TRADITIONAL VS.

MODERN
TEACHING METHOD:
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
METHODOLOGIES ON EDUCATION
AND POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO
DEVELOP BETTER STUDENTS’
OUTCOME
ACOSTA, Rovilson G.

AMBELIC, Joshua S.

OBRA, Patricia Mae F.

PEDRANO, Nirel Lisa T.

RAMOS, Raymond Aaron A.

STA. ANA, Shan Michael M.

TUAZON, Reginald Hanz T.

INTRODUCTION
 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Muijus and Reynolds (2005)

Balliu & Belshi (2017)

 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
This study generally aimed to evaluate and to assess the effectiveness of traditional and modern teaching methods
on education.
Specific Objectives
1. to determine the level of proficiency of the students in their general
education;
2. to identify the methods that would help the students in their acquisition of knowledge;
3. determine the level of proficiency of the respondents in a specific subject;
4. to find the right teaching methods for a specific subject;
5. to analyze the significant difference between the mean scores of the students who are experiencing the
traditional and modern teaching methodologies; and
6. to develop a possible solution to help and support the teaching methods in improving the students’ outcome.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the proficiency level of the students in their general education based on the test questionnaires for:

A. traditional; and

B. modern?

2. Which among the methods would best help the students to acquire the knowledge they needed more
effectively?

A. face to face discussion;

B. technological assisted devices?

3. What are the level of proficiency of the respondents in the following subject:

A. English;

B. Filipino;

C. Mathematics;

D. Science; and

E. Social Science?
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

4. What teaching methods are more suitable in teaching the following subjects:
A. English;
B. Filipino;
C. Mathematics;
D. Science; and
E. Social Science?
5. Is there a significant difference between the mean scores of the students in
traditional and modern teaching methodologies?
6. What are the possible resolutions that may help the teaching methodologies to
develop better students’ outcome?
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
For the AMA and San Francisco High School Senior High School Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics students.
• This can serve as a reference for them to have knowledge about the difference between traditional and
modern teaching methodologies, and its effectiveness to their way of learning.

For the teachers especially, the AMA and San Francisco High School Senior High School Faculty
Members.
• This study can help them to evaluate how satisfying the teaching methods their using on the learning of
the students and their relationship as an educator. This can also help them to assess the effectiveness of
the application of the methodologies on teaching and to identify the areas that they should improve to
have a better quality of teaching that will have a positive impact on the students.
For the students. This study will not only benefit the STEM students, but also the students who
belong from the other tracks and strands.
• The findings of this study will help them to understand the different teaching methods and strategies, gain
information about its effectiveness and implication on their learning.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
For the administration
• This research will help them to gain awareness about the effectiveness of the teaching methods that were used by their
teachers and to come up with solutions to improve their job performance in their respective schools. This can also
serve as a basis for a possible change in their system.
For the Department of Education and other educational organizations
• This study will help them gain information about the effectiveness of the traditional and modern teaching methods and
its impact to the students’ way of learning. This can serve as basis for possible changes in the curriculum and the
system of education, and the implementation of laws that will support the nature of teaching to be more efficient and
effective.
For the future researchers
• This can help them to gain information and ideas that they can incorporate with their own study. This can serve as a
guide on how to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the teaching methodologies in a specific school or class, have
a recommendation regarding effectivity of the usage of the said methods and to expound the scope of the research
study into larger scale of group.
 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
:
• The usage of modern teaching methods is more effective than the traditional.
:
• The usage of traditional methods in teaching are more effective than the modern methodologies.
:
There is a significant difference between the mean scores of the students in traditional and modern
teaching methodologies.
• :
• There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the students in traditional and
modern teaching methodologies.
 THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
• The Communication Theory of
Teaching
• Cognitive Development Theory
of Instruction (Constructivist
theory)
• Connectivism
• Computer-Based Instruction
Theory

