Chapter Part II – Extent of effectiveness of

Topic: EducationStudent
Sample donated:
Last updated: August 22, 2019

  Chapter 2RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGYResearch Design            The researcher used the descriptivesurvey method of research with the use of the questionnaire as main instrumentin gathering the needed data for the study.            Descriptive research is a factfinding with adequate interpretation. This method involves the gathering of thedata regarding current conditions and ascertaining what is typical or normalunder specific conditions (Sanchez, 1997).Locale and Population of the Study                Thisstudy was conducted in the public elementary schools in La Trinidad District,Schools Division of Benguet during the School Year 2017-2018. The respondentsof the study was composed of  twentythree (23) experienced teachers and sixteen (16) new teachers with a  total of thirty nine (39)  Grade I teachers.

          Thedistribution of the respondents is shown in Table A below.   TableADistributionof Respondents Name of Schools Experienced Teachers New Teachers 1.       Alapang Elementary School 1 1 2.       Alno-Kadorie Elem. School 1 0 3.       Ambiong Elementary School 1 1 4.       Bahong Elementary School 1 0 5.

Don't use plagiarized sources.
Get Your Custom Essay on "Chapter Part II – Extent of effectiveness of..."
For You For Only $13.90/page!


Get custom paper

       Balili Elementary School 1 1 6.       Balukas Elementary School 1 0 7.       Beckel Elementary School 0 1 8.       Benguet SPED Center 1 1 9.

       Bineng Elementary School 0 1 10.      Bodiweng Elementary School 1 0 11.      Buyagan Elementary School 1 2 12.      La Trinidad Central School 2 4 13.      Lamtang Elementary School 0 1 14.      Lamut Elementary School 1 0 15.      Longlong Elementary School 1 0 16.      Lubas Elementary School 1 0 17.

      Pagal Elementary School 1 0 18.      Pico Elementary School 1 1 19.      Puguis Elementary School 3 1 20.      Tacdian Elementary School 1 0 21.      Talinguray Elementary School 0 1 22.      Tawang Elementary School 2 0 23.

      Wangal Elementary School 1 0 TOTAL 23 16 Source: La Trinidad District Office, SchoolYear 2017-2018 Data Gathering Instrument          The questionnaire was the maingathering instrument used in this study. It was constructed and formulatedbased on primary sources about reading and decoding skills from the Departmentof Education and from articles and readings retrieved from the internetThe questionnaire was composed of the following parts: PartI – Level of development of decoding skills of Grade 1 learners; Part II – Extentof effectiveness of the strategies used in developing the decoding skills; PartIII – Degree of effect of the factors that affect the acquisition of thedecoding skills; Part IV – Level of frequency of the use of instructionalmaterials in teaching decoding skills; and Part V – Extent of effectiveness ofthe measures to address problems in teaching decoding skills Reliability and Validity of theInstrument               To test the reliability of thequestionnaire, a pretest was conducted to ten (10) teachers who wereenrolled in the  graduate studies inBaguio Central University, Baguio City. Their responses were consolidated andtreated using the Kuder-Richardson Instrument Reliability Formula (Downie andHeath, 1984). The formula is as follows:            rK – R     =        NS2 -m (N-m)                                                    S2(N – 1)                         Where :     N =  number of items in thequestionnaire                                           m  =  mean                            S2  = varianceThe obtained coefficient reliability of 0.90 proved that thequestionnaire was highly reliable.Data Gathering Procedure          Theresearcher sought  permission to floatthe questionnaire to the respondents in La Trinidad district schools from theSchools Division Superintendent of Benguet Division. Copies of thequestionnaire were floated personally by this researcher to the targetrespondents. The duly accomplished questionnaire were retrieved aftersometime  by the researcher with the helpof some friends and co-teachers in the different elementary schools.

          Thecollected questionnaire were sorted out and the teachers’ responses weretallied for statistical treatment.      Statistical Treatment of  Data          The collected data were statistically treated using both descriptive and inferentialstatistics in order to facilitate their analysis and interpretation.          The five-point relative values and its corresponding numericallimits, descriptive equivalents and symbols were used to determine the level ofthe responses on the following: Level of developmentof the decoding skills of the Grade I learners Relative Values Statistical Limits   Descriptive Equivalent Symbols   5 4.21 – 5.

00 Highly Developed HD 4 3.41 – 4.20 Developed D 3 2.

61 – 3.40 Moderately  Developed MD 2 1.81 – 2.

60 Slightly Developed SD 1 1.00 – 1.80 Least  Developed LD  Extent ofeffectiveness on the strategies on teaching decoding skills Relative Values Statistical Limits   Descriptive Equivalent Symbols   5 4.21 – 5.00 Highly Effective HE 4 3.

41 – 4.20 Effective E 3 2.61 – 3.40 Moderately  Effective ME 2 1.

81 – 2.60 Slightly Effective SE 1 1.00 – 1.80 Least  Effective LE                 Degree of effect ofthe factors that affect the acquisition of the decoding skills Relative Values Statistical Limits   Descriptive Equivalent Symbols   5 4.

21 – 5.00 High Effect HE 4 3.41 – 4.20 Moderate Effect ME 3 2.

61 – 3.40 Slight Effect SE 2 1.81 – 2.60 Least Effect LE 1 1.00 – 1.80 No Effect NE                  Levelof frequency of the use of instructional materials in teaching decoding skills Relative Values Statistical Limits   Descriptive Equivalent Symbols   5 4.

21 – 5.00 Always Used AU 4 3.41 – 4.20 Moderately Used MU 3 2.

61 – 3.40 Often Used OU 2 1.81 – 2.60 Seldom Used SU 1 1.

00 – 1.80 Never Used NU                   Extent of effectiveness of themeasures to address problems in teaching decoding skills Relative Values Statistical Limits   Descriptive Equivalent Symbols   5 4.21 – 5.00 Highly Effective HE 4 3.41 – 4.

20 Effective E 3 2.61 – 3.40 Moderately  Effective ME 2 1.81 – 2.60 Slightly Effective SE 1 1.00 – 1.

80 Least  Effective LE            The weighted mean was computed to determine the weight andorder of the responses using the following formula according to  Fraenkel et al (1994):          WM =   Sfn                         NWhere :          WM    = Weighted Mean          n       =  arbitrary value          S        = summation          N       = Total Numberof Cases          The t-test (Subong, 2006) was used todetermine whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis of the study.           The formula is as follows:                                                                        X1       –  X2                                                     t comp  =                                               Sx1 2  +   Sx22              1         1                                       n1+ n2– 2                 n1          n2Where :     n1      =   numberof respondents answered by the first group      n2      =   number of respondents answered by the secondgroup     X1       = mean of the first group     X2       =  mean of the second group     ?x1       =   summation of theprocessed responses of the first group     ?x2      =  summation of theresponses of the second group      Sx1 2     = summationof the squares of the processed responses of                      the      first group    Sx22      =    summationof the squares of the processed responses of                  the second group

Choose your subject

x

Hi!
I'm Jessica!

Don't know how to start your paper? Worry no more! Get professional writing assistance from me.

Click here