52

Chapter 3

RESULTS

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data organized in

figural, tabular, and textual forms. Analysis and interpretation of data are carefully

based from the main purpose to attain the research objectives of the study.

Level of Online Learning Environment

Table 2a presents the level of SLM dimensions in terms of content. All

items statements obtained a mean score described as high which indicate that

these items meet the students’ needs in most occasions. The item “the

contents are appropriate to my grade level” got the highest mean of 3.84

followed by the item “the directions or instructions in the module are easy to

comprehend that obtained a mean score of 3.55. The item with the lowest mean

score of 3.46 goes to “the topics are clear and easy to understand.

Table 2a

Level of Online Learning Environment in terms of Content

Items SD Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. The topics are clear and easy
to understand. 0.84 3.46 High
2. The contents are appropriate 0.84 3.84 High
to my grade level.
3. The topics are relevant to my 0.91 3.50 High
daily activities.
4. The directions or instructions 0.89 3.55 High
in the module are easy to
comprehend.
5. The examples are easy to 0.94 3.63 High
understand.
Category Mean 0.88 3.59 High
 All these ratings resulted in a mean of 3.59 described as high, which

means that the level of SLM dimensions in terms of content meet learners‟

needs in almost all occasions. Additionally, the SD value of 0.88 in the category

mean shows that the measures of variability indices on the SLM dimensions in

terms of content is small and very close to each other. This means that most of

the data are clustered near the mean.

Generally, the result indicates that the contents of the instructional

materials are indeed basic and suitable to the level of students and at the same

time relevant to their day-to- day activities. However, there is a need for

teachers to present the topics in such a way student understand it clearly.

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM)

Dimensions in terms of Language

Table 2b presents the level of SLM dimensions in terms of language. Each

item statement relating to language dimension in SLM got a mean score

described as high which means that each item meets the students’ needs in

most occasions. The item “the words used are easy to understand” obtained

the highest mean score of 3.92, and item “The terminologies used are familiar

to me” got the lowest mean score of 3.56 respectively.

All these ratings resulted to a mean of 3.79 described as high which

means that the level of SLM dimensions in terms of language meet learners‟

needs in most occasions. Additionally, the SD value of 0.85 in the category

mean shows that the measure of variability indices on the SLM dimensions in

terms of language is as well very small, hence most of the data are clustered

near the mean. This implies that the perceptions of students are similar on the
language used in the SLM.

Table 2b

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions in terms of Language

Items SD Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. The words used are easy to
understand. 0.86 3.92 High
2. The language used helped 0.83 3.85 High
me to learn easily the topics.
3. The terminologies used are 0.79 3.56 High
familiar to me.
4. The sentences are easy to 0.88 3.74 High
understand.
5. The language promotes good 0.87 3.88 High
values towards my interest to
learn.
Category Mean 0.85 3.79 High

The result indicates that the SLM employed simple but clear words which

easily appeal to the learners‟ understanding. Moreover, the language used in

the SLM considers the grade level of the students and their interest in learning.

This is a clear manifestation that the SLMs for mathematics are carefully made

to address the level of students, but still, there is a room for enhancing it in

terms of language to fully achieve the set goals.

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions

in terms of Presentation

Presented in Table 2c is the level of SLM dimensions in terms of

presentation. The item “the pictures and drawing matched the topics in the

module got the highest mean of 3.87 with the descriptive equivalent of very
high, followed by the item “the presentation of contents catches my interest to

learn with a mean score of 3.77, and in the lowest rank goes to “the pictures

and drawings are both familiar to me” with a mean score of 3.60 described as

high which indicates that these items meet the need of students in most

occasions.

Table 2c

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions in terms of Presentation

Items SD Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. The pictures and drawings are
both familiar to me. 0.88 3.60 High
2. The pictures and drawing
matched the topics in the 0.81 3.87 High
module.
3. The presentation of contents 0.83 3.77 High
catches my interest to learn.
4. The font sizes are readable. 0.90 3.85 High
5. The pictures and drawings are 1.00 3.67 High
easy to view.
Category Mean 0.89 3.75 High

Categorically all these ratings resulted to a mean of 3.75 described as high

which means that the level of SLM dimensions in terms of presentation meet

learners‟ needs in most occasions. Additionally, the SD value of 0.89 in the

category mean shows that the measures of variability on the SLM dimensions in

terms of presentation is relatively small and close to each other, hence most of

the data are similar and are clustered near to the mean.

