Reading Comprehension as Perceived
by the Students

Table 9 showcases the students’ self-rating on their

level of performance in reading comprehension.

The table reveals that with the overall weighted mean

of 3. 99, students tend to perceive that the competencies in

reading comprehension were “observed”. All of the listed

learning competencies have a verbal interpretation of

 79

“observed”. This indicates that all the skills are evident

in more than half of the students.

Table 9 also reveals that item number 24, draw out

inferences and predict outcomes based on details from

selected texts, is the least observed with a weighted mean

of 3.70. Marzano (2010) defined inference as a foundational

skill- a prerequisite for higher-order thinking and 21st

century skills. Inference skills are used across the

curriculum, including English language arts, science and

social studies. Because inferring requires higher order

thinking skills, it can be difficult for many students.

However, it can be taught through explicit instruction in

inferential strategies. He suggests that teachers pose four

questions to students to facilitate a discussion about

inferences namely: (1) What is my inference? This question

helps students become aware that they may have just made an

inference by filling in information that wasn’t directly

presented; (2) What information did I use to make this

inference? It is important for students to understand the

various types of information they use to make inferences.

This may include information presented in the text, or it

 80

may be background knowledge that a student brings to the

learning setting; (3) How good was my thinking? According to

Marzano, once students have identified the premises on which

they have based their inferences, they can engage in the

most powerful part of the process- examining the validity of

their thinking; and (4) Do I need to change my thinking? The

final step in the process is for students to consider

possible changes in their thinking. The point here is not to

invalidate students’ original inferences, but rather to help

them develop the habit of continually updating their

thinking as they gather new information.

On the other hand, item number 19, get vital

information from various websites on the internet, is the

most observed competency with a mean of 4.46. This implies

that students nowadays are exposed to technology. Technology

has become integrated in the classroom in so many ways. In

more and more schools today, technology is recognized as an

instructional tool, not as a subject of instruction. Costley

(2014) defined technology integration in his study as the

use of technology tools in general content areas in

education in order to allow students to apply computer and

 81

technology skills to learning and problem-solving. He

suggested that teachers should model the use of technology

in support of the curriculum so that learners can see the

appropriate use of technology and benefit from exposure to

more advanced applications that they will use independently.

Table 9. Students’ self-rating on their level of performance

in reading comprehension.
Weighted Verbal
Student’s Reading Comprehension
Mean Interpretation
1. Determine the effect of textual aids like advance
organizers, titles, non-linear illustrations, etc. on
the understanding of a text 4.01 Observed
2. Compare new insights with previous learnings 3.92 Observed
3. Transcode information from linear to non-linear texts 3.81 Observed
and vice-versa
4. Explain illustrations from linear to nonlinear texts 3.84 Observed
and vice versa
5. Present information using tables, graphs, and maps 3.92 Observed
6. Scan for needed information 4.10 Observed
7. Read closely to get the author’s purposes 4.03 Observed
8. Read closely to get explicitly and implicitly stated 4.03 Observed
information
9. Evaluate text content, elements, features, and 4.05 Observed
properties using a set of criteria
10. Evaluate the overall artistic value of the 3.96 Observed
structure and elements of the
selection(structuralist/formalist)
11. Identify treatment of underlying or overarching 3.84 Observed
 82

issue concerning human experience (moralist)

12. Identify power struggles of characters (Marxist) 3.93 Observed
13. Identify gender relationships of characters 4.11 Observed
(feminist)
14. Identify relevance of the selection to the 4.10 Observed
historical context during which it was produced
(historical)
15. Determine personal significance of the selection 4.09 Observed
to the reader (reader-response)
16. Identify textual details that affirm or refute a 3.89 Observed
claim
17. Examine biases 3.88 Observed
18. Use locational skills to gather information from 4.09 Observed
primary and secondary sources of information
19. Get vital information from various websites on the 4.46 Observed
internet
20. Synthesize essential information about a chosen 3.98 Observed
issue
21. Distinguish facts from beliefs 4.04 Observed
22. Evaluate the accuracy of given information 4.09 Observed
23. Draw conclusions from the set of details 3.93 Observed
24. Draw out inferences and predict outcomes based on 3.70 Observed
details from selected texts
25. Distinguish between general and specific 4.09 Observed
statements
Overall Weighted Mean 3.99 Observed
4.60 – 5.00 – Highly Observed (the skill is evident in all of the students
3.70 – 4.50 – Observed (the skill is evident in more than half of the students)
2.80 – 3.60 – Moderately Observed (the skill is evident in half of the students)
1.90 – 2.70 – Fairly Observed (the skill is evident in less than half of the students
1.00 – 1.80 - Not Observed (the skill is not evident in any student)
Relationship between the teachers’ level of acceptance on
the use of brain-based learning method and their perception
of the students’ performance in reading comprehension

Table 10 shows the relationship between the teachers’

level of acceptance on the use of brain-based learning

method and their perception of the students’ performance in

reading comprehension.

