Name: Mashelet V.

Valle
Course/Year: Maed –Sci 1
Subject: ED 102

Prelim and Midterm Exam

STUDENTS’ INTEREST AND ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH THE USE OF 7E-

INQUIRY BASED APPROACH IN TEACHING SCIENCE

Conceptual Framework

Using 7E Inquiry-Based Approach

(Experimental Group)
*First Trial Run
*Second Trial Run

Science
Achievement
Pretest/
Posttest Inputs

Students’
Interest
Conventional Method
(Control Group)
*First Trial Run
*Second Trial Run

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study is to assess the efficiency of using 7E Inquiry-

Based Approach in teaching Science of the Grade 7 students of Aurora National High

School during the school year 2017-2018.

 Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of Science achievement using 7E Inquiry-Based Approach

(experimental group) and Conventional Method of teaching (control group) as

revealed by the pretest and posttest results in two trial runs?

2. What is the level of students’ interest in Science using 7E Inquiry-Based

Approach (experimental group) and Conventional Method of teaching (control

group) during the two trial runs?

3. Is there a significant difference in students’ Science achievement using 7E

Inquiry-Based Approach (experimental group) and Conventional Method of

teaching (control group) in the posttest results of two trial runs? (Note: Use

independent samples t-test)

4. Is there a significant difference in students’ interest in Science using 7E

Inquiry-Based Approach (experimental group) and Conventional Method of

teaching (control group) in the two trial runs? (Note: Use independent samples

t-test)

5. Is there a significant relationship between students’ Science achievement and

interest? (Note: Use Pearson correlation test; combine 1st trial run and 2nd trial

run posttest results and level of interest for both experimental and control

groups)

Statement of the Hypotheses

The hypotheses that follow are to be tested in this study using 0.05 level of

significance.
 1. There is no significant difference in students’ Science achievement using 7E

Inquiry-Based Approach (experimental group) and Conventional Method of

teaching (control group) in the posttest results of two trial runs.

2. There is no significant difference in students’ interest in Science using 7E

Inquiry-Based Approach (experimental group) and Conventional Method of

teaching (control group) in the two trial runs.

3. There is no significant relationship between students’ Science achievement and

interest.

Instrumentation

To determine the quality of students’ learning of the two intact groups during the

pretest and posttest, the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) and its descriptive equivalent

below taken from DepEd Memorandum No. 160, s. 2012 was used.

MASTERY/ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS Descriptive Equivalent
96 – 100% Mastered
86 – 95% Closely Approximating Mastery
66 – 85% Moving Towards Mastery
35 – 65% Average
15 – 34% Low
5 – 14% Very Low
0 – 4% Absolutely No Mastery

A questionnaire from Luttrell, et al. (2009) was also be utilized with

modifications to measure students’ interest in learning Mathematics both from the control

and experimental group. The questionnaire is set at 4-point scale: 1 – Not at all true; 2 –

A little true; 3 – Often true; and 4 – Always true.

 The following is the hypothetical mean range that was used to describe students’

interest on the learning process:

3.26 – 4.00 = Very High

2.51 – 3.25 = High

1.76 – 2.50 = Low

1.00 – 1.75 = Very Low

Results and Discussion

Level of Students’ Achievement. The data on the test result of the students’

achievement using the 7E Inquiry-Based approach (experimental group) and

Conventional teaching method (control group) for both first trial and second trial runs

were shown in Table 1.

As shown in the table, the use of 7E Inquiry-Based Approach in teaching

generates a posttest result with an MPS of 65%, descriptively interpreted as average of

which a computed increase of 44% in the level of students’ achievement from the pretest

with an MPS of 21% which is descriptively interpreted as low for the first trial run was

exhibited. The posttest result for the second trial run exhibited an MPS of 60%,

descriptively interpreted as average, which is a 38% increase in the level of students’

achievement from the pretest with an MPS of 22% which is descriptively interpreted as

low.

