-oOo-

GRADUATE SCHOOL

Semi-Final Assessment

MARIE ANN V. REMOTIGUE

MAED-FILIPINO 2

Instructions:

Given a data set, perform one-way analysis of covariance, Pearson correlation test,

and linear regression. The generated output should be presented in tabular form. Analyze and

interpret the results of the data analysis following the Statement of the Problem and

Hypotheses from each data set.

STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT

USING MATHEMATICAL GAMES

Statement of the Problem:

1. What is the level of students’ mathematics achievement using mathematical

games (experimental group) and traditional method (control group) as a revealed

by the pretest and posttest results in two runs? (MEAN-PERCENTAGE SCORE-

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS)

2. Are there any differences in the students’ achievement between the mathematical

games (experimental group) and conventional method (control group) during the

two trial runs? (INDEPENDENT T-TEST)

Hypothesis:

1. There is no significant difference in students’ mathematics achievement using the

mathematical games (experimental group) and conventional method (control

group) during the two trial runs.

DATA SET
TOTAL SCORE: 30 points

1st Trial 1st Trial 2nd Trial 2nd Trial

Experimental Group Control Group Experimental Group Control Group
Student Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
1. 10 23 10 22 7 20 7 20
2. 10 24 13 22 10 20 5 20
3. 8 22 9 22 4 20 6 19
4. 12 23 9 23 8 20 4 19
5. 14 23 11 22 8 20 6 19
6. 13 22 11 21 5 20 7 20
7. 14 22 5 21 7 20 9 19
8. 6 23 11 21 13 20 7 19
9. 11 21 9 21 9 20 7 19
10. 10 23 8 21 4 20 6 18
11. 6 22 6 21 9 20 5 18
12. 6 23 9 20 4 19 12 18
13. 9 22 7 20 10 19 5 18
14. 6 21 11 20 10 19 7 18
15. 8 22 8 20 7 19 7 18
16. 10 23 13 20 6 19 3 18
17. 10 22 10 20 9 19 3 18
18. 11 24 12 20 3 19 7 18
19. 10 23 12 20 7 19 6 18
20. 9 24 10 20 8 18 8 18
21. 11 21 11 19 6 19 9 17
22. 8 21 9 19 5 18 8 17
23. 5 24 7 19 7 18 7 17
24. 11 21 8 18 7 18 10 17
25. 8 24 9 18 4 18 8 17
26. 12 24 10 17 8 18 5 17
27. 11 25 8 17 8 18 9 17
28. 4 21 9 17 4 18 9 16
29. 13 21 10 17 5 18 11 15
30. 13 22 5 13 5 18 11 15
 STUDENTS’ ENGLISH AND MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY:

PREDICTORS OF SCIENCE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Statement of the Problem:

1. What is the level of English Proficiency among Grade 7 students of Legarda Dos

National High School?

2. What is the level of Mathematical Proficiency among Grade 7 students of Legarda

Dos National High School?

3. What is the status of students’ performance in Science based on their mean grades

during the 1st and 2nd Grading Periods?

4. Is there a significant relationship between English proficiency and Science academic

performance of the students? (PEARSON-CORRELATION)

5. Is there a significant relationship between Mathematics proficiency and Science

academic performance of the students? (PEARSON-CORRELATION)

6. Do English and Mathematics proficiency predict Science academic performance of

the students? (INFERENTIAL, MULTIPLE REGRESSION)

Hypothesis:

1. There is no significant relationship between English proficiency and Science

academic performance of the students.

2. There is no significant relationship between Mathematics proficiency and Science

academic performance of the students.

3. English and Mathematics proficiency do not significantly predict Science

academic performance of the students.

