MASTERAL THESIS

The Effectiveness of Integrating

the Theory of Constraints for Education in the

Teaching-Learning Processin English I

Specific Problems1.What is the profile of the respondents in

terms of1.1 gender1.2 monthly family income 1.3 type of school graduated from1.4 grades in English I?

* Statistical ToolsMean, Percentage, Rank

*Findings Table 1. Frequency, Percentage and

Rank Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Their Profile

Profile f % Rank

Gender

Male 54 52 1

Female 49 48 2

Total 103 100

Profile f % Rank

Monthly Family Income

40,001 – above 6 6 4

20,001 – 40,000 24 23 3

10,001 – 20,000 32 31 25,001 – 10,000 36 35 13,001 – 5,000 5 5 5Total 103 100

Profile f % Rank

Type of School

Graduated From

Public 101 98 1

Private 2 2 2

Total 103 100

Profile f % Rank

Grades In

English

86 – 90 21 20 3

81 – 85 41 40 1

76 – 80 35 34 2

70 - 75 6 6 4

Total 103 100

2. What is the level of performance of the respondents before and after exposure to

TOCFE thinking tools in terms of2.1 Communication Skills2.1.1 Cloud2.1.2 Branch2.1.3 Ambitious Target2.2. Behavioral Skills2.2.1 Cloud2.2.2 Branch2.2.3 Ambitious Target?*Statistical Tool:Mean and Standard Deviation

*Findings Computed Mean on the Level of

Performance of the Students Before and After Exposure to

TOCFE Thinking Tools in Terms of Communication and Behavioral

Skills

Legend:5 - 4.13 –5 - Very Highly Skilled4 - 3.34 – 4.12 - Highly Skilled3 - 3.50 – 3.33 - Average Skilled2 - 1.66 – 2.49 - Fairly Skilled1 - 0.83 – 1.65 - Poorly Skilled0 - 0.00 – 0.82 - Very Poorly Skilled

COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Tools Pre Test Post TestAverage

comp mean

SD VI Average comp mean

SD VI

Cloud 2.18 SD FS 3.12 1.15 ASBranch 1.19 0.74 PS 1.82 0.99 FS

Ambitious Target

1.15 0.89 PS 1.92 1.15 FS

Grand Mean

1.51 PS 2.29 FS

AS Average SkilledFS Fairly SkilledPS Poorly Skilled

HS Highly SkilledAS Average SkilledFS Fairly Skilled

BEHAVIORAL SKILLS

Tools

Pre Test Post TestAverage Comp mean SD VI

Average comp mean SD VI

Cloud 2.23 1.65 FS 3.67 1.34 HSBranch 2.27 0.97 FS 2.66 1.48 AS

Ambitious Target 1.08 0.94 PS 1.96 1.22 FSGrand Mean 1.86 FS 2.76 AS

CONCLUSIONTOCFE thinking tools

helped the respondents improve their academic

performance.

Is there a significant difference on the level of performance of the

students in English I before and after exposure to TOCFE thinking tools in terms of communication

and behavioral skills?

*Statistical Tool:independent t-test

*Findings

Computed t-value on the Difference on the Level of

Performance of the Students in English Before and

After Exposure to TOCFE Thinking Tools in Terms of

Communication Skills

Communication Skills

Before Exposur

e

After Exposure

MeanDifferenc

e

df Computed t-value

Tabular t-value

Ho VI

Cloud 2.18 3.12 0.94 204 6.163 1.972 Reject S

Branch 1.19 1.82 0.63 204 5.118 1.972 Reject S

AmbitiousTarget

1.44 2.20 0.76 204 5.285 1.972 Reject S

Communication Skills Ho VICloud Reject S

Branch Reject SAmbitious

Target Reject S

*Findings

Computed t-value on the Difference on the Level of

Performance of the Students in English Before and After Exposure to TOCFE Thinking

Tools in Terms of Behavioral Skills

BehavioralSkills

Before Exposur

e

After Exposure

MeanDifference

df Computed t-value

Tabular t-value

Ho VI

Cloud 1.74 3.35 1.61 204 9.244 1.972 Reject SBranch 1.30 2.37 1.07 204 6.169 1.972 Reject S

AmbitiousTarget

1.00 1.74 0.74 204 4.823 1.972 Reject S

BehavioralSkills Ho VICloud Reject S

Branch Reject SAmbitious

Target Reject S

How effective are the TOCFE thinking tools in teaching

English I as revealed by the pre test and post test result?

*Statistical Tool:dependent t-test

*Findings

Computed t-value on the Effectiveness of the TOCFE

Communication Skills Before After

Mean Difference

Computed t-value

Tabular t-value Ho VI

Cloud 2.18 3.12 0.94 6.163 1.972 Reject S

Branch 1.19 1.82 0.63 5.1181.972

RejectS

Ambitious Target 1.15 1.92 0.77 5.2851.972

RejectS

Communication Skills Ho VI

Cloud Reject SBranch Reject S

Ambitious Target Reject S

Behavioral Skills Before After

Mean Difference

Computed t-value

Tabular t-value Ho VI

Cloud 2.23 3.67 1.44 9.2441.972

RejectS

Branch 2.27 2.66 0.39 6.1691.972

RejectS

Ambitious Target 1.08 1.96 0.88 4.8231.972

RejectS

Behavioral Skills Ho VI

Cloud Reject S

Branch Reject S

Ambitious Target Reject S

Is there a significant difference on the level of effectiveness of

TOCFE thinking tools in teaching English I with respect to gender, monthly family income, type of

school graduated from and grades in English I?

*Statistical Tool:Two Way Anova

*Findings

Computed F-ratio on the Difference on the Level of Effectiveness of

TOCFE Thinking Tools in Teaching English I with Respect to Gender, Monthly Family Income, Type of

School Graduated From and Grades in English I

Legend:

df = 4/98

level of significance = 0.05

Legend:

df = 4/98

level of significance = 0.05

VariablesComputed

F-ratioTabularF-ratio Ho VI

Gender 1.564 3.820 Accept NSMonthly Family Income 3.411 3.820 Accept NSType of School

Graduated From 0.038 3.820 Accept NS

Grades in English I 6.294 3.820 Reject S

Recommendations:

1. Integrate or use the TOCFE thinking tools across the curriculum not only in English but also in other learning areas as well.

2. Conduct TOCFE training program for the students, teachers and school managers to enhance their communication skills and behavioral skills.

3. Conduct similar studies to find out the effect of the TOCFE thinking tools using other variables.

Thank you very much.

God bless.