Statistical Analysis

Table 1 Language Spoken at Home

Bilingual English Only

Language @ home Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
English & Filipino 5 13.20 3 7.50
Filipino & Ilocano - - 1 2.50
Filipino & Pampango 4 10.50 4 10.00
Filipino Only 9 23.70 6 15.00
Ilocano 1 2.60 1 2.50
Pampango 10 26.30 18 45.00
English, Filipino, & 4 10.50 - -
Pampango
English, Filipino, & 1 2.60 - -
Waray
Filipino & waray 2 5.30 - -
Ibanag 1 2.60 - -
Missing Data 1 2.60 7 17.50
Total 38 100.00 40 100.00

Table 1 shows that majority of the students in the bilingual

instruction group or 25 out of the 38 students uses Filipino as

their spoken language at home. It is the top spoken language at

home, followed by Pampango dialect where 18 students use it as

their spoken language at home. Among the 38 students, 10 of

which use English language at home. Aside from these three (3)

languages, other languages use at home by five (5) other

students was Waray (3), Ilocano (1), and Ibanag (1).

For the students of the English only instruction group, the top

language uses at home was Pampango dialect with 22 respondents

or 55% followed by Filipino language with 14 students. There

were only three (3) students that use English language at home

and two (2) students use Ilocano language at home.

Moreover, the table shows that the bilingual group uses two (2)

more languages at home as compared with the English only group.

Table 2 Students’ Preferred Reading Material

Bilingual English Only

Reading Materials HP MP LP HP MP LP
Reference books
(English Only) 9 25 4 2 34 4
Reference books
(English & Filipino 11 22 5 10 26 4
Pocket books (English
Only) 5 20 13 0 17 23
Pocket books (English
and Filipino) 5 23 10 8 16 16
Magazines and Comic
books (English Only) 13 15 10 6 19 15
Magazines and Comic
books (English and
Filipino) 11 22 5 13 21 6
Other preferred reading
materials (English
Only) 8 11 3 3 8 1
Other preferred reading
materials (English &
Filipino) 5 12 3 4 10 0
Legend: HP – Highly Preferred
MP – Moderately Preferred
LP – Least Preferred

The table for the students’ preferred reading materials shows

that the majority of the preferences of the students of the

bilingual instruction group in all the listed reading materials

were moderate. This is almost the same with the students

preferences of the English only instruction group except for the

pocket books (English only) were majority of them least prefers

it.

The other English only reading preferences of the 22 students of

the bilingual instruction group were: dictionary with 9 highly

preferred 9 moderately preferred and 2 least preferred; Bible

with 2 highly; 1 moderately and 1 least preferred; and Junior

Britannica were 1 student preferred it moderately. In the

English only instruction group, there were 12 who prefer other

English only reading materials. Seven (7) students preferred

newspaper were one (1) is highly preferred, five (5) prefer it

moderately, and one (1) least preferred it. The other reading

materials were encyclopedia (1-highly preferred); automotive

books (1-highly preferred); Bible (1-moderately preferred);

horoscope book (1-moderately preferred); and national geographic

(1-moderately preferred).

There were 20 students from the bilingual group who prefer the

other English and Filipino reading materials. Their reading

preferences were Almanac/Encyclopedia (1-highly preferred and 2-

moderately preferred); Newspaper (4-moderately preferred and 1-

least preferred); Dictionary (3-highly preferred, 6-moderately

preferred, and 2-least preferred); and Bible (1-highly

preferred). Among the 40 students in the English only

instruction group, 14 prefer other English and Filipino reading

materials and these are Newspaper ( 2-highly preferred and 6-

moderately preferred); Automotive book (1-highly preferred);

Almanac (1-moderately preferred); Bible (1-moderately

preferred); Dictionary (1-highly preferred); and Fables (2-

moderately preferred).

