Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Chapter 4
General Problem
Introductory Statement

Table 1
Specific Problem Interpretation
Citation
1.1
Synthesis
1.2
Table 2
Interpretation
Citation
Specific Problem Synthesis

1.1 Table 3

1.2 Interpretation
Citation
Synthesis

Table 4
Interpretation
Specific Problem
Citation
Synthesis

Table 5
Interpretation
Citation
Synthesis
 1

Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter provides the presentation of statistical data relative to the problems posited. The

corresponding analysis and interpretation of data are incorporated in this portion of the study.

Comparability of Performance of the Two Groups based on the Diagnostic Test

The researcher compared the mean performance of the students in terms of their diagnostic test to

prove that the selected groups were on the same level. To strengthen the result, t- test was also applied.

Table 1 presents the result of the diagnostic test of both Math Talk and Non- Math Talk group.

Table 1

Mean Performance of the Non-Math Talk and Math Talk Group in the Diagnostic Test

Verbal
GROUPS Description
Score Non-Math Talk Math Talk
f % f %
41-50 0 0 0 0 Excellent
31-40 0 0 0 0 Above Average
21-30 0 0 0 0 Average
11-20 26 57.8 26 63.4 Below Average
0-10 19 42.2 15 36.6 Poor
Total 45 100 41 100
Mean 11.64 11.54
Standard Deviation 2.66 (5.01) 4.54 (4.82)
Description Below Average Below Average

As shown in table 1, 26. or 57.8 percent of the students from the Non-Math Talk group and 26 or 63.4

percent from the Math Talk group obtained scores ranging from 11 to 20 interpreted as below average. There
 2

were 19 or 42.2 percent from the Non-Math Talk group and 15 or 36.6 percent from the Math Talk group who

got scores ranging from 0 to 10 interpreted as poor.

As gathered from Table 1, the Non-Math Talk group had a mean of 11.64 while the Math Talk group

had a mean of 11.54. Both of the means of the groups were interpreted as below average. It shows that both

groups had almost the same mathematical performance in the diagnostic test.

To gain further insight into the differences in students' scores in diagnostic test, t-test is applied.

Test of Significant Difference between the Diagnostic Test Results of the Non- Math Talk and Math

Talk Groups

Table 2 presents the comparison between the results of the diagnostic test of the Non- Math Talk and

Math Talk group to show how comparable they were.

Table 2

Significant Difference between the Diagnostic Test Results of the Non-Math Talk and Math

Talk Groups

Group N Mean SD df p-value Decision Interpretation

As can be gleaned from Table 2, the p- value of 0.892 was greater than the significance level of 0.05;

hence, with 84 degrees of freedom, there was no significant difference between the scores of Non- Math talk

and Math Talk group in diagnostic test. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. This revealed that the
 3

two groups exhibited almost the same level of proficiency in Mathematics before the researcher conducted

the experiment.

Mean Performance of the Non-Math Talk and Math Talk Group

After the selection of the two groups, each of them took up the same pretest to assess what they

already know about the competencies under the first quarter.

Pretest. Table 3 presents the mean performance of the Non-Math Talk and Math Talk group in the

pretest.

Table 3

Mean Performance of the Non- Math Talk and Math Talk Group in the Pretest

Verbal
GROUPS Description
Score Non-Math Talk Math Talk
f % f %
41-50 0 0 0 0 Excellent
31-40 0 0 0 0 Above Average
21-30 0 0 0 0 Average
11-20 30 66.7 20 48.8 Below Average
0-10 15 33.3 21 51.2 Poor
Total 45 100 41 100
Mean 11.60 11.88
Standard Deviation 2.33 3.29
Description Below Average Below Average

Presented in Table 3 was the performance of the Non- Math Talk and Math Talk group in the pretest.

It can be summarized from the data that out of 45 students in the Non- Math Talk group, 30 students or 66.7
 4

percent got scores ranges from 11 to 20 with a description of below average, and 15 students or 33.3 percent

got scores ranges from 0 to 10 with a description of poor. While, in the Math Talk group, out of 41 students,

there were 20 or 48.8 percent got scores ranges from 11 to 20 with a description of below average, and 21 or

51.2 percent got scores ranges from 0 to 10 with a description of poor.

This table also reveals that the Non- Math Talk and Math Talk group were both below average through

their mean score of 11.60 and 11.88 respectively.

The result proved that though number and number sense is part of the curriculum in elementary, still,

majority of the students lagged behind. As revealed by Altar (2015), mathematics is still one of the fields in

which most Filipino students show poor performance.

The two groups took up a common posttest after they undergone instruction using the non-math talk

and math talk, Posttest was used to measure the effect of the non- math talk and math talk to the mathematics

performance of the students in both groups.