FIGURE 1
 CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
Based on the figure 2, the conceptual framework above, the
researchers placed the level of proficiency on general education
together with the test questionnaire as the tool because the
researchers would like to determine the effectiveness of teaching
methods used on education in accordance to the level of
proficiency of the students in their general education relying on
the test scores in their test questionnaire. The researchers also
included the traditional and modern teaching methodologies as
their dependent variables which is directly related to the
proficiency level of the students since the researchers will give
tests to the students who have two different learning
environments. At the last part of the figure is the effectiveness of
teaching methodologies and the possible resolution, with that the
researchers would like to create possible resolutions to improve
the teaching methodologies and to develop better students’
outcome.
FIGURE 2
 SCOPES AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of traditional and modern teaching
method to the way of learning of the grade 12 STEM students in AMA University and San
Francisco High School during the academic year 2019-2020. The research was limited to the
assessment of the effectiveness of the usage of traditional and modern teaching method and the
possible resolution to develop better students’ outcome. Other teaching related topics is not
included in this research.
The study delimits its coverage on the Grade 12 Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Students of AMA University and San Francisco High School. Other tracks, strands,
and grade levels is not part of the researchers’ study.
 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
• Computer-Assisted Instruction. A form of instruction where a computer is used as
a material in teaching or instructing.
• Learning Environment. The nature of how the students learn and progress to meet
their full potential.
• Modern Teaching Methods. It is the use of electronic/digital devices and technology
in teaching.
• Technological Advancements. An event where an equipment is being replaced by a
higher quality of technology for a better, more efficient and accessible use.
• Traditional Teaching Methods. It is the collection of old teaching methods, mostly
used on public school.
REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE AND
STUDIES
 LOCAL LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Morales (2018)

Ragasa (2017)

Ariosa (2012)
 FOREIGN LITERATURE AND STUDIES

San José et al. (2015)

Stepan Hatting (2013)

Weinkertz (2014)
RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODOLOGY
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

• Quantitative Study
• Descriptive Method
POPULATION AND SAMPLES OF THE STUDY
• 100 Grade 12 STEM Strand Student from AMA University and San Francisco High School (50
AMAU & 50 SFHS)
RESEARCH INSTRUENT
• Multiple-choice Test Questionnaire
 DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
The researchers asked permission to the Head Teacher of AMA University and the Focal Person of
San Francisco High School Senior High Department to disseminate their test questionnaires.

The researchers presented the permission letter to the teachers of the students.

The researchers gave the test questionnaires to the participants.

The questionnaires were collected immediately after the participants answered the test.

The researchers gathered all the results after the participants aswered the test questionnaires.

FIGURE 3
 DATA PROCESSING AND
STATISTICAL TREATMENT
DATA PROCESSING
TOTAL TEST SCORES INTERPRETATION
High Level of Proficiency
100%
High level of proficiency (81%-100%). Slightly High Level of Pro-
90% ficiency
Participants were proficient enough to answer 80%
all the test questions and perform basic skills 70%
Slightly Low Level of Pro-
ficiency
for the 5 learning areas.

PERCENTAGE
60%
Low Level of Proficiency
Slightly high level of proficiency (63%- 50%

40%
80%). Participants have basic knowledge and Super Low Level of Proficiency
30%
understanding about all the subjects included
20%
in the test questionnaire but were not
10%
proficient enough to answer all the test
0%
questions properly. 45 36 28 20 12

SCORES

Percentage

FIGURE 4
DATA PROCESSING
TOTAL TEST SCORES INTERPRETATION
Slightly low level of proficiency (45%- High Level of Proficiency
100%
62%). Participants have basic knowledge Slightly High Level of Pro-
90%
about the subjects but were not able to ficiency
80%
comprehend and answer the questions Slightly Low Level of Pro-
70% ficiency
properly.

PERCENTAGE
60%
Low Level of Proficiency
Low level of proficiency (27%-44%). 50%

Participants have a poor level of proficiency, 40%

Super Low Level of Proficiency
could not understand the questions and do not 30%

know how to perform basic skills for all the 5 20%

10%
subjects or learning area included in the
0%
study. 45 36 28 20 12

SCORES
Super low level of proficiency (0%-26%).
The participants don’t have enough Percentage

knowledge to answer the questions in all the

subjects. FIGURE 4
DATA PROCESSING 100%
Test Scores Interpretation
100
88.89%
90
77.78%
High level of proficiency (8-9). Participants 80
66.67%
were knowledgeable enough to answer the 70
55.56%
test questions and perform basic skills for a 60

Percentage
44.44%
particular subject or learning area. 50

40 33.33%
Slightly high level of proficiency (6-7). 30 22.22%
Participants have basic knowledge and 20 11.11%
understanding about the subject but were not 10
0
proficient enough to answer the test questions 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
properly.
High Level of Profi- Slightly High Level of Slightly Low Level of Pro- Low Level of Pro- Super Low Level of
ciency Proficiency ficiency
Scores ficiency Proficiency

Slightly low level of proficiency (4-5).