Table 1. Level of Students' Achievement

 Using 7E Inquiry-Based Approach Conventional Method
(Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Test
MPS Descriptive Equivalent MPS Descriptive Equivalent
st
1 Trial Pretest 21% Low 24% Low
Run Posttest 65% Average 55% Average

Percentage 44% 31%

Increase
2nd Trial Pretest 22% Low 22% Low
Run Posttest 60% Average 48% Average
Percentage 38% 26%
Increase
Scale: 96 – 100% = Mastered; 86 – 95% = Closely Approximating Mastery; 66 – 85% = Moving Towards Mastery;
35 – 65% = Average; 15 – 34% = Low; 5 – 14% = Very Low; 0 – 14% = Absolutely No Mastery

The pretest of the control group in the first trial and second trial runs were low

with a mean percentage score (MPS) of 24% and 22%, respectively. A descriptive

equivalent average with an MPS of 55% for the posttest in the first trial run of which

indicates an increase of 31% in the level of students’ achievement from the pretest. Also,

a descriptive equivalent average with an MPS of 48% for the posttest in the second trial

run of which shows an increase of 26% in the level of students’ achievement from the

pretest.

The findings indicated that there is an increase in the level of students'

achievement from the pretest to posttest using the two methods in teaching Mathematics.

The experimental group, which is taught using the 7E Inquiry-Based Approach, appeared

to have a better performance with an average increase in their level of achievement of

41% compared to students in the control group with an average increase of only 28.5%.

The posttest result of the experimental group during the two trial runs are higher than that

of the control group. This indicates that using a 7E Inquiry-Based Approach posted a

higher achievement level than using the conventional teaching method.

 Level of Students’ Interest (1st trial run). Table 2 shows the results in

determining the students’ level of Interest in learning Science. The overall level of

interest in learning using Video in Teaching (experimental) was observed to be Very

High (M = 3.64; SD = 0.55). Similarly, the overall level of interest in learning with

Conventional Method was also observed to be Very High (M = 3.46; SD = 0.71). Taking

into consideration the range of the deviations, the control group seems to be more

homogeneous compared to the experimental group which means that the responses of the

students in terms of their level of interest when they are taught using Video in Teaching

are a bit varied compared to the responses of the students who are taught using

Conventional Method.

Interestingly, all the indicators of students’ interest in the experimental group are

posted means interpreted as Very High. On the other hand, only the Item #3, indicated a

level of engagement interpreted as High while the remaining eleven (11) items posted

means interpreted as Very High. By and large, students in the experimental and control

groups showed approximately equivalent level of engagement in the learning process.

Table 2. Level of Students' Interest (1st trial run)

Using Video in Teaching Conventional Method
Indicators (Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Mean SD Remarks Mean SD Remarks
1. I find many topics in Mathematics to be 3.83 0.46 Very High 3.73 0.45 Very High
interesting.
2. Solving Math problems is interesting for 3.37 0.56 Very High 3.50 0.63 Very High
me.
3. Mathematics fascinates me. 3.60 0.56 Very High 3.20 0.66 High

4 I am interested in doing Math problems. 3.73 0.52 Very High 3.37 0.81 Very High

5. It is fun to do Math. 3.60 0.67 Very High 3.40 0.81 Very High

6. Learning new topics in Mathematics is 3.60 0.50 Very High 3.73 0.52 Very High
interesting

7. I find Math intellectually stimulating. 3.77 0.50 Very High 3.27 0.74 Very High

8. I find the teaching of Mathematics in our 3.57 0.68 Very High 3.53 0.73 Very High
class to be interesting.
9. When I’m in Mathematics class, I listen 3.73 0.45 Very High 3.27 0.78 Very High
very carefully.
10. I want to learn more lessons in 3.70 0.47 Very High 3.73 0.52 Very High
Mathematics.
11. I want to be involved on working on 3.67 0.61 Very High 3.30 0.79 Very High
something in Mathematics class.
12. I want to share my learning in 3.53 0.63 Very High 3.53 0.73 Very High
Mathematics with my classmates.
3.64 0.55 Very High 3.46 0.71 Very High
Overall
Scale: 1.00 – 1.75 = Very Low; 1.76 – 2.50 = Low; 2.51 – 3.25 = High; 3.26 – 4.00 = Very High

Level of Students’ Interest (2nd trial run). Table 3 shows the results in

determining the students’ level of Interest in learning Science. The overall level of

interest in learning using Video in Teaching (experimental) was observed to be Very

High (M = 3.59; SD = 0.57). Similarly, the overall level of interest in learning with

Conventional Method was also observed to be Very High (M = 3.44; SD = 0.67). Taking

into consideration the range of the deviations, the control group seems to be more

homogeneous compared to the experimental group which means that the responses of the

students in terms of their level of interest when they are taught using Video in Teaching

are a bit varied compared to the responses of the students who are taught using

Conventional Method.

Interestingly, all the indicators of students’ interest in the experimental group are

posted means interpreted as Very High. On the other hand, only the Item #11, indicated a

level of engagement interpreted as High while the remaining eleven (11) items posted

means interpreted as Very High. By and large, students in the experimental and control

groups showed approximately equivalent level of engagement in the learning process.

Table 3. Level of Students' Interest (2nd trial run)

Using Video in Teaching Conventional Method

Indicators (Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Mean SD Remarks Mean SD Remarks
1. I find many topics in Mathematics to be 3.60 0.56 Very High 3.33 0.66 Very High
interesting.
2. Solving Math problems is interesting for 3.33 0.61 Very High 3.70 0.47 Very High
me.
3. Mathematics fascinates me. 3.30 0.70 Very High 3.33 0.71 Very High

4 I am interested in doing Math problems. 3.40 0.67 Very High 3.37 0.67 Very High

5. It is fun to do Math. 3.67 0.55 Very High 3.40 0.77 Very High

6. Learning new topics in Mathematics is 3.87 0.43 Very High 3.63 0.61 Very High
interesting
7. I find Math intellectually stimulating. 3.57 0.57 Very High 3.60 0.50 Very High

8. I find the teaching of Mathematics in our 3.67 0.55 Very High 3.40 0.72 Very High
class to be interesting.
9. When I’m in Mathematics class, I listen 3.57 0.50 Very High 3.33 0.61 Very High
very carefully.
10. I want to learn more lessons in 3.83 0.38 Very High 3.63 0.56 Very High
Mathematics.
11. I want to be involved on working on 3.60 0.56 Very High 3.13 0.78 High
something in Mathematics class.
12. I want to share my learning in 3.73 0.45 Very High 3.47 0.78 Very High
Mathematics with my classmates.
3.59 0.57 Very High 3.44 0.67 Very High
Overall

Scale: 1.00 – 1.75 = Very Low; 1.76 – 2.50 = Low; 2.51 – 3.25 = High; 3.26 – 4.00 = Very High

Testing of the Hypotheses

By employing Independent Samples t-test, Table 4 establishes that there is no

significant difference in students’ achievement in learning Science using 7E Inquiry-

Based (experimental) and Conventional Method (control). The table (t-value = 3.823; p-

value = 0.003) tells that the student in the experimental have significantly higher level of

achievement compared to the control group.

Table 4. Testing Differences in Students’ Achievement (Posttests) Using 7E Inquiry-

Based (Experimental Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group): 1st Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value df p– Remarks
value
Using 7E Inquiry-Based 16.13 1.943 3.823 58 0.003 With
Significant
(Experimental Group)
Difference
Using Conventional 13.67 2.952 3.823 50.157
Method
(Control Group)

In 2nd trial run also using Independent Sample T-test, table 5 establishes that there

is no significant difference in students’ achievement using 7E Inquiry-Based

(Experimental Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group). The table (t-value =

6.338; p-value = 0.100) shows that the variances of two variables are homogenous which

means that the level of achievement of the students both in experimental and control

group are the same.

