CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presented the planning part of this research study. It included

thorough elaboration on the design, ethical considerations, respondents,

environment, instrument, sampling design, and the data gathering procedure,

including the data analysis.

Design

This quantitative, descriptive correlational study aimed to determine the

efficacy among junior high school students in answering their module's experience

and success as determined by the survey responses. This study utilized a

descriptive correlational method to describe the student's profile, their grades, their

level of efficacy, and how the students would be able to accomplish the task given.

Also, the researchers would like to relate how effective or ineffective the students

were, based on the data gathered from the survey. The researchers would also

look at the significant relationship between students' performance in school based

on their effectiveness in their modules or task.

Ethical Considerations

A. Protection of Human Rights - Protecting human rights was critical in

this research study. Thus, everybody must emphasize the significance of the link

between the researchers and the study's respondents. The researchers would

uphold the three fundamental ethical principles for using humans as the

respondents in a research study:

 18

First was the Respect for Persons. The researcher's respondents were

autonomous, unique, and free. The researchers recognized their capacity to make

independent decisions, and thus, they could make a voluntary decision. In this

study, the respondents were given information regarding this research that was

within their comprehension level. Moreover, their private lives were not disturbed

by maintaining confidentiality. Also, in the study, the respondents might or might

not answer the questionnaire.

The second principle was Beneficence. The current study has ruled out

any harm that might inflict on the respondent. The respondents were given a

guarantee that it took place during their convenient time and place. They were not

forced to answer questions that they thought sensitive or those that they did not

want to answer for any other reason.

And last was Justice. The respondents would be selected fairly based on

the need of the research study. All the respondents were assured that the research

study was justified. The researchers followed the process of selecting respondents

fairly, with all sections of the population having the opportunity to be included in a

study, provided that inclusion was scientifically and ethically justifiable.

B. Risk-Benefit Ratio - This was one process researchers used to protect

participants. According to Polit and Beck (2004), this assessment was designed to

determine whether the benefits of participants in the study were in line with the

remuneration, be financial, physical, emotional, or social. The risk-benefit ratio

should be considered in terms of whether the dangers to participants were equal

to the benefit to society and teaching, especially regarding the value of evidence
 19

produced. The level of this risk to be taken by the participants should never exceed

the potential humanitarian benefits of the knowledge gained.

There were no identified significant risks in this research since the purpose

was to improve the teaching-learning process. There were also no possible harms

associated with the study like psychological, physical, legal, school, and nature.

Furthermore, the expected output of this research study was expected to

contribute to the good practices of the teachers in delivering the lessons to the

students.

Benefit. The respondents would benefit from this study since it would

improve their school's teaching and learning process.

C. Risks. There were no documented dangers in the conduct of this study

- physical harm. The researchers ensured that no physical harm would transpire

to the participants during this study. The nature of the research only entailed

answering a questionnaire and a short interview with whom the researchers would

be conducting this study in a safe place. Though the researchers could only

suggest where they would conduct the interview, ultimately, it would be the final

decision of the respondents where the interview took place. The safety of the

respondents would be the priority.

Psychological Risk. The questionnaire to be answered by the respondents

should be reviewed by the researchers' adviser and panel members who were

experts in the subject matter. The Cebu Technological University-Naga Extension

Campus's thesis committee reviewed every detail concerning the respondent on

 20

the research instrument. Thus, there would be no emotional distress on the

respondent's part during this study.

Social/Emotional Risks. During this study, the respondents were not

troubled about time, money, or even privacy loss. The gathering of data would only

by answering a questionnaire and a short interview. The time given for answering

the questionnaire would not cause any social risk to the respondent like

relationship problems and physiological distress, injury, and endangerment.

D. Content, Comprehension, and Documentation of Informed Consent

- Respect for persons required the respondents to the degree that they were

capable of choosing what should or should not happen to them. This information

was provided when adequate standards for informed consent were satisfied.

In this research, how the information was conveyed was emphasized and

considered equally important to the information itself. The presentation of the

information was based on the respondent's ability to understand, which was

consistent with their intelligence, rationality, and language. This was necessary to

ascertain that the informants had comprehended the information. The researchers

would discuss the content of the informed consent form with them in detail, and

they were free to ask questions if they were unclear about a particular item. The

researchers explained and elaborated to them in the respondents' native language

and English.

E. Authorization to Access Private Information - Authorization to access

the private information of the respondents was also in the consent form, and the

researchers only knew this confidential information.

 21

F. Confidentiality Procedure - As the ruling of research, any personality

partaking in this study had sensible anticipation that information supplied to the

investigator was kept confidential. The researchers reassured the respondents

that their responses were held strictly confidential and would only be subjected to

study purposes.

Privacy. The researchers protected the respondents' right to privacy

through various confidentiality actions. One would be anonymity, the most secure

means of protecting confidentiality. This study maintained confidentiality by

assigning an identification number to each respondent.

Confidentiality. In this study, the researchers maintained confidentiality by

assigning an identification number to each participant.

Security. The researchers guaranteed the respondents that they would

only use all the details from this research for study purposes. All data gathered

would be destroyed as evidence after it has been presented, analyzed, and

interpreted.