Participants have basic knowledge about the
subject but were not able to understand and FIGURE 4
answer the questions properly.
DATA PROCESSING 100%
Test Scores Interpretation
100
88.89%
90
77.78%
Low level of proficiency (2-3). 80
66.67%
Participants have a poor level of 70
55.56%
60
proficiency, could not understand the

Percentage
50 44.44%
questions and do not know how to 40 33.33%
perform basic skills for a particular 30 22.22%

subject, or learning area. 20 11.11%

10
Super low level of proficiency (0-1). 0
0

The participants don’t have enough 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

High Level of Profi- Slightly High Level of Slightly Low Level of Pro- Low Level of Pro- Super Low Level of
Scores
knowledge to answer the questions in a ciency Proficiency ficiency ficiency Proficiency

particular subject.

FIGURE 4
 STATISTICAL TREATMENT
Two Sample Z-Test Percentage

• = sample mean of the scores of group 1 and • P = percentage

group 2 • f = frequency
• = sample size of group 1 and 2 • N = Population

• = variance of both population

• = population mean of group 1 and 2
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS
AND INTERPRETATION OF
DATA
 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED
ON LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY
Ov er all P r o fi cien cy Lev el o f t h e Gr ad e 12 S TEM
st u d en t o f A MA Un iv er sit y Ove ral l P rofi ci e ncy Le ve l of the G rade 1 2 STEM s tude nt
of San F ranci s co Hi gh Scho ol

Super Low Level of Proficiency High Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency
4% 2% 4%
High Level of Proficiency
Slightly High Level of 8%
Proficiency Slightly Low
22% Level of Pro-
Low Level of Proficiency ficiency
34% 12%
Slightly Low Level of
Proficiency
38%

Slightly High Level of Proficiency

76%

High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency
Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 6.1 Overall level of proficiency of the Grade 12 Figure 6.2 Overall level of proficiency of the Grade 12
STEM Students of AMA University. STEM Students of San Francisco High School.
 Total Scores
AMA U Scores SFHS Score

45
41
40 39
37 37 37
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
35 35 35 35 35
35 34 34 34
33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
32 32 32 32 32 32
31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
30 30 30 30 30
30 29 29 29 29 29 29
28 28 28
27
26 26 26 26
25 25 25 25 25
25 24 24 24 24
23 23
22 22
Scores

21 21 21 21
20 20 20
20 19 19 19 19
18 18 18 18
17 17
16 16
15 14 14
13 13
12 12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Numbers of Students

Figure 6.3 Comparison of the total test scores of both schools.

 ENGLISH

En g lish P r o fi c ien cy o f A MA Gr ad e 12 S TEM S t u d en t s Englis h Profi ciency of SFHS Grade 1 2 STEM

St ude nts
Slightly High
Super Low Level of Proficiency Level of Pro-
4% ficiency
28%
Low Level of Proficiency High Level of
6% Proficiency
Low Level of 24%
Proficiency
32%
Slightly Low Level
of Proficiency
16%
Slightly High Level of Proficiency
Slightly Low Level of Proficiency 54%
36%

Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency

Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency
Slightly Low Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 7.1 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 STEM Figure 7.2 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 STEM
Students of AMA University in English. Students of San Francisco High School in English.
 English Test Scores
AMA U Scores in English SFHS Scores in English

10

6
Test Scoes

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Number of Students

Figure 7.3 Comparison of the English test scores of both schools.

 FILIPINO
F i l i pi no P rofi ci e ncy of AMA U ni ve rs i ty G rade 1 2 STEM Filip in o P r o fi cien cy o f S FHS Gr ad e 12 S TEM
Stude nts S t u d en t s
Super Low Level of Proficiency High Level of
2% Low Level of Proficiency Proficiency
Low Level of Proficiency 4% 30%
4% High Level of
Proficiency Slightly Low Level
20% of Proficiency
22%

Slightly Low
Level of Pro-
ficiency
30% Slightly High
Level of Pro-
ficiency
44% Slightly High Level of Proficiency
44%

High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 8.1 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 Figure 8.2 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12
STEM Students of AMA University in Filipino. STEM Students of San Francisco High School in
Filipino.
 Filipino Test Scores
AMA U Scores in Filipino SFHS Scores in Filipino

10

6
Test Scores

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Number of Students

Figure 8.3 Comparison of the Filipino test scores of both schools.

