17

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The study aimed at investigating: Effects of PQ4R in the Reading Comprehension of

Grade 6 pupils in Baluarte Elementary School.

This chapter tackles the procedures, the findings of the study regarding the research

questions. The researcher used "Independent Sample T-Test" mathematical formulae in

comparing the performance of the students from their pre- and post-test activities in evaluating

their improvement in the speed-reading activity. Tables were also used to present these data with

analysis and interpretation.

Data Analysis

1. What is the students’ level of reading comprehension as reflected in the pre-test

mean scores?

Table 1.1: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores

of Control Group in Terms of Literal

Table Score 1.1Mean presents

Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 8-10 2.33-3.00 10 58.8
Average Reading Comprehension 5-7 1.67-2.32 6 35.3
Low Reading Comprehension 1-4 1.00-1.66 1 5.9
Total 17 100
High Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.53

Pre-Test Mean Scores of Control Group in Terms of Literal

 18

Based on Table 1, the pre-test mean scores of the control group in terms of literals in the

reading comprehension of Grade 6 Faith students at Baluarte Elementary School can be

described by the students in the control group. It shows that 10 students got a score ranging

from 8 to 10, with a mean range of 2.33 to 3.00, which means 58.8% of the respondents have a

high level of reading comprehension. In the level of average reading comprehension, 6 students

got a score ranging from 5-7 with a mean range of 1.67–2.32, which means 35.3% of the

participants belong in the level of average reading comprehension. Meanwhile, in the level of

lowest reading comprehension, only 1 student got a score ranging from 1-4 with a mean range

of 1.00–1.66, which means 5.9% of the respondents have the lowest reading comprehension.

The overall mean for the control group's reading comprehension is 2.53, indicating that, on

average, the group falls within the "high reading comprehension" level. In terms of literal, it

signifies that they received a high score in the multiple choice test during the pre-test among

the control group.

Reading comprehension is key to students’ success in school, as well as in life (Wijekumar et

al., 2019). Especially in the critical period of late elementary education, developing appropriate

skills to comprehend expository texts becomes increasingly important (Keresteš et al., 2019).

Table 1.2: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores

of Control Group in Terms of Inferential

 19

ScoreMean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range
Range
High Reading Comprehension 4-5
2.33-3.00 2 11.8
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3
1.67-2.32 12 70.6
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1
1.00-1.66 3 17.6
Total 17 100
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.06

Table 1.2 presents the data based on the Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected

in the Pre-Test Mean Scores of Control Group in Terms of Inferential

The table above shows that only 2 students got a score ranging from 4-5 with a mean range of

2.33–3.00, which means 11.8% of the respondents have a high level of reading comprehension.

In the level of average reading comprehension, 12 students got a score ranging from 2–3, with a

mean range of 1.67–2.32, which means 70.6% of the respondents belong in the level of average

reading comprehension. In the level of low reading comprehension, only 3 students got a score

ranging from 0 to 1, with a mean range of 1.00 to 1.66, which means 17.6% of the respondents

belong to the low reading comprehension level. This data illustrates the control group's reading

comprehension levels on a pre-test, emphasizing inferential interpretation.

The overall mean for the control group's reading comprehension is 2.06, placing it within the

"average reading comprehension" level. This implies that the respondents in the control group

demonstrated an average level of reading comprehension during the pre-test in terms of

inferential because only two of them received a score of 4-5 and many of them can recite what

they read in the story but not perfectly and received a score ranging 2-3, consequently falling

under the average reading comprehension level.

 20

Nurhayati: 2019) argued that the method of recitation is a method of teaching by requiring

students to make resumes with their own sentences. With this method of recitation students will

dare to write in his own way, responsible with the results of his writing and will always

remember with the material that is taught. So recitation means students quote or take their own

parts of the lesson from certain books, then self-study and practice until it is ready as it should

be.

Table 1.3: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores of

Control Group in Terms of Critical

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension
Table 4-5 2.33-3.00
1.3 8 47.1 reflects
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 7 41.2
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 2 11.8
Total
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 1.71
scores and critical interpretation.

Based on the table above, in the reflection part, there are 8 students who got a score ranging

from 4-5, with a mean range of 2.33–3.00. This group makes up 47.1% of students categorized

as having high reading comprehension. On the other hand, in the average reading

comprehension level, 7 students got scores ranging from 2–3, with a mean range of 1.67 to

2.32, which means 41.2% of the respondents belong to the level of average reading

comprehension. In the low reading comprehension level, only 2 students got a score ranging

from 0 to 1 and a mean range of 1.00 to 1.66, which means 11.8% of the respondents belong in

the lowest reading comprehension level.

 21

The overall mean for the control group in terms of critical is 1.71. This implies that the

respondents, in terms of critical reading comprehension, fall below the average reading

comprehension level across all participants because they struggle to reflect what they read.

