Chapter 4and 5 Edit

70

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data

gathered in this study.

1. Personal Information/Profile

1.1 Age

Table 2.1

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Teacher- Respondents According to Age

Age Frequency Percentage56-60 years old 3 4.0051-55 years old 5 6.6746-50 years old 4 5.3341-45 years old 15 20.0036-40 years old 16 21.3331-35 years old 26 34.6726-30 years old 5 6.6721-25 years old 1 1.33Total 75 100.00Mean Age: 38.73

The table shows that majority of the respondents belong to the

age bracket of 31 -35 or 34.67 percent of the total number. It

has a mean age of 38.73. This implies that the teacher-

respondents are in their early thirties and that they are

relatively young, vigorous and capable of performing the job.

71

1.2 Gender

Table 2.2

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Gender

Gender Frequency PercentageMale 6 8.00Female 69 92.00Total 75 100.00

Table 2.2 presents the gender of the teacher respondents.

As shown in the table, there are 69 or 92.00 percent female

teachers 6 or 8.00 percent are male science teachers. This is

attributed to the fact that teaching as a profession is dominated

by females.

1.3 Highest Educational Attainment

Table 2.3

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Highest Educational Attainment

Highest Educational Qualification

Frequency Percentage

BEED 19 25.33BSED 9 12.00MaEd 41 54.67Ph.D 6 8.00Total 75 100.00

The table shows that 41 or 54.67% are Masters degree holder

and 19 or 25.33% are BEEd graduate. Furthermore, 9 or 12% are

BSEd graduate and only 6 or 8% are Ph.D. graduate. This implies

72

that the respondents are equipped with the necessary knowledge

and skills since they had finished their master’s degree.

1.4 Grade Level

Table 2.4

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Grade Level

Grade Level Frequency PercentageGrade VI 18 24.00Grade V 21 28.00Grade IV 13 17.33Grade III 23 30.67

Total 75 100.00

As shown in the table, 23 or 30.67% are teaching in grade

III and 21 or 28% are teachers of grade V. Moreover, 18 or 24%

are teaching in grade VI and 13 or 17.33% are teachers of grade

IV. It can be said that most of the respondents in this study are

grade III teachers.

73

1.5 Number of Years in Service

Table 2.5

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Number of Years in Service

Number of Years Frequency Percentage36-40 0 0.0031-35 2 2.6726-30 1 1.3321-25 1 1.3316-20 8 10.6711-15 11 14.676-10 20 26.671-5 32 42.67

Total 75 100.00

As shown in the table, 32 or 42.67% have been teaching for

1-5 years; 20 or 26.67% are teaching for 6-10 years and 11 or

14.67% have been in the teaching profession for 11-15 years.

This implies that the teacher respondents are still young in

the profession.

1.6 Attendance to In-Service trainings and seminars in Science

Table 2.6

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Attendance to In-Service trainings

and seminars in Science

Frequency PercentageNational 12 16.00Regional 16 21.33Division 26 34.67

School Level 16 21.33Others 5 6.67Total 75 100.00

74

The table reveals that 26 or 34.67% have trainings at the

division level, 16 or 21.33% obtained science trainings at the

regional and school levels, respectively. Moreover, 12 or 16%

have national trainings and 5 or 6.67% obtained their trainings

at other venues.

From this data, it can be inferred that the science

trainings of the respondents have been obtained at the division

level.

This implies that the respondents are provided with

opportunities to upgrade their skills and gain more knowledge

through these seminars thus ensuring quality instruction on their

part as teachers.

1.7 School Assignment

Table 2.7

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to School Assignment

School Assignment Frequency PercentageTuguegarao East Central School 17 22.67Tuguegarao West Central School 12 16.00Tuguegarao North Central School 12 16.00Tuguegarao Northeast Central

School7 9.33

Annafunan Elementary School 12 16.00Linao Elementary School 5 6.67

Cataggamman Elementary School 10 13.33Total 75 100

75

The table shows the distribution of teacher-respondents in

the four district in the Division of Tuguegarao City.

There are 12 or 22.67% assigned in Tuguegarao East Central

School, 12 or 16.00% in Tuguegarao West Central School,

Tuguegarao North Central School and Annafunan Elementary School.

7 or 9.33% from Tuguegarao 10 or 13.33% and 5 or 6.67% from Linao

Elementary School and Cataggamman Elementary School respectively.

1.7 Number of Subject Preparation

Table 2.8

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to Number of Subject Preparation

Number of Subject Preparation Frequency Percentage1 4 5.332 11 14.673 24 32.004 36 48.00

Total 75 100.00

As shown in the table, 36 or 48% have 4 subject

preparations, 24 or 32% have 3 preparations, 11 or 14.67% have 2

subject preparation and 4 or 5.33% have 1 preparation. It can be

inferred that most of the respondents have 4 preparations which

is generally the case in the elementary level because of the lack

of teachers vis-à-vis the growing number of pupils.

2.1 Personal Science Teaching Efficacy

76

Table 3.1

Mean and Descriptive Interpretation on theLevel of Science Teaching Self Efficiency

of the Respondents

Items Teachers School Heads Item MeanA. Personal Science Teaching Self Efficacy Mean D.I. Mean D.I.

1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science 4.63 Very high

4.66 Very high

4.65

2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. 4.36 Very high

4.44 Very high

4.40

3. I know the steps to teach science concepts effectively.

3.95 High 4.16 High 4.06

4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities 3.84 High 4.06 High 3.955. I generally teach science effectively 3.92 High 4.12 High 4.026. I understand science concepts well enough to be

effective in teaching elementary science.4.04 High 4.25 Very

high4.15

7. I find it easy to use manipulative to explain to students why science works.

4.04 High 4.30 Very high

4.17

8. I am typically able to answer students’ science questions.


4.27

9. I am confident that i have the necessary skills to teach science


4.15

10. When a student has difficulty in understanding science concept, I am competent on how to help the students understand it better


4.15

11. When teaching science, I usually welcome student questions

4.32 Very high

4.48 Very high

4.4

12. I know what to do to turn students on to science 3.92 High 4.31 Very high

4.12

Over-all Mean 4.10 High 4.31 Very high

4.21

The table shows that the two groups of respondents have the

same assessment with each other. Item 1 “I am continually finding

better ways to teach science is the highest with a category mean

of 4.65 or very high. On the other hand the item “I am very

effective in monitoring science activities” is the lowest with a

category mean of 3.84.

77

This implies that the teacher respondents are continually

adopting different strategies suited to the level of the pupils

to make teaching and learning in science more effective.

2.2 Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy

Table 3.2

Mean and Descriptive Interpretation on the Level of Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy of the Respondents

Items Teachers School Heads Item Mean

Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy Mean D.I. Mean D.I.1. When a student does better than usual in science, it is

often because the teacher exerted much effort4.13 High 4.39 Very high 4.2

62. When the science grades of the students improve, it is

often due to their teacher’s having found a more effective teaching approach..

4.21 Very high

4.36 Very high 4.29

3. If students are achieving in science, it is most likely due to effective science teaching.

4.25 Very high

4.43 Very high 4.34

4. The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be overcome by good teaching

4.25 Very high

4.40 Very high 4.33

5. The low science achievement of students cannot be blamed on their teachers

4.00 High 4.38 Very high 4.19

6. When a low-achieving child progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention given by the teacher

4.03 High 4.09 high 4.06

7. Increased effort in science tecahing produces change in students’ science achievement.

4.21 Very high

4.29 Very high 4.25

8. The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in science

4.09 High 4.17 High 4.13

9. Students’ achievement in science is directly related to their teachers’ effectiveness in science teaching

4.03 High 4.13 High 4.08

10. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in school, it is because of good performance of the child’s teacher


11. Given a choice, I would invite the principal to evaluate my science teaching.


Over-all Mean 4.17 High 4.30 Very high 4.24

78

The table shows that the items “If students are achieving in

science, it is most likely due to effective science teaching”,

and “The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be

overcome by good teaching”, was rated by the teacher respondents

the highest with an item mean of 4.25 or very high self efficacy

while the lowest is item 10 “When a low-achieving child

progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention given

by the teacher.

On the other hand item 3, “If students are achieving in

science, it is most likely due to effective science teaching, was

rated by the school head as the highest with an item mean of 4.43

or very high and the item “When a low-achieving child progresses

in science, it is usually due to extra attention given by the

teacher”, is the lowest with an item mean of 4.09 or high.

The item “If students are achieving in science, it is most

likely due to effective science teaching” was rated the highest

with a category mean of 4.34 or very high and the lowest is item

“When a low-achieving child progresses in science, it is usually

due to extra attention given by the teacher” with a category mean

of 4.06 or high.

This implies that teachers’ effectiveness and efficiency in

teaching science can encourage pupils to do better and to have

an outstanding performance.

