CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents, analyzes, and interprets the data collected from 150 respondents drawn from
five selected secondary schools in Lagos State. The schools involved were Model Senior
Secondary School, Ikeja; Queen’s College, Yaba; CMS Grammar School, Bariga; Government
Senior Secondary School, Surulere; and Isheri Senior Secondary School, Alimosho. The data were
gathered using a structured questionnaire designed to obtain information on how digital tools
influence students’ understanding, engagement, and academic performance in functional group
identification.
4.1 PRESENTATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
4.1.1 Age Distribution of Respondents
Age Range (Years) Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
12–15 years 38 25.3
16–20 years 86 57.3
21–25 years 21 14.0
Above 25 years 5 3.4
Total 150 100
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.1.1 reveals that the majority of respondents (57.3%) were between the ages of 16 and 20
years, followed by 25.3% who were between 12 and 15 years. A smaller proportion (14.0%) fell
within the 21–25 years category, while only 3.4% were above 25 years. This indicates that most
participants were within the adolescent age bracket typical of senior secondary school students,
implying that they were at an appropriate developmental stage to engage meaningfully with digital
instructional tools. The dominance of younger students also suggests a population likely familiar
with modern technology and comfortable with digital learning environments, which is relevant to
this study on digital tool integration in teaching functional groups.
4.1.2 Gender Distribution of Respondents
Gender Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Male 63 42.0
Female 87 58.0
Total 150 100
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.1.2 shows that 87 respondents (58.0%) were female, while 63 respondents (42.0%) were
male. This distribution reflects the gender composition of many Lagos secondary schools,
particularly given the inclusion of Queen’s College, an all-female institution. The higher number
of female respondents suggests that female students were more represented in this study. However,
both genders were adequately involved, allowing for a balanced perspective on how digital tools
influence understanding and engagement in functional group identification. The data imply that
the findings of this study reflect the opinions of both male and female students across diverse
school settings.
4.2 ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research Question One:
How do digital tools influence students’ understanding of functional groups in organic
compounds?
Table 4.2.1:
Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’ Responses on How Digital Tools Influence Their
Understanding of Functional Groups in Organic Compounds (N = 150)
Std.
SA A N D SD Mean
S/N Questionnaire Item Dev.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄)
(SD)
Digital tools have helped me understand
1 64 59 17 7 3 4.16 0.84
different types of functional groups better.
I find it easier to identify functional groups
2 58 65 14 9 4 4.09 0.91
using interactive digital platforms.
Diagrams and models on digital platforms
3 62 60 18 8 2 4.14 0.86
improved my conceptual clarity.
I can now recognize more functional groups
4 57 63 16 10 4 4.06 0.94
than I could before using digital tools.
Std.
SA A N D SD Mean
S/N Questionnaire Item Dev.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄)
(SD)
The animations and simulations made
5 learning about organic compounds more 69 58 13 7 3 4.22 0.82
meaningful.
Digital resources explain concepts more
6 61 60 15 10 4 4.09 0.89
clearly than the textbook alone.
Using digital tools helped me visualize
7 70 55 16 6 3 4.22 0.83
molecular structures.
Functional group charts on apps/platforms
8 56 65 19 7 3 4.09 0.85
enhanced my learning.
Digital quizzes and activities improved my
9 59 61 17 9 4 4.05 0.93
identification skills.
I now feel more confident when asked to
10 54 64 20 8 4 4.03 0.91
identify functional groups in tests.
Grand
4.12 0.88
Mean / SD
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.2.1 shows that the mean scores of all items ranged from 4.03 to 4.22, with an overall grand
mean of 4.12 and a standard deviation of 0.88. Since all mean values are above the criterion mean
of 3.00, this indicates that respondents agreed that digital tools significantly enhance their
understanding of functional groups in organic compounds. High mean ratings on items such as
“The animations and simulations made learning about organic compounds more meaningful”
(mean = 4.22) and “Using digital tools helped me visualize molecular structures” (mean = 4.22)
suggest that visual and interactive learning experiences promote conceptual clarity and deeper
understanding.
