Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

In this chapter, the researcher presents the data collected for the study,

along with the analyses conducted and their corresponding interpretations. By

doing so, the chapter aims to shed light on the overarching goal of the research.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Tables 1 to 3 present the demographic profile of the respondents from

three groups of teaching methods that tried to prove the effectiveness of the

integration of natural disaster processes in teaching and learning physics.

Age. The provided data in Table 1 illustrates the age distribution of

students and the pedagogical strategies used to teach physics.

Table 1

Respondents’ Age Distribution from Three Groups of Teaching Method

No
Traditional Integrated Total
Age/Group Intervention
f % f % f % f %
16 years old 2 2.33 1 1.16 1 1.16 4 4.65
17 years old 17 19.77 19 22.09 15 17.44 51 59.30
18 years old 9 10.47 8 9.30 10 11.63 27 31.40
19 years old 1 1.16 1 1.16 2 2.33 4 4.65
Total 29 33.72 29 33.72 28 32.56 86 100
Mean Age 17.31 years old 17.31 years old 17.46 years old 17.36 years old
SD 0.65 years 0.59 years 0.68 years 0.65 years

From the table, there are a total of 86 students in the 16, 17, 18, and 19-

year-old age groups. Each group has a mean age of approximately 17.3 years,

with only a slight difference between the traditional and integrated groups. Each
group's standard deviation is approximately 0.65 years, indicating that the age

distribution within each group is comparable.

It is important to note that the data only provide information on the

distribution of students across teaching methods and do not shed light on the

efficacy of each method. Both traditional and integrated methods have been

shown to be effective for teaching physics, but each has advantages and

disadvantages (Jones et al., 2020).

Gender. Table 2 presents the gender distribution of the respondents in the

three groups of teaching methods used in physics, namely, no intervention,

traditional, and integrated.

Table 2

Respondents’ Gender Distribution from Three Groups of Teaching Method

No
Traditional Integrated Total
Gender Intervention
f % f % f % f %
Male 15 17.44 10 11.63 8 9.30 33 38.37
Female 14 16.28 19 22.09 20 23.26 53 61.63
Total 29 33.72 29 33.72 28 32.46 86 100.00

The data show that out of the total 86 respondents, 33 (38.37%) were male

and 53 (61.63%) were female. When it comes to the specific teaching methods, the

traditional method had the highest percentage of female respondents at 19

(22.09%), followed closely by the integrated method at20 (23.26%). Meanwhile,

the no-intervention method had the lowest percentage of female respondents at

(14) 16.28%.
 The gender distribution in the different teaching methods used in physics

can have implications for teaching and learning. Studies have shown that males

tend to perform better in science subjects, including physics, than their female

counterparts. However, the use of innovative teaching methods, such as the

integrated method, can help increase female students' interest in and

performance in science subjects (Sullivan & Hamed, 2017). This is consistent with

the findings of Table 2, which show that the integrated method had the second-

highest percentage of female respondents.

Furthermore, research suggests that female students tend to have lower

self-efficacy in science subjects than males (Chen, Liao, & Tsai, 2017). This can

lead to a lack of confidence and interest in the subject, which can affect their

performance. Therefore, it is crucial to use teaching methods that can help boost

female students' self-efficacy and confidence in physics. The findings in Table 2

suggest that the traditional and integrated methods might be more effective in

this regard than the no-intervention method since they had higher percentages of

female respondents.

Years of learning physics. Table 3 shows the number and percentage of

respondents from three groups of teaching methods based on their years of

learning physics. The majority of the respondents in all three teaching method

groups have been learning physics for less than one year, with a total of 84

(97.76%) of respondents falling into this category. This suggests that the sample

population may consist mostly of students who are new to learning physics.
 Table 3

Respondents’ Years Learning Physics from Three Groups of Teaching Method

No
Traditional Integrated Total
Gender Intervention
f % f % f % f %
Less than 1
29 33.72 28 32.56 27 31.40 84 97.76
Year
1 – 3 years - - 1 1.16 1 1.16 2 2.33
Total 29 33.72 29 33.72 28 32.46 86 100.00

The data in this table can potentially affect teaching and learning in

physics, as it highlights the need for effective teaching strategies to support

students who are new to the subject (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). This could

involve providing additional support and resources for students who may be

struggling to understand the concepts being taught. Additionally, the data could

inform the development of curriculum and lesson plans that are tailored to the

needs of students who are new to physics.

Differences in Pre-test Scores from the Three Groups of Teaching Method

The data presented in Table 4 shows the pre-test results of a study that

aimed to determine the effectiveness of integrating natural disaster processes

into teaching and learning physics. The study used a non-equivalent control

group design with an experimental group (integrated) and two non-randomly

assigned control groups (no intervention and traditional).

The total number of participants in the study was 86, with 29 in the no-

intervention group, 29 in the traditional group, and 28 in the integrated group.

