Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 7 – uploaded by Wardah D. Guimba

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 7. Distribution of SMCC and NNVS 1” Year Students according to Grade Rating. In the same table, the distribution of NNVS students according to their grade rating is viewed. It can be seen that there are 5 (10%) students who got a Very Good rating and 12 (24%) with Good rating. Furthermore, 9 (18%) of them disclosed to have performed Fair while 12 (24%) got a Poor rating in their grade. There are also 3 (6%) who gained a Passing rate. However, there are 9 (18%) students who failed the subject. As a result, the mean grade of the students is 79.32, described as Poor performance. Although there are students who performed better in the subject, there are only few of them in the class. Accordingly, this finding creates a notion that there are underlying problems in the performance of most of the students, particularly who performed poor and even failed the subject. The performance of students also does not reflect the level of competence of NNVS teachers. This also signifies that there is a discrepancy happening in the teaching-learning process of NNVS. As an implication, students must strive harder to perform better in Mathematics. Moreover, teachers should also check closer this scenario and bust the culprit behind it. Table 8. Test Statistics of the Difference between Competencies of NNVS and SMCC Respondents.

Table 7 Distribution of SMCC and NNVS 1” Year Students according to Grade Rating. In the same table, the distribution of NNVS students according to their grade rating is viewed. It can be seen that there are 5 (10%) students who got a Very Good rating and 12 (24%) with Good rating. Furthermore, 9 (18%) of them disclosed to have performed Fair while 12 (24%) got a Poor rating in their grade. There are also 3 (6%) who gained a Passing rate. However, there are 9 (18%) students who failed the subject. As a result, the mean grade of the students is 79.32, described as Poor performance. Although there are students who performed better in the subject, there are only few of them in the class. Accordingly, this finding creates a notion that there are underlying problems in the performance of most of the students, particularly who performed poor and even failed the subject. The performance of students also does not reflect the level of competence of NNVS teachers. This also signifies that there is a discrepancy happening in the teaching-learning process of NNVS. As an implication, students must strive harder to perform better in Mathematics. Moreover, teachers should also check closer this scenario and bust the culprit behind it. Table 8. Test Statistics of the Difference between Competencies of NNVS and SMCC Respondents.

Related Figures (9)