The table reveals that there is no significant

relationship between the teachers’ level of acceptance on

the use of brain-based learning method and their perception

 83

of the students’ performance in reading comprehension. This

means that, an increase in teachers’ acceptance on the use

of brain-based learning method is not related to the

increase or decrease of students’ performance in reading

comprehension.

As stated by Cziko (2000), reading is a complex process

of problem solving in which the reader works to make sense

of a text not just from the words and sentences on the page

but also from the ideas, memories, and knowledge evoked by

those words and sentences. This point of view suggests that

reading is an intentional and interactive process because

when a person reads, he/she must take into account not only

the words but the context of the text, the voice of the

writer and relate this information to his/her own

experiences to understand the text as a whole. Reading

strategies are effective teaching strategies to enhance

reading in the classroom such as prediction, thinking aloud,

text structure, visualization, summarizing, among others

(Duke and Pearson, 2002). Based on the fact that reading is

a complex process that requires high order thinking skills,

it is important to take into consideration the role that the

 84

brain plays in this specific process. According to Meyer &

Rose (2009), neuroimaging research has shown that many parts

of the brain comprise the brain’s reading network: each

major area plays a different role, bringing a different

skill to the cooperative process, which means that when

reading process is taking place, many parts of the brain are

involved and each one of them makes its contribution to

success, in other words reading is a whole-brain activity.

Bearing in mind the previous information, improving reading

is a way to encourage students to think in a high-order

level in such a way that their brain becomes more active and

develops better strategies to learn. It is essential to

understand that the brain can be developed which means that

each time that a person develops activities that demand high

cognitive processes, the brain activates high-order thinking

skills that promote the growth of the nerve fibers that

connect the neurons and brain-based learning practices are

encouraged to be applied. (Willis, 2008)

Table 10. Relationship between the teachers’ level of

acceptance on the use of brain-based learning method and
their perception of the students’ performance in reading
comprehension.
Teachers’ Level of Acceptance on
the Use Brain Based Learning Method
 85

Teachers’ Perception of
Students’ Performance in Reading
Comprehension

Pearson Correlation .081

Si. (2-tailed) .699

Relationship between the students’ level of acceptance on

the use of brain-based learning method and the students’
performance in reading comprehension as perceived by
themselves

Table 11 shows the relationship between the students’

level of acceptance on the use of brain-based learning

method and the students’ performance in reading

comprehension as perceived by themselves.

As shown on table 11, there is no significant

relationship between the students’ level of acceptance on

the use of brain-based learning method and the students’

level of performance in reading comprehension. This means

that an increase in students’ acceptance on the use of

brain-based learning method is not related to the increase

or decrease of the students’ level of performance in reading

comprehension.

According to Erlauer (2013), most educators would agree

that the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension. When

 86

students have mastered the alphabetic principle, and can

masterfully decode words and read with fluency, their

working memory is freed up for the task of comprehending the

text. He said that when students with strong knowledge about

the world and a wide range of things, bring to the reading

process prior knowledge. When teachers model comprehension

strategies, they show students how to break down the text to

extract meaning but students, however are not aware of the

teaching processes. When students practice comprehension

strategies correctly after teacher modeling, they strengthen

their neurological circuitry.

Table 11. Relationship between the students’ level of

acceptance on the use of brain-based learning method and the
students’ performance in reading comprehension as perceived
by themselves.
Students Level of Acceptance
on the Use Brain Based
Learning Method
Students’ Perception on their
Performance in Reading
Comprehension

Pearson Correlation -.276

Si. (2-tailed) .181

Difference between teachers’ perception on the students’

level of acceptance on the use of Brain based learning
method and the students’ perception of themselves on their
own level of acceptance on the use of brain based learning
method
 87

Table 12 showcases the difference between teachers’

perception on the students’ level of acceptance on the use

of Brain based learning method and the students’ perception

of themselves on their own level of acceptance on the use of

brain based learning method.

The table reveals that there is a significant

difference between the teachers’ perception of the

performance level in reading comprehension of students and

the students’ performance level in reading comprehension as

perceived by themselves at .01 level of significance. It

implies that the perception of the teachers is different

with the perception of the students regarding the use of

brain-based learning method. The teachers perceived that

brain-based learning methods were often practiced by the

English teachers.