Kusiak-Pisowacka (2020) stated that improving critical reading skills is a main part of reading

instruction, particularly reading texts directed to more advanced learners. Critical reading is an

essential requirement for effective involvement in modern social life, wherever reading printed

texts and online texts is a daily activity.

Table 1.4: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores

of Experimental Group in Terms of Literal

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension
Table 8-10 2.33-3.00
1.4 14 77.8 presents
Average Reading Comprehension 5-7 1.67-2.32 3 16.7
Low Reading Comprehension 1-4 1.00-1.66 1 5.6
Total 18 100
High Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.94
group based on pre-test mean scores and literal interpretation.

The table shows that 77.8% of the respondents, or 14 students, fall into the "high reading

comprehension" level, with scores ranging from 8 to 10 and a mean range of 2.33 to 3.00. In

the "average reading comprehension" level, 16.7% of the respondents, or only 3 students, got a

score ranging from 5 to 7 and a mean range of 1.67 to 2.32. Only 5.6%, or only 1 student, are in

the "Low Reading Comprehension" level, scoring 1 to 4 with a mean range of 1.00 to 1.66.

The overall mean for reading comprehension in the experimental group based on pre-test mean

scores in terms of literal is 2.94, which falls within the "high reading comprehension" range.
 22

This implies that, in multiple choice test, the students in the experimental group have strong

reading comprehension skills.

Open-ended multiple choice questions, consisting of an open answer format, allow participants

to answer in a free and individual way. However, this free format requires high output demands

in terms of linguistic skills to formulate appropriate responses (Weigle et al., 2013; Calet et al.,

2020).

Table 1.5: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores

of Experimental Group in Terms of Inferential

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension
Table 4-5 2.33-3.00
1.5 2 11.1 presents
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 13 72.2
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 3 16.7
Total 18 100
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 1.94
Pre-Test Mean Scores of Experimental Group in Terms of Inferential

Specifically, the data shows that 11.1% of the participants have high reading comprehension,

which means only 2 students got scores ranging from 4 to 5, with a mean range of 2.33 to 3.00.

In the average reading comprehension level, 72.2% of the participants got scores ranging from

2 to 3, with a mean range of 1.67 to 2.32. This category has the highest frequency, with 13

students in total. Meanwhile, in the low reading comprehension level, 16.7% of the participants

got scores ranging from 0 to 1, with a mean range of 1.00 to 1.66. This category has a

frequency of only 3 students in total.

 23

The overall mean score of experimental group in reading comprehension in terms of inferential

is 1.94, putting them in the average range. These data implies that the majority of the

experimental group in terms of inferential had ordinary reading comprehension skills, with a

smaller proportion having high or low reading comprehension ability.

A meta-analysis by Elleman (2017) observed that reading interventions that focus on inference-

making increase inferential reading comprehension of students across grade levels and also

improve literal comprehension for struggling readers.

Table 1.6: Level of Reading Comprehension as Reflected in the Pre-Test Mean Scores

of Experimental Group in Terms of Critical

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension
Table 4-5 2.33-3.00
1.6: 3 16.7 presents
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 4 22.2
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 11 61.1
Total 18 100
Low Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 1.50
Pre-Test Mean Scores of Experimental Group in Terms of Critical

The data shows that 16.7% of respondents were considered to have high reading

comprehension, scoring between 4 and 5 with a mean range of 2.33 to 3.00. This implies that

only 3 students in the experimental group were capable of comprehending the reading

materials. Another 22.2% of participants scored between 2 and 3, with a mean range of 1.67 to

2.32. This shows that 4 students had an average level of reading comprehension. Meanwhile,

61.1% of the participants scored between 0 and 1, with a mean range of 1.00 to 1.66. This
 24

shows that 11 students in the experimental group struggled to understand and comprehend what

they read because of their low reading comprehension. During the pre-test, the experimental

group in term of critical appeared to have a low level of reading comprehension.

Overall, the data show that the majority of the experimental group in terms of critical had a low

level of reading comprehension, with an overall mean score of 1.50. This emphasizes the need

for interventions or methods to improve the experimental group participants' reading

comprehension skills.

The impediment to addressing this perplexing poor reading comprehension problem is to use

reading strategies to establish a valid meaning negotiation between the reader and the text

(Elleman & Oslund, 2019).

2. What is the students’ level of reading comprehension when exposed to the PQ4R

strategy and Conventional approach?

