45

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussion of the nine-day intervention plan

conducted by the researchers. Moreover, the data gathered herein were followed by

analysis and interpretation.

The table below is the result of the pre-test conducted by the researchers to the

Grade 11 Fidelity students of Maharlika National High School.

Table 3.1 Level of the Learning Retention Skills of the Students During the Pre-
test

Level of Learning Frequency Percentage

Retention
Proficient (12-15) 4 13%
Needs Practice (9-11) 7 23%
Poor (0-8) 19 64%
Total Number of Participants: 30

Table 3.1 shows the level of the learning retention skills of the thirty (30) Grade

11 Fidelity students of the above-mentioned school during the 15-item pre-test conducted

by the researchers. The range of the level of learning retention is based on Phil – IRI

percentage rating scale. Based on the table, 4 student (13%) belongs to the ‘proficient’

level. However, seven (7) students or 23% fall under the ‘needs practice’ level.

Furthermore, nineteen (19) students or 64% fall under the ‘poor’ level. The distinction of

the levels was based on the rating scale which is defined as follows: 12-15 is ‘proficient’,
 46

9-11 is ‘needs practice’, and 0-8 is ‘poor’. Looking at the huge gap between the

percentage of students who belong to ‘poor’ level and the percentage of those who belong

to “needs practice”, it can be inferred that these students have problems with their

learning retention.

In this connection, the problem faced by these students on learning retention is a

common struggle among Filipino learners because of linguistic differences between the

Filipino and English Sound Systems. In detail, most Filipino face this struggle because of

the impact of their native language on their second language acquisition, which is highly

prevalent among non-native English speakers learning the English language as their

second dialect (Pillado et al., 2017; Samortin, 2020; Santos et al., 2017). With this, the

researchers decided to conduct the intervention plan using activities patterned to the

PQ4R strategy, which was also the same process applied in similar studies conducted by

Anlama et al. (2021) and Sarimanah et al (2019). Since these referenced studies that

influenced the research study had proven the positive impact of using PQ4R Strategies on

improving learning retention, the researchers expected that similar results will be obtained

when comparing pre-test and post-test score results.

After the nine-days intervention using various PQ4R activities, the researchers

conducted a post-test using the same test conducted in the pre-test.

The results of the said post-test are presented in the table below.

Table 3.2 Level of the Learning Retention Skills of the Students during the Post-
test
Level of Learning Frequency Percentage
Retention
Proficient (12-15) 8 26%
Needs Practice (9-11) 15 50%
Poor (0-8) 7 23%
 47

Total Number of Participants: 30

Table 3.2 shows that there were eight (8) students or 26% who belonged to the

‘proficient’ level while there were also fifteen (15) students or 50% who were under the

‘needs practice’ level. Moreover, there were seven (7) students or 23% who were still

under the poor level. This shows that some students improved after the intervention. This

indicates that most respondents improved during the nine-days intervention, which is

similar to the results of the study conducted by Oguz and Arslan (2021). Specifically, the

authors investigated the impact of the PQ4R Strategy on the improvement of learning

retention and found out that the strategy help improved the reading literacy skill of the

respondents of the study. In this view, the data shown above exhibit the shared

similarities between these two studies, and the positive impact of PQ4R Strategy on

learning retention improvement.

To show the difference between the pre-test and post-test results of the thirty (30)

respondents, the table below shows the comparison of the students’ level of learning

retention before and after the intervention.

Table 3.3 Level of the Learning Retention Skills of the Students during the Pre-
test and Post-test
Level of the Pre-test Post-test
Learning
Retention
Skills
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Proficient 4 13% 12 40%
(1215)
Needs 7 23% 13 43%
Practice (9-
11)
Poor (0-8) 19 64% 5 17%
Total Number of Participants: 30
 48

Table 3.3 shows the difference of the frequency or the number of students during

the pre-test and during the post-test. As presented in the table above, there were 4

students or 13% who were under the ‘proficient’ level. Under the ‘needs practice’ level, 7

students or 23%. Meanwhile there are nineteen (19) or 64% students who fell under the

‘poor’ level. Aside from the result of the pre-test that diagnose the learning retention level

of the learners, the information shared by the adviser of Grade 11 Fidelity in which

according to the teacher, this section has many struggling learners and they suffer from

poor learning retention and students find it difficult to retain their learning since most of

them already suffered from reading comprehension problems, which correlates to the pre-

test.

On the other hand, during the post-test there were six(8) or 20% of the

respondents moved to ‘needs practice’ level. Also, there were fifteen (8) or 17% of the

respondents have improved to ‘proficient’ level. On the ‘poor’ level, from nineteen(19)

respondents or 64% it goes down to five (5) respondents or 17 % during the post-test.

