Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Descriptive Data Analysis

Students’ Learning Performance Before and After the Intervention.

Table 1 presents the learning performance in simplifying the

order of operations before and after the intervention. Before the

intervention, results showed that seven-tenths (70%) of the

students in the control group and almost half (47%) in the

experimental group got scores within the range of 0 – 10 which is

verbally described as very poor. The same table further showed

that more than one-fourth (27%) in the control group and half

(50%) of the students in the experimental group got scores within

the range of 11 – 20 which is verbally described as poor. Also,

three-hundredths (3%) of the students from each group got a

learning performance of fairly satisfactory within the score

range of 21-30. Lastly, neither of the students from the two

groups got a satisfactory, very satisfactory, or excellent

learning performance in simplifying the order of operations

during the pretest.

In summary, the control group (M = 8.5, SD = 5) and

experimental group (M = 10.7, SD = 5.7) had very poor and poor

learning performance respectively, before the intervention. The

respondents in general from the control and experimental groups,

appeared to have a poor ability to simplify the order of

operations at the start of the study.

After the intervention, Table 1 revealed that more than one-

tenth (13.3%) of the students from the control group and three-

hundredths (3%) of the students from the experimental group had

very poor learning performance. Three-tenths (30%) of the

students from the control group and more than four-tenths (43%)

of the students from the experimental group had poor learning

performance in simplifying the order of operations. Likewise,

there are more than one-tenth (13.3%) of students from the

control group and less than four-tenths (36.7%) of the students

from the experimental group had fairly satisfactory learning

performance. More so, less than three-tenths (26.7%) of the

students from the control group and three-hundredths (3.3%) of

the students from the experimental group had satisfactory

learning performance. Furthermore, more than one-tenth (13.3%) of

the students from the control group and more than six-hundredths

(6.7%) of the students from the experimental group had very

satisfactory learning performance. In addition to this, only

three-hundredths (3.3%) of students from the control group had

excellent learning performance while there are more than six-

hundredths (6.7%) of students from the experimental group.

 On average, both respondents in the control and experimental
groups had fairly satisfactory learning performance. This
suggests that regardless of the teaching strategies employed,
respondents' learning performance is similar.

Table 1. Learning Performance of Students in Simplifying Order of

Operations before and after the Intervention.
Control Experimental
Score Group Group
Description
Range f % f %
A. Before Intervention
51-60 Excellent - - - -
41-50 Very - - - -
Satisfactory
31-40 Satisfactory - - - -
21-30 Fairly 1 3% 1 3%
Satisfactory
11-20 Poor 8 27% 15 50%
0-10 Very Poor 21 70% 14 47%
Total 30 100% 30 100%

Mean Score 8.5 Very Poor 10.7 Poor

B. After Intervention
51-60 Excellent 1 3.3% 2 6.7%
41-50 Very 4 13.3% 2 6.7%
Satisfactory
31-40 Satisfactory 8 26.7% 1 3.3%
21-30 Fairly 4 13.3% 11 36.7%
Satisfactory
11-20 Poor 9 30% 13 43.3%
0-10 Very Poor 4 13.3% 1 3.3%
Total 30 99.9% 30 100%
Fairly Fairly
Mean Score 26.3 24.2
Satisfactory Satisfactory
 Inferential Data Analysis

Difference in the Pretest Scores of the Two Groups

Table 2 revealed the test of mean difference between the

pretest scores of the control group and experimental group. To

determine this, a t-test for independent samples was used. The

result showed that the pretest mean scores between the control

group (M = 8.5, SD = 5.0) and the experimental group (M = 10.7,

SD = 5.7) were not statistically significant at a .05 level of

significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that

there is no significant difference in the students' pretest

scores is accepted.

This indicates that maybe the difference is due to the

random chance. Meaning there is no significant learning

difference between the two groups of students before the start of

the study. Thus, it can be assumed that before the start of the

study, the two groups possessed low learning ability in

simplifying the order of operations.

Table 2. Difference in the Pretest Scores of Two Groups.

Groups Mean Mean t-value Remarks

Difference
Control 8.5 Not
Experimental 10.7 2.2 0.1
NS
Significant
NS - Significant α = 0.05
 Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Two
Groups
In Table 3, the t-test for dependent samples showed that the

mean difference of the pretest and posttest scores of the control

group with a mean difference of 17.8 was statistically highly

significant at.05 level of significance as depicted by its t value

which is 0.000. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there

is no significant difference in the pretest and posttest of the

control group is rejected.

This indicates that a significant difference in the learning

performance of the students existed when they were introduced to

conventional teaching strategies throughout the lesson in

simplifying the order of operations.

This result supports the study of Villahermosa (2022) that

there is a significant difference in the student subjects when

they were exposed to conventional teaching strategies throughout

the teaching and learning.

The t-test for dependent samples in Table 3 showed that the

mean difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the

experimental group with a mean difference of 13.5 was

statistically highly significant at the .05 level of significance

as manifested by its t value which is 0.000. Therefore, the null

hypothesis that states that there is no significant difference in

the pretest and posttest of the experimental group is rejected.

 This means that students perform better after the

intervention has been introduced. This seems to imply that the

use of Khan Academy videos as a strategy in teaching the order of

operations helps increase the levels of learning performance of

the students.

This result agrees with Rueda and Serano's (2019) study that

the use of Khan Academy videos led to an increase in the levels

of performance among students.

Table 3. Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Two

Groups.

Paired Mean Mean t-value Remarks

Variable Difference

A. Control
Group
Pretest vs. 8.5 17.8 Significant
0.000**
Posttest 26.3

B. Experimental
Group
Pretest vs. 10.7
13.5 0.000** Significant
Posttest 24.2

**Highly Significant α = 0.05

The difference in the Posttest Scores of the Two Groups

Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference in the

posttest mean gain scores of the students between the two groups.

Thus, the hypothesis which states that there is no significant

difference in the posttest of the two groups is accepted.

 This means that students in both groups possess similar

learning performance in simplifying the order of operations. This

suggests that regardless of the strategies employed, conventional

or with the use of Khan Academy videos, students obtain nearly

the same learning performance. As a result, utilizing Khan

Academy videos as an aid in improving students' learning

performance in simplifying the order of operations is comparable

to using a conventional method.

This result contradicts the study of Mendoza, Caranto, and

David (2015) that video instruction to students learning is

highly effective but on the contrary, it agrees with Adams (2016)

that results yielded no significant difference between the group

that utilized Khan Academy and the other two groups.

Table 4. Difference in the Posttest Scores of the Two Groups.

Groups Mean Mean t-value Remarks

Difference

Control 26.3 Not

2.1 0.5
Experimental 24.2 Significant

NS - Significant α = 0.05