79

Summary of Mean and Descriptive Interpretation of Science Teaching Self-Efficacy

Category Teacher School HeadCategory Mean

Descriptive Interpretation

Category Mean

Descriptive Interpretati

onA. Personal Science

Teaching Efficacy


B. Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy


The table presents the summary on the assessment of the

teachers and school heads on the personal science teaching

efficacy and science teaching outcomes expectancy. The teachers

rated both categories are high with means of 4.10 and 4.17,

respectively.

On the other hand, the school heads rated these two

categories very high.

This implies that the teachers are very conservative in

their assessment.

80

3. Test of significant difference of the assessment of the two groups of respondents

Table 4

t-test results on the assessment of the Two Groups of Respondents

Categories MeanAdministrators

Teachers t-test Probability Decision

1. Personal Science Teaching Efficacy

4.31 4.1008 6.4301 3.769E-05 Reject Ho at .05 level

2. Science Teaching Outcomes

Expectancy

4.3000 4.12 7.4485 6.398E-06 Reject Ho at .05 level

A comparison on the assessment of the two groups of

respondents is shown in table 4. The categories on personal

science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcomes

expectancy reveal that there is significant difference on the

assessment of both groups of respondents, hence, the rejection of

the null hypothesis at .05 level.

This means that the administrators/school heads assessed

significantly better/higher than the teachers on the two

categories.

4. Level of the teaching performance of the teacher respondents as reflected in their PAST

81

Table 5

Frequency, Percentage Distribution on the Teaching PerformanceOf the Teacher Respondents as Reflected in their

PAST S.Y. 2012-2013

Frequency Percentage Mean8.60-10.00 1 1.33

7.5644Very

Satisfactory

6.60-8.59 72 96.004.60-6.59 2 2.672.60-4.59 0 0.002.59-below 0 0.00

Total 75 100.00

The table above reveals that there are 72 respondents who

got a performance of very satisfactory, while there is only 1 who

obtained a perfect grade of 10 which means outstanding.

The over-all mean of 7.5644 implies that majority of the

respondents obtained a very satisfactory performance.

5. Test of significant Relationship Between the Science Teaching Efficacy of the Teacher Respondents and their Teaching Performance

Table 6

82

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between the Science Teaching Self Efficacy of the Teacher Respondents

and their Teaching Performance

Items r Critical Value Decision1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science .06810 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. .07385 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level3. I know the steps to teach science concepts effectively. .07488 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities .21001 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level5. I generally teach science effectively .04594 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level6. I understand science concepts well enough to be

effective in teaching elementary science..04047 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level7. I find it easy to use manipulative to explain to students

why science works..14285 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level8. I am typically able to answer students’ science

questions.-.06410 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level9. I am confident that i have the necessary skills to teach

science-.02355 .22701 Accept Ho at .05

level10. When a student has difficulty in understanding science

concept, I am competent on how to help the students understand it better

-.02944 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level



12. I know what to do to turn students on to science .01922 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

The results indicate that there is no significant

relationship between teaching efficiency of the teacher

respondents and their teaching performance, hence the acceptance

of the null hypothesis at .05 level.

This means the teaching performance of the teachers do

not affect their science teaching efficiency.

6. Mean Grade of the Grade 6 pupils in Science

83

Table 7

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Mean Grade of Grade 6 Pupils

Grade Frequency Percentage Mean92-94 76 5.78

85.38

89-91 114 8.6786-88 361 27.4583-85 578 43.9580-82 171 13.0077-79 4 0.3174-76 11 0.84Total 1315 100.00

Mean Grade = 85.38 Proficient

The table shows that 578 or 43.95% out of 1315 grade six

pupils obtained a grade ranging from 83-85, 361 or 27.45%

obtained a grade of 86-88, 171 or 13.00% obtained a grade of 80-

82, 114 pupils obtained a grade of 89-91, 11 got a grade of 74-76

and there are 4 or .31% obtained a grade ranging from 77-79. The

Mean Grade of the grade six pupils is 85.38.

This implies that the grade six pupils from the four Central

Schools and 3 big non-central schools are proficient in science

subject.

