ARM 301:

ACCOUNTING RESEARCH METHODS

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sections: A1-4 & AIS1-4
Professor: ILYNN P. MAULEON
Results and Discussion:
This is the process of organizing data into logical, sequential and meaningful categories and classifications to
make them amenable to study and interpretation.

Ways of Presenting Data

1. Textual - statements with numerals or numbers that serve as supplements to tabular presentation.
2. Tabular - a systematic arrangement of related idea in which classes of numerical facts or data are given each
row and their sub-classes are given each a column in order to present the relationships of the sets or
numerical facts or data in a definite, compact and understandable form.

Two general rules regarding the independence of text and table

a. The table should be so constructed that it enables the reader to comprehend the data presented without
referring to the text;
b. The text should be so written that it allows the reader to understand the argument presented without
referring to the table
3. Graphical – a chart representing the quantitative variations or changes of variables in pictorial or
diagrammatic form.

Types of Graphs and Charts

Bar graphs Pictograms
Linear graphs Statistical maps
Pie graphs Ratio charts
WHY DO WE ANALYZE DATA?
The purpose of analyzing data is to obtain usable and useful information. The analysis, irrespective of
whether the data is qualitative or quantitative, may:
a. Describe and summarize the data
b. Identify relationships between variables
c. Compare variables
d. Identify the difference between variables
e. Forecast outcomes

Two ways of Data Analysis

Qualitative Analysis – is not based on precise measurement and quantitative claims.

Examples of Quantitative Analysis

Social analysis;
From the biggest to the smallest class;
Most important to the least important;
Ranking of students according to brightness;

Quantitative Analysis – is employed on data that have been assigned some numerical value.
It can range from the examination of simple frequencies to the description of events or phenomenon
using descriptive statistics, and to the investigation of correlation and causal hypothesis using various
statistical tests.
Interpreting the Information

Numbers do not speak for themselves. Interpretation is the process of attaching meaning to
the data. For example, what does it mean that 55 personnel reported a change in behavior? Or,
25% of participants rated the program a 5 and 75% rated it a 4. What do these numbers mean?

Interpretation demands fair and careful judgments. Often the same data can be interpreted in
different ways. So it is helpful to involve others or take time to hear how different people
interpret the same information. Part of interpreting information is identifying the lessons
learned.

What did you learn? – About the program, about the participants, about the evaluation.

What is new? What was expected?

Were there findings that surprised you?
Are there things that you don’t understand very well, where further study is needed?
Interpretation of the data has become a very important and essential process, mainly because of
some of the following factors:
1. Enables the researcher to have an in-depth knowledge about the abstract principle behind his
own findings.
2. The researcher is able to understand his findings and the reasons behind their existence.
3. More understanding and knowledge can be obtained with the help of the further research.
4. Provides a very good guidance in the studies relating to the research work.

We often include recommendations or an action plan, this helps ensure that the results are used.
A. This chapter is a descriptive presentation using tables and graphs followed by a thorough
discussion of results.
B. The researchers may use tables, graphs, charts, etc. to present and describe the data gathered.
These should be labeled accordingly with a number (table number, figure number, etc.) and
followed by the titles they represent.
C. Tables and figures should not be cut. If there is not enough space, then have it moved to
another page. If, however it could not be accommodated in a page, have it reduced to fit a page.
How do we interpret the result(s) of our study?
1. Tie-up the results of the study in both theory and application by pulling together the:
a. conceptual/theoretical framework;
b. the review of literature; and
c. the study’s potential significance for application.
2. Examine, summarize, interpret, and justify the results before drawing conclusions.
Consider the following:
a. Conclude or summarize - This technique enables the reader to get the total picture of
the findings in summarized form, and helps orient the reader to the discussion that
follows.
b. Interpret - Questions on the meaning of the findings, the methodology, the
unexpected results and the limitations and shortcomings of the study should be
answered and interpreted.
c. Integrate - This is an attempt to put the pieces together.

- Often, the results of a study are disparate and do not seem to “hang together.” In the
discussion, attempt to bring the findings together to extract meaning and principles.
d. Theorize - When the study includes a number of related findings, it occasionally
becomes possible to theorize.

