Problem 4.

Do the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning differ significantly when grouped according to the profile variables?

Table 29 presents the summary of analysis on the differences in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning when grouped according to their profile variables. To ascertain whether or not significant differences exist between the two groups of variables, t-test was used for the profile variables with two classifications and F-test for variables with three or more groupings. As seen in Table 29, there are three (3) profile variables that caused significant differences in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning and these are undergraduate academic discipline, academic rank and actual teaching load.

Table 29 Summary of Analysis on the Differences in the Respondents Teaching Effectiveness along Teaching for Independent Learning When Grouped according to the Profile Variables

Variables

Age

Gender

Groupings 50 % above 40 49 30 39 20 - 29 0-3 Temporary Male Female

Mean 3.78 4.00 3.98 4.03 3.97 3.86 4.00 3.94

df 3 & 77

Computed F-Value

Critical Value

Remarks

1.186

2.72

Not Significant

79

.789

1.990

Not Significant

Civil Status Size of the Family

Highest Education Attainment

Status of Employment

Undergraduate Academic Discipline

Academic Rank

Actual Teaching Load Number of Academic Preparation Length of Teaching Experience

Special Assignment or Designation

Number of Relevant Seminars Attended Adequacy of Information and Communication Technology Adequacy of Reading Materials at Home

Married Single 4 & above 0-3 Bachelors Degree With Masteral Units Masters Degree With Doctoral Units Doctoral Degree Permanent Temporary English Mathematics Filipino Science MAPEH Social Studies Others Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor 16 - 20 11 - 15 10 & below 2 & below 3 4 20 & above 10 - 19 0-9 Administrators Chairman Project-in-Charge Coordinator Chief 7 & above 4-6 1-3 Very Adequate Adequate Not Adequate Very Adequate Adequate Not Adequate

3.94 3.91 3.97 3.97 4.11 3.81 3.99 4.00 3.94 3.94 3.86 4.04 3.82 3.96 4.12 3.98 4.08 3.85 4.00 3.95 3.92 3.71 4.06 3.96 3.72 3.96 4.02 3.84 4.06 3.94 3.80 4.09 4.03 3.96 3.97 3.89 4.00 3.98 3.97 3.94 4.05 3.95 3.97 4.03

79 79 4 & 76

.225 0

1.990 1.990

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

0.159

2.49

79

.561

1.990

Not Significant

6 & 74

2.385

2.22

Significant

2 & 78 2 & 78 2 & 78 2 & 78 4 & 76 2 & 78 2 & 78 2 & 78

4.000

3.11

Significant

4.048

3.11

Significant

1.757

3.11

Not Significant Not Significant

2.615

3.11

1.545

2.49

Not Significant

0.789

3.11

Not Significant Not Significant

0.570

3.11

0.116

3.11

Not Significant

As presented in Table 29, the variable undergraduate academic discipline caused a significant difference in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning as supported by the computed value of 2.385 which is greater than the critical value of 2.22 for 6 and 74 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Respondents who specialized in Science has the highest mean score which is 4.12 which could mean that they teach more effectively along teaching for independent learning than other disciplines. Meanwhile, academic rank also caused a significant difference in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning with a computed value of 4.00 which is greater than the critical value of 3.11 for 2 and 78 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Trying to look at the result on Table 29, there seems an absurd result. Data show that Instructor position posts a higher mean score which is 4.00 compared with Assistant Professorship and Associate Professorship with mean scores of 3.95 and 3.92 respectively which could mean that instructors teach more effectively along teaching for independent learning than assistant and associate professors. Actual teaching load also caused a significant difference in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning, with a computed value of 4.05 which is greater than the critical value of 3.11 for 2 and 78 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level of significance.

Respondents with 11-15 teaching loads have greater teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning as supported by the mean score of 4.06 than those with greater or lesser loads. The rest of the variables did not cause a significant variance in the respondents teaching effectiveness along teaching for independent learning. The mean differences in the responses of the different ages when subjected to F-test yielded a value of 1.186 which is lower than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 77 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Gender, civil status, size of the family, and status of employment obtained computed t-values of 0.789, 0.225, 0 and 0.561 respectively, all of which are lower than the critical value of 1.99 for 79 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level. Likewise, highest educational attainment and special assignment or designation yielded computed F-values of 0.159 and 1.545 respectively also lower than the critical value of 2.49 for 4 and 76 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Meanwhile, number of academic preparation, length of teaching experience, number of relevant seminars attended, adequacy of information and communication technology and adequacy of reading materials at home obtained computed values of 1.757, 2.615, 0.789, 0.570 and 0.116 respectively which was exceeded by the critical value of 3.11 for 2 and 78 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level.