This section deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the data

relevant to the impact of the teachers’ teaching strategies to the academic performance

of grade 12 students. This section also involves the discussion relating to the findings of

the researchers on the same subject as well as the applications of the findings.

For a clear and comprehensive presentation of findings, this section is subdivided

into parts following the sequence of the specific objectives of the research paper.

Figures 1-3 Frequency of Age, Sex, and Academic Performance

Tables 1-5 Descriptive Statistics
Tables 6-10 Correlation

Figure 1 shows that 66.2% of the respondents are 16-17 years old and the

remaining 32.8% are 18-19 years old.

AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

18-19 years old

16-17 years old

Figure 1
 Figure 2 shows that 16.2% of the respondents are female and the remaining 83.8%

are male.

SEX OF THE RESPONDENTS

MALE

FEMALE

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows that 42.6% of the respondents got the average of 80-90 and the

remaining 57.4% got 91 and above.

 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (GRADES)

80-90

91-95

Figure 3

The description of teacher’s teaching strategies is subdivided into three parts: the

adjustment of teaching methods, the boredom of the students, and the usage of

technology.

In the first question, 80.6% of the respondents answered yes and 19.4%

answered no. For the second question, 31.3% of the respondents answered yes, and

68.7% are no. And for the third question, there are 86.6 % of the respondents who

answered yes, while 33.4% answered no.

 The effectivity of teacher’s teaching strategies is subdivided into three parts: the

execution of activities, the recitation of the students, and students feeling sleepy.

In the first question, 61.2% of the respondents answered yes and 38.8%

answered no. For the second question, 29.9% of the respondents answered yes, and

70.1% are no. And for the third question, there are 83.6 % of the respondents who

answered yes, while 16.4% answered no.

The influence of teacher’s teaching strategies is subdivided into three parts: the

interest of students, the participation of the students, and interactive mode of teaching.

In the first question, 91.0% of the respondents answered yes and 9.0% answered

no. For the second question, 85.1% of the respondents answered yes, and 14.9% are

no. And for the third question, there are 94.0 % of the respondents who answered yes,

while 6.0% answered no.

The proper implementation of teaching strategies is subdivided into three parts:

the scores on quizzes, the clarity of instructions, and the easy execution of activities.

In the first question, 52.2% of the respondents answered yes and 47.8%

answered no. For the second question, 88.1% of the respondents answered yes, and

11.9% are no. And for the third question, there are 62.7% of the respondents who

answered yes, while 35.8% answered no.

 The academic achievement is subdivided into three parts: the learning of

students, the helpfulness of strategies, and the evaluation of exams.

In the first question, 80.6% of the respondents answered yes and 9.4% answered

no. For the second question, 82.1% of the respondents answered yes, and 17.9% are

no. And for the third question, there are 76.1 % of the respondents who answered yes,

while 23.9% answered no.

Table 6 shows the correlation between the academic performance and adjustment

of teaching strategies, with r-value of 0.344 which describes a low positive correlation. A

p-value of 0.004 is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is

significant relationship between the academic performance and adjustment of teaching

strategies. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not

have an impact to the adjustment of teaching strategies was rejected.

Next, shows the correlation between the academic performance and boredom of the

students, with r-value of 0.103 which describes a low positive correlation. A p-value of

0.404 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is no significant

relationship between the academic performance and boredom of the students. Thus, the

null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an impact to the

recitation of students was failed to reject.

While the other one shows the correlation between the academic performance and

the usage of technology, with r-value of 0.-014 which describes a low positive correlation.

A p-value of 0.909 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is
no significant relationship between the academic performance and the usage of

technology. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not

have an impact to the recitation of students was failed to reject.

Table 7 shows the correlation between the academic performance and execution

of activities, with r-value of -0.029 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A p-

value of 0.811 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is no

significant relationship between the academic performance and execution of activities.

Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an

impact to the recitation of students was failed to reject.

Next, shows the correlation between the academic performance and recitation of

students, with r-value of 0.357 which describes a low positive correlation. A p-value of

.003 is less than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is a significant

relationship between the academic performance and recitation of the students. Thus, the

null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an impact to the

recitation of students was rejected.

While the other one shows the correlation between the academic performance and

sleep with r-value of -0.267 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A p-value of

0.028 is less than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is significant

relationship between the academic performance and the students feeling sleepy. Thus,

the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an impact to

the students feeling sleepy was rejected.

 Table 8 shows the correlation between the academic performance and interest of

students with r-value of -0.045 which describes a low positive correlation. A p-value of

0.708 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is no significant

relationship between the academic performance and interest of the students. Thus, the

null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an impact to the

interest of students was failed to reject.

Next, shows the correlation between the academic performance and participation

of students with r-value of 0.145 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A p-

value of 0.236 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is no

significant relationship between the academic performance and participation of the

students. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not

have an impact to the participation of students was failed to reject.

While the other one shows the correlation between the academic performance and

interactive mode of teaching with r-value of 0.164 which describes a negligible positive

correlation. A p-value of 0.183 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means

that there is no significant relationship between the academic performance and interactive

mode of teaching. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance

does not have an impact to the interactive mode of teaching was failed to reject.

Table 9 shows the correlation between the academic performance and the score

on quizzes, with r-value of .217 which decribes a neglible positive correlation. A p-value
of .075 is greater than the .05 level of significance which means that there is significant

relationship between the academic performance and the score on quizzes. Thus, the null

hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an impact to the score

on quizzes was failed to reject.

Next, shows the correlation between the academic performance and the clarity of

instruction, with r-value of -.147 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A p-

value of .233 is greater than the .05 level of significant relationship between the academic

performance and instruction. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no

significant relationship between academic performance and the clarity of instruction was

failed to reject.

While the other one shows the correlation between the academic performance and

ease of execution of ativities, with r-value of .154 which describes a negligible positive

correlation. And a p-value of .210 greater than the .05 level of significance which means

that there is significant relationship between the academic performance and ease of

execution of activities. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant

relationship between academic performance and ease of execution of activities was failed

to reject.

Table 10 shows the correlation between the academic performance and learning

of the students, with r-value of 0.145 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A

p-value of 0.238 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is

no significant relationship between the academic performance and the learning of the
students. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not

have an impact to the learning of the students was failed to reject.

Next, shows the correlation between the academic performance and helpfulness

of the strategies with r-value of 0.225 which describes a negligible positive correlation. A

p-value of 0.065 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is

no significant relationship between the academic performance and helpfulness of

strategies. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not

have an impact to the helpfulness of the strategies was failed to reject.

While the other one shows the correlation between the academic performance and

evaluation of exams with r-value of 0.558 which describes a low positive correlation. A p-

value of 0.640 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is no

significant relationship between the academic performance and the evaluation of exams.

Thus, the null hypothesis which states that academic performance does not have an

impact to the evaluation of exams was failed to reject.