Table 3 Students’ Proficiency Level in the Pre-test and Post-test

Bilingual English Only

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Starting out 9 4 23 12
Beginner 25 24 14 17
Advance beginner 4 9 3 4
Total 38 37 40 33

Table 3 shows that majority of the students’ proficiency level

in the pre-test and post-test of the bilingual instruction group

were beginner while in the English only instruction group

majority of the students proficiency level during the pre-test

was startling out and in the post-test it was beginner. The

table also shows that one (1) student in the bilingual

instruction group did not took the post-test and seven (7)

students in the English only instruction group who did not took

the post-test either.

Among the nine (9) students of the bilingual instruction group

with a proficiency level of starting out in the pre-test, three

(3) students levels up to beginner, two (2) students to advance

beginner and one (1) of the is the one who did not took the

post-test. In the pre-test result of the English only

instruction group 23 were starting out, seven (7) of which

levels up to beginner and one (1) to advance beginner. Five (5)

of these 23 students did not took the post-test.

In the beginner level, four (4) out of the 25 students of the

bilingual group in the pre-test levels up to advance beginner

while one (1) of the students level down from beginner to

starting out. Two (2) of the 14 students of the English only

instruction group levels up from beginner to advance beginner

while another two (2) students levels down from beginner to

starting out.

Each one (1) of the students of the bilingual and English only

instruction groups with an advance beginner level in the pre-

test levels down to beginner in the post-test.

Bilingual
The result of the pre-test on Parts of Speech, Vocabulary

enhancement, and Reading Comprehension of the bilingual

instruction group shows that the highest score was 51 and the

lowest was 7 indicating a range of 44. The graph shows that the

average score of the 38 students was 23.76.

The histogram of the students’ score in the post-test of the

bilingual instruction group shows that the scores were not

normally distributed. This is evidently shown in the graph that

two of these scores were outside the normal curve. These scores

were 102 and 103. In the post test, 103 is the highest score

and 19 is the lowest score. The students’ average score was

45.62 with a standard deviation of 17.695 indicating that the

scores were spread out.

English Only

The histogram of the students’ score in the pre-test of the

English only instruction group shows that one (1) of the score

is not within the normal curve. This implies that this score is

an outlier or extreme value. The highest score is 59 while the

lowest score is 6 bringing a range of 53. The graph also shows

that the average score of the students in the pre-test was 17.58

with a standard deviation of 9.698.

The post test results show that average score of the English

only instruction students was 27.18 with a standard deviation of

10.904. The highest score among the 33 students was 47 and the

lowest score was 6.

Altogether, the students’ score in the pre-test and post-test

among the bilingual and English only instructions indicates a

non-normal distribution.
Practices:

Reading Practices

The students of the bilingual instruction group show that most

of them practices silent reading and guided reading with a

frequency of 20 and 19 respectively. There were only 6 and 4

students who practice the echo reading and think aloud.

Most of the students of the English only instruction practices

the silent reading, guided reading, and speed reading with a

frequency of 27, 24, and 24 respectively. There were only 7 and

5 students who practice the think aloud and echo reading.

Table Students’ Reading Practices of the Bilingual and English

Only Instructions

Bilingual English Only

Instruction Instruction
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Echo Reading 6 7.80 5 5.20
Guided Reading 19 24.70 24 25.00
Shared Reading 16 20.80 9 9.40
 Silent Reading 20 26.00 27 28.10
Speed Reading 12 15.60 24 25.00
Think Aloud 4 5.20 7 7.30
Total 77 100.00 96 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1: 2.08 1: 2.91

The table shows that the English only instruction group applies

more reading practices than the bilingual instruction group

wherein, the ratio of the student in the bilingual instruction

to the reading practices is 1:2.08, while of the student in the

English only instruction is 1:2.91. This means that the

students in the bilingual group applies two (2) practices on the

average, while most of the English only instruction students

applies three (3) reading practices. Moreover, it shows that

the silent reading is the most practiced and the think aloud and

echo reading is the least practiced among the two groups.