The sum of scores (X) for each group was 507 for the no intervention group, 572
for the traditional group, and 548 for the integrated group. The mean scores for

each group were 17.48 for the no-intervention group, 19.72 for the traditional

group, and 19.57 for the integrated group. The sum of squares (X2) for each

group was 9451 for the no intervention group, 11658 for the traditional group,

and 11160 for the integrated group. The standard deviation (SD) for each group

was 4.58 for the no-intervention group, 3.66 for the traditional group, and 4.01

for the integrated group.

Table 4

The Analysis of Variance Results for Pre-test Scores

Summary of Data
Groups
No Traditional Integrated Total
Intervention
N 29 29 28 86
ΣX 507 572 548 1627
Mean 17.48 19.72 19.57 18.92
ΣX
2
9451 11658 11160 32269
SD 4.58 3.66 4.01 4.18
Results Details
Source SS df Mean Square F Sig.
Between-treatments 90.54 2 45.27 2.69 0.07 (NS)
Within-treatments 1397.89 83 16.84
Total 1488.43 85
**Level of significance at 0.05, if lower than 0.05 significant (S); if higher than 0.5 not significant (NS)

To determine if there are significant differences in the pre-test scores

among the three groups, the F-test was used. The F-value obtained from the

ANOVA table is 2.69, and the level of significance is 0.07 (NS). This means that

the F-value is not significant at the 0.05 level of significance.

integration of natural disaster processes into teaching and learning physics did

not have a significant impact on students' performance compared to the

traditional approach or no intervention (Smith et al., 2020). The results of this

study suggest that integrating natural disaster processes into teaching and

learning physics may not be significantly more effective than traditional methods

or no intervention. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings

and explore other factors that may impact the effectiveness of this approach.

Differences in Post-test Scores from the Three Groups of Teaching Method

Table 5 presents the analysis of variance results for post-test scores of

students from the three groups of teaching method.

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results for the post-test scores indicate

that there is a statistically significant difference in mean scores between the three

groups. The between-treatment sum of squares (SS) is 2197.60, with 2 degrees of

freedom (df), resulting in a mean square (MS) of 1098.79. The F-value for the

between-treatments comparison is 122.97, which is highly significant at the

p.00001 level. This result suggests that the treatment condition has a significant

effect on the post-test scores.

Tukey’s HSD test was conducted to determine which group means were

significantly different from one another. The test revealed that all pairwise

comparisons were significant at the p.05 level, except for the comparison

between the no intervention and traditional groups, which was not significant.
This finding indicates that the integrated group using the instructional materials

had significantly higher mean post-test scores than both the no-intervention and

traditional groups. Moreover, the integrated group's mean score was

significantly different from the mean score of the traditional group.

Table 5

The Analysis of Variance Results for Post-test Scores

Summary of Data
Groups
No Traditional Integrated Total
Intervention
N 29 29 28 86
ΣX 500 600 821 1921
Mean 17.24 20.69 29.32 22.34
ΣX
2
9070 12674 24105 45849
SD 4.01 3.05 1.09 5.88
Results Details
Source SS df Mean Square F Sig.
Between-treatments 2197.60 2 1098.79 122.97 .00001 (S)
Within-treatments 741.62 83 8.94
Total 2939.22 85
Tukey’s HSD
Pairwise HSD.05 = Q.05 =3.3750 Sig.
Comparisons 1.8845
No Intervention & M1 = 17.24 3.45 Q = 6.18 0.0011 (S)
Traditional M2 = 20.69
No Intervention & M1 = 17.24 12.08 Q = 21.63 0.0000 (S)
Integrated M3 = 29.32
Traditional and M2 = 20.69 8.63 Q = 15.46 0.0000 (S)
Integrated M3 = 29.32
**Level of significance at 0.05, if lower than 0.05 significant (S); if higher than 0.5 not significant (NS)

Several studies have investigated the impact of integrating natural

disaster processes into science education. For example, Kim et al. (2013) found

that incorporating disaster education into science curricula improved students'

understanding of natural disasters and their related science concepts. Similarly,

related topics improved students' attitudes towards science and disaster

awareness. These studies provide literature support for the claim that

incorporating natural disaster processes into teaching and learning physics can

have a significant effect on students' post-test scores and overall knowledge

improvement.

The finding that incorporating natural disaster processes into teaching

and learning physics can lead to a significant improvement in students' post-test

scores and knowledge compared to traditional teaching methods or no

intervention. Additionally, Tukey's HSD test is a valid statistical method to use

for comparing multiple means simultaneously in educational research studies.

Differences in Gained Mean Scores from the Three Groups of Teaching

In table 6, the results showed that the mean score for the experimental

group (integrated) was significantly higher than that of both control groups. The

mean gained score for the integrated group was 9.75, while the no intervention

and traditional groups had mean scores of -0.24 and 0.97, respectively. These

findings indicate that integrating natural disaster processes into physics

instruction is effective in improving students' understanding and learning of

physics concepts related to natural disasters.

The ANOVA results indicated that the between-treatments effect was

significant, indicating that there were significant differences in mean scores

revealed that the mean score differences between the integrated group and both

the no intervention and traditional groups were significant. However, there was

no significant difference in mean score between the no intervention and

traditional groups.

Table 6

The Analysis of Variance Results for Gained Mean Scores

Summary of Data
Groups
No Traditional Integrated Total
Intervention
N 29 29 28 86
ΣX -7 28 273 1921
Mean -0.24 0.97 9.75 3.42
ΣX
2
227 84 3183 3494
SD 2.84 1.43 4.39 5.41
Results Details
Source SS df Mean Square F Sig.
Between-treatments 1685.40 2 842.70 87.05 .00001 (S)
Within-treatments 803.53 83 9.68
Total 2488.93 85
Tukey’s HSD
Pairwise HSD.05 = Q.05 =3.3750 Sig.
Comparisons 1.9616
No Intervention & M1 = -0.24 1.21 Q = 2.08 0.3134 (NS)
Traditional M2 = 0.97
No Intervention & M1 = -0.24 9.99 Q = 17.19 0.0000 (S)
Integrated M3 = 9.75
Traditional and M2 = 0.97 8.78 Q = 15.11 0.0000 (S)
Integrated M3 = 9.75
**Level of significance at 0.05, if lower than 0.05 significant (S); if higher than 0.5 not significant (NS)

The findings of this study have important implications for physics

instruction. Integrating natural disaster processes into physics instruction can

help students better understand and apply physics concepts related to natural
disasters. This can be particularly relevant in regions that are prone to natural

disasters, as it can provide students with the knowledge and skills necessary to

prepare for and respond to such events (Yulianti & Samsudin, 2021).

The study provides evidence that integrating natural disaster processes

into physics instruction can be an effective way to enhance students'

understanding and learning of physics concepts related to natural disasters.

Effectiveness of the Developed Learning Material in Improving

Based on the data presented in Table 7, the developed learning material is

effective in improving the conceptual understanding of the learner-respondents,

particularly in the integrated group. The grand weighted mean of the integrated

group is 4.81, which falls under the "very satisfied" category. On the other hand,

the traditional group has a grand weighted mean of 4.66, which falls under the

"satisfied" category, and the no intervention group has a grand weighted mean of

4.28, which also falls under the "satisfied" category.

Moreover, the mean scores for each statement are generally higher for the

integrated group, indicating that the use of contextualization, integration, and

concrete examples in teaching Physics with Natural Disaster Processes/Concepts

is effective in improving the conceptual understanding of learners. However, it is

noteworthy that the mean score for Statement 4 ("The teacher integrates the

lessons in Physics with Natural Disaster Processes/Concepts") is relatively lower

compared to the other statements for the no intervention and traditional groups.
This may suggest that there is room for improvement in integrating the lessons

in Physics with Natural Disaster Processes/Concepts for these groups.

Table 7

Effectiveness of the Developed Learning Materials in Improving

Group (Mean)
Statements No
Traditional Integrated
Intervention
1. The teacher motivates the students 4.45 4.41 4.75
before starting the class.
2. The teacher contextualizes and 4.45 4.83 4.75
integrates the lesson based on
experiences and prior knowledge.
3. There is an exchange of ideas. 4.55 4.62 4.79
4. The teacher integrates the lessons in 3.83 4.66 4.93
Physics with Natural Disaster
Processes/Concepts.
5. The teacher uses concrete examples 4.14 4.76 4.86
and evidence in discussing and
presenting the lesson.
Grand Weighted Mean 4.28 4.66 4.81
Interpretation S VS VS
**Legend: 4.30 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS)
3.50 – 4.29 Satisfied (S)
2.70 – 3.49 Neutral (N)
1.90 – 2.69 Not Satisfied (NS)
1.00 – 1.89 Very Dissatisfied (VD)

There are several recent studies that support the effectiveness of

integrated teaching approaches in enhancing conceptual understanding among

learners. For example, in a study by Shireen and Shazia (2021), they found that

integrating real-world examples in teaching improved students' conceptual

understanding in physics. This is consistent with the results in Table 7, where the

integrated group had higher mean scores for all statements, indicating the
effectiveness of using contextualization, integration, and concrete examples in

teaching Physics with Natural Disaster Processes/Concepts.

According to a study by Ghazi and Moseley (2019), using an integrated

approach in teaching science not only enhances conceptual understanding but

also improves students' motivation and interest in learning. This is reflected in

the higher mean score for Statement 1 ("The teacher motivates the students

before starting the class") in the integrated group compared to the other groups,

indicating the positive impact of motivation on learning outcomes.