Table 1. Statement Distribution according to Teaching Method. Included in the instruments is the Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (CBPAST)
Table 1. Statement Distribution according to Teaching Method. Included in the instruments is the Competency-Based Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (CBPAST)
Table 2. Qualitative Scale for Teaching Methods. Table 3. Qualitative Scale for Teaching Competencies.
Table 2. Qualitative Scale for Teaching Methods. Table 3. Qualitative Scale for Teaching Competencies.
Table 4. Qualitative Scale for Students’ Performance.
Table 4. Qualitative Scale for Students’ Performance.
4.4. Data Analysis
4.4. Data Analysis
Table 6. Mean Results of the Respondents’ Competence in the Seven Domains of the National Competency-Based Teacher Standards. r) Shown in Table 6 is the summary of the respondents competence in the domains establish as NCBTS. It can be seen that the respondents are highly proficient in the domains social regard for earning, learning environment, personal, social growth and professional development, curriculum content and pedagogy, diversity of learners, and planning, assessing and reporting. While in community linkages they are proficient. Therefore, the NNVS teachers can be described as competent teachers. Considering they are Mathematics teachers, they have to have instilled within their practices the domains used as bases to define them as teachers. Fortunately, NNVS teachers show that they have fulfilled it. NNVS students in accordance to their grade in Mathematics. Using the grading system of DepEd, their grades are described with a rating. The data shows that there are 2 (4.9) students who got a rating of Very Good which means that their grade fell on the range 91-95. There are 12 (29.3%) students who got grades within 86-90 described as Good. Furthermore, 19 (46.3%) students have Fair grades in Mathematics which belongs to the range 81-85. Finally, 8 (19.5%) of them performed Poor in the subject and received grades 76-80. Therefore, there are near to half (46.3%) students who got grades within 81-85 which are rated as Fair. The mean of the students’ grades resulted as 84.205 which is also rated as Fair. This means that their performance in Mathematics is considerable although it is not that better. This implies that students should improve their performance and change their study habits. Moreover, SMCC teachers should look into the reasons that affect the students’ performance. They should confirm as well if their teaching methods affect the students’ learning because the finding signifies that their high proficiency and competence do not reconcile with the students’ level of performance in Mathematics.
Table 6. Mean Results of the Respondents’ Competence in the Seven Domains of the National Competency-Based Teacher Standards. r) Shown in Table 6 is the summary of the respondents competence in the domains establish as NCBTS. It can be seen that the respondents are highly proficient in the domains social regard for earning, learning environment, personal, social growth and professional development, curriculum content and pedagogy, diversity of learners, and planning, assessing and reporting. While in community linkages they are proficient. Therefore, the NNVS teachers can be described as competent teachers. Considering they are Mathematics teachers, they have to have instilled within their practices the domains used as bases to define them as teachers. Fortunately, NNVS teachers show that they have fulfilled it. NNVS students in accordance to their grade in Mathematics. Using the grading system of DepEd, their grades are described with a rating. The data shows that there are 2 (4.9) students who got a rating of Very Good which means that their grade fell on the range 91-95. There are 12 (29.3%) students who got grades within 86-90 described as Good. Furthermore, 19 (46.3%) students have Fair grades in Mathematics which belongs to the range 81-85. Finally, 8 (19.5%) of them performed Poor in the subject and received grades 76-80. Therefore, there are near to half (46.3%) students who got grades within 81-85 which are rated as Fair. The mean of the students’ grades resulted as 84.205 which is also rated as Fair. This means that their performance in Mathematics is considerable although it is not that better. This implies that students should improve their performance and change their study habits. Moreover, SMCC teachers should look into the reasons that affect the students’ performance. They should confirm as well if their teaching methods affect the students’ learning because the finding signifies that their high proficiency and competence do not reconcile with the students’ level of performance in Mathematics.
Table 5. Mean Results of the Respondents’ Extent of Practice of the Inquiry Approach. 5.2. Teaching Competence
Table 5. Mean Results of the Respondents’ Extent of Practice of the Inquiry Approach. 5.2. Teaching Competence
Table 10. Independent Samples Test of the Students’ Mathematics Performance in NNVS and SMCC. comparability or homogeneity of the two groups, NNVS and SMCC. The null hypothesis Ho: “The variances of the two groups are the same” for Levene’s Test is rejected (F=16.720, p<0.05). The results show that the variances of the two Table 10 shows the results of the ¢-test independent samples test regarding the Mathematics performance of NNVS and SMCC students, represented by their grades in the subject. The Levene’s Test was used for determining the Reflected in Table 9 is the test statistics showing whether or not there is a significant difference between the extent of practice of the teaching methods among NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers. As shown in the table, the p-value is 0.917. When compared to the level of significance 0.05, it is much greater which means that the difference between the respondents’ extent of practice of the teaching methods is not significantly considerable. Thus, the null hypothesis “There is no significant difference between the extent of practice of the teaching methods among NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers” is accepted. It further signifies that the NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers use teaching methods identified in this study at similar extent. This section shows the results of the independent samples tests of the Mathematics teachers’ teaching methods and competencies and the students’ Mathematics performance. Mann-Whitney U test, a nonparametric statistical tool, was used to determine if there is significant difference between the respondents’ teaching methods and competencies since the samples were less than 30 and that the data is not normally distributed. T-test for independent sample means was used to determine if there is significant difference between the students’ Mathematics performance, represented by their grades.
Table 10. Independent Samples Test of the Students’ Mathematics Performance in NNVS and SMCC. comparability or homogeneity of the two groups, NNVS and SMCC. The null hypothesis Ho: “The variances of the two groups are the same” for Levene’s Test is rejected (F=16.720, p<0.05). The results show that the variances of the two Table 10 shows the results of the ¢-test independent samples test regarding the Mathematics performance of NNVS and SMCC students, represented by their grades in the subject. The Levene’s Test was used for determining the Reflected in Table 9 is the test statistics showing whether or not there is a significant difference between the extent of practice of the teaching methods among NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers. As shown in the table, the p-value is 0.917. When compared to the level of significance 0.05, it is much greater which means that the difference between the respondents’ extent of practice of the teaching methods is not significantly considerable. Thus, the null hypothesis “There is no significant difference between the extent of practice of the teaching methods among NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers” is accepted. It further signifies that the NNVS and SMCC Mathematics teachers use teaching methods identified in this study at similar extent. This section shows the results of the independent samples tests of the Mathematics teachers’ teaching methods and competencies and the students’ Mathematics performance. Mann-Whitney U test, a nonparametric statistical tool, was used to determine if there is significant difference between the respondents’ teaching methods and competencies since the samples were less than 30 and that the data is not normally distributed. T-test for independent sample means was used to determine if there is significant difference between the students’ Mathematics performance, represented by their grades.
Table 9. Test Statistics of the Difference between Teaching Methods of NNVS and SMCC Respondents. Table 8 made the previous implication clearer. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, the resulting value is 10.00 with p- value of 0.599. Since p is greater than the significance level 0.05, then the null hypothesis “There is no significant difference between the level of teaching competency of NNVS teachers and SMCC teachers” is accepted. This means that their proficiency is comparable and has no significant difference.
Table 9. Test Statistics of the Difference between Teaching Methods of NNVS and SMCC Respondents. Table 8 made the previous implication clearer. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, the resulting value is 10.00 with p- value of 0.599. Since p is greater than the significance level 0.05, then the null hypothesis “There is no significant difference between the level of teaching competency of NNVS teachers and SMCC teachers” is accepted. This means that their proficiency is comparable and has no significant difference.
Related topics:
MathematicsTeacher EducationMedicineMathematics PerformancePublic and Private Schools
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved