Graphical Representation and Evaluation
A practical learning model appears as a better methodologies for the students to learn. However, there exist variations between the performances of the students concerning the applicability of this strategy. For instance, from the students’ grade for both the low and high level students show discrepancies in to their response to the teaching model applied. While for one group it may seem appropriate to apply the practical method, the other performs better when the theoretical method gets applied. Nonetheless, the variance between the two groups’ performances in each method could prefer one method over the other.
Assuming only one strategy was to become applied for all the pupils whether high or low level, the practical method could outdo the theory method. The analysis for the low level learners comparing the two methods have been used to create the following graphs. In figure 1, the graph depicts a comparison between of the average performance for each low level students, where the two techniques, practical and theory were applied. From the chart, it is conclusive that all the students who undertook the tests in both arrangements did well for the practical class than they did for the theory class, except for one.
One student did not record scores for the two methods applied, while another one, St. Fleur Valentina, had only showed results for the theory and none for the practical class. Hence, although included in the graph, their representation could not be used to reach a conclusive decision on the best model for application. Nevertheless, for these group, the practical emerged as contributing to better results for them as opposed to theory classes. That mean that their learning skills were more enhanced through observations, as well as by activity doing than reading.
Figure 1: Graph showing low level student performances for practical and theoretical models
In the figure 2 below, a comparison for both the practical and theory models have been performed for the high level students. For this group, most students who posted better performances for the theory classes as opposed to that of practical. In fact, all the individuals except one in this category did well in the theory than in their practical. As such, for the high level learners, it could be concluded that the theory class would do better for them than the practical one. Despite the fact that the students in this set performs better in theory than they would do in practical, their average score for the latter still remains better off than the mark achieved by low level pupils.
Figure 2: Graph showing upper level student performances for practical and theoretical models
The figure 3 below compares the total performance of learners for both the theoretical and practical classrooms. Although each group of students performed better for the opposing methodologies, the theoretical seemed to have posted better results than did the practical. The combination of both the high and low level pupils show the average for the theory standing at about 152.46 while that of the application class showed a total of 146.80. That indicated a better performance with the top model having a 6.54 point lead over the tailing one. In essence, that depicts the concept would contribute to more top scorer learners as opposed to the use of the practical. However, for the lower level pupils, it would be more prudent to use a practical approach while teaching them.
Figure 3: Graph comparing the total performance of learners for both the theoretical and practical classrooms
The figure 4 shows a pie chart indicating the percentage of performance for each group of students while a practical method is used. Of the two sides, the upper level pupils appear to have outdone their counterparts in the low level. Never the less, the difference is not as huge as it only indicates a lead of four percent. That could be explained that the method was effective for both groups of students. However, the upper level learners could have score higher based on several other factors other than the methodology applied.
Likewise, it is possible the lower class pupils could have had other elements affecting their performances that would make their scoring inequivalent to that posted by their colleagues in the other group. Such factors, could include the rate of alertness in class, the sharpness index of a learner, as well as the understanding of the theory. In fact, students with proper theoretical background have shown traits of better performances when it come to the practical. That could get attributed to the fact that these individuals tend to apply the class readings in their fieldwork. As such, they carry out their applications based on a predetermined result of what they have learn while in class. That does allow them an advantage over those learners with little background of the theory.
Figure 4: Pie chart indicating the percentage of performance for each group of students, practical approach
On the other hand, figure 5 portrays a comparison of the two categories of pupils but this time based on their performance while a theory model gets used in tutoring them. The outcome shows that the lower level learners performed below their counterparts in the upper level, just like it had happened with the practical. Nevertheless, the gap between their scores was quite bigger, considering the top level students’ average had risen from the fifty-two percent posted in practical technique, to fifty six percent. That eventually created arrange of 12 points in between the two classes.
The better results displayed by the upper level could get accredited to several factors including high ability to understand the theories, better studying skills, as well as high capacity to capture and synthesize academic materials. However, that could only hold assuming that similar techniques were used for this model of instructions for the two groups of individuals. Otherwise, the stated factors among others would highly skew the outcome in the favor of the methodology. That could cause a misinterpretation according it too much credit than it would really deserve.