 MATHEMATICS
Mat he m ati cs Pr ofi cie ncy of AMA Unive r sit y Gr ade 1 2 STEM Mat h emati c s P r o fi cien cy o f S FHS Gr ad e 12 S TEM
St ude nt s S t u d en t s

High Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency

2% 4% Super Low Level of Proficiency
Super Low Level of Proficiency 4%
Slightly Low
12% Level of Pro-
Slightly High ficiency
Level of Pro- 8%
ficiency High Level of
12% Proficiency
34%
Slightly High
Level of Pro-
ficiency
50%
Slightly Low
Low Level of Level of Pro-
Proficiency ficiency
42% 32%
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency

Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 9.1 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 STEM Students Figure 9.2 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 STEM
of AMA University in Mathematics. Students of San Francisco High School in Mathematics.
 Mathematics Test Scores
AMA U Scores in Mathematics SFHS Scores in Mathematics

10

6
Test Scores

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Number of students

Figure 9.3 Comparison of the Mathematics test scores of both schools.

 SCIENCE
Sci e nce P rofi ci e ncy of AM A U ni ve rs i ty G rade 1 2 S TEM S cien c e P r o fi cien c y o f S FHS Grad e 12 S TEM
Stude nts S t u d en t s
Slightly High
Level of Pro-
ficiency
30%

Super Low Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency High Level of

8% 4% Proficiency
24%

Low Level of Slightly Low

Proficiency Level of Pro-
26% ficiency
24%
Slightly High Level of Proficiency
Slightly Low Level of Proficiency 48%
36%

Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency

Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency
Slightly Low Level of Proficiency Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 10.1 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12 STEM Figure 10.2 The level of proficiency of the Grade 12
Students of AMA University in Science. STEM Students of San Francisco High School in Science.
 Science Test Scores
AMA U Scores in Science AMA U Scores in Science

5
Test Scores

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Number of Students

Figure 10.3 Comparison of the Science test scores of both schools.

 SOCIAL SCIENCE
S o cial S cien ce P ro fi c ien cy o f A MA Un iv er sit y Gr ad e
12 S TEM S t u d en t s S o cial S cien ce P r o fi cien cy o f S FHS Gr ad e 12 S TEM
S t u d en t s

Super Low Level of Proficiency High Level of Super Low Level of Proficiency High Level of
4% Proficiency 8% Proficiency
14% 14%
Low Level of Slightly Low
Proficiency Level of Pro-
18% ficiency
Slightly High 14%
Level of Pro-
ficiency
24%

Slightly Low
Level of Pro-
ficiency
40%

Slightly High Level of Proficiency

64%

High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency Slightly Low Level of Proficiency
High Level of Proficiency Slightly High Level of Proficiency
Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency
Slightly Low Level of Proficiency Super Low Level of Proficiency

Figure 11.1 Distribution of the respondents according to Figure 11.2 Distribution of the respondents according to
their level of proficiency on Social Science. their level of proficiency on Social Science.
 Social Science Test Scores
AMA U Scores in Social Science AMA U Score in Social Science

5
Test Scores

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Number of Students

Figure 11.3 Comparison of the test scores of both schools.

 HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Table 1. Total scores of the students

Total Scores

School Level of
n Significance

AMA U 23.1 27.46 6.093 50  

0.05

SFHS 31.82 27.46 4.99 or 5 50

Figure 12
The test statistics Z = -7.86, is not in the 95%
critical value accepted range: [-1.96: 1.96].
is rejected. (In favor with SFHS)
 ENGLISH

Table 2. English

Figure 13
The Z = -1.96, is within the 95% critical value
accepted ranged: [-1.9600:1.9600].
is accepted. (In favor with SFHS)
 FILIPINO

Table 3. Filipino

Scores in Filipino

School n Level of

Significance

AMA U 6.02 6.22 6.093 50  

0.05
SFHS 6.42 6.22 4.99 or 5 50

The test statistics Z equals -0.36 or 0.0000, is in

Figure 14
the 95% critical value range.