This indicates that most respondents improved during the nine-days intervention, which is

similar to the results of the study conducted by Logsdon (2020). In which the author

investigated the impact of the PQ4R Strategy on the improvement of learning retention

and found out that learning can be retained when there are any reinforcements, strategies,

and activities implemented. Moreover, she claimed that the use of the PQ4R strategy

would assist students in comprehending and remembering what they have read, in which

this strategy could help improve learners reading comprehension and learning retention.
 49

To elaborate more on the difference between the two test results, the following

graph shows the comparison clearly.

7000%
6000%
5000%
4000%
3000%
2000%
1000%
0% PRE-TEST POST-TEST
PROFICIENT NEEDS PRACTICE POOR

Figure 3.1 Comparison of the Pre-test and Post-test Results of the

Respondents
Total Number of Respondents: 30
Figure 3.1 presents the difference between the number of participants who fell

under each level before the conduct of the intervention and the results after the nine-days

intervention. It clearly shows that from nineteen (19) respondents who are under the poor

level, only five (5) respondents remained in the same level during the post-test. Under the

‘needs practice’, from seven respondent it goes up to thirteen (13) respondents and on the

‘proficient level’, from 4 respondent it also goes up to twelve (12) respondents. This

clearly shows that after the nine-day intervention was conducted by the researchers, some

respondents showed improvement and some showed no improvement in terms of their

learning retention skills, in which there were five (5) or 26% out of nineteen (19) students

remained under the ‘poor’ level. According to their English teacher, these students find it

difficult to retain their learning since at the first place, they’ve already suffered from

reading comprehension problems. In the study conducted by Comighud, Futalan, and

Pillado (2020) the authors claimed that learning, comprehending, and retaining

vocabulary, surface information, and in-depth details of a text is a pressing problem in the

world. Without retaining those mentioned details of text readings, it could affect learners’
 50

ability to retain explicit and implicit details from text readings. Moreover, Shrestha

(2017) stated that when a learner can comprehend what he or she is reading, he or she can

retain critical information. Without comprehending and remembering information, it

results to the decrease of learning retention.

The researchers with the help of the group’s statistician have computed the

significant differences or variation under Matched or Paired Sample T-Test using

Microsoft Excel’s Statistical Analysis Add-on Extension features. Specifically, the

mentioned statistical computation determines the effectiveness of the predesigned PQ4R

intervention program. To provide sufficient proof that the predesigned PQ4R intervention

program is effective, the researchers computed and assumed a 5% significance level,

constructed a 95% confidence interval, determined the margin of error, and proceeded to

hypothesis testing with the assistance of the statistician of this study.

Table 3.3 Matched or Paired Sample T-Test of the Pre-test and Post-test
Paired Difference Critical Calculated
TVal T-Value
Sample Standard 95% Confidence ue
Mean of Deviation Interval of the
the Difference
Pretest Differences Lower Confidence
– / Variations Intervals
Posttes 5.61 ≈ 3.00 8.53 +0.88 +1.09 +2.04 +6.73
t

Significance level of 5%
Alpha value α=0.05
29 degrees of freedom

Table 3.3 shows the paired difference between the pre-test and post-test results. The

sample mean of the differences / variations is x̅ d = 5.61 ≈ 3.00. The standard deviation of

the sample is sd = 8.53. For a significance level of 5% or alpha value α=0.05, while T-
 51

value has 29 degrees of freedom. This calculated tvaluetc = +6.73 is much greater than

the critical value of t = +2.04. We could infer that there is sufficient evidence that the

predesigned PQ4R intervention program is generally effective and have helped the

students with difficulty in terms of reading comprehension and learning retention based

on the empirical results gathered. Similar with the study conducted by Anlama (2021)

revealed that the use of the PQ4R strategy would help improved the students’ level of

learning retention, as well as with other areas of reading literacy skills. In addition, the

PQ4R strategy is an appropriate and effective strategy in improving the learning retention

of the students, or the ability to retain learned information for a long time.

Furthermore, the lower bound and confidence intervals are the range (+0.88,

+1.09). This implies that the sample shows 95% confidence that the mean difference or

variation µd is somewhere within the range.After this computation, the T-value shows

that there is a significant difference between the respondent’s pre-test and post-test score

results. In this view, the findings of this study prove that the use of PQ4R Strategies,

which was done during the intervention plan, helped in the improvement of the learning

retention skills of the respondents of the study. As stated by Logsdon (2020), she claimed

that using the PQ4R strategy, learners can comprehend what they read and recall specific

details. Moreover, students could benefit from this strategy by improving their reading

comprehension and learning retention.