• Integrate your findings into a principle;

• Integrate a theory into your findings; and
• Use these findings to formulate an original theory
e. Recommend or apply alternatives
Guidelines in the presentation, analysis and interpretation of
data
1. The chapter is organized and divided into several main components or
topics, each of which is titled according to the sub-problem or
hypothesis statement.
2. Present only relevant data.
3. In reporting data, choose the medium that will present them
effectively.
4. Presenting tables that can be presented as well in a few sentences in
the text must be avoided.
5. The textual presentation should supplement or expand the contents of
tables and charts, rather than duplicate them.
Contn . . . Guidelines in the presentation, analysis and
interpretation of data
6. Only objective data embodied in tables are made the bases of
discussion.
7. The analysis of the data should be objective and logical.
8. In analyzing and interpreting data, point out those that are consistent
or inconsistent with the theory presented in the study’s theoretical
framework.
9. In reporting statistical tests of significance, include information
concerning the value of the test, the degree of freedom, the probability
level and the direction of the effect.
10. The findings are compared and contrasted with that of other previous
studies and interpretations are made thereof.
Chapter 4: ANALYZING & INTERPRETING THE RESULTS (QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH)
SAMPLE FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Presenting the Tables (Quantitative)
• As can be seen in the sample provided, Table number and title are needed and presented following
the APA format. Table number is left-aligned as well as the title. Column 1 of the table provides the
indicators of the first sub-variable followed by the respondents of the study. The means for each
indicator will be provided as generated from the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Verbal
interpretations are also provided on the right side following the legend underneath the table.
Composite means if there is a need for this will also be included in the table. General Assessment
will also be included as the overall result.
Analyzing and Interpreting the Results (Quantitative)
• Statistics will be used to analyze the data generated from the survey instrument floated by the
researcher to the target respondents. Findings may be discussed starting from the General
assessment then the indicators with the highest and lowest means. Verbal interpretations are also
included.
• In another paragraph discuss the implications of the results. Answer: Why are the results like
these? Do not repeat the findings instead deduce, conclude, and imply.
• Afterwards, finish the discussion by adding supporting literature or study.
SAMPLE FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Problem Number 1. What is the level of manifestation of critical performance roles among school heads of City Division of
Cabuyao City as assessed by school heads themselves and their teachers?
1.1 Relational Leadership
Table 1.1 provides the results on Relational Leadership.
Table 1.1. Level of Manifestation of Critical Performance Roles among School Heads of City Division of Cabuyao City as Assessed by
School Heads and Teachers in terms of Relational Leadership
Indicators School Heads Teachers Composite
School Head on - X VI X VI X VI
Developing an Open, Change-Friendly Culture 3.71 HM 3.66 HM 3.69 HM
Involving Everyone in Producing Change 3.72 HM 3.65 HM 3.69 HM
Creating Meaning for Everyone 3.65 HM 3.65 HM 3.65 HM
General Assessment 3.69 HM 3.65 HM 3.67 HM
Legend: 3.26 - 4.00 Highly Manifested (HM) 2.50 - 3.25 Manifested (M) 1.76 - 2.49 Moderately Manifested (MM) 1.00 - 1.75 Not Manifested (NM)

Table 1.1 shows the level of manifestation of critical performance roles among school heads of City Division of Cabuyao City as assessed by
school heads themselves and their teachers in terms of Relational Leadership. The general composite mean is 3.67 which is interpreted as Highly
Manifested. The indicators “developing an open, change-friendly culture” and “involving everyone in producing change” has the highest mean of 3.69
and is interpreted as Highly Manifested while the indicator “creating meaning for everyone” has the lowest mean of 3.65 and is interpreted as Highly
Manifested.
This implies that the school heads are able to establish good relationship with their teachers and stakeholders and able to perform their
duties particularly in developing and promoting an open and change-friendly culture in the school by assisting them in identifying their strengths and
growth areas and providing technical assistance. It also infers that the teachers and stakeholders have been motivated by their school heads to engage
in different activities that would bring positive change in the school. However, the indicator that has the lowest assessment according to the
respondents is the indicator stating “creating meaning for everyone”. It depicts that there are challenging tasks that are encountered by the school
and require high expectations that affect that self-realization and relation of the teachers and the stakeholders.
In support to this, Muring (2014) stated that school heads were the key leaders in the educational system. They were responsible in carrying
out the school vision and mission. School principals played integral roles in making schools function smoothly. They were involved in all aspects of the
school’s operation.
SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION: QUANTITATIVE TYPE (DESCRIPTIVE CORRELATIONAL DESIGN)
Title: STAFFING SYSTEM AND RETENTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR IMPACT TO EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

