1. MASTERAL THESIS The Effectiveness of Integrating the Theory of Constraints for Education in the Teaching-Learning Process in English I

2. Specific Problems 1.What is the profile of the respondents in terms of 1.1 gender 1.2 monthly family income 1.3 type of school graduated from 1.4 grades in English I? * Statistical Tools Mean, Percentage, Rank

3. *Findings Table 1. Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Respondents in Terms of Their Profile Profilef%Rank Gender Male54521 Female49482 Total103100

4. Profilef%Rank Monthly Family Income 40,001 – above664 20,001 – 40,00024233 10,001 – 20,00032312 5,001 – 10,00036351 3,001 – 5,000555 Total103100

5. Profilef%Rank Type of School Graduated From Public101981 Private222 Total103100

6. Profilef%Rank Grades In English 86 – 9021203 81 – 8541401 76 – 8035342 70 - 75664 Total103100

7. 2. What is the level of performance of the respondents before and after exposure to TOCFE thinking tools in terms of 2.1 Communication Skills 2.1.1 Cloud 2.1.2 Branch 2.1.3 Ambitious Target 2.2. Behavioral Skills 2.2.1 Cloud 2.2.2 Branch 2.2.3 Ambitious Target? *Statistical Tool: Mean and Standard Deviation

8. *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

9. Legend: 5-4.13 –5- Very Highly Skilled 4-3.34 – 4.12- Highly Skilled 3-3.50 – 3.33- Average Skilled 2-1.66 – 2.49- Fairly Skilled 1-0.83 – 1.65- Poorly Skilled 0-0.00 – 0.82- Very Poorly Skilled

10. COMMUNICATION SKILLS ToolsPre TestPost Test Average comp mean SDVIAverage comp mean SDVI Cloud2.18SDFS3.121.15AS Branch1.190.74PS1.820.99FS Ambitious Target 1.150.89PS1.921.15FS Grand Mean 1.51PS2.29FS AS Average Skilled FS Fairly Skilled PS Poorly Skilled

11. HS Highly Skilled AS Average Skilled FS Fairly Skilled BEHAVIORAL SKILLS Tools Pre TestPost Test Average Comp meanSDVI Average comp meanSDVI Cloud2.231.65FS3.671.34HS Branch2.270.97FS2.661.48AS Ambitious Target1.080.94PS1.961.22FS Grand Mean1.86FS2.76AS

12. CONCLUSION TOCFE thinking tools helped the respondents improve their academic performance.

13. 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

14. *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

15. Communic ation Skills  Before Exposur e  After Exposure Mean Differenc e dfComputed t-value Tabular t-value HoHo VI Cloud 2.183.120.942046.1631.972RejectS Branch 1.191.820.632045.1181.972RejectS Ambitious Target 1.442.200.762045.2851.972RejectS Communication Skills HoHo VI CloudRejectS BranchRejectS Ambitious TargetRejectS

16. *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

17. Behavioral Skills  Before Exposur e  After Exposure Mean Difference dfComputed t-value Tabular t-value HoHo VI Cloud 1.743.351.612049.2441.972RejectS Branch 1.302.371.072046.1691.972RejectS Ambitious Target 1.001.740.742044.8231.972RejectS Behavioral SkillsHoHo VI CloudRejectS BranchRejectS Ambitious TargetRejectS

18. 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

19. *Findings Computed t-value on the Effectiveness of the TOCFE

20. Communication SkillsBeforeAfter Mean Difference Computed t-value Tabular t-value HoHo VI Cloud2.183.120.946.1631.972 Reject S Branch1.191.820.635.118 1.972 Reject S Ambitious Target1.151.920.775.285 1.972 Reject S Communication Skills HoHo VI Cloud RejectS Branch RejectS Ambitious Target RejectS

21. Behavioral Skills BeforeAfter Mean Difference Computed t-value Tabular t-value HoHo VI Cloud2.233.671.449.244 1.972 Reject S Branch2.272.660.396.169 1.972 Reject S Ambitious Target1.081.960.884.823 1.972 Reject S Behavioral Skills HoHo VI CloudRejectS BranchRejectS Ambitious TargetRejectS

22. 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

23. *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

24. Legend: df = 4/98 level of significance = 0.05 Variables Computed F-ratio Tabular F-ratio HoHo VI Gender1.5643.820AcceptNS Monthly Family Income3.4113.820AcceptNS Type of School Graduated From0.0383.820AcceptNS Grades in English I6.2943.820RejectS

25. 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.

26. Thank you very much. God bless.