CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULT
4.0 Overview
This chapter deals with the analysis and the interpretation of the data obtained from the pre-test
and post- test and findings of the analysis. After thorough analysis of student’s responds in the
various tests conducted, it clear indicated that there is significant improvement in students’
performance when representing statistical data.
Table1: Showing the Pre-Test Results
Marks Frequency Midpoint
1-5 3 3
6-10 11 8
11-15 13 13
16-20 7 18
21-25 3 23
26-30 6 28
31-35 3 33
36-40 3 38
41-45 1 43
46-50 0 48
The table above is the pre- test displaying the performance of the students when the pre- test was
conducted and 37 students scored less than 26. The performance of the students in this test was
very bad, because majority scored below the pass mark. This proves there was the need for
intervention to make greater impact on the students, their misconceptions about indices to be
clarified.
Table 2: The table below displays the performance in percentages of the pre-test.
FAIL (less than 26 marks) PASS (26 marks and above)
74% 26%
Table 3: A table Showing the Post-Test Results
Marks Frequency Midpoint
1-5 0 3
6-10 0 8
11-15 0 13
16-20 3 18
21-25 2 23
26-30 18 28
31-35 10 33
36-40 6 38
41-45 9 43
46-50 2 48
The table above is the posttest displaying the performance of the students when the post test was
conducted and only 5 students scored less 26. The performance of the students in this test was
very good, because majority scored above the pass mark. This proves that the intervention that
was used made a greater impact on the students, their misconceptions about indices is corrected.
Table 4: The table below displays the performance in percentages of the post-test.
FAIL (less than 26 marks) PASS (26 marks and above)
10% 90%
This shows clearly that majority of the students have performed well in this test. The next table
compares the results of the pre-test and post test results
Descriptives
Mean of Post-test
Pre-test Post-test
Mean 17.7 32.9
Known variance 107.561 57.643
Observation 50 50
Std. Deviation 10.371 7.592
Median 13.00 33.00
Hypothesized mean 0
difference
Z ⁻8.943606174
P(z<=z) one –tail 0.00
Z critical one-tail 1.281551566
P(z<z)two –tail 0.00
Z critical two-tail 1.644853627
Paired Differences t
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the
Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Time - score -23.800 11.519 1.152 -26.086 -21.514 -20.662
4.3 Discussion of results
In the pre-test thirty-eight percent (38%) of the student could apply the rules of indices in
simplifying algebraic expression. But the percentage increase tremendously in the post-test as
eighty-eight percent (88%) of the students can now apply the rules of indices in simplifying
algebraic expressions
Moreover, the pre-test showed only twenty-percent (20%) of student being able to solve
exponential equation whiles the post-test scores showed ninety percent. The increment clearly
shows that majority of the student can now solve exponential equation. On the other hand, the
pre-test score showed ten percent of the student who can adequately equate powers of a given
exponential equation to form a linear equation and who can apply knowledge obtained in solving
simultaneous equation to a problem whiles the post-test score showed eighty-two (82%) percent.
This is a significant improvement of student’s algebraic insight and problem-solving skills.
The mean mark wasn’t far from the truth that students’ performance has been improved after the
intervention strategies because the mean mark for the pre-test was seventeen point one (17.7) and
the post-test was also thirty-two point fifty –six (32.9).
During the research period, I realized that, the basic fundamental difficulty of students was that
they could not easily come up with the right formula to solve a problem on indices.
It is therefore my hope that if the strategy discussed during the intervention are properly
followed, then the problems encountered by students’ will by all means be reduced to the
minimum, as observed from the outcomes of the Post – test where about 90% scored above 26
marks as compared with the Pre – test of only 10%.
The results of the pre-test give a clear picture that the understanding of the concept was not well
communicated to students, majority of them fell below the pass mark which indicates poor
performance; the results of the pre-test validated the hypothesis that students had difficulty in
solving problems that involved indices.
The results observed from the post-test justifies that there has been a great improvement on the
latter, the intervention strategy that was used contributed a great factor to the ascertaining of this
results, hereby justifying the efficiency of the intervention.
The responses from the students after the intervention as compared to their response before the
intervention gives us a clear picture that the use of formula’s straightaway without a concrete
explanation limits the understanding of the concept being communicated to the students.