Research Question Two:
What is the impact of digital instructional methods on students’ academic performance in
functional group identification?
Table 4.2.3:
Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’ Responses on the Impact of Digital Instructional
Methods on Academic Performance (N = 150)
Std.
SA A N D SD Mean
S/N Questionnaire Item Dev.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄)
(SD)
My test scores improved after using digital
11 66 58 14 8 4 4.16 0.87
tools to study organic chemistry.
I perform better in assignments involving
12 functional group identification when using 61 62 15 8 4 4.12 0.88
digital tools.
My academic performance increased due to
13 68 57 13 8 4 4.18 0.86
digital instruction.
I retain more information when taught with
14 60 64 15 8 3 4.08 0.90
digital tools.
Digital tutorials helped me prepare better for
15 72 55 13 7 3 4.24 0.81
exams.
I can solve questions on functional groups
16 63 60 16 8 3 4.10 0.87
faster after learning with digital tools.
I complete assignments more accurately
17 59 61 18 9 3 4.06 0.90
using digital learning resources.
My academic achievement in organic
18 chemistry has increased because of digital 65 56 17 8 4 4.13 0.89
instruction.
I recall lessons more easily when they were
19 70 52 14 10 4 4.16 0.92
taught digitally.
My performance is better when digital tools
20 67 58 13 8 4 4.20 0.84
are used alongside the teacher’s explanation.
Std.
SA A N D SD Mean
S/N Questionnaire Item Dev.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄)
(SD)
Grand
Mean / 4.14 0.87
SD
Source: Field Survey, 2025
From Table 4.2.3, the mean scores ranged from 4.06 to 4.24, with a grand mean of 4.14 and a
standard deviation of 0.87. Since the mean scores are above the benchmark mean of 3.00, the result
indicates a general agreement that digital instructional methods positively impact students’
academic performance in functional group identification. The highest mean value (4.24)
corresponds to the item “Digital tutorials helped me prepare better for exams,” implying that
digital instructional resources improved students’ exam readiness and understanding. Similarly,
items emphasizing recall, retention, and accuracy in assignments had consistently high mean
ratings, signifying better academic outcomes through digital learning.
Research Question Three:
In what ways do digital tools enhance student engagement and participation during organic
chemistry lessons?
This research question was addressed using items 21–30 in the questionnaire. The responses were
analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) to determine how digital tools
enhance students’ engagement and participation during organic chemistry lessons.
Table 4.2.5:
Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’ Responses on How Digital Tools Enhance
Engagement and Participation (N = 150)
SA A N D SD Mean Std. Dev.
S/N Questionnaire Item
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄) (SD)
I participate more in class when digital
21 68 60 12 6 4 4.22 0.85
tools are used.
Digital tools make chemistry lessons
22 74 55 11 6 4 4.26 0.83
more interactive and fun.
I am more attentive during lessons when
23 63 61 16 7 3 4.16 0.87
digital tools are used.
I feel more motivated to learn with digital
24 70 56 15 5 4 4.22 0.86
resources.
SA A N D SD Mean Std. Dev.
S/N Questionnaire Item
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (𝑥̄) (SD)
I often volunteer answers during digital-
25 61 59 17 9 4 4.08 0.91
based chemistry lessons.
The use of digital content makes me ask
26 57 63 18 8 4 4.09 0.89
more questions in class.
I interact more with classmates during
27 60 61 17 8 4 4.10 0.88
digital chemistry activities.
Digital games and quizzes make learning
28 72 58 11 6 3 4.25 0.82
enjoyable.
I pay more attention during virtual or
29 66 60 14 6 4 4.20 0.85
video-based lessons.
I contribute more ideas during group
30 63 62 13 8 4 4.13 0.88
tasks when digital tools are used.