G. Debriefing, Communication, and Referrals - According to Polit and

Beck, the researchers could show their respect for study respondents and

proactively minimize emotional risks by carefully attending to the nature of

interaction they had with them. The researchers could do this by being gracious

and polite, phrasing questions tactfully, and being sensitive to cultural and linguistic

diversity.

In the study, the researchers would communicate their respect and concern

for the respondents by offering them time to answer the questionnaire if they
 22

wanted. They would also decide the time and place where they wished to answer

the questionnaire. Also, the respondents were told that if they wanted, the

researchers could offer to share the study's findings with them once the

researchers had analyzed the data. The researchers also assured them they could

withdraw from the study as they wished or complain about irregularities that might

happen during the interview to the institution's thesis committee. The researchers

reflected the contact details in the Informed Consent Form.

Debriefing - The researchers would thank the respondents for partaking in

the study. After the researchers completed the study, they would provide the

participants with the study results.

Communication - The respondents were highly encouraged to keep in

contact with the researchers for further questions, comments, or complaints. Thus,

their contact numbers, as well as email addresses, were given.

Referrals - If the respondents encountered anxiety issues, the respondents

could contact the researchers at any time.

H. Vulnerability Assessment - The respondents of this study were not

vulnerable. All respondents were at the right age and status to decide for

themselves. They signed the informed consent, indicating their willingness to

participate in the study. Any information to be disclosed, however, remained

private.

I. Collaborative Study Terms of Reference - The researchers would

acknowledge the research adviser as the secondary author in case of utilization

 23

and publication. The researchers indicated this acknowledgment in the letter of

agreement signed by the principal researchers and the research adviser.

J. Criteria for Trustworthiness - Trustworthiness was all about credibility,

transferability, dependability, and conformability, which composed the criteria

considered in pursuit of the trustworthy study.

Credibility - The research instrument was validated and tested for reliability

to establish credibility in the study.

Transferability - The findings of this study could be applied to other

contexts and were not solely limited to one subject. The researchers could use the

study's results in the different areas of concern.

Conformability - In this study, there were no biases in the interpretations

of the data. The study's findings were solely based on the respondents' answers

on the research instrument, whom the researchers analyzed with the help of the

SPSS software.

Dependability - The researchers were confident that the findings of this

study were consistent and that the other researchers could replicate and produce

the same results as this research had.

Respondents

The study's respondents were the students of Tubod National High School,

Tubod, Minglanilla, Cebu. Most of these respondents were Grade 10 Sections

Diamond, Ruby, and Morganite students.

 24

Environment

The research environment was a public school in Minglanilla, Cebu. The

location of the study was Tubod National High School.

Figure 2
Location of the Study
 25

Instrument

The researchers adapted and used the questionnaire from Tracey J.

Devonport and Andrew M. Lane. This questionnaire had forty questions that asked

about the self-efficacy of the students.

The first part of the research instrument was the demographic profile, which

asked about the student's age, gender, and civil status. Moreover, the researchers

utilized a survey questionnaire through google forms to quickly get the information

needed.

In addition, the second part of the research instrument was a questionnaire

about the student's academic achievements. It determined the grade in every

subject, the general weighted average, and what subject the students had higher

or lower grades in.

Furthermore, the third part of the research instrument was the student's self-

efficacy questionnaire, where students needed to evaluate their actions and

behavior. Moreover, the questionnaire was a five-point scale, and every answer

had an equivalent interpretation by getting the average survey score. It was based

on the New General Scale by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001).

Sampling Design

The researchers used a simple random sampling method to select the

respondents for the study. The researchers set the criteria for choosing the study

respondents. This criterion included that the respondents must be Grade 10

students of Tubod National High School located in the Municipality of Minglanilla.

 26

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers first wrote a letter addressed to the Campus Director of the

Cebu Technological University-Naga Extension Campus and then to the School

Principal of Tubod National High School, asking permission from them to conduct

the study. After securing the consent, the researchers gathered the data by

selecting the target sections through a randomized selection. After the target

students were selected, the researchers administered the test questionnaires to

the school advisers. The school advisers disseminated the questionnaire to their

students via a messenger since the researchers made the questionnaire using

google forms and by attaching the printed survey questions on the student's

module since not all students had a cellphone and computer to answer the forms.

After a week, the researchers collected the answered survey forms from the

school. After which, the researchers tallied, analyzed, and interpreted the data.

Data Analysis

The researchers utilized the following statistical treatments during the

conduct of the study. These statistical treatments include:

Percentage. This treatment was a descriptive statistic for numerical

analysis between parts of a whole. The researchers used this treatment to answer

the first and second objectives of the study.

Weighted Mean. The researchers used this statistical treatment to

determine the average responses of the respondents to the research instrument

on pedagogical content knowledge and teaching practices. The researchers

weighted or scaled these responses using SPSS software.

 27

Pearson’s Correlation. The researchers used this statistical tool to

determine the relationship of the variables in the study.

Thematic Analysis. This approach was in the form of an interview using

interview guide questions for the selected participants who composed the Focus

Discussion Group (FGD). This thematic analysis was to support or confirm the

participants' answers. The researchers discussed their responses according to

themes.