Table 5. Testing Differences in Students’ Achievement (Posttests) Using 7E Inquiry-

Based (Experimental Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group): 2nd Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value df p– Remarks
value
Using 7E Inquiry-Based 14.97 1.450 6.338 58 0.100 With No
(Experimental Group) Significant
Difference
Using Conventional 11.90 2.218 6.338 49.955
Method
(Control Group)

Using Independent Sample T-test on Table 6 (1 st trial run) establishes that there is

no significant difference in students’ interest in using 7E Inquiry-Based (experimental

group) and Conventional Method (control group). The table (t-value = 1.105; p-value =

0.274) reveals that the students in the experimental and control group are homogenous in

terms of variances, which means both methods captured the same level of students’

interest.

Table 6. Testing Differences in Students’ Interest Using 7E Inquiry-Based (Experimental

Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group): 1st Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value df p – value Remarks
Using 7E Inquiry-Based 3.64 0.54 1.105 58 0.274 With No
(Experimental Group) Significant
Difference
Using Conventional 3.46 0.71 1.105 54.14 0.274 With No
Method Significant
(Control Group) Difference

By employing Independent Sample T-test, table 7 establishes that there is a

significant difference in students’ interest in using 7E Inquiry-Based Approach

(Experimental Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group). The table (t-value =

2.513 p-value = 0.015) reveals that students in the experimental have significantly higher

level of interest than the control group.

Table 7 shows a significant effect of treatment on students’ interest in science.

This could have been due to the fact that 7E Inquiry-Based strategies often provide a

better platform as well as environment for more meaningful learning to take place. The

strategies used in this study encourage active participation on the students’ part while the

teacher assumes the role of a guide and not instructor as is the case in a conventional

science class. Science if often perceived by students as a difficult course. Therefore, any

strategy that can demystify this subject is often welcomed by students.

Table 7. Testing Differences in Students’ Interest Using 7E Inquiry-Based (Experimental
Group) and Conventional Method (Control Group): 2nd Trial Run
Variables Mean SD t – value df p– Remarks
value
Using 7E Inquiry-Based 43.13 2.849 2.513 58 0.015 With
(Experimental Group) Significant
Difference
Using Conventional 41.33 2.695 2.513 57.821 0.015
Method
(Control Group)

Table 8. Test of Correlation between Students’ Achievement and Interest

Variables r – value Remarks p – value Remarks

Students’ .183* No Linear 0.046 With
Achievement and Positive Significant
Interest Relationship Relationship
Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship
± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The results show that there is No Linear Positive Correlation between Students’

Achievement and Interest (Pearson “r” = .183) which means that when the students’

achievement skills are more strengthened and develop, the better they perform in Science.

On the other hand, is such students’ interest are weak, the bigger the chance that they will

have poor performance in Science. Besides, a significant relationship was established

between the two variables (p-value < .05). Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected and the

alternative hypothesis specifying that there is a significant relationship between students’

Science achievement and interest was accepted.

According to Caliskan (2004) methodology is the dominant factor in

science teaching to achieve the goals of science education. The conventional teaching

method used in teaching science in many schools is a key barrier in achieving success in
chemistry education. Researchers have shown that some causes of students’ anxiety

leading to the perception of chemistry as a difficult subject include: wide coverage of the

syllabus, students’ background problems, students’ lack of interest in and poor attitude

towards chemistry, low awareness of career opportunities, lack of teaching

aids/laboratory, the abstract nature of science concepts, the teacher, traditional teaching

strategies, and teacher-centered applications (Jegede 2007; Kolomuc, Ozmen, Metin &

Acisli, 2012; Nbina & Vico, 2010).