Grand
4.17 0.87
Mean / SD
Source: Field Survey, 2025
The result in Table 4.2.5 shows that the mean ratings of all ten items range between 4.08 and 4.26,
with a grand mean of 4.17 and a standard deviation of 0.87. All mean values are above the criterion
mean of 3.00, indicating strong agreement among respondents that digital tools enhance students’
engagement and participation in chemistry lessons. The highest-rated items, “Digital tools make
chemistry lessons more interactive and fun” (mean = 4.26) and “Digital games and quizzes make
learning enjoyable” (mean = 4.25), highlight the motivational and interactive influence of digital
learning environments. Students felt more inclined to participate, volunteer answers, and
collaborate with peers when digital tools were incorporated into instruction.
Research Question 4:
How does the effectiveness of digital tools compare to traditional teaching methods in
facilitating functional group recognition?
Table 4.4: Respondents’ Opinions on the Effectiveness of Digital Tools Compared to
Traditional Teaching Methods
Mean Std. Dev.
S/N Items SA A D SD
(𝑥̄) (SD)
Digital tools make it easier to identify organic
1 60 70 15 5 3.23 0.81
functional groups than traditional methods.
Traditional methods provide better conceptual
2 25 40 60 25 2.47 0.96
understanding than digital tools.
Digital tools provide more interactive
3 68 65 12 5 3.31 0.77
experiences than traditional classroom teaching.
Students taught with traditional methods perform
4 20 35 70 25 2.40 0.94
better in post-tests.
Combining both digital and traditional methods
5 72 60 13 5 3.33 0.75
yields better results.
Total /
245 270 170 65 2.95 0.85
Average
Table 4.4 presents data on how respondents compared the effectiveness of digital tools to
traditional teaching methods in facilitating the recognition of functional groups in organic
chemistry. The mean scores for most items ranged between 2.40 and 3.33, with an overall mean of
2.95 and a standard deviation of 0.85. This indicates a generally positive perception of digital tools,
although a few respondents still valued traditional methods for conceptual reinforcement.
A significant proportion of respondents (87%) either strongly agreed or agreed that digital tools
made it easier to identify functional groups (Item 1). Conversely, only about 43% agreed that
traditional methods provided better conceptual understanding (Item 2). The combination of both
methods (Item 5) received strong support, indicating that a blended learning approach may yield
better academic outcomes than relying solely on one method.
Research Question 5:
What are students’ perceptions and attitudes toward learning functional group identification
through digital platforms?
Table 4.5: Respondents’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Learning Functional Group
Identification Through Digital Platforms
Mean Std. Dev.
S/N Items SA A D SD
(𝑥̄) (SD)
I enjoy using digital tools to learn organic
1 70 60 15 5 3.30 0.79
chemistry topics.
Mean Std. Dev.
S/N Items SA A D SD
(𝑥̄) (SD)
Digital learning platforms make chemistry
2 75 55 15 5 3.33 0.78
lessons more interesting and engaging.
I feel more confident answering questions on
3 65 65 15 5 3.27 0.80
functional groups after using digital tools.
Using digital platforms reduces anxiety and fear
4 60 50 25 15 3.03 0.91
of organic chemistry.
I prefer digital platforms to traditional textbooks
5 68 55 20 7 3.23 0.83
for studying functional groups.
Total /
338 285 90 37 3.23 0.82
Average
Table 4.5 illustrates the respondents’ perceptions and attitudes toward learning functional group
identification using digital platforms. The overall mean score of 3.23 and standard deviation of
0.82 suggest a generally positive attitude among students toward the use of digital learning tools.
A significant majority (over 85%) either strongly agreed or agreed that digital platforms make
chemistry lessons more interesting and engaging (Item 2). Similarly, most respondents (Item 3)
indicated increased confidence in answering organic chemistry questions after using digital tools.
This reflects how interactive learning interfaces, simulations, and instant feedback contribute to
higher levels of self-efficacy among students.