Statement of the Problem:

This study aims to determine and assess the Staffing System and Retention Management Practices of educational
institutions and its impact to employee performance.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the efficiency level of the staffing practices of the participating educational institution as perceived by teaching and
non-teaching staff in terms of:
1.1. Recruitment
1.2. Selection
1.3. Placement
1.4. Promotion
1.5. Separation
2. What is the efficiency level of the retention management practices by the participating educational institution in terms of:
2.1. Compensation
2.2. Growth
2.3. Environment
2.4. Relationship
2.5. Support
3. Is there a significant difference in the assessment of the two groups of respondents as regard to:
3.1. Efficiency of Staffing System
3.2. Efficiency of Retention Management

4. What is the level of performance of the participating teaching and non-teaching staff in terms of:
4.1. Job Knowledge
4.2. Quality of Work
4.3. Quantity of Work
4.4. Behavior

5. Do the following singly or in combination impact the employee performance:

5.1. Staffing System
5.2. Retention Management

6. Based on the results of the study, what inputs to institutional policies of staffing and retention
management practices may be proposed?
SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION: MIXED METHODS
Title: SETTING BOUNDARIES: FLEXIBLE LEARNING MECHANISMS AND EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY
AMONG LOCAL UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES IN LAGUNA
Purpose Statements
The main thrust of this explanatory sequential mixed methods research was to assess the
implementation of flexible learning and educational productivity in local colleges and universities in
Laguna.
Specifically, it sought to realize the following purposes:
1. Determine the implementation level of flexible learning in Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) in
Laguna as assessed by academic heads, and college students in terms of:
1.1 synchronous mode (online),
1.2 asynchronous mode (offline), and
1.3 blended learning mode.
2, Identify if there is a significant difference between the assessments of academic heads and college
students on the implementation level of flexible learning.
3. Determine the educational productivity level in LUCs as assessed by academic heads and college
students in terms of:
3.1 student characteristics,
3.2 instruction, and
3.3 psychological environment.
4. Identify if there is a significant difference between the assessments of academic heads and
college students on the educational productivity level in LUCs.
5. Identify if there is a significant relationship between the implementation level of flexible
learning and educational productivity level in LUCs.
6. Describe the lived experience of the academic heads and college students on the
implementation level of flexible learning and educational productivity level in LUCs.
7. Propose a guidance intervention program.

Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested for their significance.
Ho 1: There is no significant difference between the assessments of academic heads and
college students on the implementation level of flexible learning.
Ho 2: There is no significant difference between the assessments of academic heads and
college students on the educational productivity level in LUCs.
Ho 3: There is no significant relationship between the implementation level of flexible learning
and educational productivity level in LUCs.
Table 1.1

Implementation Level of Flexible Learning in Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) in Laguna
as assessed by Academic Heads and College Students in terms of Synchronous Mode (Online)

Indicators in terms of Synchronous Mode (Online) Academic College

Composite
Heads Students
Our LUC… 𝑿 VI 𝑿 VI 𝑿 VI
1. uses digital platforms or Learning Management System. 3.85 FI 3.71 FI 3.78 FI
2. utilizes a desktop computer, laptop, smartphone, and other mobile
3.88 FI 3.60 FI 3.74 FI
applications in teaching.
3. facilitates teaching mainly through the use of internet-based
3.77 FI 3.61 FI 3.69 FI
technology, modules, and the like.
4. uses automated examinations, adaptive testing, and assessment rubrics
3.67 FI 3.60 FI 3.63 FI
for evaluation/assessment.
5. provides online support services like online enrollment and curriculum
monitoring, online guidance, mental, and psychological support, and 3.52 FI 3.47 FI 3.49 FI
other online technical services.
6. provides clear policies on intellectual property rights (IPR), online
educational resources (OER), plagiarism, student attendance, and 3.35 FI 3.52 FI 3.43 FI
monitoring that are available in electronic copy.
7. conducts orientation for students, teachers, and other school
administrators and support services personnel on the learning system 3.80 FI 3.66 FI 3.73 FI
to be implemented.
8. has established systems and procedures adopted for the transition to
3.68 FI 3.55 FI 3.61 FI
flexible learning using online modality.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT 3.69 FI 3.59 FI 3.64 FI
Legend: 3.25 – 4.00 Fully Implemented (FI) 1.75 – 2.49 Partially Implemented (PI)
2.50 – 3.24 Implemented (I) 1.00 – 1.74 Not Implemented (NI)
 Table 1.1 shows the implementation level of flexible learning in Local
Universities and Colleges (LUCs) in Laguna as assessed by academic heads and
college students in terms of Synchronous Mode (Online). It had a general
assessment of 3.64 which was verbally interpreted as Fully Implemented. All
indicators were all verbally interpreted as Fully Implemented. Furthermore, the
indicator “Our LUC uses digital platforms or Learning Management System” had the
highest computed mean of 3.78 interpreted as Fully Implemented while the
indicator “Our LUC provides clear policies on intellectual property rights (IPR), online
educational resources (OER), plagiarism, student attendance, and monitoring that
are available in electronic copy.” had the lowest computed mean of 3.43 interpreted
as Fully Implemented.
It can be concluded that the school respondents truly embraced the need for
online learning delivery considering the changes brought by the pandemics in the
education sector. That is evident in the presence or utilization of a learning
management system although the need for the provision of clear guidelines and
other related mechanisms need to be addressed to better the implementation.
 Considering the challenge of adjusting to flexible learning, the only way
is to embrace online synchronous instruction. This is a phrase that refers to
the teaching and learning activities of teachers and students in a variety of
fields that make use of the internet and other information technologies to
conduct concurrent, simultaneous adjustment, and parallel progress. In
general, online live synchronous teaching requires teachers and students to
perform audio and video communication, presentations, real-time text
seminars, and other educational activities via live broadcasting or video
conferencing platforms.