B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Echo Reading 6 5 -6.83 -11 75.13 46.65 121
Guided Reading 19 24 6.17 8 49.96 38.07 64
Shared Reading 16 9 3.17 -7 -22.19 10.05 49
Silent Reading 20 27 7.17 9 64.53 51.41 81
Speed Reading 12 24 -0.83 8 -6.64 0.69 64
Think Aloud 4 7 -8.83 -9 79.47 77.97 81
Total 240.26 224.84 460
 r = 0.75

The Pearson correlation value of 0.75 indicates that there

exists a strong positive association between the reading

practices of students from the bilingual and English only

instruction. This means that the higher the frequency of the

students’ reading practices on the bilingual instruction, the

higher also the frequency of the students’ reading practices on

the English only instruction, or the other way around.

Correlations
bilingual English Only
bilingual Pearson Correlation 1 .758
Sig. (2-tailed) .081
N 6 6
English Pearson Correlation .758 1
Only Sig. (2-tailed) .081
N 6 6

Generally, there is no significant difference between the

reading practices of the bilingual and the English only

instructions.
Comprehension Enhancement

The students of the bilingual instruction group exhibit the

following frequency for the following comprehension enhancement

practices: reading for content information (20); comparing and

contrasting (17); predicting outcomes (15); and language

learning experience (12).

The students of the English only instruction group show the

following frequency for the following comprehension enhancement

practices: language learning experience (32); reading for

content information (26); comparing and contrasting (11);

predicting outcomes (11); and others (1).

Bilingual English Only

Instruction Instruction
Frequen Perce Frequen Percent
cy nt cy
Comparing and 17 26.60 11 14.30
Contrasting
Language learning 12 18.80 32 41.60
experience
Predicting outcomes 15 23.40 7 9.10
Reading for content 20 31.3 26 33.80
information
Others - - 1 1.30
 Total 64 100.00 77 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1 : 1 :
1.73 2.33
The table shows that the English only instruction group applies

more comprehension enhancement practices than the bilingual

instruction group. It also shows that the language learning

experience is the most comprehension enhancement practiced by

the students in the English only instruction group. On the

other hand, it is the least comprehension enhancement practiced

by the students in the bilingual instruction group. Moreover,

the table shows that the ratio of the student in the bilingual

instruction to the comprehension enhancement practices is

1:1.73, while of the student in the English only instruction is

1:2.33. This means that the students in the bilingual group

applies one (1) or two (2) practices on the average, while the

students in the English only instruction group applies on the

average two (2) or three (3) comprehension enhancement

practices.

B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Comparing and 17 11 4.2 -4.4 -18.48 17.64 19.36
Contrasting
Language learning 12 32 -0.8 16.6 -13.28 0.64 275.56
experience
Predicting outcomes 15 7 2.2 -8.4 -18.48 4.84 70.56
Reading for content 20 26 7.2 10.6 76.32 51.84 112.36
information
Others 0 1 -12.8 -14.4 184.32 163.84 207.36
Total 210.4 238.80 685.20
 r = 0.52

The Pearson correlation value of 0.52 indicates that there

exists a weak positive association between the comprehension

enhancement practices of students from the bilingual and English

only instruction. This is evidently shown in the chronological

arrangement as to the most applied practices among the

comprehension enhancement activity.

Correlations
Bilingual English
Bilingual Pearson Correlation 1 .520
Sig. (2-tailed) .369
N 5 5
English Pearson Correlation .520 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .369
N 5 5

Generally, there is a significant difference between the

comprehension enhancement practices of the bilingual and the

English only instructions.

Vocabulary Enhancement

The students from the bilingual instruction groups apply six (6)

vocabulary enhancement practices. These are the use of

dictionary, etc. (25); instructional read aloud (20); direct

instruction (17); spelling links (12); systematic teaching (12);

and word in thought (9).

The students from the bilingual instruction groups apply six (6)

vocabulary enhancement practices. These are the direct

instruction (23); spelling links (23); instructional read aloud

(21); word in thought (18); systematic teaching (16); and use of

dictionary, etc. (15).