DATA SET
TOTAL SCORE: Average Score for Math Proficiency (50 points)
Average Score for English Proficiency (50 points)
(Note: Use the data/observations in in violet color)

Student Math Proficiency English Proficiency Science Performance

1 31 40 35.50 40 44 42.00 82 83 82.50
2 27 39 33.00 32 37 34.50 82 78 80.00
3 21 16 18.50 29 10 19.50 82 75 78.50
4 38 39 38.50 38 40 39.00 88 85 86.50
5 43 46 44.50 37 43 40.00 91 90 90.50
6 31 40 35.50 35 38 36.50 88 81 84.50
7 29 37 33.00 35 27 31.00 83 80 81.50
8 22 16 19.00 23 22 22.50 80 77 78.50
9 27 38 32.50 36 40 38.00 84 82 83.00
10 39 40 39.50 41 50 45.50 83 84 83.50
11 16 46 31.00 14 10 12.00 75 76 75.50
12 30 14 22.00 35 34 34.50 80 80 80.00
13 33 46 39.50 33 36 34.50 80 80 80.00
14 38 39 38.50 27 50 38.50 81 77 79.00
15 28 36 32.00 40 47 43.50 82 80 81.00
16 25 46 35.50 33 35 34.00 87 86 86.50
17 39 42 40.50 28 28 28.00 83 83 83.00
18 28 41 34.50 31 50 40.50 81 80 80.50
19 23 36 29.50 17 12 14.50 77 75 76.00
20 15 13 14.00 32 10 21.00 82 78 80.00
21 42 11 26.50 41 35 38.00 83 87 85.00
22 17 32 24.50 32 50 41.00 77 77 77.00
23 16 44 30.00 27 24 25.50 77 77 77.00
24 37 35 36.00 36 26 31.00 85 80 82.50
25 23 38 30.50 26 44 35.00 79 77 78.00
26 32 39 35.50 47 32 39.50 86 85 85.50
27 20 33 26.50 27 48 37.50 77 78 77.50
28 40 41 40.50 39 32 35.50 85 83 84.00
29 21 33 27.00 27 40 33.50 82 77 79.50
30 38 41 39.50 45 28 36.50 84 82 83.00
31 32 35 33.50 35 41 38.00 81 81 81.00
32 33 37 35.00 40 42 41.00 84 80 82.00
33 21 35 28.00 35 44 39.50 79 78 78.50
34 38 39 38.50 41 35 38.00 87 81 84.00
35 14 37 25.50 26 40 33.00 78 77 77.50
36 26 41 33.50 40 22 31.00 82 80 81.00
37 36 35 35.50 36 43 39.50 84 83 83.50
38 29 39 34.00 36 42 39.00 87 81 84.00
39 19 35 27.00 28 47 37.50 80 80 80.00
40 19 41 30.00 36 30 33.00 83 80 81.50
41 29 34 31.50 21 37 29.00 81 77 79.00
42 14 36 25.00 34 25 29.50 79 74 76.50
43 38 37 37.50 43 46 44.50 89 88 88.50
44 21 10 15.50 24 23 23.50 80 75 77.50
45 21 40 30.50 23 10 16.50 87 75 81.00
46 0 12 6.00 19 10 14.50 77 74 75.50
47 10 18 14.00 41 33 37.00 75 74 74.50
 48 10 10 10.00 28 40 34.00 82 76 79.00
49 16 10 13.00 14 24 19.00 83 77 80.00
50 12 18 15.00 35 40 37.50 76 74 75.00
51 20 22 21.00 34 35 34.50 83 84 83.50
52 24 10 17.00 25 25 25.00 83 82 82.50
53 12 24 18.00 10 9 9.50 76 76 76.00
54 11 29 20.00 30 22 26.00 76 74 75.00
55 0 22 11.00 23 27 25.00 76 76 76.00
56 15 21 18.00 31 31 31.00 77 76 76.50
57 14 10 12.00 36 26 31.00 81 76 78.50
58 15 14 14.50 23 21 22.00 86 76 81.00
59 23 18 20.50 18 9 13.50 79 75 77.00
60 11 18 14.50 21 25 23.00 80 74 77.00
61 16 29 22.50 25 28 26.50 83 82 82.50
62 14 13 13.50 36 23 29.50 85 75 80.00
63 19 10 14.50 18 14 16.00 76 75 75.50
64 10 28 19.00 40 32 36.00 79 76 77.50
