Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceived impact of using e-facilitative

tools in teaching science among the grade six pupils in MSU-Integrated Laboratory School

(MSU-ILS). Furthermore, this study sought answers to the following questions. First is the

demographic profile of the respondents. Second is the academic performance of the students and

the available e-facilitative tools being utilized by the respondents. The last one is about the

significant relationship between the respondents’ demographic profile and the impact of using e-

facilitative tools in teaching science.

I. Personal Profile of the respondents

This portion includes the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents

according to their age, sex, parents/Guardians higher educational attainment and parents

occupation.

Age

The table below shows the frequency and distribution of the respondents according

to age. As shown below, Table 2 presents the age of the respondents which ranged

from 10-11 and 12-13.

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

Age

Frequency Percent
10-11 years old 77 51.3
12-13 years old 73 48.7
Total 150 100.0
Table 2 shows the frequency and distribution percentage of the respondents’ age. As shown,

Seventy seven (77) or 51.3% of the respondent were between the age of 10-11 years of age,

Seventy three (73) or 48.7 were 12-13 years of age.

Gender

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’ gender.

Students’ gender was categorized into male and female. This is to determine which of the

respondents’ gender is dominating in the perceived impact of using e-facilitative tools in

teaching science among grade vi pupils of MSU-integrated laboratory school.

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents

According to Gender.

Frequency Percent
Male 70 46. 7
Female 80 53.3
Total 150 100.0

Table 3 the data showed that (80) or 53.3%

Shown in the table is the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in

terms of sex. It shows that more than half (80, or 53.3%) of the respondents were females, while

(70 or 46.7%) were males. The table above revealed that most of the respondents of this study

were female.

Gender may have conceptual underpinnings that are linked to academic success in

students. Lorne (2001) found no significant gender.

 Table 4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

Parents/Guardians higher educational attainment.

Higher Educational Attainment (Father)

Frequency Percent
Elementary 26 17.3
High school 73 48.7
College 51 34.0
Total 150 100.0

Higher Educational Attainment (Mother)

Frequency Percent
Elementary 2 1.3
High school 6 4.0
College 142 94. 7
Total 150 100.0

Table 4.4 Shown in the table is the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in

terms of parents/guardians’ highest educational attainment. It shows that when it comes to

parent/guardians’ highest educational attainment, it can be gleaned from the table that most of

the respondents (F= 142, 94.7%) were the college level, 73 (48.7%) were the high school level,

while 26 (17.3%) were the elementary level. The table above revealed that most of the parents or

guardians of the respondents were able to attend school. (hndi ko nilagay lahat ikw kong ilalagay

mo lahat ung percentage)

 Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to

Parents/Guardians Occupation.

Occupation (Father)

Frequency Percent
Engaged in Business 127 84.7
Government Employees 23 15.3
Total 150 100.0

Occupation (Mother)

Frequency Percent
Engaged in Business 96 64.0
Government Employees 54 36.0
Total 150 100.0

Table 4 Shown in the table is the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents

according to family occupation. The majority result of the respondents (F=127, or 84.7%) were

engaged in business followed by 54, or (36.0%) were the government employees. The table

above revealed that most of the parents or guardians of the respondents were in the stable job.

2. What available e-facilitative tools being utilized by the respondents?

Table 6 the mode distribution of the respondents in the impact of using e- facilitative tools

in teaching science among the grade six students.

Indicators Responses (n=150)

Mode Interpretation
(e-Facilitative tools) 1 2 3 4
1
Responses in your science class using E-
25 106 18 1 2 Rarely
facilitative tools.
2
Observations in your science class during E-
99 34 10 7 1 Never
Facilitative tools.
3
How well do you on projects or practical/
laboratory exercises while using any E-tool 77 47 16 10 1 Never
that helps you complete your task?
4
How well students do on homework 124 4 19 3 1 Never
 assignments through the use of Google meet
or other online E-tools for education?
5
Using E-facilitative tools was demanding
38 57 15 40 2 Rarely
and tiring.
6
E-Facilitative tools help to set my own
schedule such as the use of Calendar and
2 96 12 40 2 Rarely
reminder notifications from Google
classroom.
Legend: 1=“Never”, 2=“Rarely”, 3=“Sometimes”, 4=“Always”

Table 6 shows the mode distribution of the respondents in the impact of using e- facilitative tools

in teaching science among the grade six students. As shown, the respondents result is (mode=2)

on the following statements: Responses in your science class using E-facilitative tools, Using E-

facilitative tools was demanding and tiring, E-facilitative tools help to set my own schedule such

as the use of calendar and reminder notifications from google classroom. However, they are

never (mode=1) in the statement Observations in your science class during E-Facilitative tools,

How well do you on projects or practical/ laboratory exercises while using any E-tool that helps

you complete your task, How well students do on homework assignments through the use of

Google meet or other online E-tools for education. This meant that the respondents find it hard

to learn in using e-facilitative tools.