 Bilingual English Only
Instruction Instruction
Frequen Perce Frequen Percent
cy nt cy
Direct 17 17.90 23 19.80
instruction
Instructional 20 21.10 21 18.10
read aloud
Spelling links 12 12.60 23 19.80
Systematic 12 12.60 16 13.80
teaching
Use of 25 26.30 15 12.90
dictionary, etc.
Word in thought 9 9.50 18 15.50
Total 95 100.00 116 100.00
n 37 33
Ratio 1 : 1 :
2.57 3.52

The table shows that the English only instruction group applies

more vocabulary enhancement practices than the bilingual

instruction group. It also shows that the use of dictionary,

etc. is the most vocabulary enhancement practiced by the

students in the bilingual instruction group. On the other hand,

it is the least vocabulary enhancement practiced by the students

in the English only instruction group. Moreover, the table shows

that the ratio of the student in the bilingual instruction to

the vocabulary enhancement practices is 1:2.57, while of the

student in the English only instruction is 1:3.52. This means

that the students in the bilingual group applies two (2) or

three (3) practices on the average, while the students in the

English only instruction group applies on the average three (3)

or four (4) vocabulary enhancement practices.

B E X Y XY X2 Y2
Direct instruction 17 23 1.17 3.67 4.29 1.37 13.47
Instructional read 20 21 4.17 1.67 6.96 17.39 2.79
aloud
Spelling links 12 23 -3.83 3.67 -14.06 14.67 13.47
Systematic teaching 12 16 -3.83 -3.33 12.75 14.67 11.09
Use of dictionary, 25 15 9.17 -4.33 -39.71 84.09 18.75
etc.
Word in thought 9 18 -6.83 -1.33 9.08 46.65 1.77
-20.69 178.84 61.34

r = -0.198

The Pearson correlation value of -0.197 indicates that there

exists a little association between the vocabulary enhancement

practices of students from the bilingual and English only

instruction.
 Correlations
bilingual english
bilingual Pearson 1 -.197
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .708
N 6 6
english Pearson -.197 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .708
N 6 6
Generally, there is a significant difference between the

vocabulary enhancement practices of the bilingual and the

English only instructions.

Table 1 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Difference for the Bilingual

Instruction

Student Pre Post sign Difference rank Signed rank

A1 26 50 + 24 23.5 +23.5
A2 26 42 + 16 14 +14
A3 18 32 + 14 11.5 +11.5
A4 42 49 + 7 5 +5
A5 14 32 + 18 16 +16
A6 31 52 + 21 20 +20
A7 32 61 + 29 27.5 +27.5
A8 23 47 + 24 23.5 +23.5
A9 22 41 + 19 17 +17
A10 25 37 + 12 9 +9
A11 45 44 - 1 1.5 -1.5
A12 46 102 + 56 36 +36
A13 25 30 + 5 3.5 +3.5
A14 26 31 + 5 3.5 +3.5
A15 9 43 + 34 31 +31
A16 18 - Discard
A17 16 41 + 25 25 +25
A18 14 36 + 22 21 +21
A19 21 50 + 29 27.5 +27.5
 A20 22 48 + 26 26 +26
A21 43 103 + 60 37 +37
A22 38 30 - 8 6 -6
A23 21 37 + 16 14 +14
A24 12 55 + 43 35 +35
A25 26 67 + 41 34 +34
A26 30 62 + 32 30 +30
A27 17 57 + 40 33 +33
A28 27 43 + 16 14 +14
A29 15 24 + 9 7 +7
A30 24 54 + 30 29 +29
A31 51 52 + 1 1.5 +1.5
A32 20 34 + 14 11.5 +11.5
A33 19 31 + 12 9 +9
A34 14 51 + 37 32 +32
A35 7 19 + 12 9 +9
A36 9 32 + 23 22 +22
A37 10 30 + 20 18.5 +18.5
A38 19 29 + 20 18.5 +18.5
SUM 688
AVERAGE 18.59

Null Hypothesis (Ho): there is no significant difference between

the student’s performance in the pre-test and post-test.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): there is significant difference

between the student’s performance in the pre-test and post-test.