The result indicates that text, tables, graphs, maps, and even pictures in

SLM play an important role in the students' learning. It shows that the students

are amenable to the presentation of the subject and the sequencing of activities
and assessments but still the presentation has to be enhanced to maximize its

purpose for students.

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions

in terms of Assessment

The level of SLM dimensions in terms of assessment is reflected in Table

2d. As shown in the table, all items got a mean score described as high

indicating that these items meet the students’ needs in most occasions. The

items “the assessment requirements and marking criteria were clear”; “the

questions matched the content of the topic”; and “the module prepared me well

for the assessment tasks” obtained the ranks – 1st, 2nd, and the lowest with the

mean scores of 3.88, 3.87, and 3.84 respectively described as high which

indicates that these items meet the needs of students in most occasions.

Table 2d

Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions in terms of Assessment

Items SD Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. The assessment
requirements and marking 0.89 3.88 High
criteria were clear.
2. The questions are easy to 0.88 3.72 High
understand.
3. The questions matched the 0.89 3.87 High
content of the topic.
4. The key answers for the 0.98 3.72 High
assessment are clear and
easy to understand.
5. The module prepared me well 0.87 3.84 High
for the assessment tasks.
Category Mean 0.91 3.81 High

All these ratings resulted to a mean of 3.81 described as very high which

means that the level of SLM dimensions in terms of assessment meet

learners‟ needs in most occasions. Additionally, the SD value of 0.91 in the

category mean shows that the measures of variability index on the SLM

dimensions in terms of assessment is relatively small and close to each other.

The result indicates that the questions in the assessment in self-learning

modules, assessment requirements and marking task matched the topic's

content and were understandable to the learners. Teachers may also check

the answers key in order to enhance the necessary adjustment for better grasp

of the students while doing self-directed learning.

Summary on the Level of Self-Learning Module

(SLM) Dimensions

Depicted in Table 2e is the summary on the level of SLM dimensions.

Among the four indicators, assessment got the highest mean of 3.81, followed

by language and presentation with a mean of 3.79 and 3.75, respectively. The

content got the lowest mean of 3.59. All of the indicators have a descriptive

equivalent of high. All these ratings resulted in an overall mean score of 3.74

described as high, which means that the level of self-learning module (SLM)

dimensions meet learners‟ needs in most occasions.

Table 2e

Summary on the Level of Self-Learning Module (SLM) Dimensions

Descriptive
Indicators SD Mean Equivalent
Content 0.88 3.59 High
Language 0.85 3.79 High
Presentation 0.88 3.75 High
Assessment 0.91 3.81 High
Overall 0.88 3.74 High
 Additionally, Table 2e displays the analysis of the measure of dispersion

on the level of SLM dimensions. Results reveal that the measures of variability

indices on the SLM dimensions are relatively small and close to each other, with

an overall standard deviation of 0.88. This means that majority of the data are

clustered closer to the mean. This implies that students’ perceptions are

consistent as reflected in their responses towards self- learning module

dimensions. The findings suggest that the students perceived that the SLM

addresses their learning needs during this pandemic since they can easily

relate to the SLM concepts.

Level of Parental Involvement in terms

of Parenting

Table 3a presents the level of parental involvement in terms of parenting.

Among the five item statements, the item “My parents frequently explain difficult

ideas to me when I don’t understand” got the lowest mean score of 3.24 described as

moderate which indicates that parents’ involvement is observed occasionally. The

rest of the items obtained a mean score described as high which means parents

involvement is most of the time observed.

Table 3a

Level of Parental Involvement in terms of Parenting

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Equivalent
1. My parents frequently
explain difficult ideas to me
1.21 3.24 Moderate
when I don’t understand.
2. My parents provided
dictionaries, Encyclopedia,
1.19 3.38 High
and other books in our house
that help me in my study.
 3. My parents discuss the
importance of good 1.12 3.92 High
education with me.
4. My parents encourage me to
1.10 4.12 High
prioritize my class.
5. My parents supervised me
when I watch television/ 1.19 3.75 High
playing computer games.
Category Mean 1.16 3.68 High

Putting all these mean ratings together on parental involvement in terms

of parenting resulted to a category mean of 3.68 with descriptive equivalent of

high which means that the involvement of parents is observed most of the time.