Numale (2017) indicates that one of the ways of

understanding an individual is through constant observation

of his/her behaviors in different situations. This constant

observation is carried out by teachers in a school setting

in order to gather data on the subjects and use the feedback

 88

for assessment to ensure effective teaching, learning and

improving performance of the students. Students who learned

through brain-based learning showed gains in their reading

comprehension abilities, analytical thinking, and attitudes

towards learning activities. In conclusion, the program

through brain-based learning activities could be used for

students to improve performance in reading comprehension

abilities, analytical thinking, and attitudes towards

learning activities.

Table 12. Difference between teachers’ perception on the

students’ level of acceptance on the use of Brain based
learning method and the students’ perception of themselves
on their own level of acceptance on the use of brain based
learning method.

F Sig.
7.206 .009**
Significant at .01 level of significance

Difference between the teachers’ perception of the

performance level in reading comprehension of students and
the students’ performance level in reading comprehension as
perceived by themselves

Table 13 shows the difference between the teachers’

perception of the performance level in reading comprehension

of students and the students’ performance level in reading

comprehension as perceived by themselves.

 89

The table reveals that there is a significant

difference between the teachers’ perception of the

performance level in reading comprehension of students and

the students’ performance level in reading comprehension as

perceived by themselves at .01 level of significance. It

implies that the perception of the teachers differs with the

perception of the students regarding their level of

performance in reading comprehension.

According to Maxwell (2011), teacher observation is one

of the several types of assessment techniques and has been

accepted readily in the past as a legitimate source of

information for recording and reporting student

demonstrations of learning outcomes. It is capable of

providing substantial information on student demonstration

of learning outcomes at all levels of education. Moreover,

teachers have access to a rich and diverse range of evidence

on student learning outcomes from observations of their

students and their capability to collect and interpret this

range of evidence should be respected.

Table 13. Difference between the teachers’ perception of the

performance level in reading comprehension of students and
 90

the students’ performance level in reading comprehension as

perceived by themselves.
F Sig.
9.555 .003
 Significant at .01 and .05 level of significance

Difference between male and female students regarding their

level of acceptance on the use of brain based learning
method
Table 14 shows the difference between male and female

students regarding their level of acceptance on the use of

brain based learning method. There is a highly significant

difference between male and female students’ level of

acceptance on the use of brain-based learning methods at .05

level of significance.

Basically, males and females are different. Many

scientists, after years of research, noted many differences

between the male and female brain as stated by Kimura (2014)

in his study. These structural differences may account for

developmental, behavioral, and cognitive processing

differences between male students and female students.

Also, according to Jensen, the female can hear better

and is able to pick up different sounds, music, and voices

better. Females also retain better hearing longer in life.

 91

They learn languages and learn to speak earlier and more

quickly. Males have better depth perception and distance

vision; while females have greater peripheral vision.

Females see better at night and males see better in brighter

light. Males and females have very different ways of

approaching and solving problems. Thus, knowing these

differences should help teachers plan better instruction.

Table 14. Difference between male and female students

regarding their level of acceptance on the use of brain
based learning method.
F Sig.
4.249 .038
 Significant at .05 level of significance

Difference between private and public school on the

performance level of students in reading comprehension

Table 15 reveals the difference between private and

public school on the performance level of students in

reading comprehension. As a result, there is no significant

difference between private and public school students’ level

of performance in reading comprehension.

Hanushek (2012) documented in his study that

comparisons of student outcomes for private and public

 92

schools are common in the economics of education literature.

He noted that the two fundamental analytical questions in

the literature are: (1) Does performance in private schools

exceed that in public schools, all else being equal; and (2)

If private school performance exceeds that in public

schools, is it because of better schools or better students?

Both questions are challenging. Uncovering the causal

relationship between school type and student outcomes is

complicated by the possibility of self-selection into

private schools. Given the costs of private schools,

wealthier families may be better able to enroll their

children. Furthermore, private schools may have more

stringent academic admission criteria. Another limiting

factor is a general lack of data, particularly about the

school themselves.

Meanwhile, Frenette (2014) found out that private high

school students scored significantly higher than did public

high school students on reading, mathematics, and science

assessments. Findings of his study stated that two factors

were consistently accounted for the differences in academic

outcomes between public and private sector students: socio-

 93

economic characteristics and peers. School resources and

practices played little to no role in the differences in any

academic outcome.

Table 15. Difference between private and public school on

the achievement level of students in reading comprehension
F Sig.
.555 .457

 Significant at .01 level of significance