Where:

Z = sum of signed difference

n = number of students
 Z = 5.08

The decision rule is

Reject Ho if Z > 1.645; otherwise do not reject Ho.

Because Z = +5.08 > 1.645, reject Ho. The p-value is

0.000000009. Because the p-value is less than α = 0.05, the

null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, without having to assume

that the original population of difference scores is normally

distributed, the students’ performance in the post-test is

better than their performance in the pre-test.

Table 2 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
0.669 0.717 2

The reliability statistics table provides the Cronbach’s Alpha

that is used to assess the internal consistency reliability of

several items or scores that the researcher wants to add

together to get a summary or summated scale score. In this case,

the researcher wants to assess the internal consistency

reliability of students’ performance score in the pre-test and

post-test using the bilingual instruction. The table also shows

the Cronbach’s Alpha (0.669) and an alpha based on standardizing

the items (.717), wherein alpha is based on a correlation matrix

and is interpreted similarly to other measures of reliability.

Although the Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.70 but, the

Cronbach’s Alpha is greater than 0.70, therefore, the

measurement provides a good support for internal consistency

reliability.

Table 3 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Difference for the English

Only Instruction

Student Pre Post sign Difference rank Signed rank

B1 14 10 - 4 5.5 -5.5
B2 15 - Discard
B3 14 38 + 24 29 +29
B4 21 35 + 14 25 +25
B5 11 - Discard
B6 11 - Discard
B7 7 14 + 7 10 +10
B8 11 36 + 25 30 +30
B9 16 20 + 4 5.5 +5.5
B10 9 - Discard
B11 10 32 + 22 27 +27
B12 18 18 +/- 0 Discard
B13 9 22 + 13 23.5 +23.5
B14 16 22 + 6 8 +8
B15 16 15 - 1 1.5 -1.5
B16 19 24 + 5 7 +7
B17 18 29 + 11 19 +19
 B18 24 27 + 3 3.5 +3.5
B19 15 23 + 8 12.5 +12.5
B20 6 18 + 12 21.5 +21.5
B21 6 17 + 11 19 +19
B22 10 20 + 10 16.5 +16.5
B23 30 47 + 17 26 +26
B24 59 - Discard
B25 14 13 - 1 1.5 -1.5
B26 23 - Discard
B27 22 25 + 3 3.5 +3.5
B28 25 32 + 7 10 +10
B29 13 21 + 8 12.5 +12.5
B30 13 39 + 26 31 +31
B31 17 6 - 11 19 -19
B32 8 40 + 32 32 +32
B33 13 22 + 9 14.5 +14.5
B34 31 38 + 7 10 +10
B35 12 - Discard
B36 24 47 + 23 28 +28
B37 26 38 + 12 21.5 +21.5
B38 35 45 + 10 16.5 +16.5
B39 22 35 + 13 23.5 +23.5
B40 20 29 + 9 14.5 +14.5
SUM 473
AVERAGE 14.78

Null Hypothesis (Ho): there is no significant difference between

the student’s performance in the pre-test and post-test.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): there is significant difference

between the student’s performance in the pre-test and post-test.

Where:

Z = sum of signed difference

 n = number of students

Z = 3.91

The decision rule is

Reject Ho if Z > 1.645; otherwise do not reject Ho.

Because Z = +3.91 > 1.645, reject Ho. The p-value is 0.00005.

Because the p-value is less than α = 0.05, the null hypothesis

is rejected. Thus, without having to assume that the original

population of difference scores is normally distributed, the

students’ performance in the post-test is better than their

performance in the pre-test.

Table 4 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
0.667 0.702 2

The reliability statistics table provides the Cronbach’s Alpha

(0.667) and an alpha based on standardizing the items (0.702).