3. What is the perception of the respondents in the impact of using e-facilitative tools in teaching
science on the aspects in terms of the following?

Table 7 Assigning Activities, Assigning of homework and Assessment

 Indicators Responses (n=150)
Mode Interpretation
(Assigning Activities) 1 2 3 4
1
Work individually without assistance from the
15 52 80 3 3 Sometimes
teacher but instead uses the PDF file provided.
2
Work individually with the assistance from the
15 73 60 2 2 Rarely
teacher while using the PDF file.
3
Work in pairs or small groups just by using
Multimedia software without the assistance 88 29 12 21 1 Never
from the teacher.
4
Work in pairs or small groups by using
Multimedia software with the assistance from 68 32 47 3 1 Never
the teacher.
5
Work together as a class with the teacher
teaching the whole class while using the Power 42 60 41 7 2 Rarely
point tool.
6
Work together as a class with the students
responding to one another using the Power 83 24 16 27 1 Never
point tool.
7
Write explanations about what was observe and
why it happened related to the discussion that 97 17 25 11 1 Never
was provided by the used of E-facilitative tools.
8
Represent and analyze relationships using
tables, charts, or graphs related to the discussion 49 51 14 36 2 Rarely
that was provided by using E-facilitative tools.
9
Perform an experiment to test the structure and
53 35 23 39 1 Never
properties of an element.
10
Explain the reasoning behind an idea. 45 68 22 15 2 Rarely
11
Use computers to solve exercises and
50 19 69 12 3 Sometimes
problems using a specific E-learning tool.
12
Describe the steps in the scientific method
51 24 48 27 1 Never
relating to the Power point provided.
13
Use graphing calculators to solve exercises or
63 24 61 2 1 Never
problems?
Legend: 1=“Never”, 2=“Rarely”, 3=“Sometimes”, 4=“Always”

Indicators Responses (n=150)

Mode Interpretation
(Assigning of Homework) 1 2 3 4
1
I do homework by myself in a Google
classroom or any E-tool that requires the 40 19 53 38 3 Sometimes
completion of my homework.
2
Another person does my homework
59 67 23 1 2 Rarely
completely through the use of online E-tools.
3
I complete and submit homework with the use
of Google classroom and Google drive to my 82 10 52 6 1 Never
teacher on time.
 4
I consult my teachers for help using zoom or
in messenger in case of homework is too 8 98 17 27 2 Rarely
difficult.
5
If homework is difficult; I copy directly from
the internet without summarizing and submit to 66 16 12 56 1 Never
my teachers.
6
If homework is difficult, I read and summarize
from the internet before submitting to my 23 47 64 16 3 Sometimes
teachers.
7
If homework is difficult; I copy from my
friends through Google drive and submit to my 122 8 1 19 1 Never
teachers.
8
If homework is difficult, I ask help and work
with my friends through zoom and Google
67 42 24 17 1 Never
meet in able to connect to them online to
complete homework.
Legend: 1=“Never”, 2=“Rarely”, 3=“Sometimes”, 4=“Always”

Table 7 shows the mode distribution of the respondents in the impact of using e-facilitative tools

in terms of assigning activities, assigning of homework and assessment, the table shows all item

indicators: Work individually without assistance from the teacher but instead uses the PDF file

provided, Use computers to solve exercises and problems using a specific E-learning tool, I do

homework by myself in a Google classroom or any E-tool that requires the completion of my

homework, If homework is difficult, I read and summarize from the internet before submitting to

my teachers got a mode of 3.00, which can be interpreted as “sometimes”. Work individually

with the assistance from the teacher while using the PDF file, Work together as a class with the

teacher teaching the whole class while using the Power point tool, Represent and analyze

relationships using tables, charts, or graphs related to the discussion that was provided by using

E-facilitative tools,

Explain the reasoning behind an idea, Another person does my homework completely through

the use of online E-tools, I consult my teachers for help using zoom or in messenger in case of

homework is too difficult got a mode of 2.00, which can be interpreted as “rarely”. Work in pairs
or small groups just by using Multimedia software without the assistance from the teacher. Work

in pairs or small groups by using Multimedia software with the assistance from the teacher.

Work together as a class with the students responding to one another using the Power point tool,

Write explanations about what was observe and why it happened related to the discussion that

was provided by the used of E-facilitative tools, Perform an experiment to test the structure and

properties of an element, Describe the steps in the scientific method relating to the Power point

provided, Use graphing calculators to solve exercises or problems, I complete and submit

homework with the use of Google classroom and Google drive to my teacher on time, If

homework is difficult; I copy directly from the internet without summarizing and submit to my

teachers, If homework is difficult; I copy from my friends through Google drive and submit to my

teachers, If homework is difficult, I ask help and work with my friends through zoom and Google

meet in able to connect to them online to complete homework got a mode of 1.00, which can be

interpreted as “never”. The findings imply that the perceived impact of using e-facilitative tools