CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION, DATA ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presents the data collected from the experiment assessing

the efficacy of hands-on science experiments among Grade 11 STEM students

at Immaculate Heart of Mary Academy. The data will be analyzed and interpreted

to compare the learning outcomes of the students who participated in the hands-

on science experiment with those who received traditional learning methods. The

data are presented in a tabular format, aligning with the particular question raised

in the statement of the problem.

Background of the Respondents

Table 1.1
Age of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percentage

16 - 17 130 86.7%

18 - 19 11 7.3%

20 - 21 9 6%

In terms of age distribution, out of a total of 150 respondents, the majority,

comprising 130 individuals or 86.7 percent, fell within the 16-17 age bracket.

Meanwhile, there were 11 respondents, accounting for 7.3 percent, who were
between 18 and 19 years old. Furthermore, 9 participants, constituting 6 percent,

were aged 20-21.

Table 1.2

Gender of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage

MALE 71 47.3%

FEMALE 79 52.7%

TOTAL 150 100%

Out of the entire respondent pool, 71 or 47.3 percent were identified as

male, whereas 79 individuals, comprising 52.7 percent, identified as female,

highlighting a majority of female respondents.

Table 1.3

Grade and Section of the Respondents

Grade and Section Frequency Percentage

11 STEM A 30 20%

11 STEM B 30 20%

11 STEM C 30 20%

11 STEM D 30 20%

11 STEM E 30 20%

TOTAL 150 100%

 The table 1.3 shows the distribution of respondents by grade and section.

All the respondents are from grade 11 STEM. There are 150 respondents across

five sections, namely STEM A, STEM B, STEM C, STEM D, and STEM E. Each

section contributes 30 over 150 is equal to 0.2 or 20 percent to the total number

of respondents.

Test of Significant Difference Between Results of the Pre-test Scores

Table 2.1 presents the comparative analysis of the Pre-test scores

between hands-on experiment and traditional learning method, aiming to assess

their comparability. Additionally, a t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means was

conducted to reinforce the findings.

Table 2.1

Significant Difference Between Results of the Pre-test Scores

Mea Decisio Interpretati

N SD T p-value
n n on
Hands-on
Science 7 11.3
3.0
Experime 5 5
nt 2.8642317 0.0054365 Reject Very
09 28 H0 Significant
Tradition
7 3.2
al 9.99
5 7
Learning

The table 2.1 shows the results of a t-test comparing the pre-test scores of

the hands-on science experiment group mean of 11.34666667 with the traditional
learning method group mean of 9.986666667. The p-value of 0.0054336528 is

less than 0.05, which means the researchers can reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference in the pre-test scores

between the two groups.

Test of Significant Difference Between Results of the Post-test Scores

Table 2.2 displays a comparative examination of post-test scores between

the hands-on experiment and traditional learning methods, with the objective of

evaluating their similarity. Furthermore, a t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

was employed to support these findings.

Table 2.2

Significant Difference Between Results of the Post-test Scores

Mea Decisio Interpretati

N SD t p-value
n n on
Hands-on
Science 7 13.8 2.3
Experime 5 4 5
nt 3.6076318 0.0005584 Reject Very
Tradition 16 81 H0 Significant
7 1.8
al 12.6
5 0
Learning

As shown in Table 2.2, the results likely showcases a statistically

significant difference between the groups due to the low p-value mentioned

which contradicts the null hypothesis. This suggests that students exposed to the
hands-on experiments group with a mean score of 13.84 might have achieved

post-test scores demonstrably different from those who didn't which is engaged

in a traditional learning group with a mean score of 12.6.

An Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test Scores Across Proficiency Levels

Table 3 delves into examining the influence of hands-on science

experiment engagement on the academic achievements of Grade 11 students at

Immaculate Heart of Mary Academy, focusing on the assessment through pre-

test and post-test scores within various proficiency tiers.

Table 3

Comparison Pre-test and Post-test Scores Across Proficiency Levels

Range of Categories Pre- Pre-test Post-test Post-test

the
Score test Percentag Frequency Percentage

Frequency e

18-20 Excellent 2 1.33% 4 2.66%

15-17 Very 15 10% 49 32.66%

Good

10-14 Good 17 11.33% 91 60.66%

5-9 Fair 64 42.66% 6 4%

0-4 Pair 52 34% 0 0%

 TOTAL: 150 100% 150 100%

Based on the data presented in the table 3, there is positive evidence to

suggest that participation in hands-on science experiments improved the

academic performance of Grade 11 STEM students at Immaculate Heart of Mary

Academy. Overall, a significant increase in the percentage of students scoring in

the "Very Good" and "Good" categories is indicated by the post-test results.

Notably, the percentage in the "Good" category rose from 11.13 percent to 60.66

percent. There is a clear shift away from the lower proficiency levels "Fair" and

"Poor” towards the higher proficiency levels "Very Good" and "Good following

participation in the hands-on science experiments. While the number of students

scoring in the highest category "Excellent" did increase slightly, the most

dramatic improvement is seen in the "Very Good" category, which increased by

over 22 percentage points.

 CHAPTER III

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will thoroughly discuss the results from Chapter II, focusing

on how well hands-on science experiments and traditional learning methods help

students learn. It will cover the goals and research questions from Chapter 1,

showing which method is better for helping students understand and remember

information.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. What is the background of the respondents in terms of :

1.1 Age

The analysis of respondent demographics, specifically age

distribution, revealed that out of the 150 participants surveyed, the

largest segment, consisting of 130 individuals or 86.7 percent, fell

within the 16-17 age bracket. Additionally, there were 11 respondents,

making up 7.3 percent, who were aged between 18 and 19 years old.

