PR2Chapter-III, IV, V
PR2Chapter-III, IV, V
PR2Chapter-III, IV, V
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research Locale
11
Sampling Technique
N
Formula: n= 2
1+ N e
Where:
n = sample size
N = population
Computations:
N
n= 2
1+ N e
N=57
57
¿
1+57 ¿ ¿
57
¿
1+57 (0.0025)
57
¿
1+ 0.14
57
¿
1.14
¿ 50
12
Phoenix 30 25
Pyxis 27 25
Total 58 50
Research Instrument
Validation of Instrument
97-100 Excellent
94-96 Outstanding
88-90 Good
79-81 Satisfactory
76-78 Passing
75 below Failing
14
nΣ ( xy ) −( Σx )( Σy )
r= ¿
√ N [ Σ x −( Σ x ) ] NΣ x −(Σy) ² ¿
2 2 2
Where,
15
CHAPTER IV
20
Table 1.3 Scaffolding Feedback
Items Mean Rank Description
Statement number 3 received the lowest mean score of 3.14 and was
ranked 5. This suggests that students perceived this feedback
statement as less effective or less helpful in terms of scaffolding
their learning.
21
Table 1.4 Teacher’s Praise
Table 1.4 presents the extent of teacher’s feedback of Grade 7
students in terms teacher’s praise. Statement number 3 obtained the
highest mean of 3.66, ranking it first, while statement number 2
received the lowest mean of 3.44, ranking it fifth.
22
2. Level of Academic Performance of Grade 7 students.
97-100 0 0 Excellent
94-96 1 2 Outstanding
88-90 5 10 Good
85-87 10 20 Very
Satisfactory
82-84 10 20 Thorough
Satisfactory
79-81 12 24 Satisfactory
76-78 4 8 Fair
75 0 0 Passing
75 below 0 0 Failing
Total 50 100
Mean: 84.92 Description: Very Satisfactory
23
Table 3. Correlational Analysis Between the Teacher’s Feedback
and the Level of Academic Performance of Students-Respondents
Variables
Teacher’s Feedback r-value r² Result
Verification Feedback 0.12 0.0144 Not Significant
Directive Feedback -0.17 0.0289 Not Significant
Scaffolding Feedback -0.04 0.0016 Not Significant
Teacher’s Praise -0.09 0.0081 Not Significant
24
CHAPTER V
Summary of Findings
25
2. The Level of Academic Performance
26
Conclusion
27
Recommendations