Online learning arrangements were typically implemented through

learning management systems (LMS) or virtual learning environments
(VLEs) such as Moodle or Blackboard also mentioned by Pellas and
Kazanidis (2015).
Table 2

Test of Significant Difference on the Assessment of the Academic Heads and College Students on
the Implementation Level of Flexible Learning

Sum of Mean
Sub-variables squares
df
square
F Ratio Sig. Remarks Decision

Between Groups .698 1

Synchronous Mode Within Groups .698 Reject
109.877 693 4.403 .036 Significant
(Online) Total .159 Ho
110.575 694
Between Groups 1.924 1
Asynchronous Mode Within Groups 1.924 Reject
152.988 693 8.716 .003 Significant
(Offline) Total .221 Ho
154.912 694
Between Groups .737 1
Blended Learning Within Groups .737 Not Accept
146.161 693 3.492 .062 Significant
mode Total .211 Ho
146.898 694
Level of significance 0.05
As shown in Table 2, the generated computed probability values of synchronous mode
(online) and asynchronous mode (offline) were 0.036 and 0.003 respectively which were
lesser than the level of significance of 0.05; thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore,
there was a significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents
on the above-mentioned variables.
This means that the academic heads and college students have different perceptions
about the implementation level of flexible learning in terms of synchronous mode (online)
and asynchronous mode (offline).
On contrary, the generated computed probability value on Blended Learning mode was
0.062 which was greater than the level of significance of 0.05; thus, the null hypothesis was
accepted. There was no significant difference between the responses of the two groups of
respondents on the above-mentioned variables. Therefore, academic heads and college
students have the same perception about the implementation level of flexible learning in
terms of blended learning mode.
The new learning landscape, which blends virtual and physical locations, has emerged as
the latest pedagogical trend in university course offerings, according to Bicoy et al. (2019). As
they noted, blended learning allows enhanced flexibility, functionality, and efficiency in
learning for both students and teachers.
Purpose Statement Number 5. Identify if there is a significant relationship between

the implementation level of flexible learning and educational productivity level in

LUCs.

Table 5

Test of Significant Relationship between the Implementation Level of Flexible Learning