Furthermore, the SD value of 1.16 corresponding to the category mean indicates

that the measures of variability index on parental involvement in terms of

parenting is relatively small. This indicates that students’ perception on the level

of parental involvement in terms of parenting are most likely clustered nearer to

the mean which means that majority of the students obtained a rating almost the

same as the mean.

The result indicates that parenting is indeed necessary in shaping good

education through the basic needs, supervision and concerns extended by

parents to their child in learning at home.

Level of Parental Involvement in terms

of Communicating

Presented in table 3b is the level of parental involvement in terms of

communicating. The item “My parents ask clarifications about my grades during

report card distribution day” got the highest mean of 4.03 with descriptive

equivalent of high which means that the involvement of parents is observe most
of the time. It is followed by the item “If I misbehaved at school, my parents

would know about it soon afterward” having the mean of 3.82 with descriptive

equivalent of high which means that parental involvement is observed most of

the time. The lowest mean of 3.52 described as high indicates that the

involvement of parents is observed most of the time goes to the item “My parents

contact my subject teacher pertaining to my academic progress”.

The overall rating on parental involvement in terms of communicating has

the category mean of 3.78 with descriptive equivalent of high which means that

the involvement of parents in communicating is observed most of the time.

Furthermore, the SD value of 1.08 corresponding to the category mean indicates

that the measures of variability index on parental involvement in terms of

communicating is relatively small.

Table 3b

Level of Parental Involvement in terms

of Communicating

Descriptive
Items SD Mean Equivalent

1. My parents ask clarifications about

my grades during report card 1.09 4.03 High
distribution day.
2. If I misbehaved at school, my
parents would know about it soon 1.06 3.82 High
afterward.
3. May parents take the initiative to 1.04
3.74 High
contact my homeroom teacher.
4. My parents contact my subject
teacher pertaining to my academic 1.09 3.52 High
progress.
5. My parents always know how well I
am doing in school. 1.12 3.77 High
Category Mean 1.08 3.78 High
 This indicates that students’ perception on the level of parental

involvement in terms of communicating are most likely clustered nearer to the

mean which indicates that majority of the students obtained a rating almost the

same as the mean.

The result shows that communicating is essential in the process of

learning through the initiative of parents for them to be updated on the academic

status of their student. Notably, parents are doing their part as perceived by their

children relative to activities in school.

Level of Parental Involvement

in terms of Volunteering

Table 3c reflects the level of parental involvement in terms of

volunteering. The first three item statements; “My parents volunteer to facilitate

in homeroom class activities”, “My parents volunteer to take part in maintaining

school facilities”, and “My parents volunteer in coordinating school field trips or

out-of-school activities” got a mean score of 3.26, 3.29, and 3.18 are all

described as moderate which indicate that parents’ involvement is observed

occasionally. However, the last two item statements got a mean score of 3.45

and 3.52 with descriptive equivalent of high. This indicates that parents’

involvement is most of the time observed.

Table 3c

Level of Parental Involvement in terms of Volunteering

Items SD Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
 1. My parents volunteer to facilitate
1.10 3.26 Moderate
in homeroom class activities.
2. My parents volunteer to take
part in maintaining school 1.08 3.29 Moderate
facilities.
3. My parents volunteer in
coordinating school field trips or 1.12 3.18 Moderate
out-of-school activities.
4. My parents volunteer to take
part in the school-initiated
1.13 3.45 High
programs like brigade eskwela
and others.
5. My parents volunteer to take High
1.07 3.52
part in school PTA meetings
Category Mean Moderate
1.10 3.34

The category mean on parental involvement in terms of volunteering is

3.34 with the descriptive equivalent of moderate which means that the

involvement of parent is observed occasionally. Moreover, the SD value of 1.10

corresponding to the category mean that indicates the measures of variability

index on parental involvement in terms of volunteering is relatively small. This

indicates that the students’ perception on the level of parental involvement in

terms of volunteering are most likely clustered nearer to the mean which means

that majority of the students obtained a rating almost the same as the mean.

The result indicates that parents’ involvement in helping school activities

without compensation, specifically on teachers and children, and in the school in

general is very important for the academic endeavor of the student to prosper. In

order for students to cope up with the challenges in their schooling, parents may

examine their involvement in school related activities and from there they will
realize the importance of cooperation and engagement in the education of their

children.

