Development of a hands-on model embedded with guided inquiry laboratory to enhance students’ understanding of law of mechanical energy conservation

a) Analysis of CETMEC

Based on the Shapiro-Wilk’s test, the data were normally distributed with p value of 0.297 which was greater than p>0.05 and skewness of -.259 (SE = .427) and kurtosis of -.244 (SE = 0.833). Thus, a parametric hypothesis test was done.

Table 5. Paired sample statistics.

		Mean	N	SD	SEM
Pair 1	Pretest	13.43	30	3.766	.688
Pair 1	Posttest	21.67	30	2.893	.528

Table 6. Paired sample t-test.

		Mean	N	SD	t	df	Sig. (2 tailed)
Pair 1	Pretest -Posttest	-8.233	30	4.199	-10.739	29	.000

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the paired sample t-test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the mean of the pretest (M=13.43, SD= 3.766) and posttest (M=21.67, SD= 2.893) at t (29) = -10.739, p=.000, α=.05. The mean difference was 8.233 and the p-value was less than the alpha level (α=.05), indicating that there was an improvement in the posttest due to the treatment.
Moreover, as was modified from Abraham (1994), Table 7 shows the level of understanding of the students for each individual items.

Table 7. Level of Understanding.

Items	The Level of Understanding (%)
Items	SU	PUSAC	SAC	NU
I1	86.7	13.3	0.0	0.0
I2	70.0	13.3	16.7	0.0
I3	73.3	10.0	13.3	3.3
I4	80.0	6.7	10.0	3.3
I5	73.3	10.0	13.3	3.3
I6	70.0	13.3	10.0	6.7
I7	66.7	16.7	10.0	6.7
I8	76.7	16.7	3.3	3.3
I9	70.0	20.0	10.0	0.0
I10	66.7	20.0	6.7	6.7
I11	66.7	16.7	13.3	3.3
I12	76.7	13.3	6.7	3.3
I13	90.0	3.3	3.3	3.3

It was found that the items 1, 4 and 13 have more than 80 percent Sound Understanding while the lowest is for items 7, 10 and 11 at 66.7 percent. However, for all the items, the percent of Sound Understanding was more than 60 percent (74.37 percent in average).

b) Analysis of LAQMEC

The mean and the standard deviation of each item corresponding to its constructs were determined to find the students’ attitudes and opinions regarding the developed learning laboratory. The average mean score for each construct was also defined separately as shown in Table 8. For those 4 negative statements (item 3, 6, 9 and 13), the reverse coding was followed. The average mean of the constructs ranges from 4.68 to as high as 4.98 which indicated that the students had positive attitudes towards the guided learning laboratory.

Table 8. Mean Score for each item and constructs.

Items	Constructs	Mean	SD	Avg. mean
I1	Topic of the lesson	4.77	0.43	4.59
I2		4.50	0.82
I3		4.50*	0.35
I4	Teacher	4.77	0.63	4.68
I5		4.73	0.58
I6		4.53*	0.90
I7	Classroom activities	4.83	0.53	4.77
I8		4.67	0.80
I9		4.80*	0.48
I10	Learning method	4.90	0.40	4.83
I11		4.73	0.58
I12		4.97	0.18
I13		4.70*	0.60
I14	Hands-on model	4.97	0.18	4.98
I15		5.00	0.00
I16		5.00	0.00
I17		4.97	0.18
I18	General classroom impression	4.77	0.50	4.81
I19		4.87	0.43
I20		4.80	0.48

* The mean of the negative statements obtained after the reverse coding.