and Educational Productivity Level in LUCs

Implementation Level Educational

r value P-value Remarks Decision
of Flexible Learning Productivity Level
Student
.438** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Characteristics
Synchronous Mode
Instruction .515** .000 Significant Reject Ho
(Online)
Psychological
.409** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Environment
Student
.453** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Characteristics
Asynchronous Mode
Instruction .601** .000 Significant Reject Ho
(Offline)
Psychological
.594** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Environment
Student
.463** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Characteristics
Blended Learning
Instruction .622** .000 Significant Reject Ho
mode
Psychological
.566** .000 Significant Reject Ho
Environment
**Correlational at the level 0.01 *Correlational at the level 0.05(Two-tailed)
 Table 5 shows the significant relationship between the implementation level of flexible learning and educational
productivity level in LUCs, the r values ranging from 0.409 to 0.622 were interpreted as low positive to moderate positive
correlation to correlate flexible learning modality and educational productivity. The computed probability values of 0.000
were lesser than the level of significance (P<0.05); thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. The result shows that there
was a significant relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
It can be concluded that the implementation level of flexible learning modality has a significant relationship with
educational productivity level in LUCs. The higher the implementation level of flexible learning modality, the higher the
educational productivity level in LUCs.
According to Cheng and Chau (2016), and Fedynich et al. (2015), the instructional design of a course affected
students' satisfaction and deliberate learning, and a variety of factors can contribute to favorable outcomes in this area.
The contribution was summed up in the assertion that diversity (online) in teaching and learning activities was necessary,
but activities and suggestions for designing specific courses may be numerous when research was used to provide
feedback.
The wisdom of Lai et al. (2020) shed light as they mentioned that a greater knowledge of students' varied
personalities can contribute to the efficacy of online education. Teachers can more precisely identify students and design
effective educational tactics when they use human identification. This was supported by the study of Kratky et al. (2016)
that online education can be successful because it enable students' specific needs and preferences to be met in a manner
that was convenient for them. Teachers must build flexible teaching tactics and strategies to enhance student learning
results in light of their students' unique features.
Zhou (2015) mentioned that personality was crucial in the educational setting. Students with a variety of
personality traits enjoyed a variety of instructional techniques. While some preferred face-to-face instruction, others
preferred online instruction or an integrated approach. Students' personalities can be utilized to forecast their academic
achievement, contentment, dropout rate, drive to learn, and academic success. Personality traits may affect the
effectiveness and quality of collaborative learning.
 Interview Question 1: How is your flexible learning mechanisms implementation?
Theme A
Difficult but Improving
The theme, Difficult but Improving was the theme derived from the 10 participants on the experiences they encountered
during the implementation of flexible learning. The participants reported various stages or evolutions of the
implementation. From struggling to progressing state of their flexible learning journey. As mentioned by student
participant D, “Currently, our school has adjusted a lot compared to the previous semester. The problems we encountered
last time are already solved, and the school also preferred the online class with both synch and asynch classes. We built
our own LMS, which for me is very impressive and fun at the same time, because it keeps improving and focusing on its
aim of better serving its clients (students and teachers).” While student participant G expressed that “Based on my
experience at first, it is very hard. But I know that our school is also doing their very best for these implementations to
work out for all of us so eventually, we find ourselves coping up with the implementation of flexible learning mechanisms.”
According to the CHED memorandum no. 04 series of 2020, flexible learning as a delivery modality must be incorporated
in public and private higher education institutions. For the time being, instructors can execute instruction and give
students the required instructional assistance by using flexible learning. Because to COVID-19, higher education
institutions have struggled to make the switch to online instruction.

For many years, students have been exposed to traditional, face-to-face classroom-based teaching but due to COVID 19
pandemic, students have to shift to independent learning through the home-based tasks assigned to them by their
teachers. Participants cited that it did not go easy for both institutions and the students to adapt to the transition at first,
but as time goes by and with the help of the Institution where they belong, it gets much easier to adapt to the changes.
Adjustments were made by the teachers in terms of course outcomes and syllabi to align with the new teaching modality.
 This pandemic has created a new platform in teaching and learning delivery that
students are compelled to accept. Petrie (2020) mentioned that appropriate and successful
online pedagogy for learning may also require teachers and novices to have some familiarity
with and exposure to information and communication technology (ICT). Numerous systems,
such as Microsoft Teams, Google Lecture Room, Canvas, and Blackboard, combine integrated
chat systems and collaborative capabilities, enabling teachers to produce textbooks,
curriculum, and skills development materials.
Looking at the responses of the participants, the participants both experienced difficulty
and eventual adaption as they embraced the flexible learning modality. The researcher
believes that educational institutions should continuously improve their learning delivery
system that is efficient and easy to adapt for both the students and teachers. Their responses
confirmed their previous assessment on the indicator “Our LUC uses digital platforms or
Learning Management System” which generated the highest computed mean of 3.78 while
the indicator “Our LUC provides clear policies on intellectual property rights (IPR), online
educational resources (OER), plagiarism, student attendance, and monitoring that are
available in electronic copy.” had the lowest computed mean considering the difficulty
encountered of the participants as they embraced flexible learning and they are looking
forward to the continuous enhancement of the present practices.