65 10 14 12.00 20 8 14.00 75 75 75.00
66 25 8 16.50 33 31 32.00 84 78 81.00
67 11 9 10.00 26 30 28.00 81 77 79.00
68 20 20 20.00 27 30 28.50 80 77 78.50
69 11 17 14.00 32 22 27.00 83 78 80.50
70 15 18 16.50 39 34 36.50 79 83 81.00
71 18 17 17.50 27 23 25.00 79 76 77.50
72 16 22 19.00 25 28 26.50 78 76 77.00
73 0 16 8.00 30 10 20.00 76 74 75.00
74 26 24 25.00 29 39 34.00 87 83 85.00
75 18 0 9.00 29 33 31.00 82 82 82.00
76 20 22 21.00 39 30 34.50 76 77 76.50
77 22 19 20.50 38 37 37.50 80 80 80.00
78 6 19 12.50 20 10 15.00 81 74 77.50
79 14 21 17.50 37 30 33.50 82 78 80.00
80 23 0 11.50 31 27 29.00 86 79 82.50
81 14 23 18.50 34 37 35.50 84 78 81.00
82 11 25 18.00 34 42 38.00 81 78 79.50
83 20 22 21.00 29 33 31.00 79 77 78.00
84 15 21 18.00 35 33 34.00 79 77 78.00
85 14 21 17.50 30 27 28.50 83 76 79.50
86 16 17 16.50 27 35 31.00 81 75 78.00
87 15 18 16.50 33 30 31.50 76 75 75.50
88 18 26 22.00 41 43 42.00 77 87 82.00
89 12 19 15.50 28 10 19.00 75 75 75.00
90 12 19 15.50 26 19 22.50 78 77 77.50
91 14 9 11.50 20 14 17.00 75 76 75.50
92 13 21 17.00 18 14 16.00 75 75 75.00
93 17 7 12.00 13 10 11.50 75 74 74.50
94 17 18 17.50 10 11 10.50 75 74 74.50
95 13 18 15.50 25 34 29.50 83 85 84.00
96 11 14 12.50 18 5 11.50 75 74 74.50
97 18 20 19.00 20 10 15.00 82 74 78.00
98 15 16 15.50 16 11 13.50 75 74 74.50
99 12 12 12.00 10 30 20.00 78 75 76.50
100 12 14 13.00 16 6 11.00 75 75 75.00
101 18 14 16.00 25 16 20.50 75 75 75.00
102 10 12 11.00 22 15 18.50 75 75 75.00
103 16 12 14.00 20 32 26.00 75 79 77.00
104 10 11 10.50 15 29 22.00 75 75 75.00
105 12 20 16.00 18 30 24.00 75 75 75.00
106 12 20 16.00 18 15 16.50 75 75 75.00
107 14 9 11.50 21 33 27.00 81 75 78.00
108 18 17 17.50 19 22 20.50 81 78 79.50
109 15 21 18.00 25 44 34.50 78 75 76.50
110 14 19 16.50 13 12 12.50 75 75 75.00
111 14 21 17.50 19 9 14.00 75 75 75.00
112 13 9 11.00 16 10 13.00 75 74 74.50
113 16 17 16.50 10 4 7.00 75 75 75.00
114 11 15 13.00 13 13 13.00 75 75 75.00
115 11 18 14.50 24 10 17.00 75 74 74.50
116 12 15 13.50 27 16 21.50 75 75 75.00
117 14 17 15.50 35 27 31.00 75 75 75.00
118 10 18 14.00 16 12 14.00 81 77 79.00
119 15 18 16.50 24 16 20.00 75 75 75.00
120 15 23 19.00 20 13 16.50 77 80 78.50
121 20 18 19.00 24 11 17.50 75 74 74.50
122 8 13 10.50 15 12 13.50 79 75 77.00
123 12 9 10.50 13 16 14.50 75 75 75.00
124 11 10 10.50 18 32 25.00 75 77 76.00
125 14 16 15.00 21 30 25.50 75 75 75.00
126 15 17 16.00 23 45 34.00 79 75 77.00
127 10 14 12.00 20 28 24.00 75 75 75.00
128 19 19 19.00 22 26 24.00 83 80 81.50
129 19 22 20.50 18 42 30.00 80 78 79.00
130 22 21 21.50 25 50 37.50 80 82 81.00
131 14 15 14.50 18 14 16.00 75 75 75.00
132 12 10 11.00 27 40 33.50 79 77 78.00
Results and Discussion