Level of Parental Involvement

in terms of Learning at Home

Parental involvement in terms of learning at home is reflected in Table 3d.

The item “My parents ensure that nobody disturbs me during my studies” obtained

the highest mean score of 3.85 described as high which means that parents’

involvement is most of the time observed. However, the item “My parents

participate in learning activities with me such as playing educational games”

Table 3d

Level of Parental Involvement in terms of Learning at Home

Descriptive
Items SD Mean Equivalent

1. My parents participate in learning

1.20 3.25 Moderate
activities with me such as playing
educational games.
2. My parents ensure that nobody
1.11 3.85 High
disturbs me during my studies.
3. My parents talk to me about my
activities and what I learned in 1.18 3.60 High
school
4. My parents monitor my habit of using
gadgets such as cell-phone, 1.14 3.84 High
computers, and television.
5. My parents help me prepare for
1.23 3.29 Moderate
test and examination at school.
6. My parents identify a regular time and
place in our home to accomplish 1.19 3.55 High
homework.
1.18 3.56 High
Category Mean
a lowest mean score of 3.25 described as high which indicates that parents are

occasional observed.

Putting all the mean ratings together on parental involvement in terms of

learning at home resulted to a category mean of 3.56 with descriptive equivalent

of high which signifies that the involvement of parents is observed most of the

time. Furthermore, the SD value of 1.18 corresponding to the category mean

indicates that the measures of variability index on parental involvement in terms

of learning at home is relatively small. This indicates that students’ perception on

the level of parental involvement in terms of learning at home are most likely

clustered nearer to the mean. This means that majority of the students got a

rating almost the same as the others.

Level of Parental Involvement in terms

of Decision Making

Table 3e shows the level of parental involvement in terms of decision

making. Among the five item statements, two items obtained a mean score of

3.25 and 3.29. Both scores are described moderate which indicated that parents’

involvement is occasionally observed. While the other three items statements

obtained a mean score of 3.66, 3.38, and 3.34. All are described high indicating

that parents’ involvement is most of the time observed.

Categorically, parental involvement in terms of decision making got a

mean of 3.38 with descriptive equivalent of moderate which means that parental

involvement is observed occasionally. Also, the SD value of 1.16 indicates that

the measures of variability index on the parental involvement in terms of decision

making is relatively small. This indicates that students’ perception on the on the
level of parental involvement in terms of decision making are most likely

clustered nearer to the mean which means that majority of the students obtained

a rating almost the same as the mean.

Table 3e

Level of Parental Involvement in terms of Decision Making

Descriptive
Items SD Mean Equivalent

1. My parents speak out opinions

regarding the school related 1.11 3.66 High
activities and concerns.
2. My parents make suggestions to my 1.19 3.25 Moderate
teachers about how to help me learn.
3. My parents take part in making 1.14 3.29 Moderate
decision about homeroom project in
school.
4. My parents provide suggestions on 1.21 3.38 High
how the distribution and retrieval of
modules be done.
5. My parents participate and cast their 1.16 3.34 High
votes during the election of PTA
officers in school.
Category Mean 1.16 3.38 High

These results indicate that decision making of parents helps the academic

growth of their child through active parental participation in school council;

PTA/PTO, school improvement committees, and any other decision-making body

associated with the school. Parents may consider to be involved closely in

making decision. In this way they can contribute to making best decision for the

good of the school in general and the students in particular.

Level of Parental Involvement in terms of

Collaborating with the Community
 Presented in Table 3f is the level of parental involvement in terms of

collaborating with the community. The item “My parents talk with other parents

frequently about educational issues” got the highest mean of 3.28 with the

descriptive equivalent of moderate which means involvement of parent is

observed occasionally. It is followed by the item “My parents cooperate together

with PTA officials in addressing school related misbehavior of students with a

mean score of 3.17 with the descriptive equivalent of moderate indicating that

involvement of parent is observed occasionally. The item “My parents meet

barangay officials to help school projects accomplished” got a lowest mean

score of 2.97 described as moderate indicating that the involvement of parent is

observed occasionally.

