Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

This chapter dealt with the presentation, analysis and interpretation

of data gathered to carry out the objectives of this study. All these were

made possible by following certain appropriate procedures so as to give

the exact data and solution to each specific problem.

Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in Reading the Pretest and

Posttest of the of the Control Group

Table 2 shows the level of grade 6 pupils’ performance in reading the

pretest and posttest of the of the control group. During the pretest of the

control group, the recorded mean score was only 58.55, interpreted as

“Frustration” level. However, the result showed that the Posttest of the

same control group went up to 76.50, interpreted as “Instructional” level.

The reading performance of the control group obviously took a leap

from frustration to instructional. It best to note here that the control group

was not subjected to any intervention program. The casual classroom

teaching was conducted though.

According to the University of Utah Reading Clinic (2018),

Frustration reading levels include text for which a reader does not have

adequate background level for a topic and/or cannot meet criteria for

instructional levels of accuracy and rate. Think of frustration levels as

those levels that require extensive or even moderate assistance from an

educator. To get a sense of frustration level text, think about a skill or

 43

ability for which you have expertise (e.g., skiing, knitting, writing, playing

a musical instrument).

Table 2

Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in Reading the Pretest and

Posttest of the of the Control Group

Test N Mean Interpretation

Pretest 23 58.55 Frustration

Posttest 23 76.50 Instructional

Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in Reading the Pretest and

Posttest of the of the Experimental Group

Shown on Table 3 is results of the pretest and posttest of the

experimental group. The pretest of the experimental group was only at

35.55, interpreted as “Frustration Level” while at the Posttest, the results

showed that it was 80.48, interpreted as “Independent”.

This implies that there was a huge leap in terms of the pupils’

reading proficiency after the experimental group was subjected to a

month-long intervention using the Gradual Psychological Unfolding (GPU).

Prior to the Posttest, the learners were given weekly exercises that would

help them improve their reading comprehension level using the GPU

Approach.
 44

Table 3

Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in Reading the Pretest and

Posttest of the of the Experimental Group

Test N Mean Interpretation

Pretest 21 35.55 Frustration

Posttest 21 80.48 Independent

Comparative Study Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’

Performance in Reading the Pretest and Posttest
of the Control Group

Table 4 showed the comparative study between the levels of Grade

6 Pupils performance in the Pretest and Posttest of the Control Group. The

pretest mean score was 58.55, interpreted as “frustration” level while the

posttest was at 76.50, interpreted as “independent”. The p-value was at

0.000, interpreted as “significant” which is less than the 0.05 level of

significance, thus, the null hypothesis which says, “There is no significant

difference in the levels of Grade 6 pupils’ performance in reading in the

pretest and posttest of the control group” is hereby rejected.

This implies that there was a significant increase in the performance

of the control group when figures are compared from the pretest with the

posttest. This goes to show that despite the absence of GPU approach as

a form of intervention, the respondents were able to make it to

“instructional level”. Although this level would still mean that the
 45

respondents need additional guidance to comprehend what they need, the

leap in the scores was substantial and this could indicate a positive

outlook for the respondents reading abilities.

Table 4

Difference Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in

Reading the Pretest and Posttest of the Control Group

p-
Test Mean QD N Df t-stat Decision
value
Pretest 58.55 Frustration 23 Significant
-
22 0.000
15.441
Posttest 76.50 Independent 23

Comparative Analysis Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’

Performance in Reading the Pretest and Posttest of the
Experimental Group

Table 5 showed the comparative study of the level of performances

of the experimental group during the Pretest and the Posttest. The Pretest

mean score was at 35.55, interpreted as “Frustration” level while the

Posttest was showing as 80.48, interpreted as “Independent”. The p-value

was at 0.00, interpreted as “significant”, which is less than the 0.05 level

of significance, thus, the null hypothesis which says “There is no

significant difference in the levels of Grade 6 pupils’ performance in

reading in the pretest and posttest of the experimental group” is hereby

rejected.
 46

This proved the efficacy of Gradual Psychological Unfolding as an

intervention to address poor reading comprehension of the pupils.

Table 5

Difference Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in

Reading the Pretest and Posttest of the Experimental Group

p-
Test Mean QD N Df t-stat Decision
value
Pretest 35.55 Frustration 21 Significant
-
20 0.000
21.354
Posttest 80.48 Independent 21

Comparative Study Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’

Performance in Reading the Pretest of the Control
and Experimental Groups

Table 6 showed the comparative study between the performance of

Grade 6 pupils in the Pretest of the Control and Experimental Groups. The

results of the study showed that both groups were at the “frustration” level

but the experimental group was outperformed by the control group.

The control group has a mean score of 58.55, interpreted as

“frustration level” while the experimental group was at 35.55, also

interpreted as “frustration level”. The p-value was at 0.000, which is lower

than the 0.05 level of significant, thus the hypothesis which states that “Is

there a significant difference in the levels of Grade 6 pupils’ performance

in reading in the pretest of the control and experimental” group is rejected.

 47

The experimental group came from the higher section, thus the

base-knowledge of the of the control group is deemed to be at a more

advantage side. The result is proof of that claim.

Table 6

Difference Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in

Reading the Pretest of the Control and Experimental Groups

p-
Group Mean QD N Df t-stat Decision
value
Control 58.55 Frustration 23 Significant
42 9.850 0.000
Experimental 35.55 Frustration 21

Comparative Study Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’

Performance in Reading the Posttest of the Control and
Experimental Groups

Table 7 shows the results of the comparative study between the

performance of Grade 6 pupils in the posttest of the control and

experimental group. The p-value showed a mean score of 0.640n

interpreted as “not significant”, which is higher than the 0.05 level of

significance, thus the hypothesis which states that, “There is no significant

difference in the levels of Grade 6 pupils’ performance in reading in the

pretest and posttest of the control and experimental group” is hereby

accepted.

Despite the fact that the experimental group was able to reach the

“independent” level, it was at the lower bracket while the control group

was at the higher bracket of the “instructional” level. Statistically

 48

speaking, the numerical value which separates the two groups is not

substantial to provide a clearer difference between the two groups.

Table 7

Difference Between the Level of Grade 6 Pupils’ Performance in

Reading the Posttest of the Control and Experimental Groups

p-
Group Mean QD N Df t-stat Decision
value
not
Control 76.50 Independent 23
Significant
42 0.471 0.640
Experimental 81.27 Independent 21