To investigate a level of students’ mathematics achievement using mathematical

games (experimental group) and traditional method (control group) in the student

achievements test during the first and second trial run, I used descriptive analysis of mean

percentage score both pretest and posttest of two trial run.

As shown in the table 1, the use of mathematical games in teaching generates a

posttest result with an MPS of 75%, descriptively interpreted as moving towards mastery of

which a computed increase of 43% in the level of students’ achievement from the pretest

with an MPS of 32% which is descriptively interpreted as low for the first trial run was

exhibited. The posttest result for the second trial run exhibited an MPS of 63%, descriptively

interpreted as moving towards mastery, which is a 40% in the level of students’ achievement

from the pretest with an MPS of 24% which descriptively interpreted as low.

Table 1. Level of Students’ Mathematical Achievement

Using Mathematical Games Traditional Method
(Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Test
MPS Descriptive Equivalent MPS Descriptive
Equivalent
1st Trial Pretest 32% Low 31% Low
Run Posttest 75% Moving Towards Mastery 66% Average

Percentage 43% 35%

Increase
2nd Trial Pretest 23% Low 24% Low
Run Posttest 63% Moving Towards Mastery 60% Average
Percentage 40% 36%
Increase
Scale: 96 – 100% = Mastered; 86 – 95% = Closely Approximating Mastery; 66 – 85% = Moving Towards Mastery; 35 –
65% = Average; 15 – 34% = Low; 5 – 14% = Very Low; 0 – 14% = Absolutely No Mastery

The pretest of the control group in the first trial and second trial runs were average

with a mean percentage score (MPS) of 31% and 24%, respectively. A descriptive

equivalent average with an MPS of 66% for the posttest in the first trial run of which

indicates an increase of 35% in the level of students’ achievement form the pretest. Also, a
descriptive equivalent average with an MPS of 60% for the posttest in the second trial run

of which shows an increase of 36% in the level of students’ achievement from the pretest.

The finding indicated that there is an increase in the level of students’ mathematical

achievement from the pretest to posttest using the methods in teaching Math. The

experimental group, which is taught using the mathematical games, appeared to have a

better performance with an increase in their level of achievement compared to student in the

control group. The posttest result of the experimental group during the two trial runs are

higher than that of the control group. This indicates that using a Mathematical games posted

a higher achievement level using the Traditional method.

First Trial Run. By employing Independent Samples t-test, Table 2 Testing

Differences in Students’ Achievement in Posttest in the first trial, establishes that there is a

significant difference in students’ achievement in learning Math using mathematical games

(experimental) and traditional Method (control). The table (t-value = 6.530; p-value = .000)

for using mathematical games reveals that students in the experimental have significantly

higher level of achievement than their counterparts in the control group.

Table 2. Testing Differences in Students’ Achievement between Experimental Group and

Control Group using Independent Sample t-test: 1st Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value Df p– Remarks
value

Using Mathematical 22.53 1.17 6.530 58 .000 With

Games Significant
(Experimental Group) Difference
Using Traditional Method 19.70 2.07
(Control Group)
*Significant at the 0.05level

The findings of this study revealing significantly level of student achievement who used

Mathematical games (experimental) to introduced concepts as a prelude to explicit teaching

or practice skills or consolidate a concept after explicit teaching. Educational Games do lead

to improved learning (Dennis and Stewart, 1999). Thus, every concerned educationist is
seeking a way out of these problem of poor performances in mathematics. One of such ways

teaching aids is the mathematical games (Ozofor, 1993).

The more interested and engaged students are, and the more interactive each learning

session is, the more students will enjoy, learn and retain information from the lesson (Zane

Education, 2017).

