CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter dwells in the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data

regarding the information on the effectiveness of students’ listening skills with regards

to vowel distinction and listening comprehension.

The Pretest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Vowel Distinction

Table I presents the performance level of the Grade 7 students in vowel distinction

during the pretest.

Table 1. The Pretest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Vowel

Distinction
Test Statistics
Difference Qualitative
Groups n H.M. * A.M. Between SD Description
Means Computed
Tabledt
Value at

α = 0.05

Experimental
Group
25 30 21.52 8.48 5.35 32.90 ** 2.064 Below
Average
Control
Group

25 30 19.00 11.00 2.34 65.63 ** 2.064 Below

Average
*HM= 75% of the test items

** significant

For the pretest, Table 1 shows that the experimental group obtained a mean of

21.52 and SD of 5.35 while the control group had a mean of 19.00 and SD of 2.34. The

computed t-tests of 32.90 and 65.63 are greater than the tabled value of 2.064 for the

experimental and control groups respectively. These are significant, hence, the
rejection of Ho1. This means that there was a significant difference between the

hypothetical and actual mean of the students. Both groups of students had Below

Average performance in vowel distinction during the pretest. Obviously, students

from both the experimental and control group did not reach the 75% standard criterion

set by DepEd. This below average performance may imply that since it was still a

pretest, the students might have little or no learning at all in vowel distinction.

The Posttest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Vowel Distinction

Table 2 shows the level of performance of the Grade 7 students in vowel distinction
during the posttest.

Table 2. The Posttest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Vowel

Distinction

Test Statistics
Difference Qualitative
Groups n H.M. * A.M. Between SD Description
Means Computed t
Tabled

Value at

α = 0.05

Experimental
Group
25 30 29.84 0.16 9.54 10.19 2.064 Below
Average

Control Group

25 30 21.44 8.56 8.54 15.27 2.064 Below

Average

*HM= 75% of the test items

** significant

From Table 2, for the posttest, the experimental group obtained a mean of 29.84

and SD of 9.54 while the control group had a mean of 21.44 and SD of 8.54. The

computed t-tests of 10.19 and 15.27 are greater than the table value of 2.064 for the

experimental and control groups respectively which means significant. Ho1 was
rejected. This means that there was a significant difference between the hypothetical

and actual mean of the students. Both groups of students had Below Average

performance in vowel distinction during the posttest. This means that the students

from the experimental and control group did not reach the 75% standard criterion set by

DepEd despite the intervention of the teacher in making the concepts understood and

applied in their daily living. This below average performance may imply that since it is

a posttest that the DepEd’s criterion might be too high for the students taking into

account their heterogeneous grouping of academic ability.

Mean Gain of the Grade 7 Students’ Performance in Vowel Distinction

Table 3 reveals the improvement of the students from the pretest to the posttest

Table 3. Mean Gain of the Grade 7 Students’ Performance in Vowel Distinction

Test Statistics

Groups N Pretest Posttest d Sd

Mean Mean Computed t
Tabled

Value at

α = 0.05

Experimental
Group
25 21.52 29.84 8.32 9.17 8.59* 2.064

Control Group

25 19.00 21.44 2.44 8.31 6.74* 2.064

* significant

As can be seen from Table 3, the experimental group showed a mean gain of 8.32

and Sd of 9.17. The control group’s mean gain was 2.44 with Sd of 8.31. The

computed tests of both groups are greater than the tabled value of 2.064 at α = 0.05,

hence, significant, thus Ho2 is rejected, which means that there was a significant mean
gain for both groups from the pretest to the posttest. Quantitatively, the group which

was set on technology based instruction and those without improved their performance

in vowel distinction. This may imply that both techniques can enhance learning in

Grade 7 students.

The Pretest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Listening Comprehension

Table 1 presents the level of performance of the Grade 7 students in listening

comprehension during the pretest.

Table 1. The Pretest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Listening

Comprehension
Test Statistics
Difference Qualitative
Groups n H.M. * A.M. Between SD Description
Means Computed
Tabledt
Value at

α = 0.05

TBI

25 12 7.32 4.68 11.23 32.11** 2.064 Below

Average

Lecture
Discussion 25 12 6.76 4.24 7.66 46.56 ** 2.064 Below
Average

*HM= 75% of the test items ** significant

For the pretest, Table 1 shows that the TBI assisted students obtained a mean of

7.32 and SD of 4.68 while the students on lecture discussion had a mean of 6.76 and SD

of 7.66. The computed t-tests of 32.11 and 46.56 are greater than the tabled value of

2.064 for the students on TBI and lecture discussion respectively. These are

significant. This means that there was a significant difference between the hypothetical

and actual mean of the students. Both groups of students had Below Average
performance in listening comprehension during the pretest. Obviously, students from

both the TBI and lecture discussion did not reach the 75% standard criterion set by

DepEd. This below average performance may imply that since it was still a pretest,

the students might have little or no learning at all in listening comprehension.

The Posttest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Listening Comprehension

Table 2 shows the level of performance of the Grade 7 students in listening

comprehension during the posttest.

Table 2. The Posttest Performance Level of Grade 7 Students in Listening

Comprehension

Test Statistics
Difference Qualitative
Groups N H.M. * A.M. Between SD Description
Means Computed t
Tabled

Value at

α = 0.05

TBI

25 12 9.92 2.08 7.27 9.89 2.064 Below

Average

Lecture
Discussion
25 12 9.20 2.8 6.89 11.09 2.064 Below
Average

*HM= 75% of the test items ** significant

From Table 2, for the posttest, the students with TBI integration obtained a mean of

9.92 and SD of 7.27 while the students on lecture discussion had a mean of 9.20 and SD

of 6.89. The computed t-tests of 9.89 and 11.09 are greater than the table value of

2.064 for the TBI integration and lecture discussion respectively which means

significant. This means that there was a significant difference between the hypothetical

and actual mean of the students. Both groups of students had Below Average

performance in listening comprehension during the posttest. This means that the
students which are in TBI integration and lecture discussion methods did not reach the

75% standard criterion set by DepEd despite the intervention of the teacher in making

the concepts understood and applied in their daily living. This below average

performance may imply that since it is a posttest that the DepEd’s criterion might be too

high for the students taking into account their heterogeneous grouping of academic

ability.

Mean Gain of the Grade 7 Students Performance in Listening Comprehension

Table 3 reveals the improvement of the students from the pretest to the posttest

Table 3. Mean Gain of the Grade 7 Students Performance in Listening

Comprehension
Test Statistics

Groups n Pretest Posttest D Sd

Mean Mean Computed t
Tabled

Value at

α = 0.05

TBI

25 7.32 9.92 2.60 6.24 12.07* 2.064

Lecture Discussion

25 6.76 9.20 2.44 5.71 10.88* 2.064

* significant

As can be seen from Table 3, the TBI students showed a mean gain of 2.60 and Sd

of 6.24. The students on lecture discussion mean gain was 2.44 with Sd of 5.71. The

computed tests of both groups are greater than the tabled value of 2.064 at α = 0.05,

hence, significant, which means that there was a significant mean gain for both groups

from the pretest to the posttest. Quantitatively, the group which was set on using TBI

and those on lecture discussion improved their performance in listening

comprehension. This may imply that both techniques can enhance learning in Grade

7.