Table 2.1: Control Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of Literal

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading
Table Comprehension
2.1 Present 8-10
the data based on the 2.33-3.00
Control 11Mean Scores
Group Post-Test 64.7
and their Level of
Average Reading Comprehension 5-7 1.67-2.32 4 23.5
Low Reading Comprehension 1-4 1.00-1.66 2 11.8
Total 17 100
High Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.53
Reading Comprehension when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of Literal
 25

When exposed to the Conventional Approach, the students in the control group displayed

various level of reading comprehension, as shown by their post-test mean scores. Notably,

64.7% of respondents or 11 students have a high level of reading comprehension, with a mean

score of 2.33-3.00 and a score ranging 8-10. Meanwhile, 23.5% of respondents or 4 students

demonstrated average comprehension, with scores ranging from 5-7 and a mean range of 1.67-

2.32. On the other hand, 11.8% of the respondents or only 2 students have a poor reading

comprehension, with scores ranging from 1-4 and a mean range of 1.00-1.66.

The overall mean score for the control in the post-test when exposed to the conventional

approach in terms of literal was 2.53, demonstrating a general proficiency in reading

comprehension. It implies the majority of students in the control group in terms of literal did

well, with a significant percentage obtaining high levels of comprehension and a smaller

portion demonstrating average or poor levels of comprehension.

According to Rues, K. (2019), reading comprehension should be viewed on a multi-faceted

continuum that considers the student’s skill level in decoding words, their willingness to take

on a text, and their exposure to the content.

Table 2.2: Control Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of Inferential

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 4-5 2.33-3.00 5 29.4
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 11 64.7
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 1 5.9
Total 17 100
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.24
 26

Table 2.2 presents the data based on the Control Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their

Level of Reading Comprehension when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of

Inferential

The control group post-test mean scores were categorized by levels of reading comprehension

when exposed to the conventional approach in terms of inferential. The data shows that in the

high reading comprehension level, 29.4% of the respondents, or 5 students, got scores ranging

from 4 to 5, with a mean range of 2.33 to 3.00. Moving to the average reading comprehension

level, 64.7% of the respondents, or 11 students, got scores ranging from 2 to 3, with a mean

range of 1.67–2.32. On the other hand, 5.9% of the respondents, or only 1 student in the low

reading comprehension level, got a score ranging from 0 to 1, with a mean range of 1.00 to

1.66.

The overall mean for the control group post-tests in reading comprehension in terms of

inferential is 2.24, providing a comprehensive average across all participants. These imply

variations in comprehension levels within the control group, highlighting the impact of the

conventional approach on different individuals.

According to (Hong, Ma, Lin, & Yuan-Hsuan, 2020). Having good reading comprehension

skills is very important because these skills are not only helpful academically, but also

professionally and personally. Having excellent reading comprehension skills is also believed

to increase students' enjoyment and effectiveness of reading. More importantly, good reading

comprehension enables students to express thoughts, ideas, and feelings, which helps them

become well-integrated citizens in the long run.

 27

Table 2.3: Control Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of Critical

Table 2.3 shows

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 4-5 2.33-3.00 4 23.5
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 5 29.4
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 8 47.1
Total 17 100
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 1.76
when Exposed to Conventional Approach in Terms of Critical

The data result shows that in control group 23.5% of the respondents have a higher level of reading
comprehension, which means only 4 students got the score ranging 4-5 with a mean range of 2.33-3.00.
In the level of average reading comprehension 29.4% of the respondents got the score ranging to 2-3
and with a mean range of 1.67-2.32. This level has a frequency of 5 students in total. Meanwhile, the
level of low reading comprehension 47.1% of the respondents got the lowest score ranging 0-1 with a
mean range of 1.00-1.66. This level has a frequency of 8 students in total.

The control group average reading comprehension over-all mean is 1.76. This average shows the
combined performance of all control group participants and provides an overall measure of their
reading comprehension ability.

In summary, these findings suggest that the conventional approach used in the control group did not
lead to significant improvements in reading comprehension. The majority of students had average or
low reading comprehension, emphasizing the need for alternate educational approaches to improve
their reading skills.

Academic reading is efficient when specific techniques maintain the reader’s attention and
enthusiasm. Students must consistently seek to enhance their reading skills and know how to
implement the strategy (Louiza & Fadhila, 2022). In addition, teachers must provide clear training
on the skills and encourage students to embrace critical thinking.

Table 2.4: Experimental Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to PQ4R Strategy in Terms of Literal

 28

Table 2.4 presents

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 8-10 2.33-3.00 14 77.8
Average Reading Comprehension 5-7 1.67-2.32 4 22.2
Low Reading Comprehension 1-4 1.00-1.66 - -
Total 18 100
High Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.78
Level of Reading Comprehension when Exposed to PQ4R Strategy in Terms of Literal

The data shows that 77.8% of the respondents, or 14 students, achieved high reading comprehension
scores ranging from 8–10 with a mean range of 2.33–3.00 after being exposed to the PQ4R strategy. The
average reading comprehension level constitutes 22.2% of the respondents, or only 4 students, with
scores ranging from 5-7 with a mean range of 1.67–2.32. The data for the low reading comprehension
group is not provided.