Second Trial Run. Table 3 indicates the test of significant difference in students’

achievement in learning Math using Mathematical Games and Traditional Method during the

second trial run. The table (t-value = 4.064; p-value = .000) reveals that with significant

difference between the level of students’ achievement using the mathematical

games(experimental) and Traditional method(control) during the second trial run.

Table 3. Testing Differences in Students’ Achievement between Experimental Group and

Control Group using Independent Sample t-test: 2nd Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value Df p– Remarks
value

Using Mathematical 19.03 0.85 4.064 58 .000 With

Games Significant
(Experimental Group) Difference
Using Traditional Method 17.90 1.27
(Control Group)
*Significant at the 0.05level

This finding signifies that students’ level of achievement in learning Math has

significantly increased through Using Mathematical Games. This warrants the claim that

Using Mathematical Games method implementation could enhance students’ achievement in

the teaching-learning process. Thus, the experimental treatment using Mathematical Games

Approach proves to be better than the Traditional Method.

 Level of Students’ English Proficiency. Table 4 shows the students’ level of English

Proficiency based on their average scores from the test.

As shown on the below Table 4, the Mean Score of the Students from the 50-item test

is 27.35. This has an equivalent Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 55% and standard

deviation (SD) 9.52. This is interpreted as Average based on the given descriptive equivalent

scale.

Table 4. Level of Students’ English Proficiency (N=132)

Test Mean Score SD MPS Descriptive
Equivalent
English 27.35 9.52 55% Average
Proficiency
Total Items: 50
Scale: 96 – 100% = Mastered; 86 – 95% = Closely Approximating Mastery; 66 – 85% = Moving Towards Mastery; 35 –
65% = Average; 15 – 34% = Low; 5 – 14% = Very Low; 0 – 14% = Absolutely No Mastery

Based on the findings shown, this means that the level of students’ English

Proficiency based on their overall performance in test was average.

In the theory of second language acquisition, Cummins (1979) posited that there is a

connection between learners’ language proficiency and academic performance. According to

Orgunsiji (2009), how students would fare in their studies depends largely on their level of

proficiency in English. This is consistent with Komba and Bosco’s (2015) assertion that the

academic performance of students is influenced by their level of proficiency in the language

of instruction (LOI). Not being proficient in the LOI is an impediment to learning because

the teacher and the learner may not be communicating effectively (Komba and Bosco, 2015).

English proficiency is an important factor in determining academic performance.

Studies that are more elaborate are warranted in order to have a better understanding of

the relationship between language proficiency and academic performance. (Antonio,

2002).
 This suggests that there should be regular comprehensive evaluation of students'

English proficiency in order to determine how to improve their academic performance of

English student. Teachers must train their students to strengthen and develop their English

skills in order to improve their academic performance, thus achieving success.

Level of Students’ Mathematical Proficiency. Table 5 shows the students’ level of

Mathematical Proficiency based on their scores from the mathematical proficiency test.

Table 5. Level of Students’ Math Proficiency (N=132)

Test Mean Score SD MPS Descriptive
Equivalent
Math Proficiency 20.99 9.15 42% Average
Total Items: 50
Scale: 96 – 100% = Mastered; 86 – 95% = Closely Approximating Mastery; 66 – 85% = Moving Towards Mastery; 35 –
65% = Average; 15 – 34% = Low; 5 – 14% = Very Low; 0 – 14% = Absolutely No Mastery

As shown in Table 5, the Mean Score of the students from the 50-item mathematics

test is 20.99. This has an equivalent Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 42%. This is

interpreted as Average based on the given scale.

In the interesting findings have shown that the students’ level of mathematical

proficiency is interpreted as average based in the test. Learning mathematics with

meaningful understanding is a vital goal of mathematics teaching in schools (Wu, 2008) and

studies have shown that sharpening students‟ mathematical proficiency entails students

learning mathematics with understanding (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999; Hiebert, Carpenter,

Fennema, Fuson, Wearne, Murray, Olivier, & Human, 1997; National Research Council

[NRC], 2001; Shafer & Romberg, 1999). Taking mathematical proficiency as the aim of

mathematics education has the likelihood to transform the kind of mathematics and

mathematical learning that young children (NCCA, 2014). The developed countries of the

world, where researches into mathematical proficiency had reached an appreciable level.