Data Set

Science Achievement
experimental group control group
1st trial run 1st trial run

student Pretest posttest student pretest posttest

1 4 15 1 7 17
2 1 15 2 5 14
3 9 16 3 10 11
 4 6 18 4 3 10
5 4 16 5 3 16
6 4 15 6 4 16
7 7 16 7 5 16
8 6 18 8 8 17
9 3 19 9 5 15
10 3 14 10 9 10
11 8 16 11 8 15
12 4 15 12 4 16
13 4 16 13 13 10
14 4 15 14 8 13
15 6 14 15 6 11
16 3 14 16 6 11
17 5 19 17 4 9
18 6 15 18 5 9
19 6 12 19 8 9
20 6 19 20 6 17
21 3 20 21 3 13
22 5 17 22 7 19
23 4 16 23 2 15
24 7 15 24 3 11
25 8 17 25 7 16
26 6 20 26 6 18
27 7 16 27 7 15
28 9 17 28 8 13
29 4 14 29 5 15
30 5 15 30 5 13

Science Achievement
experimental group control group
2nd trial run 2nd trial run

student pretest posttest student pretest posttest

1 6 14 1 5 10
2 5 15 2 5 11
3 4 14 3 4 11
4 6 13 4 7 11
5 5 13 5 6 12
 6 6 13 6 5 12
7 6 14 7 6 10
8 4 13 8 6 12
9 4 14 9 4 12
10 6 16 10 5 13
11 7 15 11 8 16
12 4 14 12 4 13
13 7 14 13 8 10
14 5 15 14 4 9
15 6 15 15 5 10
16 6 15 16 5 11
17 5 14 17 6 10
18 6 15 18 6 10
19 5 16 19 5 13
20 7 18 20 5 10
21 7 18 21 8 19
22 6 15 22 5 13
23 5 18 23 4 11
24 7 16 24 8 16
25 5 16 25 6 14
26 6 17 26 6 14
27 5 16 27 5 10
28 4 14 28 3 12
29 4 15 29 2 10
30 5 14 30 6 12

Students’ Interest: Experimental Group

1st trial run
student/indicators   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1   2 3 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3
2   4 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4
3   3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4
4   3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4
5   4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
6   4 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4
7   4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 3
8   4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
 9   4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
10   4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
11   3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
12   4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3
13   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
14   4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3
15   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
16   4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
17   4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4
18   4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
19   4 3 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2
20   4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
21   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
22   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
23   4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
24   4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
25   4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3
26   4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
27   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
28   4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3
29   4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2
30   4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4

Students’ Interest: Control Group

1st trial run
student/indicators   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1   3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3
2   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
3   4 4 2 3 2 4 2 1 2 3 4 2
4   4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4
5   3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
6   3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4
 7   3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2
8   4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3
9   3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4
10   4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 1 4
11   4 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 4
12   4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
13   4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 4
14   4 3 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 4
15   4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
16   3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4
17   4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
18   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
19   4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 2
20   4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 3
21   4 2 3 1 4 4 2 3 1 2 4 3
22   3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 4
23   4 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
24   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
25   4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
26   3 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 2
27   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
28   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
29   4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4
30   4 4 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4

Students’ Interest: Experimental Group

2nd trial run
student/indicators   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1   3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4
2   3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4
3   3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4
5   3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4
6   4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
7   4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3
8   3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4
9   4 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3
10   3 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4
 11   2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 3
12   4 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4
13   4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
14   4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4
15   3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
16   3 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 3 4
17   4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3
18   4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
19   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
20   4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
21   3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
22   3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4
23   4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
24   4 2 3 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 3
25   4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3
26   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
27   4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
28   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
29   4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
30   4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3

Students’ Interest: Control Group

2nd trial run
student/indicators   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1   3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3
2   3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4
3   3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4
4   3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 3
5   3 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 3 4
6   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
7   2 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 4 3
8   4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4
9   4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4
10   3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2
11   3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2
12   3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
13   4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4
14   3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4
15   4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3
16   3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4
17   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 2 4
18   3 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 3 3
19   4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 2
20   3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4
21   4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3
22   2 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4
23   4 4 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
24   3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4
25   4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4
26   4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
27   3 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 4
28   2 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2
29   4 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 4
30   4 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 2