15

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter shows the methodology used in conducting the study. This

includes the research design, research environment, research subjects, pedagogical

approach and the statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

This study was a quasi-experimental design, which made use of the pretest

and posttest scores of students who were exposed to the assessment for learning

and those who were not. This design was used to find out the difference of pretest

and posttest scores of students involved in the control and experimental groups.

This research utilizes the cross-over design which allows the research subjects to

try out all phases given in this study.

Research Environment

The study was conducted in Pooc National High School – Division of Talisay

City. The school was the work place of the researcher. It was located at Pooc, Talisay

City, Cebu near the coastal areas of Talisay City Cebu. It was a public school catering

to students from grade 7 to Fourth Year. The population size of the school was

approximately 700 students.

 16

Research Subjects

The subjects of this study were all four sections of Grace Seven students,

namely: grade 7 – St. Vincent, grade 7 – St. Uriel, grade 7 – St. Joseph, grade 7 – St.

Augustine. There were 45 students in each section who had Statistics subject in the

fourth quarter, due to absences and inconsistent attendance, the following number

of subjects were gathered from each section: St. Vincent – 39 students, St. Uriel – 42

students, St. Joseph – 41 students, St. Augustine – 39 students. Before the start of the

class, the students were handpicked by the teachers in charge of the enrolment.

They were randomly assigned in each of the four sections. In choosing the

participants for the control and experimental groups, a simple random sampling

was conducted to choose which sections belonged to the control group and which

belonged to the experimental group. Thus, St. Vincent and St. Uriel sections were

chosen as the experimental group and St. Joseph and St. Augustine sections were

chosen as the control group.

In phase 1, St. Vincent and St. Uriel class were chosen as the experimental

group while St. Joseph and St. Augustine class were chosen as the control group,

which was done through simple random sampling.

In phase 2, the control group which consisted of St. Joseph and St. Augustine

classes became the experimental group while the experimental group which

consisted of St. Vincent and St. Uriel classes became the control group.
 17

Pedagogical Approach

Preliminary Procedure

The pretest-posttest instrument was first constructed based on the topic

about the frequency distribution table & mean of grouped data (phase 1) which

consists of 20 items and counting principles (phase 2) which consists of 10 items.

These topics were the last two remaining topics included in the prepared syllabus

by the Math coordinator of Pooc National High School. It was properly validated by

the Statistics expert from the University of the Philippines Cebu. A series of

revisions were made before it was approved and used during the actual conduct of

the study.

A letter was then sent to the principal of the school asking permission to

conduct the said study with the Grade seven students as participants. After the

permission was granted, simple random sampling was done in order to determine

which sections to be considered as the control group and experimental group. The

study was conducted in two phases.

Data Gathering Procedure

The study was divided into two phases: phase one and phase two. Before

phase one was started, a simple random sampling was conducted in order to

determine the control and experimental group.

 18

Phase 1

Experimental Group

On the first meeting, the experimental group was tasked to take the pretest

about the frequency distribution table and the mean of grouped data. Right after

they took the pretest, papers were checked. In the experimental group, St. Vincent

and St. Uriel classes, the teacher, together with the students, identified the learning

intentions they wanted to achieve and the success criteria that helped them identify

if they had achieved the learning intentions. Discussion then followed after setting

the learning intentions and success criteria. Continuation of the discussion was done

on the second meeting. During the discussion, the teacher may use the traffic light

signals to engage the students in the discussion. The students would say green if

they have understood the discussion, yellow if some parts are confusing and points

out what these parts are, and red if they have not understood at all. In this case, the

teacher needs to add more examples to address the concerns of the students for the

specific topic. After everyone gives a green signal signifying that they have

understood, the teacher would then continue with the activity. In the third meeting,

the experimental group was given a series of activities was given by group and

individually. This includes the following: 1.) individual paper and pencil test seat

works, in which the students were allowed to ask some clarifications from the

classmates with the instruction not to ask for the actual answer and were also

allowed to ask clarifications and feedback from the teacher who roamed around

during the entire duration of the seat work; 2.) group reporting, in which the

students were grouped into five groups having 6 – 7 members. Each grouped were
 19

assigned different set of data to solve and then were asked to report it as a group.

During the report, it was instructed beforehand that every member of the group

should participate. Also, the teacher asked several questions during the report to

check whether the student who reported understood their report; and 3.) small

group discussion, this was done as a closing activity after the report. All groups were

asked to evaluate their report. They pointed out the things they think they did

wrong and the things they think they did right. Then, the teacher also gave them a

feedback of their respective reports. On the fourth meeting, The experimental group

did their peer and self-assessment. In the peer and self-assessment part, the

students went back to the learning goals and success criteria that were set at the

start of the week. They then examined themselves whether or not they have

achieved the success criteria and also enumerated the points of difficulty and how

they were able to cope up with it. The posttest was conducted during the fifth

meeting to both experimental and control groups. This posttest was the same as the

pretest. Papers were then checked after the posttest.

Control Group

On the first meeting, the control group was tasked to take the pretest about

the frequency distribution table and the mean of grouped data. Right after they took

the pretest, papers were checked. For the control group, St. Joseph and St. Augustine

classes, discussion followed right after their pretest was checked. The continuation

of the discussion was done in the second meeting. After the discussion, paper and

pencil seatwork was given to the control group on the third meeting and they did

some board work and practice exercises.