In this case, the researcher wants to assess the internal

consistency reliability of students’ performance score in the

pre-test and post-test using English only instruction. Although

the Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.70 but, the Cronbach’s Alpha

is greater than 0.70 thus, the measurement provides a good

support for internal consistency reliability.

Generally, the students’ score in the pre-test and post-test for

both bilingual and English only instruction shows a good support

for internal consistency reliability. Moreover, there is

significant difference between the pre-test and post-test

performance of students for the bilingual and English only

instructions. (PERSONAL VIEW OR ANALYSIS/IMPLICATION and

strengthen the results using related literature)

Table 5 Statistical Data for Bilingual and English only

Instructions

Bilingual English Only

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
N 38 37 40 33
Mean 23.76 45.62 17.58 27.18
Standard Deviation 11.07 17.70 9.58 10.74

The data shows that the bilingual instruction has the highest

average rating in the pre-test and post-test. Though the

bilingual instruction performs well both in the pre-test and

post-test as compared with the average scores of the English

only instruction, it is also the group wherein the scores are

more dispersed. This means that the scores in the pre-test and

post-test of the bilingual group were more spread-out than the

English only group. This is evidently shown by the bilingual

students’ score in the post-test, wherein the lowest score is 24

and the highest score is 103 which give a range of 79 as

compared with the English only group scores with a range of 41

having a lowest score of 6 and highest score of 47.

Methodology
 The design for conducting this study was descriptive correlational design, under the non-

experimental type of research. Descriptive correlational design studies the relationship of two or

more variables which aim to examine the relationships that exist in given situations (Burns and

Grove, 2001). The purpose of descriptive studies is to observe, describe, and document aspects

of a situation as it naturally occurs and sometimes to serve as a starting point for hypothesis

generation of theory development (Polit and Beck, 2004). Correlational studies, on the other

hand, examine relationships among variables and the examination can occur at several levels.

The researcher can describe, predict, or test the relationship among variables (Burns and Grove,

2001).

Such design was employed because the researcher wanted to determine whether there is a

significant difference between the variables being studied. It describes the scores of the

maritime students in the pre-test and post-test for the English proficiency level. These would

determine whether they are related or not.

The advantages of a descriptive correlational design are that it is straightforward,

inexpensive, and can be done quickly. It may also be an important preliminary research for

further studies that do attempt to determine the relationship between variables. Moreover, it is

an efficient means to collect a large amount of data about a problem, which is necessary to

determine a large number of interrelationships in a relatively short amount of time. Furthermore,

it is often strong in realism and therefore has an intrinsic appeal for solving practical problems

(Polit and Beck, 2004)

Some limitations of such design are that it determines only the correlation of variables

and not its causation, it cannot assume that the groups being compared are similar before the

occurrence of the independent variable. Thus, pre-existing differences may be a plausible

alternative explanation for any group differences on the dependent variable (Polit and Beck,

2004).

Sampling Frame

The sampling frame for any probability sample is a complete list of all the cases in the

population from which sample will be drawn (Saunders et al. 2003). There are 3 Bachelor of

Science in Maritime Technology sections at the Jose C. Feliciano College, but because two (2)

sections will only be used the researcher made used of the fish bowl strategy.

Purposive sampling on the other hand, is an improvement of convenience sampling

where the researcher applies his/her experience and judgment to select cases

which are representative or typical (Fogelman, 2000). It is also selecting a sample

that will yield the best understanding of whatever they wish to study and a typical

sample is one that is considered or judged to be typical or representative of that

which is being studied (Fraenkel J. & Wallen N. 2004). This sampling technique was

used by the researcher in the choice of sections. In the selection of section the

purposive sampling was utilized wherein the sample sections were selected from all

the sections of the first year maritime students. The sample sections consisted of 3

sections.

The Credibility of Research Findings

In order to reduce the risk of obtaining incorrect answer to research questions emphases

on two particular research designs has to be considered: reliability and validity (Chisnall, 1997).