Figure 5: Pie chart indicating the percentage of performance for each group of students, theoretical approach
The figure 6, the scatter graph displays the performance of each of the pupils compared to the average outcome. From the diagram, the blue dots below the orange line are indicative of those students whose score was below average. Likewise, those above the line shows individuals who had ranked above the average. Reading from the chart, of the fifteen students, about nine of them were found to have performed well above the standard mark, while one lay on the line. On the other hand, only five were did not achieve the mark. That shows some amount of effectiveness for the model in delivering results.
Figure 6: Performance of each of the pupils compared to the average outcome, theoretical concept
For the figure 7, the scatter chart is a representation of average performances for the fifteen lower level students. Of them, only three pupils appear to have fallen below the average line, with one laying on it. the other eleven learners appear to have posted good outcomes. Again, one of the student appears not to have sat for the test hence lowering the average for the group. Comparing this to the outcomes posted by the under the practicals and the theory for this set of students, the former approach can be considered as better for them. It shows more pupils tohave scored above the average, despite it being higher than was the case with the theory.
Figure 7: Performance of each of the pupils compared to the average outcome, practical concept for lower level students
From the figure 8 below, shows the number of student in the upper level who made a score of above the group’s average. According to the chart, of the fifteen it appears only six make a comfortable mark above the average line. Another six of the participants score the exact of closely to the average. Of the entire group, only three were below average. Despite seemingly, have few students above average for this group in comparison to their colleagues in lower level under same methodology, their average was quite higher. While the low level group posted a score of 66.53, the upper level displayed an average mark of 85.93, opening a 19.4 points lead over them. Besides, the graph indicates the worst performers for this group to have perform well above the average of the other class of students. However, other than the effectiveness of the teaching methodology, the outcome could have resulted from other issues. Nonetheless, both classes display varying outcomes that prove or disapprove of the technique or each of them.
Figure 8: Performance of each of the pupils compared to the average outcome, theoretical concept for upper level students
In the figure 9, the individual performance average mark for the upper level students is being compared to the group’s average. The diagram shows an average of 75.73 for the entire group with each of the specific blue dots representing the pupils recorded average mark. As per the displayed results, seven of the fifteen group members have their scoring well above the average, with two points occurring on the average line. The other six points fall below that line.
Although the groups mean is still higher than that of their colleagues in the other level group, the performance for this class was poorer. Comparing the practical and the theory models for this set of learners shows that the below average were more for the practical than was for the theory. Again, the means for the two methodologies showed that of theory as higher that what was posted by the practical arrangement. That could be interpreted to indicate that theory concept was far much appropriate for this group of students than the practical approach.
Figure 9: Performance of each of the pupils compared to the average outcome, practical concept for upper level students
Analysis
Despite the theory model appearing as more appealing for the upper level students, it would pay off a lot more for a tutor to apply the practical method. The approach allows for an all-inclusive and involving learning techniques. With the methodology, it becomes easy to dispense knowledge to students equally. Tutors have the opportunity to engage with learners on one-on-one basis noting their weaknesses and offering assistance where necessary. Again, the model permits the pupils to interact among themselves, debating topics according to their understanding. That creates a chance for the students to raise their queries with those they deem most comfortable to communicate with.
Besides, with several people explaining the same matter or exploring it into details, the lower level students learn from their colleagues. Another significant aspect of this model is its ability to move along with all the learners without abandoning some far much behind. According to the posted results for the students performances for both the lower and the upper levels, have shown fairly good results for the technique. Again, the methodology is well involving and live to the environment in which the learners are taking their studies. It entails developing of skills as well as abilities that could be deemed necessary for pupils.
The approach has become considered as being knowledge base. That means students are equip with only what could have an effective role in their lives. Unlike the theory model, the practical methodology allows for exploration of new knowledge and advocates for progressive learning on beneficial curriculum for the pupils. Thus, it is quite unlikely for learners to be hard pressed on outdated materials. Further, it creates an opportunity for all to show case their ability. While the theory mainly depends on what has been recorded, the practical deals with the implementation of the knowledge acquired. As such the method does not condemn the students and provides them with an interactive segment where each of them is able to show case what they have learnt.