7. Test of significant relationship Between Teaching Science Efficiency and the Mean Grade of Pupils

84

Table 8

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Teaching Self Efficacy and the Mean Grade of Pupils

Item r Critical value .05

Decision

1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science -.02605 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects -.07346 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

3. I know the steps to teach science concepts effectively. -.03421 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities -.03160 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

5. I generally teach science effectively -.04341 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

6. I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary science.



.05166 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level







11. When teaching science, i usually welcome student questions


12. I know what to do to turn students on to science -.02136 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

The above table presents the r results on the relationship

between teaching science efficacy of the teacher respondents and

the mean grade of the pupils. Looking closely at the results

indicate that the r values are very low ranging from -.02 to

-.07. This means that the computed r is lower than the critical

value of .22701, thus accepting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

85

This implies that Science Teaching Efficiency do not

affect the performance/grade of the pupils.

8. Test of Relationships Between the Teaching Performance Of the Teacher-Respondents and the Mean Grade of the Pupils

Table 9

Pearson-r Results on the Relationships Between the Teaching Performance Of the Teacher-Respondents and the Mean Grade of the

Pupils

Grade/PAST r Critical Value Decision

Performance vs. Grade -.07231 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

The Pearson r of -.07231 indicates that this value falls

short if the critical value at .05 level, thus accepting the null

hypothesis at .05 level. This means that performance rating of

the teachers do not affect the grades or performance of the Grade

6 pupils.

9.1.1 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Age

86

Table 10.1.1

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Age


Decision

A. Personal Science Teaching Efficacy

1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science .17668 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. .10360 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level



4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities .20509 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

5. I generally teach science effectively .13555 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level














The above table reveals that age is not significantly

related to science teaching efficacy in all the items, hence the

acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05 level.

This implies that the age does not affect teaching self-

efficacy of the teacher.

9.1.2 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Gender

87

Table 10.1.2

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Gender


Decision


1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science


2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects.




4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities

-.32843 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level

5. I generally teach science effectively -.26067 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level













12. I know what to do to turn students on to science -.26067 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level

Science teaching self efficacy is significantly related to

gender on items 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12, hence the rejection of

the null hypothesis at .05 level. This means that gender affects

teaching efficacy on the items mentioned above.

88

On the other hand, there is no significant relationship

between gender and teaching efficacy on items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10,

hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05 level.

9.1.3 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Highest Educational Qualification

Table 10.1.3

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Highest Educational Qualification


Decision



2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. .03684 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level








8. I am typically able to answer students’ science questions. .06122 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level








The educational qualification’s of the teachers is not

significantly related to personal teaching science efficacy,

89

hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis in all the items on

this criteria.

This means that educational qualification do not affect the

personal teaching efficacy of the teachers.

9.1.4 Test of significant Relationship Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Grade Level

Table 10.1.4

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Grade Level


Decision


1. I am continually finding better ways to teach science -.30950 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level

2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. -0.4770 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

3. I know the steps to teach science concepts effectively. -.26195 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level

4. I am very effective in monitoring science activities -.29905 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level














12. I know what to do to turn students on to science -.23132 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level

The relationship between Science teaching efficacy and grade

level reveals that items “I teach science as well as i can teach

90

other subjects”, “I generally teach science effectively”, and “I

understand science concepts well enough to be effective in

teaching elementary science”, do not show any significant

relationship to science teaching efficacy, thus accepting the

null hypothesis at .05 level.

On the other hand, items 1,3,4 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 show

significant relationship science teaching efficacy, thus the

rejection of the null hypothesis.

9.1.5 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Number of Years Teaching Science

Table 10.1.5

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Number of Years Teaching Science


Decision



14. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. .23248 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level


16. I am very effective in monitoring science activities .03814 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

17. I generally teach science effectively .09825 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level









22. When a student has difficulty in understanding science .00000 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

91

concept, I am competent on how to help the students understand it better




The number of years teaching science is significantly

related to “teach science as I can teach other subject,” hence

the rejection of the null hypothesis.

On the other hand, all the other items on this category

is not significantly related to numbers of years in teaching

science, thus accepting the null hypothesis in 11 items of this

category.

9.1.6 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Attendance to In-Service Training and

Seminars in School

Table 10.1.6

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Attendance to In-Service Training and

Seminars in School


Decision



2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. -.12226 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level




6. I understand science concepts well enough to be effective -.19178 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

92

in teaching elementary science.



8. I am typically able to answer students’ science questions. -.14303 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level








The relationship between teaching science efficacy and

attendance to seminars reveals that of the 12 items on teaching

science efficacy, ten items do not show any significant

relationship to science teaching efficacy, thus accepting the

null hypothesis at .05 level.