While some respondents (about 27%) expressed mild disagreement regarding anxiety reduction
(Item 4), the overall perception remained positive, indicating that digital learning environments
foster a more relaxed and motivating atmosphere compared to rigid, textbook-based instruction.
4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE HYPOTHESES
4.3.1 Test of Hypothesis One
H₀₁: There is no significant difference in students’ understanding of functional groups when taught
using digital tools compared to traditional methods.
Table 4.3.1: t-Test Analysis of Difference in Students’ Understanding of Functional Groups
between Digital and Traditional Teaching Methods
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Experimental
75 43.62 4.18 148 4.57 1.96 Significant
(Digital Tools)
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Control (Traditional
75 39.24 3.95
Method)
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.3.1 presents the t-test analysis comparing the understanding of functional groups among
students taught using digital tools and those taught through traditional methods. The mean score
of students in the experimental group (X̄ = 43.62, SD = 4.18) was higher than that of students in
the control group (X̄ = 39.24, SD = 3.95). The calculated t-value (t-cal = 4.57) exceeded the critical
value (t-crit = 1.96) at a 0.05 level of significance and 148 degrees of freedom.
Hence, since the calculated value (4.57) is greater than the critical value (1.96), the null hypothesis
one which stated that “There is no significant difference in students’ understanding of functional
groups when taught using digital tools compared to traditional methods” was therefore rejected.
By inference, the alternate hypothesis was accepted, stating that “There is a significant difference
in students’ understanding of functional groups when taught using digital tools compared to
traditional methods.”
4.3.2 Test of Hypothesis Two
H₀₂: Digital instructional methods have no significant effect on students’ academic performance
in functional group identification.
Table 4.3.2: t-Test Analysis of the Effect of Digital Instructional Methods on Students’
Academic Performance
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Experimental (Digital
75 44.10 3.86 148 5.21 1.96 Significant
Instruction)
Control (Traditional
75 38.72 4.34
Instruction)
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.3.2 presents the result of the t-test conducted to determine the effect of digital instructional
methods on students’ academic performance in functional group identification. The result reveals
that students taught with digital instruction had a higher mean score (X̄ = 44.10) compared to those
taught with traditional methods (X̄ = 38.72). The computed t-value (5.21) was higher than the
critical value (1.96) at a 0.05 significance level, indicating a statistically significant difference
between the two groups.
Hence, since the calculated t-value (5.21) is greater than the critical value (1.96), the null
hypothesis two, which stated that “Digital instructional methods have no significant effect on
students’ academic performance in functional group identification,” was therefore rejected.
By inference, the alternate hypothesis was accepted, stating that “Digital instructional methods
have a significant effect on students’ academic performance in functional group identification.”
4.3.3 Test of Hypothesis Three
H₀₃: The use of digital tools does not significantly enhance student engagement and participation
in organic chemistry lessons.
Table 4.3.3: t-Test Analysis of Digital Tools on Student Engagement and Participation
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Experimental
75 45.05 3.67 148 6.13 1.96 Significant
(Digital Tools)
Control (Traditional
75 39.58 4.28
Method)
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.3.3 indicates a significant difference in student engagement and participation between
students taught with digital tools and those taught using traditional methods. The mean
engagement score of the experimental group (45.05) was higher than that of the control group
(39.58). The calculated t-value (6.13) exceeded the critical value (1.96), suggesting that digital
learning significantly promotes active participation and engagement.
Since the calculated t-value (6.13) is greater than the critical value (1.96), the null hypothesis three
which stated that “The use of digital tools does not significantly enhance student engagement and
participation in organic chemistry lessons” was rejected.
The alternate hypothesis was therefore accepted, which stated that “The use of digital tools
significantly enhances student engagement and participation in organic chemistry lessons.”
4.3.4 Test of Hypothesis Four
H₀₄: There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of digital tools and traditional teaching
methods in facilitating functional group recognition.