Table 3f

Level of Parental Involvement in terms

of Collaborating with Community

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Equivalent
1. My parents meet barangay officials to
help school projects accomplished. 1.18 2.97 Moderate
2. My parents talk with other parents
frequently about educational issues. 1.12 3.28 Moderate
3. My parents work in partnership with
the teachers in finding ways to
1.17 3.14 Moderate
improve students’ academic success.
4. My parents cooperate together with
PTA officials in addressing school 1.16 3.17 Moderate
related misbehavior of students.
5. My parents join forces with the school
stakeholders in responding to the new 1.21 3.22 Moderate
normal set up education brought by
COVID 19 pandemic.
Category Mean 1.17 3.16 Moderate
 Putting together all the ratings, it resulted to a category mean of 3.16

described as moderate indicating occasional involvement parents is observed.

Moreover, the SD value of 1.17 indicates that the measures of variability index

on parental involvement in terms of collaborating with community is relatively

small. This indicates that students’ perception on parental involvement in terms

of collaborating with community are most likely clustered nearer to the mean.

This implies that students’ responses are most likely similar with almost all

ratings are closely related to each other.

This finding indicates that collaborating with the community is essential in

students learning since family is part of the community, parents that are more

involved in community-based activities, the more that the students actively

aware in the community and in school activities as well. Thus, parents may

consider to strengthen collaboration with the community and give their time as

an indication of their support to their child’s future and the community.

Summary of the Level of Parental Involvement

Summary on the level of parental involvement is presented in Table 3g.

Among the six indicators, parenting, communicating, learning at home, and

decision making got the mean score of 3.78, 3.68, 3.56, and 3.38 respectively

described as high. On the other hand, indicators volunteering and collaborating

obtained a mean score of 3.34 and 3.16 described as moderate. The overall

mean of 3.48 described as high indicates that parental involvement is observed

occasionally.

Table 3g

Summary on the Level of Parental Involvement

 Descriptive
Indicators SD Mean Equivalent

Parenting 1.16 3.68 High

Communicating 1.08 3.78 High
Volunteering 1.10 3.34 Moderate
Learning at Home 1.17 3.56 High
Decision Making 1.16 3.38 High
Collaborating with Community 1.17 3.16 Moderate

Overall Mean 1.14 3.48 High

Moreover, the SD value of 1.14 indicates that the overall measures of

variability indices of parental involvement is relatively small. This indicates that

students’ perception on the level of parental involvement is most likely clustered

nearer to the mean. This indicates that majority of the students have similar

rating, hence their ratings are relatively the same as the mean.

The result indicates that the six types of parent’s involvement in terms of

parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making and

collaborating with community is essential for the students’ academic success.

Thus, parents are encouraged to spare their time and be involved in their child’s

pursuit to education which parents expect from them in the future.

Level of Students’ Learning Outcome in Mathematics

Presented in Table 4 is the learning outcomes of students in Mathematics.

The students learning outcome mean score is 14.15 with descriptive equivalent

of satisfactory. Moreover, assessment of variability on the learning outcome

scores of 6.06 standard deviations is likely clustered around the mean. This
indicates that students vary their learning outcomes in mathematics.

Table 4

Students’ Learning Outcomes in Mathematics

Variable SD Mean Descriptive
Equivalent

Learning Outcomes 6.06 14.15 Satisfactory

This result shows that most of the students perform moderately good in

Mathematics subject using the SLM in the new normal set up of education

brought by the Covid 19 pandemic.

Relationship Between Self Learning Module Dimensions

and Learning Outcome of Students

Table 5 presents the computed data on the relationship between self-

learning module dimensions and students' learning outcomes in mathematics.

Results revealed that the r - value was 0.354, which signifies positive low

correlation between the two variables. Since the p- value of 0.000 was less than

the 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected. This means that

there is a significant relationship between self-learning module dimensions and

students' learning outcomes in mathematics. This means that as the self-

learning module dimensions (IV) increases the learning outcomes (DV)

increases or vice versa. Furthermore, it indicates that as students’ perceptions

in the dimension of self-learning module increases/deceases, their outputs in

learning increases/decreases as well. This implies that students who were

exposed to self-learning modules with moderate perception perform moderately

good in mathematics.
Table 5

Significance on the Relationship Between Self Learning Module Dimensions and

Learning Outcome of Students
2
Variables Mean r- value r p-value Decision @
α =.05

Self-Learning
Module 3.74
Dimensions
0.354 0.125 0.000 Rejected

Learning Outcome 14.15

Also, the coefficient of determination (r2) of 0.1253 indicates that 12.53%

of the variability in the learning outcomes of students can be explained by the

amount of self-learning module dimensions and the remaining 87.47% can be

explained by other factors not included in the study. This result calls for teacher-

module writers to ensure that the SLM provided to students are rechecked for

better validity, hence improved students’ learning outcomes.