On the other hand, the items on “I find it easy to use

manipulative to explain to student why science work” and “When

teaching science, I usually welcome students questions” show

significant relationship to attendance to trainings and seminars

in science, hence, the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05

level.

The findings imply that attendance to trainings and seminars

do not affect the teaching science efficacy of the teacher

respondents.

9.1.7 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and School Assignment

93

Table 10.1.7

Pearson-r Results on the Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and School Assignment


Decision



2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. -.10099 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

















The relationship between teaching science efficacy and

school assignment illustrates that very few items were

significant at .05 level. These are “I am typically able to

answer students’ science questions”, and “When teaching science,

I usually welcome student questions”, thus rejecting the null

hypothesis on these items. This means that school assignments

affect teaching science efficacy on the items mentioned.

94

However, 10 items were not significantly related to school

assignment, thus accepting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

9.1.8 Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Number of Subject Preparations

Table 10.1.8

Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Number of Subject Preparations


Decision



2. I teach science as well as i can teach other subjects. .05562 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level



5. I generally teach science effectively -.26617 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level














The relationship between science teaching efficacy and the

number of subject preparation reveals that on the 12 items on

personal science teaching efficacy, 6 items do not show any

95

significant relationship to science teaching efficacy, thus

accepting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

On the other hand, 6 items show significant relationship to

number of subject preparation, hence, the rejection of the null

hypothesis at .05 level.

The findings imply that the number of subject preparations

do not affect the science teaching self efficacy of the teacher

respondents.

9.2.1 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Age

Table 10.2.1

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Age


Decision


1. When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher exerted much effort


2. When the science grades of the students improve, it is often due to their teacher’s having found a more effective teaching approach..









.30587 .22701 Reject Ho at .05 level




.211E58 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

9. Students’ achievement in science is directly related .21305 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

96

to their teachers’ effectiveness in science teaching





The Pearson r results show that the item “When a low-

achieving child progresses in science, it is usually due to extra

attention given by the teacher”, has an r of .30587 which is

significant at .05 level, hence the rejection of the null

hypothesis at .05 level. This means that age affects this item.

On the other hand, all the other items do not signify

significant relationship, thus accepting the null hypothesis.

9.2.2 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Gender

Table 10.2.2

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Gender


Decision






97



















Gender is significantly related to the following items: “6,

7, 8 and 11, thus rejecting the null hypothesis at .05 level.


between gender and items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10, thus accepting

the null hypothesis at .05 level.

9.2.3 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Highest Educational Qualification

Table 10.2.3

98

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Highest Educational Qualification


Decision
























Educational Attainment is significantly related to “The low

science achievement of students cannot be blamed on their

teachers”, thus rejecting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

99

All other items do not show significant relationship to

educational attainment, thus accepting the null hypothesis at .05

level.

9.2.4 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Grade Level

Table 10.2.4

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Number of Years in Service


Decision




















100





Grade level is not significantly related to personal

teaching efficacy, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis in

all the items on this category.

This means that grade level do not affect the science

teaching outcomes expectancy.

9.2.5 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Number of Years in Service

Table 10.2.5

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Number of Years in Service


Decision

C. Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy











101













The Pearson r results show that all items do not signify

significant relationship to the number of years in service, thus

accepting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

This implies that the number of years in service of the teacher

respondents does not affect the science teaching outcomes

expectancy.

9.2.6 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Attendance to In Service

Training/Seminars in School

Table 10.2.6

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching

102

Outcomes Expectancy and Attendance to In Service Training/Seminars in School


Decision
























The above table presents the r results on the relationship

between science teaching outcomes expectancy of the teacher

respondents and attendance to in-service training/seminars.

103

Looking closely at the results reveal that the r value is lower

than the critical value of .22701, hence accepting the null


9.2.7 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and School Assignment

Table 10.2.7

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and School Assignment


Decision




















10. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in school, it is because of good performance of


104

the child’s teacher11. Given a choice, I would invite the principal to evaluate

my science teaching..00263 .22701 Accept Ho

at .05 level

The above table reveals that school assignment is not

significantly related to science teaching outcomes expectancy in

all the items, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05

level.

This implies that school assignment does not affect teaching

outcomes expectancy

9.2.8 Test of significant Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Number of Subject Preparations

Table 10.2.8

Pearson r Results on the Relationship Between Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and Number of Subject Preparations


Decision














7. Increased effort in science tecahing produces change in -.15132 .22701 Accept Ho

105

students’ science achievement. at .05 level









The above table shows that number of subject preparation is

significantly related to the to the following items: 2, 3, 4, 6,

and 11, thus rejecting the null hypothesis at .05 level.


between the number of subject preparations and items 1, 5, 7, 8,

9, and 10, thus accepting the null hypothesis at .05 level.