Reliability is the extent to which research results would be stable or consist if the same

techniques were used repeatedly. Validity is the ability of a chosen instrument to measure what
is supposed to measure. Moreover, the way the measuring is conducted and how the information

is processed affects the reliability.

Reliability is about the results of the investigation, which has to be reliable. If nothing

changes in a population between two investigations in the same purpose, it is reliable.

COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION

For expressing the degree of relationship quantitatively between

two sets of measures of variables, it is usually take the help

of an index that is known as coefficient of correlation. It is a

kind of ratio which expresses the extent to which changes in one

variable are accompanied with changes in the other variable. It

involves no units and varies from -1 (indicating perfect

negative correlation) to + 1 (indicating perfect positive

correlation). In case the coefficient of correlation is zero it

indicates no correlation between two sets of measures.

Product Moment Method of Computing Coefficient of Correlation

This method is also known as Pearson Moment method in the honour

of the English statesman Karl Pearson who is said to be the

inventor of this method. The coefficient of correlation computed

by this method is known as Product Moment coefficient of

correlation symbolically represented by ‘r’.

The basic formula for the computation of ‘r’ for the ungrouped

data by this method is

Where x and y represent the deviation of scores in the tests X

(Pre-test) and Y (Post-test) from the means of each distribution

of the students from the bilingual and English only instructions.

The Pearson correlation was used for the comparison on the

teachers’ level of satisfaction on their respective

administrators’ leadership practices. This is to test if there

is a relationship between the ratings of teachers for

archdiocesan and non-archdiocesan. The correlation coefficient

measures the strength of a linear relationship between two

variables (archdiocesan and non-archdiocesan). The correlation

coefficient is always between -1 and +1. The closer the

correlation is to +/-1, the closer to a perfect linear

relationship. The interpretation of correlations is as follows:

Correlation value Interpretation

-1.00 to -0.60 Strong negative association

 -0.59 to -0.20 Weak negative association

-0.19 to +0.20 Little or no association

+0.21 to +0.60 weak positive association

+0.61 to +1.00 Strong positive association

The standard deviation measures the variation of scores

about the mean (average) score, and can be defined as the “root
mean squared deviation.”

With many data points, or when putting data into a

spreadsheet, the SD definitional formula becomes cumbersome. The
shortcut method to compute SD requires only three memory
registers [in a calculator] (N, ∑X, and ∑X2), instead of a
separate memory register for every individual score. Also, the
shortcut method eliminates intermediate rounding errors created
when the deviations of scores about the mean are not integers.
The shortcut formula follows:

SD =
∑X 2

−(
∑X) 2

N N

where (X ÷ N)2 equals the sum of the squares of the raw scores,
∑X2 ÷ N equals the mean of the raw scores, , and N equals the
total number of raw scores.

The standard deviation measures the variation among scores. If

scores cluster about the mean, a small SD results. If scores
spread out father from the mean, the SD will be larger.

For data that approximate a normal distribution (bell-

shaped curve), the SD estimates the proportion of scores falling
above and below the mean, regardless of distribution type and
absolute magnitude of the mean. The spread of data follows the
“68-95-99 Rule.”

Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

The Wilcoxon signed ranks test requires that the differences are
approximately symmetric and that the data are measured on an
ordinal, interval, or ratio scale. ( Berenson, Levine &
Krehbiel, 2006)

References:

Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics by Yogesh

Kumar Singh. Copyright © 2006 New Age International (P) Ltd.,
Publishers. ISBN : 978-81-224-2418-8. (page 304 -307)

References:

Chisnall, Peter M. 1997. Marketing Research. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Cooper, D.R. and Emory, C. W. (1992). Research Methods. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,

Inc.

Saunders, Mark N.K. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students, 2nd Ed, Financial

Times/Prentice Hall.

Trochim, William M. (2006), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994), How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods. (7

ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2001). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, &
utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.