is rejected. (In favor with SFHS)

 MATHEMATICS

Table 4. Mathematics

Scores in Mathematics

School n Level of

Significance

AMA U 3.62 5.12 6.093 50  

0.05
SFHS 6.62 5.12 4.99 or 5 50

The value of z computed = -2.7 exceeded the range

Figure 15
of the accepted region: [-1.96:1.96].

is rejected. (In favor with SFHS)

 SCIENCE

Table 5. Science

Scores in Science

School n Level of

Significance

AMA U 4.3 5.34 6.093 50  

0.05
SFHS 6.38 5.34 4.99 or 5 50

The statistical z is in the critical value accepted

Figure 16
(95%) range: [-1.96:1.96]

is accepted. (In favor with SFHS)

 SOCIAL SCIENCE

Table 6. Social Science

Scores in Science

School n Level of

Significance

AMA U 4.3 5.34 6.093 50  

0.05
SFHS 6.38 5.34 4.99 or 5 50

The z computed is equal to –0.95, it is within the

Figure 17
95% critical value accepted range: [-1.96:1.96].

is accepted. (In favor with SFHS)

 SUMMARY,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The study generally aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the traditional and
modern teaching methodologies based on the level of proficiency of the Grade 12
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students from AMA
University and San Francisco High School Senior High Department.
1. WHAT IS THE PROFICIENCY LEVEL OF THE
STUDENTS IN THEIR GENERAL EDUCATION
BASED ON THE TEST QUESTIONNAIRES FOR:

• Traditional: The predominant 76% or 38 respondents from San Francisco High School
obtained an overall score under slightly high level of proficiency. This means that the
participants have basic knowledge and understanding about all the subjects included in the
general education but were not proficient enough and could not apply all their knowledge.

• Modern: The findings showed that the overall level of proficiency in the five learning areas:
English, Filipino, Mathematics, Science and Social Science, of the students from a computer
assisted school ranged from high to super low. Majority of the students got a slightly high to low
level of proficiency and have basic knowledge about the subjects. But some of them could not
comprehend well and the others could not perform basic skills for a particular subject.
2. WHICH AMONG THE METHODS WOULD BEST HELP THE
STUDENTS TO ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE THEY NEEDED
MORE EFFECTIVELY: FACE TO FACE TO FACE DISCUSSION
AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASSISTED DEVICES?

Based on the results of the test administered to both schools, the students learning in a
traditional or face to face learning environment were more proficient than the students from a
modern school, which is technologically assisted. The result of the treatment used by the
researchers revealed that the difference between the scores were big enough to be statistically
significant and is in favour with the Grade 12 STEM students from San Francisco High school.
3. WHAT ARE THE LEVELS OF PROFICIENCY OF
THE RESPONDENTS IN THE FOLLOWING
SUBJECTS:
• English: The researchers first compared the proficiency level of the students from both schools in
English. The results revealed that a large number of students exposed in a face to face learning environment
was more proficient in English than the students from a modern school. The test statistics showed that the
difference between the scores of the two school in English was big enough and showed a significant
difference.

• Filipino: The researchers next compared the scores of the students in Filipino, they also tested it with the
use of the two-sample z-test. The results revealed that the average score of the students from AMA
University were less than the average of the scores of the students from San Francisco High School. After
testing the scores of the respondents in Filipino, the z statistics showed that there is no significant difference.
The majority of the respondents from both schools got a slightly high level of proficiency, can perform basic
skills in Filipino and understands the questions well but were not proficient enough to get a higher score.
• Mathematics: Then, the researchers tested the Mathematics proficiency of the students from the two schools.
The results shown that large number of respondents from San Francisco High School got a slightly high level of
proficiency, if compared to the respondents from AMA University the majority of the scores falls under low
level to slightly high level of proficiency. The test statistics revealed that the difference of scores in mathematics
were statistically significant and is in favour with the respondents from San Francisco High School.

• Science: The level of proficiency of the participants from AMA University is distributed from slightly high to
super low level and none of them got a high level of proficiency. The respondents were knowledgeable on this
particular subject but not all of them has an equal ability or skills. The large volume of the respondents from the
other school got a slightly high level of proficiency, the students have knowledge and understanding the about
what Science is and knows how to perform basic skills but were not that excellent. The scores of the students
were tested with the use z-test and the results revealed that there was no significant difference between the two.