10. Test of Significant Relationship between the Teaching Performance of the Teacher Respondents and their profile variable

Table 11

10.1 Person r results on the Relationship between the Teaching Performance of the Teacher Respondents and their

profile variable

106

PAST

PROFILE

r Critical value

Decision

Age -.11614 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

Gender -.15277 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

Highest Educational Qualification -.12664 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

Number of years in Teaching Science -.21151 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

Attendance to In-Service Trainings and Seminars in Science


School Assignment -.05861 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

Number of Subject preparation -.17054 .22701 Accept Ho at .05 level

The table above presents the r results on the relationship

between the teaching performance of the science teachers and

their profile variables. The data reveals that the r-results fall

short of the critical value of .22701, thus accepting the bull

hypothesis at .05 level. This means that teaching performance is

not significantly related to age, gender, highest educational

qualification, number of years in teaching, attendance to in-

service trainings and seminars in science, school assignment and

number of subject preparation

Chapter 5

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion

and recommendation of the study.

107

Summary of findings

1. Profile of the Respondents

The mean age of the respondents is 38.67, majority of the

respondents are female, have finished Master of Arts in

Education. There are 23 of the respondents who are assigned as

Grade III teachers. There are 32 who have 1-5 years teaching

experience. Most of the teachers have attended division in-

service trainings/seminars in science. There are also 36 teachers

who have 4 four subject preparations and there are more teachers

in Tuguegarao East Central School.

2. Level of Science Teaching Self Efficiency of the Respondents

2.a The level of science teaching efficacy of the teachers is

“high” while the school heads rated it as “very high”.

b. The level of science Teaching Outcomes expectancy was rated

“high” by the teacher-respondents while the school head rated it

as “very high”

3. Test of significant difference of the assessment of the two

groups of respondents

The administrators/school head rated significantly higher than

the teachers the personal science teaching efficacy and science

108

teaching outcomes expectancy, hence, rejecting the null


4. Level of the teaching performance of the teacher respondents

as reflected in their PAST

The level of teaching performance of the teacher respondents

as reflected in their PAST is very satisfactory.

5. Test of significant Relationship Between the Science Teaching

Efficacy of the Teacher Respondents and their Teaching

Performance

There is no significant relationship between teaching efficacy

of the teacher respondent and their teaching performance, thus,

the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05 level.

6. Mean Grade of the Grade 6 pupils in Science

The mean grade of the Grade 6 pupils is 85.68 which means that

pupils are proficient in science.

7. Test of significant relationship Between Teaching Science Efficiency and the Mean Grade of Pupils

The science teaching efficacy does not affect the

performance/grade of the pupils.

109

8. Test of Relationships Between the Teaching Performance Of the Teacher-Respondents and the Mean Grade of the Pupils

The teaching performance of the teachers does not affect the

performance of the Grade 6 pupils.

9. Test of significant Relationship Between Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Science Teaching Outcomes Expectancy and their Profile Variables

9.a Science Teaching self-efficacy is not significantly related

to age, educational qualification, number of years teaching

science, in-service trainings and seminars attended in science

and school assignment, However number of subject preparations is

significantly related to science teaching self-efficacy.

9.b Science teaching outcomes expectancy is not significantly

related to highest educational qualifications, Number of years in

service, attendance to in-service trainings/seminars in school

and school assignment, However, age, gender and number of subject

preparations is significantly related to science teaching

outcomes expectancy.

Conclusion

Self –efficacy influences the teachers on teaching science.

In order to teach effectively, teachers teaching in science

110

should convey clearly science concepts especially to young minds

in the elementary level. Science self-efficacy of the teachers

significantly affects how teachers’ lead to the subject as well

as pupils’ motivation to learn the subject. The competence of the

teacher to help the pupils understand science concepts and when a

low achieving child progresses in science, could be attributed to

extra attention given by teachers and the ability of the teacher

to teach science as well as other subjects truly affected their

self-efficacy.

Recommendations

1. The teachers teaching performance should be improved to

affect teaching efficacy.

2. Teaching science efficacy should be improved to relate to

pupils grades.

3. The teachers should commit themselves to improve the low

achievement of pupils.

4. That the proposed interventions be implemented.

Documents

Chapter 4and 5 Edit