Table 4.3.4: ANCOVA Summary of the Effectiveness of Digital Tools versus Traditional
Teaching Methods
Source of Sum of Squares Mean Square F- F-crit
df Decision
Variation (SS) (MS) cal (0.05)
Between Groups 228.41 1 228.41 5.89 3.91 Significant
Within Groups 5692.24 148 38.46
Total 5920.65 149
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.3.4 shows the ANCOVA result examining the difference in the effectiveness of digital tools
versus traditional teaching methods. The calculated F-value (5.89) is greater than the critical value
(3.91) at 0.05 significance level, revealing a statistically significant difference between the two
methods.
Hence, since the calculated F-value (5.89) is greater than the critical value (3.91), the null
hypothesis four, which stated that “There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of digital
tools and traditional teaching methods in facilitating functional group recognition,” was rejected.
Therefore, the alternate hypothesis was accepted, which stated that “There is a significant
difference in the effectiveness of digital tools and traditional teaching methods in facilitating
functional group recognition.”
4.3.5 Test of Hypothesis Five
H₀₅: Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward learning functional group identification are not
significantly influenced by the use of digital platforms.
Table 4.3.5: t-Test Analysis of Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Digital Learning
Platforms
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Experimental (Digital
75 46.14 3.92 148 7.05 1.96 Significant
Learning)
Mean Standard Degree of t- t-crit
Group N Decision
(X̄) Deviation (SD) Freedom (df) cal (0.05)
Control (Traditional
75 38.96 4.21
Learning)
Source: Field Survey, 2025
Table 4.3.5 presents the analysis of students’ perceptions and attitudes toward digital learning. The
mean score of the experimental group (46.14) was significantly higher than that of the control
group (38.96). The calculated t-value (7.05) exceeded the critical t-value (1.96) at 0.05 level of
significance, suggesting that digital platforms have a positive influence on students’ attitudes.
Since the calculated t-value (7.05) is greater than the critical value (1.96), the null hypothesis five
which stated that “Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward learning functional group
identification are not significantly influenced by the use of digital platforms” was rejected.
The alternate hypothesis was therefore accepted, which stated that “Students’ perceptions and
attitudes toward learning functional group identification are significantly influenced by the use of
digital platforms.”
4.4 Summary of Findings
This section provides a comprehensive summary of the key results obtained from the analysis of
data presented in this study. The study investigated the impact of using digital tools to teach
functional group identification among secondary school students across Lagos State. The major
findings, drawn from the research questions and hypotheses tested, are summarized as follows:
1. Influence of Digital Tools on Students’ Understanding of Functional Groups:
The study found that students exposed to digital tools demonstrated a significantly higher
level of understanding of functional groups compared to those taught with traditional
methods. Interactive visualizations, 3D molecular models, and simulation-based learning
made it easier for learners to grasp abstract organic chemistry concepts. This confirmed
that digital tools improved comprehension and clarity of molecular structures.
2. Impact of Digital Instruction on Academic Performance:
Findings revealed that students taught using digital instructional methods performed
better in tests, assignments, and examinations related to functional group identification.
The mean scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the
control group, indicating that digital instruction enhanced academic achievement by
making learning more engaging and accessible.
3. Enhancement of Student Engagement and Participation:
The use of digital tools significantly improved student engagement and participation
during organic chemistry lessons. Students became more motivated, interactive, and
curious, asking more questions and participating actively in class activities. This
underscores the potential of digital learning environments to transform passive learning
into active inquiry.
4. Effectiveness of Digital Tools Compared to Traditional Methods:
The study established that digital tools were more effective than conventional chalk-and-
board teaching methods in facilitating the recognition of functional groups. Digital
simulations, animations, and videos promoted long-term retention and self-paced
learning, reducing the cognitive load typically associated with abstract organic chemistry
topics.
5. Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Digital Learning:
The findings also revealed that students developed a positive attitude toward learning
functional group identification through digital platforms. They expressed greater
enjoyment, confidence, and interest when lessons involved interactive software and
visual materials. This enthusiasm reflected a general acceptance of technology-enhanced
instruction in science learning contexts.