• Social Science: Lastly, the researchers compared the proficiency level of the students in Social Science. The
results shown that large number of respondents from San Francisco High School got a slightly high level of
proficiency, if compared to the respondents from AMA University who got slightly low and low level of
proficiency. The test statistics showed that the difference between the scores were not statistically significant.
4. WHAT TEACHING METHODS ARE MORE
SUITABLE IN TEACHING THE FOLLOWING
SUBJECTS:
As referred to the results of treatments used by the researchers, it is more effective to use face
to face discussion in teaching English, Mathematics and Science because the students exposed to
this type of method became more skilled and more proficient.
On the other hand, the findings revealed that it is both effective to use the face to face
discussion and digital devices as a support in teaching Filipino and Social Science. The proficiency
of the students is almost the same even if the instructors use any of the teaching method.
5. IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
MEAN SCORES OF THE STUDENTS IN TRADITIONAL AND
MODERN TEACHING METHODOLOGY?

The overall scores of both schools showed a significant difference, the scores of the
respondents from both schools are considered to be not equal and is in favour with the traditional.
The scores in English, Filipino, Science and Social Science also showed no significant
difference, but the scores in these subjects were in favour with the students from San Francisco.
The scores under Mathematics were also tested, the results showed a significant difference between
the two.
6. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE RESOLUTIONS THAT
MAY HELP THE TEACHING METHODOLOGIES TO
DEVELOP BETTER STUDENTS’ OUTCOME?
1. Interactive Activities 7. Could Incorporate The Trends In Teaching
2. Actual Application Of The Knowledge And Use It In Different Forms For
Example:
3. Use Compliments Or Advices To Motivate
The Students A. Memes
B. Taglines
4. Rewards Or Tokens
5. Use Various Types Of Presentation C. Humorous Videos

6. Use The Interests Of The Students As An 8. Video Presentations (Discussion)

Advantage
 CONCLUSION
• Based on the findings of the study, students have different levels of proficiency from high to
super low. This may vary from the type of teaching methodology used by their teachers, duration
of classes and the school’s educational system itself.
• Complex subjects such as mathematics should be taught face to face, since solving equations and
difficult problems needed an in-depth discussion and explanations. The use of technology may
have positive and negative impact on the students, it is either help them acquire information
more efficiently and do tasks in a short span of time or distract them and make them a bit lazier.
• The students from a traditional school were more proficient in all the 5 learning areas included in
the study, while the students from a computer assisted school were considered to have an average
level of proficiency.
 CONCLUSION
• According to the results, the use of tradition face to face teaching methodology was more effective than the
use of technology and digital devices. Students gain more knowledge through the use of traditional method
and became more proficient as they apply all their knowledge in an actual manner.
• The results showed huge difference between the scores for traditional and modern teaching methodologies.
The gap between the score were big enough to be statistically significant is in favor with the scores of the
students from San Francisco High School which represents the effectiveness of the traditional teaching
methodology.
• In conclusion, the teachers should create a program or strategy to better improve the acquisition of knowledge
between the students. The schools must review and enhance their educational system, and create programs to
train the students proficiency in different learning areas. For the teachers it would be much easier if they
incorporate traditional into modern teaching methodology, the combination of these two methods and its
application in an interactive approach will give positive impact not only on their relationship as a teacher to
the students, but also to the self-motivation and self-confidence of pupils.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
• This study can be conducted in other schools and universities, to obtain more data and gather
results that are accurate and will measure the effectiveness of a particular teaching method. This
study can serve as reference or basis in measuring effectiveness of a teaching methodology and
give more understanding about the how it affects the proficiency level of the student.
• Discovering different areas of learning is also recommended to make the assessment of the
effectiveness more precise. There should be a various type of evaluation and assessments in each
and every academic subject to come up with a more accurate and detailed result.
• Using the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods apart from only pen
and paper test such as observations of the respondents exposed in different learning environments
and experiments using controlled groups are also recommended to measure the variables used in
the study. Expanding the scopes of the study into a lager or diverse group of participants are also
strongly recommended.
THANK YOU!