Furthermore, 9 participants, constituting 6 percent, fell into the 20-21

age group.

1.2 Gender
 The analysis of respondent demographics regarding gender

distribution reveals that out of the entire respondent pool, 71

individuals, accounting for 47.3 percent, were identified as male, while

79 individuals, comprising 52.7 percent, identified as female. This

suggests a slight majority of female respondents in the study.

1.3 Grade and Section

The analysis of respondent demographics regarding grade and

section distribution indicates that all respondents are from grade 11

STEM. Among the 150 respondents, they are evenly distributed across

five sections: STEM A, STEM B, STEM C, STEM D, and STEM E, with

each section contributing 30 respondents, equivalent to 20 percent of

the total sample size.

2. Is there a significant difference between the results of the

experimental group (hands-on experiment) and the control group

(traditional learning)?

2.1. Pre-test

The findings suggest a notable contrast in the pre-test scores

between the experimental group, engaged in hands-on science

experiments, and the control group, utilizing traditional learning methods.

Specifically, the mean pre-test score for the experimental group was

11.35, while for the control group, it was 9.99. This discrepancy was

statistically significant, as evidenced by a p-value of 0.0054, which falls

below the conventional threshold of 0.05 for significance. Consequently,

 the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a meaningful distinction in the

initial performance levels of the two groups.

2.2. Post-test

The analysis of post-test results in Table 2.2 indicates a probable

statistically significant disparity between the experimental group, engaged

in hands-on experiments, and the control group employing traditional

learning methods. The obtained low p-value contradicts the null

hypothesis, suggesting that the mean post-test score of 13.84 for the

hands-on experiment group markedly differs from the mean score of 12.6

for the traditional learning group. This implies that students exposed to

hands-on experiments potentially achieved post-test scores that were

notably distinct from those of their peers engaged in traditional learning

approaches.

3. Does the retention of information differ between grade 11 STEM

students who participate in hands-on science experiments and those

who receive traditional learning?

The analysis of Table 3, which explores the impact of hands-on

science experiments on the academic performance of Grade 11 STEM

students at Immaculate Heart of Mary Academy, provides compelling

evidence suggesting a positive influence. The post-test results reveal a

significant increase in the percentage of students achieving "Very Good"

and "Good" proficiency levels, indicating an improvement in retention of

information following participation in hands-on experiments. Particularly

 noteworthy is the substantial rise in the "Good" category, from 11.13

percent to 60.66 percent, signifying a shift away from lower proficiency

levels towards higher ones. Although the increase in the "Excellent"

category is marginal, the most pronounced enhancement is observed in

the "Very Good" category, demonstrating a notable improvement of over

22 percentage points.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The age demographics, encompassing 150 participants, illustrate a

predominant representation of individuals within the 16-17 age bracket,

comprising 86.7% of the surveyed population, indicating a significant focus

on this age group within the research context.

2. The examination of respondent demographics concerning gender

distribution, encompassing 150 participants, indicates a slight majority of

female respondents, comprising 52.7% of the surveyed population,

underscoring the importance of considering gender dynamics within the

research context.

3. Regarding grade and section distribution, reveals that all 150 participants

are from grade 11 STEM, evenly distributed across five sections,

highlighting a comprehensive representation of the STEM student body

within the research sample.

4. The comparative analysis of pre-test scores between hands-on

experiment and traditional learning methods, reinforced by a t-test, reveals

 a statistically significant difference in performance, with the hands-on

experiment group exhibiting a higher mean score (11.35) compared to the

traditional learning group (9.99), indicating the effectiveness of hands-on

learning approaches in enhancing academic outcomes.

5. The analysis of post-test scores indicates a statistically significant

difference between the experimental group, engaged in hands-on

experiments with a mean score of 13.84, and the control group utilizing

traditional learning methods with a mean score of 12.6, underscoring the

effectiveness of hands-on experimentation in improving academic

performance.

6. Participation in hands-on science experiments notably enhances the

academic performance of Grade 11 STEM students at Immaculate Heart

of Mary Academy, as evidenced by a significant increase in the

percentage of students achieving "Very Good" and "Good" proficiency

levels, highlighting the efficacy of hands-on learning in promoting better

retention of information.
Recommendations:

Incorporate hands-on science experiments as a standard practice in STEM

curriculum: Given the efficacy demonstrated by the study, it is recommended to

integrate hands-on experiments into the regular curriculum for Grade 11 STEM

students at Immaculate Heart of Mary Academy.

Provide professional development for educators: Offer training and workshops for

teachers to enhance their skills in designing and implementing hands-on science

experiments effectively, ensuring that they can optimize the learning experience

for students.

Allocate resources for laboratory facilities and equipment: Invest in the

development and maintenance of well-equipped laboratory facilities to support

hands-on experimentation, providing students with the necessary resources to

engage actively in scientific inquiry.

Foster collaboration with industry partners and research institutions: Establish

partnerships with local industries and research institutions to provide students

with real-world exposure to scientific practices and encourage interdisciplinary

learning opportunities.

Conduct longitudinal studies to assess long-term impact: Undertake follow-up

research to evaluate the sustained effects of hands-on science experiments on

students' academic performance, career aspirations, and overall scientific literacy

beyond the immediate scope of the study.