Mathematical proficiency is used to capture what it means for anyone to learn

mathematics successfully. It is an indicator that someone understands (and can do)

mathematics. Mathematical proficiency is the quality of being skilled and exhibiting

expertise, competence, knowledge, beliefs, and facility in doing mathematics and becoming

proficient problem solver with high productive disposition.

Level of Students’ Performance in Science in 1 st and 2nd Grading. Table 6 shows the

students’ performance based on their mean grade in Science.

Table 6. Level of Students’ Performance Science (N=132)

Test Mean Grade SD Descriptive Equivalent

Science 79% 3.44 Developing

Scale: 95-100-Advanced, 90-94=Proficient, 80-89= Approaching Proficiency, 75-79- Developing, 75 and
Below=Beginner

As shown in Table 6, the Students’ mean grade in Science in 1 st and 2nd Grading is

79% and it has a descriptive equivalent which is developing based on the given scale.

Based on the findings, this means that students’ overall performance in Science in 1st

and 2nd Grading based on their mean grade is in developing level.

Seery (2009), prior performance and knowledge could significantly affect the current

performance of the students. Likewise, the findings of Awah, et. al. (2015) support that

previous performance of the students significantly predicts their current performance level.

So student level performance in Science is very important due to help better direct the foci of

teaching and learning processes when a teacher teaches students from different disciplines.

The findings denote that teachers especially those who are handling Science courses

must help students to strengthen and improve their performance and to maximize the chance

to achieve success in Science.

 Relationship Between English Proficiency and Science Academic Performance of

the Students. In order to investigate, relationship between English Proficiency and Science

Academic Performance of the students, I used Pearson “r” correlation analysis.

Table 7. Test of Relationship Between English Proficiency and Science Performance

Variables Pearson “r” Interpretation p-value Interpretation

English Proficiency .652 Moderate Positive .000 With

and Science Linear Relationship Significant

Performance Relationship

Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship *N = 132

± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The results showed that there is a moderate positive linear correlation between

students’ English Proficiency and Science Performance (Pearson “r” = .652) which means

that when the students' English Proficiency are weak and need to developed. On the other

hand, the bigger the chance that they will have poor performance in Science. Besides, a

significant relationship was established between the two variables (p-value .000). Thus, there

is a significant relationship between English Proficiency and Science Performance of the

Students.

There is growing evidence that English proficiency has significant implications for

students’ success in mathematics and science assessments (Abedi, 2004; Abedi, Hofstetter, &

Lord, 2004; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Butler, Bailey, Stevens, Huang, & Lord, 2004; Kopriva,

Gabel, & Cameron, 2011; Luykx et al., 2007; Noble et al., in press; Penfield & Lee, 2010;

Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003).

Since the significant relationship between English proficiency and Science

performance has been established, this recommends that both students and teachers must help

one another to strengthen the students’ proficient in English in order to maximize their

performance in Science.
 Relationship Between Mathematics Proficiency and Science Performance of the

Students. In order to investigate, relationship between English Proficiency and Science

Academic Performance of the students we used Pearson “r” correlation analysis.

Table 8. Test of Relationship between Mathematics Proficiency and Science Performance

Variables Pearson “r” Interpretation p-value Interpretation

Mathematics .666 Moderate Positive .000 With

Proficiency and Linear Relationship Significant

Science Performance Relationship

Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship *N = 132

± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The results showed that there is a moderate positive correlation between students’

Mathematics Proficiency and Science Academic Performance (Pearson “r” = .666) which

means that when the students’ mathematics proficiency are more developed and strengthen,

students will perform better or will have a better performance in Science. On the other hand,

if such mathematics proficiency is not well-developed, students will struggle to have a poor

performance in Science. Further, a significant relationship was established between the two

variables (p-value .000). Thus, it interpreted as there is a significant relationship between the

students’ mathematics proficiency and their Science performance was accepted.

