CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATIONS AND ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the results in tabular form, based on the approved

statements of the problem of the study.

Table I. A
Age Distribution of the Instructors Respondents

Indicators Frequency Percentage

25 below 57 30.00
26-30 37 41.11
31-35 14 15.56
36-40 4 4.44
41 above 8 8.89
Total 90 100

The table I. A show the age distribution of the instructors’ respondents.

It showed that among 90 respondents. 37 or 41.11% where in the age bracket

26-30 years old, 27 or 30.00% ages 25 years old and below, 14 or 15.56% were

36-40 years old, 8 or 8.89% were 41 years and above, and 4 or 44% were 36-40

years old.
 These results showed that the majority of instructor’s respondents were

26-30 years old.

Table I. B

Sex Distribution of the Instructors Respondents

Sex Frequency Percentage

Male 32 57.78
Female 38 42.22
Total 90 100

Table I. shows the sex distribution of the instructors’ respondents.

It showed that among 90 respondents. 38 or 42.22% were female and 32

or 57.78% of respondents

Were male.

It indicates that majority of the respondents were female.

35
 Table I. C
Years in Service of the Instructors Respondents

Indicators Frequency
Percentage
1-3 years and below 38 42.22
4-6 years 33 36.67
7-9 years 11 12.22
10 years and above 8 8.89
Total 90 100

The table I. C show the years in service of instructor’s respondents.

It showed that among 90 respondents. 38 or 42.22% were 1-3 years and

below 33 or 36.67% were 4-6 years, 11 or 12.22% were 7-9 years, and 8 or 89%

were 10 years above in the service.

This indicates that most of instructor respondents were 1-3 years and

below in the service as the college instructors.

35
 Table I. D
Age Distribution of the Student-respondents

Indicators Frequency
Percentage
16-20 years old and below 35 31.82
21-25 years old 58 52.73
26-30 years old 13 11.82
31 years old and above 4 3.63
Total 110 100

Table I.A show the age distribution of the students’ respondents.

The table shows that among 110 respondents. 58 or 52.73% were

in the age bracket of 21-25 years old followed by 35 or 31-82% were in the age

bracket 16-20 years old and below, 13 or 11.82% were in the age bracket of 26-

30 years, 4 or 3.63% were in the age bracket of 31 years old and above.

This indicate the majority of the student-respondents were in the

age bracket of 21-25 years old.

35
 Table I. E
Sex Distribution of the Student-respondents.

Indicators Frequency Percentage

Male 25 22.73
Female 85 77.27
Total 110 100

Table I.B shows the sex distribution of the students’ respondents.

The table showed that among 110 respondents, 85 or 77.27% were

female and 25 or 22.73% were male.

This indicates that majority of respondents were female.

35
 Table I. F
Course Distribution of the Student-respondents.

Course Frequency
Percentage
BEED 63 57.27
BSED 47 42.73
Total 110 100

Table I. C above exhibits the course distribution of the students’

respondents.

The table exhibited that among 110 respondents, 63 or 57.27%

were BEED, followed by 47 or 42.73% were BSED.

This indicates that majority of the respondents were BEED.

35
 Table I. G
Years Level Distribution of the Students Respondents.

Indicators Frequency percentage

First Year 31 28.18
Second Year 10 9.09
Third Year 69 62.73
Total 110 100

Table I. C show the year level of the students’ respondents.

The table showed that among 110 respondents, 69 or 62.73% were

Third year, followed by 31 or 28.18% were first year, 10 or 9.09% were second

year.

This mean that majority of student’s respondents were Third year

35
 Table II

Enhance Teaching Approaches of the Instructors.

Indicators Mean Description

1. Constructivist Approach 2.77
Always
2. Collaborative Approach 2.77 Always
3. Integrative Approach 2.74 Always
4. Blended Learning Approach 2.61 Always
5. Modular Approach 2.06 Sometimes
6. Synchronous 2.36 Always
Asynchronous 2.40 Always
7. Video presentation 2.38 Always
Grand Mean 2.51 Always
Scale/Description: Always (A), Sometimes (S), and never (N)

Table II show the enhance teaching approaches of the instructors.

It showed that respondents rated always with a respective mean 2.77, 2.77, 2.74,

2.61, 2.36, 2.40, and 2.38 and indicators was rated sometimes with a mean of

2.06.

The grand mean of 2.51 with a description of always implies that

the instructors enhanced their teaching approaches.

35
 Table III

Students Satisfaction to Enhanced Teaching Approaches

Indicators Mean
Description
1. The teaching approach is learning 2.65 Very
Satisfied
2. It is inclusive and developmentally
appropriate 2.50 Very
Satisfied
3. Contextual and global 2.41 Very
Satisfied
4. Use the spiral progression 2.39 Very
Satisfied
5. The teaching is relevant and responsive 2.66 Very
Satisfied
6. The delivery od discussion is flexible
enough and allow- schools to localize. 2.54 Very
Satisfied

7. Let the students lead the discussion 2.44 Very Satisfied

8. The teaching is free from
intervention and manipulation. 2.40 Very Satisfied
9. Promote hands-on activity 2.61 Very Satisfied
10. Allows students to express their thought. 2.63 Very Satisfied

35
Grand Mean 2.52 Very
Satisfied
Scale/Description: Very satisfied (3), Satisfied (2), and not satisfied (1).
Table III Presents the students satisfaction on the enhanced

teaching approaches.

The table cited that all indicators, were rated very satisfied by the

respondents and with mean ranging from 2.66 to 2.61.

The computed grand mean with a numerical value of 2.52 implies

that the students were very satisfactioned on the enhanced teaching approaches

of the instructors.

35