Relationship Between Parental Involvement

and Learning Outcome of Students

Computed data on the relationship between parental involvement and

learning outcomes of students is presented in Table 6.

Results revealed with r – value of 0.332 signifies positive low correlation

between two variables. Since the p-value of 0.000 is less than 0.05 level of

significance, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a

significant relationship between parental involvement and learning outcomes of

students in mathematics.

Table 6
Significance on the Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Learning
Outcome of Students
2
Variables Mean r- value r p-value Decision
@α =.05

Parental 3.48
Involvement 0.332 0.110 0.000 Rejected

Learning Outcome 14.15

This further means that as the parental involvement (IV) increases the

learning outcomes (DV) increases or vice versa. Furthermore, it indicates that

as students’ perceptions on the parents’ involvement increases/deceases, their

outcomes in learning increases/decreases as well. This implies that parents

who are more involved in their child’s education, the better child’s learning

outcomes in mathematics.

The coefficient of determination (r2) is 0.110. This means that the degree

of association between parental involvement and learning outcomes is 11%.

The 89% are attributed to other factors not included in the study.

Regression Analysis on the Self-learning Module Dimensions

and Study Habits as Predictors of the Academic
Performance of Students in Mathematics

The data on Table 7 reveals the regression analysis showing the

significance of self-learning module dimension, and parental involvement as

predictors of learning outcomes of students in Mathematics.

The combined influence of self-learning module dimensions, and parental

involvement as predictors of learning outcomes in Mathematics is significant at

0.152 having the probability value of 0.000 which is less than the 0.05 level of

significance. It can be stated therefore that self-learning module dimensions and

parental involvement significantly influence the learning outcomes of students in

Mathematics.

Table 7

Regression Analysis on the Self-learning Module Dimensions and Study Habits

as Predictors of the Academic Performance of Students in Mathematics

Unstandardiz Standardize
Independen ed Coefficient d Coefficient Decision
t Variables t-Stat p-value @α =0.05
β SE Beta

(Constant) 0.197 1.966

Self-Learning
Module 2.274 0.567 0.252 4.008 0.000 Rejected
Dimensions
Parental 1.590 0.479 0.208 3.316 0.001 Rejected
Involvement

Dependent Variable: Learning Outcome Adjusted R Squared: .152

F-ratio: 26.409 p-value: 0.000
It could be noted that self-learning module dimensions has greater influence

than parental involvement as predictor of learning of students in mathematics

considering that the Beta coefficient of 0.227 and t-stat of 4.008 are greater than

the Beta coefficient of 0.159 and t-stat 3.316 of parents’ involvement.

The parameter a=0.197 is the y intercept which is the point in the y-axis

through which the line of the equation passes. The values of parameter b in the

table indicates that learning outcomes increases by 2.274 unit every unit

increase of self-learning module dimensions; 1.590 unit increase every unit

increase of parental involvement.

 The Adjusted R Square 0.152 provides the correlation of the two variables

to the learning outcomes in Mathematics supporting the linear regression of

these independent variables. This indicates 15.2% of the variation in learning

outcomes in Mathematics could be attributed to the self-learning module

dimensions and parental involvement. The rest of the 84.8% is chance variation.

These are other factors which are not included in this study but might have

influenced learning outcomes.

This would mean that multiple factors significantly affect the learning

outcomes of students in Mathematics. Self-learning modules, and parental

involvement influence learning outcomes of students in Mathematics.

The results imply that teachers are encouraged to provide quality SLMs

with contents in the different dimensions are critically taken care of and ensure to

provide meaningful learning outcomes. Involvement of parents are also

encouraged for their child to be more interested and hence acquire better

learning outcomes. To make these undertakings possible to teachers, school

principals may require all teachers to attend trainings and seminars to make

them aware and empowered in the delivery of their functions in preparing SLMs

in order to address the needs of the learners. Also, different stakeholders such

as parents, and significant others who are involved in the students schooling may

come up with a unified agreement in order to provide these needs of learners

and thereby learners will be well adjusted and hence, their school learning

outcomes will improve.