In mathematics and science assessments, scores are expected to indicate students’

knowledge and skills in these areas. Validity of such score interpretations depends on the

degree to which performance on assessments are accurate indicators of students’

competencies (Kane, 2013).

Regression Analysis for Determining Predictors of Students Science

Performance. Table 9 shows the regression analysis of determine the predictors of Science

Academic Performance in English and Mathematics Proficiency. Using the stepwise method,

Table 9 presents which model best predicted students’ performance in Science. This able to
analyzed, interpreted and evaluated the data to determine the proficiency of Mathematics and

English

Table 9: Regression Analysis for Determining Predictors of Students Science Performance

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 SE F-value p-value

1 .666a .443 .439 2.57698 103.589 .000a

2 .741b .549 .542 2.32962 78.413 .000b

a. Predictors: (Constant), Math Proficiency

b. Predictors: (Constant) Math Proficiency, English Proficiency
c. Dependent Variable: Science Performance

As the result show that there is a significant overall relationship of the model wherein

English, Mathematics Proficiency is the independent variable and Students’ Science

Performance is the dependent variable (R = .741, p < .05). To consider the R 2 statistic,

“Model 2” the better model in predicting students’ performance in Science with one

predictors because it presented a higher value of 0.549 known as the coefficient of

determination which represent the proportion of variance of the dependent variable of

Science Performance that can be explained by the variation that also occurs in both

independent variables (English Proficiency and Mathematics Proficiency). In this case,

approximately 55% of the variation in Science Performance can be explained based on the

amount of variation that occurs between the students’ English and Mathematics Proficiency.

More importantly, a p-value less than 0.05 with actual result of “Model 2” .000

indicates a significant result. In this result, the statistical value confirms that English

Proficiency and Mathematics Proficiency are statistically valid predictors of Science

performance.

Predictors of Students’ Science Performance. By employing the multiple regression

analysis is a statistical used to associated with the predictors of students’ Science

performance that show in table 10.

Table 10: Statistics Associated with the Predictors of Students’ Science Performance in the
Multiple Regression Analysis
Model Unstandardized Standardized t p-value
Coefficients Coefficients
B SE Beta

1 (Constant) 73.480 0.563 130.533 .000

Math Proficiency 0.250 0.025 .666 10.178 .000
2 (Constant) 71.372 0.638 111.918 .000
Mathematics Proficiency .163 0.027 .432 5.932 .000
English Proficiency .144 0.026 .400 5.484 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Science Performance
*Model: Science Performance = 71.372 + .163 Mathematics Proficiency + .144 English Proficiency

As the result showed, the unstandardized beta coefficients contain a value that

indicates whether the relationship is direct or inverse. In this case, the “Unstandardized

Coefficient” for Model 2 of the Mathematics Proficiency= 0.163 and English Proficiency =

0.144, both indicating a direct relationship to Science Performance. The coefficient values

can be plugged into the regression equation used to plot the line of regression. This equation

1
is Y =a + b1X1 + b2X2 . To determine the value of (Science Performance), take sum of the

constant, the product of the coefficient of mathematics Proficiency and its actual value and

the product of the coefficient of English Proficiency and its actual value based on the test

scores.

In this case, by following the equation, Science Performance = 71.372 + .163

Mathematics Proficiency + .144 English Proficiency. Thus, both Mathematics Proficiency

and English proficiency of students significantly predict the performance of Science.

The relatively recent research focus on “disciplinary literacy” (Carnegie Council on

Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010, p. 22) has produced strong evidence of a positive

relationship between English proficiency and academic performance in science and

mathematics education. Disciplinary literacy, or content-area specific literacy, consists of

literacy skills and knowledge that support students’ understanding of concepts related to a

particular field of study, such as science and mathematics.

 With the findings revealed, students must acquire proficiency in English and

Mathematics since these are essential for them to maximize their performance in Science

course. Teachers, with the use of available and sufficient resources, play a great role in it

delivery educational progress of the student to increase and achieved student performance.