 20

During the fourth meeting, the control group was given a quiz based on the

topic about the frequency distribution table which was done individually, after they

took the test, papers were checked.

Posttest was then given to both groups. Papers were then checked right after the Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

posttest. Right after the end of phase 1, phase 2 commenced.

Phase 2

The topic focused on this phase was about the counting principles of

probability. All classes took the pretest during their respective math period. St.

Vincent took it first, followed by St. Uriel, then Joseph, and lastly by St. Augustine.

Right after they took the pretest, papers were checked.

Experimental Group

The experimental group, St. Joseph and St. Augustine class, the teacher

together with the students identified the learning intentions they wanted to achieve

and the success criteria that helped them identify if they had achieved the learning

intentions. Discussion then followed after setting the learning intentions and

success criteria. Continuation of the discussion was done on the second meeting.

During the discussion, the teacher may use the traffic light signals to engage the

students in the discussion. The students would say green if they have understood

the discussion, yellow if some parts are confusing and points out what these parts

are, and red if they have not understood at all. In this case, the teacher needs to add

more examples to address the concerns of the students for the specific topic. After

everyone gives a green signal signifying that they have understood, the teacher

would then continue with the activity. In the third meeting, the experimental group
 21

was given a series of activities was given by group and individually. This includes

the following: 1.) individual paper and pencil test seat works, in which the students

were allowed to ask some clarifications from the classmates with the instruction not

to ask for the actual answer and were also allowed to ask clarifications and feedback

from the teacher who roamed around during the entire duration of the seat work;

2.) group reporting, in which the students were grouped into five groups having 6 –

7 members. Each grouped were assigned different set of data to solve and then were

asked to report it as a group. During the report, it was instructed beforehand that

every member of the group should participate. Also, the teacher asked several

questions during the report to check whether the student who reported understood

their report; and 3.) small group discussion, this was done as a closing activity after

the report. All groups were asked to evaluate their report. They pointed out the

things they think they did wrong and the things they think they did right. Then, the

teacher also gave them a feedback of their respective reports. On the fourth

meeting, The experimental group did their peer and self-assessment. In the peer and

self-assessment part, the students went back to the learning goals and success

criteria that were set at the start of the week. They then examined themselves

whether or not they have achieved the success criteria and also enumerated the

points of difficulty and how they were able to cope up with it. The posttest was

conducted during the fifth meeting to both experimental and control groups. This

posttest was the same as the pretest. Papers were then checked after the posttest.
 22

Control Group

For the control group, St. Vincent and St. Uriel class, discussion followed right

after their pretest papers were checked. For the control group, St. Joseph and St.

Augustine classes, discussion followed right after their pretest was checked. The

continuation of the discussion was done in the second meeting. After the discussion,

paper and pencil seatwork was given to the control group on the third meeting and

they did some board work and practice exercises.

During the fourth meeting, the control group was given a quiz based on the

topic about the frequency distribution table which was done individually, after they

took the test, papers were checked. Posttest was then given to both groups. Papers

were then checked right after the posttest.

Statistical Treatment of Data

To determine the pretest and posttest performances of the control and

experimental group in phase 1 and phase 2, the z-test of single and large sample was

used as shown below:

(ℎ. 𝑚. −𝑎. 𝑚. )
𝑧= 𝑠𝑑 ,
√𝑛

Where,

𝒉. 𝒎. = hypothetical mean

𝒂. 𝒎. = actual mean

𝒔𝒅 = standard deviation

𝒏 = total number of students

 23

To determine the posttest performance of the control and experimental

group in phase 1 and phase 2, the z-test of single and large sample was used as

shown below:

(ℎ. 𝑚. −𝑎. 𝑚. )
𝑧= 𝑠𝑑 ,
√ 𝑛

Where,

𝒉. 𝒎. = hypothetical mean

𝒂. 𝒎. = actual mean

𝒔𝒅 = standard deviation

𝒏 = total number of students

To determine the mean gain from the pretest to the posttest performance of

both the control and experimental group in phase 1 and phase 2, the paired sample

t-test was used as shown below:

𝑑̅
𝑡 = 𝑠 , 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1
𝑑
√𝑛

Where,

𝒕 = T-test result

𝒅𝒇 = degree of freedom

𝒏 = total number of students

𝒔𝒅 = standard deviation

̅ = the summation of the difference between the test scores

𝒅
 24

To determine the difference in the mean gain between the control and

experimental group in phase 1 and phase 2, the independent sample t-test was used

as shown below:

̅̅̅
𝑥1 − ̅̅̅
𝑥2
𝑡= , 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2
𝑠 2 𝑠 2
√ 1 + 2
𝑛1 𝑛2

Where,

𝒕 = T-test result

𝒅𝒇 = degree of freedom

𝒏𝟏 = total number of students for group 1

𝒏𝟐 = total number of students for group 2

𝒔𝟏 = standard deviation for group 1

𝒔𝟐 = standard deviation for group 2

̅̅̅
𝒙𝟏 = the mean score for group 1

̅̅̅
𝒙𝟐 = the mean score for group 2

Level of Significance: 5% level of significance was used for all problems in the study.