Although it would be unwise to limit the progress of the upper level learners, application of this technique assist in bridging the gap between those at the top and the bottom. It does not necessarily dwell on bringing the top cream down, but uplifting those whose performance is quite low to competitive levels. When the practical methodology was applied for the L.W. Young Junior High School, the lower level learners showed notable improvements. Again, the performance of the upper level remained still as high, indicating a bridging of the gap between the two sets where practical approach was applied. On the other hand, in situations where the theory technique was used, the outcome were quite the opposite. The performance for the upper level increased slightly, while that of the lower level dropped drastically.
As such without the right approach, a class could become divided into two groups, of top performers and the below average which would make it more difficult for the tutor to conduct their lessons. When the learners are too far apart, it becomes difficult to ensure that every one moves along while teaching. As such, the use of the practical model offers the required tools and guidelines for ensuring every student involvement and participation in class activities. Such could comprise of cognitive tools which are vital for a problem solving mechanism. Therefore, they stand the chance to make both teaching and learning effective while in a class room.
The techniques should be easy to learn as well as apply and ought to demonstrate why and how imagination may be utilized for grade levels and curriculum. It is thought to make learning interesting, pleasurable, as well as engaging for both the tutor and the learners. Teachers applying this mode of concept are at position to realize images, emotions, stories, sense of wonder, and metaphors. The elements keep the pupil connected, and thus making it easy for the instructor to drive knowledge through these tools. As such they bring to class a livelihood aspect as well as necessary energy for everyone to feel their participation is required.
In fact, comparing the chart for the practical and theory combining the two levels of students, it becomes easy to note that while the practical model is almost at fifty-fifty, the theory approach pulls the two sides apart. Again the above graphical analysis shows that the theoretical approach is only favorable for the elite students who have high capacity to capture the reading materials at ease. Without a proper tutor involvement in a class room, the use of the traditional teaching methodologies could greatly jeopardize the success of those who may be slow learners. The practical medium of teaching creates this platform necessary for interactive communication and activities between such highly alert students and those that take time.
Besides, other than just focusing on one style of teaching, the practical technique has encompassed numerous tactics that ascertains the role played everyone while in a class room. Apart from all that, the model has been seen to promote self-confidence among participants in a classroom. Most pupils will underperform as a result of fear to raise queries offer their opinion, and failure to interact with their tutors freely. Additionally, the model focuses attention to explicit details as opposed to the general theories. That makes it progressive to covering the needs of the students efficiently.
In this methodology, everyone could be a teacher to the other and all learn from each other. An interactive segment portrayed by the practical methodology helps each individual in modeling the other. In addition, a chance to ask targeted queries as well as provide solutions arise from it. With that, it becomes difficult for any interrogations to go unanswered or an attempted. Multiple solutions are provided with detailed explanations, thus allowing for the exhaustion of all possible explanations. Also, the technique allows easy transfer of the theoretical knowledge to application through observation of what other people are doing.
Conclusion
In summary, the practical model of teaching bears more advantages in its application than would do the theoretical concept. For instance, while the traditional theory methodology benefits the already bright students, the practical approach works for all. It involves itself more on bringing everyone to the fold to make their contribution. With the method, tutors have the ability to properly and carefully arrange for what they may wish to demonstrate in class. That gives them independence to make presentations according to their understanding and hence increase their chances of delivering to the pupils.
Besides, students to are encouraged to pinpoint the areas where they may require clarifications as well as provide solutions to queries posed by the teacher or fellow learners. The interaction is healthy academically for both the tutor and the pupils. Having acquired the right skills, these individuals have the opportunity to go and exercise what have been demonstrated to them. Again, the approach appears to provide better understanding to students on its operationalization.
Further, it has been recognized as all-involving and ensures equal chances for all to show case their ability. That’s due to characteristics such as the brain storming, discussions, and presentations through the tools such as the visual aids. Thus, the practical model appears as an appropriate methodology to help achieve better performances in a classroom. However, despite these positive traits, there underlies several challenges that would require use of the theoretical model. For instance, where some students perform best under another arrangement like the case of the upper level learners, it would be advisable to apply it to ensure their good performances are maintained. As such, it would be appropriate to use a mixed approach to realize such goals, and intentions.
