Learning
Session
Document No.NTTA-TM1-07
SMAW NC II Date Developed: Issued by:
April 17, 2018
Performing Grove
Developed by: Page 1 of 61
Welding on Carbon
Steel Pipe Khen A. Vios
Revision # 000
Training Activity Matrix
Facilities/To Venue
Date &
Training Activity Trainee ols and Remarks
(Workstation Time
Equipment
/ Area)
June 5,
Prayer
Institutional 2018
Recap of Activities
All Learning 8:00 Students
Unfreezing Activities Laptop
trainees Resource AM to are ready for
Feedback of Speaker
Area 8:30 today’s
Training projector
AM activities
Rejoinder/Motivatio
n
CBLM Learning
Laptop Resource
Read information Projector Area
sheet No 2.1-2 on
Pipe Preparation
Group 1
Document No.NTTA-TM1-07
SMAW NC II Date Developed: Issued by:
April 17, 2018
Performing Grove
Developed by: Page 2 of 61
Welding on Carbon
Steel Pipe Khen A. Vios
Revision # 000
CBLM Learning
Laptop Resource
Read information Projector Area
sheetNo 2.1-3 on Group 2
Weld Passes Salvacion June 5,
Ready to
Study and perform Jimbo Welding 2018
proceed to
task sheet No.2.1- 8:30 to
Kent machine 4:30PM
the next
3 on Practice Weld and activity
Arvie
accessories
Lyn
Electrode Practical
Practical Work Area
Work Area
Jig/Table
Testing
plate
Study information CBLM Learning
sheetNo. 2.1-4 on Laptop Resource June 5,
Group 3 Projector Area 2018
2G Vertical
Welding Welding 8:30AM
Cardo to
machine Ready to
Micheal 5:00 PM
Study and perform Electrode proceed to
Job Sheet No.2.1- Sherwen the next
Practical June 6,
Pipe activity
4 on Welding 2G Jekem Work Area 2018
Vertical Position Jig/Table 8:00AM
Gabreil to
Grinder 2:30PM
Document No.NTTA-TM1-07
SMAW NC II Date Developed: Issued by:
April 17, 2018
Performing Grove
Developed by: Page 3 of 61
Welding on Carbon
Steel Pipe Khen A. Vios
Revision # 000
Document No.NTTA-TM1-07
SMAW NC II Date Developed: Issued by:
April 17, 2018
1 Yap, Ri chard B. C C C C C C C C C
2 Cy, Je thro H. C C C C C C C C C
3 Bucol, Gle e n V. C C C C C C C C C
4 Dabodabo, June A. C C C C C C C C C
5 De atras, Ke n B. C C C C C C C C C
6 Ge ne ral, Salvaci on E. C C C C C C C C C
7 Jum awan, Ji m bo L. C C C C C C C C C
8 Ki lat, Ke nt B. C C C C C C C C C
9 Lantaca, Arvi e N. C C C C C C C C C
10 Ogdol, Lyn A. C C C C C C C C C
11 Ogoc, Cardo P. C C C C C C C C C
12 Ontoy, Mi che al A. C C C C C C C C C
13 Pagalan, She rwi n B. C C C C C C C C C
14 Patoy, Je k e m D. C C C C C C C C C
15 Qui m no, Gabri e l D. C C C C C C C C C
Legend: C competent
Not Competent
Document No.NTTA-TM1-07
SMAW NC II Date Developed: Issued by:
April 17, 2018
Pre- Post-
Student Test Test
Score Score
1 25 22 Graph of Pretest and Posttest Scores
45
2 25 34
40
3 17 28
35
4 24 30 30
5 29 40 25
6 27 38 20
15
7 20 29
10
8 28 33 5
9 30 31 0
Pre-Test Score Post-Test Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
10 27 32
11 25 26 Analysis
12 28 36
Posttest scores, in red line, is generally higher than the
13 32 34 pretest scores, in blue line although four students did not show an
14 30 33 increase in test scores.
15 33 36
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Pre - test scores Post - test scores
Mean 26.66666667 32.13333333
Variance 18.0952381 21.98095238
Observations 15 15
Pearson Correlation 0.539614661
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 14
t Stat -4.915507874
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000113807
t Critical one-tail 1.761310136
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000227613
t Critical two-tail 2.144786688
Analysis
The table shows that the t Stat is equal to -4.92.
This is the mean difference between the posttest and pretest
scores. The p-value is 0.0002 which is less than .05 which
means that the test scores are significantly different. Mean
posttest scores are therefore higher than pretest scores.
Yap, Richard B.
Cy, Jethro H.
Bucol, Glen V.
Dabodabo, June A.
Deatras, Ken B.
General, Salvacion E.
Jumawan, Jimbo L.
Kilat, Kent B.
Lantaca, Arvie N.
Ogdol, Lyn A.
Ogoc, Cardo P.
Ontoy, Micheal A.