The overall mean for the experimental group post-test when exposed to PQ4R strategy in terms of literal
is 2.78. It implies the majority of students in the experimental group in terms of literal did well, with a
significant percentage obtaining high levels of comprehension and a smaller portion demonstrating
average or poor levels of comprehension.

Fauziah (2021) indicated that PQ4R strategy helps learners have a better understanding of written
language. This encourages them to focus on organizing the data in their minds and making it relevant. It
leads to many areas of active learning and deeper information processing.

Table 2.5: Experimental Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to PQ4R Strategy in Terms of Inferential

 29

Table 2.5 presents

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 4-5 2.33-3.00 8 44.4
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 4 22.2
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 6 33.3
Total 18 100
Average Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.11
comprehension for an experimental group exposed to the PQ4R strategy, interpreted in terms of
inferential.

The data indicates that after exposure to the PQ4R strategy, 44.4% of the experimental group, or 8
students, achieved high inferential reading comprehension levels, scores ranging from 4-5 with a mean
range of 2.33–3.00. In the average reading comprehension level, 22.2% of the respondents, or 4
students, got a score ranging from 2–3 with a mean range of 1.67–2.32. On the other hand, 33.3% of the
respondents, or 6 students, exhibited low comprehension, with a score ranging from 0 to 1, with a mean
range of 1.00 to 1.66.

The overall mean for the experimental group post-test in the level of reading comprehension when
exposed to the PQ4R strategy in terms of inferential is 2.11. This implies that the experimental group, in
terms of inferential, falls below the average level of reading comprehension when exposed to the PQ4R
strategy.

Moreover, Marisa, Monalisa, and Abadi (2019) pointed out that PQ4R is used to help learner understand
and remember what they read. It enables learners in the learning process in class with reading activities.
The basic idea behind teaching reading is that it is the most vital basic to develop comprehension of the
reading material or text.

Table 2.6: Experimental Group Post-Test Mean Scores and their Level of Reading

Comprehension when Exposed to PQ4R Strategy in Terms of Critical

Score Mean
Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Range Range
High Reading Comprehension 4-5 2.33-3.00 10 55.6
Average Reading Comprehension 2-3 1.67-2.32 7 38.9
Low Reading Comprehension 0-1 1.00-1.66 1 5.6
Total 18 100
High Reading Comprehension
Over-all Mean = 2.50
 30

Table 2.6 presents the data based on the Experimental Group Post-Test Mean Scores and

their Level of Reading Comprehension when Exposed to PQ4R Strategy in Terms of Critical

The data indicates that, following exposure to the PQ4R strategy, 55.6% of the respondents, or 10
students, achieved high critical reading comprehension scores ranging from 4-5 with a mean range of
2.33–3.00. 38.9% of the respondents, or 7 students, belong to the level of average reading
comprehension, with a score ranging from 2–3 with a mean range of 1.67–2.32, while 5.6% of the
respondents, or only 1 student, belong to the level of low reading comprehension, with a score ranging
from 0–1 and a mean range of 1.00–1.66.

The overall mean for the high-reading comprehension group is 2.50. It implies that a substantial portion
of the experimental group attained a high level of critical reading comprehension, emphasizing the
effectiveness of the PQ4R strategy in fostering critical interpretation skills.

Eka, As1, and Yuliana (2018) prove that PQ4R strategy has successfully increased the students’ reading
comprehension.

Furthermore, Salem AlSereidi (2019) emphasized the significance of critical reading as a key demand
that learners need to perform well in the world and more essentially have an active role in creating and
producing the knowledge rather than being consumers of the knowledge that is creating consistently
and continuously all over the world.

Problem 3. What is the extent of effectiveness in the utilization of the level of the PQ4R

strategy in the aspects of the level of reading comprehension?

Experimental Group Post-Test

Control Group Post-Test
(PQ4R Strategy)
Reading
Reading
Comprehensio Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Comprehension
n
Literal 2.53 HRC Literal 2.78 HRC
Inferential 2.24 ARC Inferential 2.11 ARC
Critical 1.76 LRC Critical 2.50 LRC
Overall Mean 2.18 ARC Overall Mean 2.46 ARC
Table 3: Extent of Effectiveness in the Utilization of the Level of the PQ4R Strategy in the

Aspects of the Level of Reading Comprehension

 31

Table 3. Presents the Extent of Effectiveness in the Utilization of the Level of the PQ4R

Strategy in the Aspects of the Level of Reading Comprehension

Based on the table above, the mean reading comprehension scores for the literal in the control

group post-test results is 2.53, which falls under the (HRC) High Reading Comprehension

category. The mean score in inferential is 2.24, which corresponds to (ARC) Average Reading

Comprehension, and the mean score in critical is 1.76, which belongs to (LRC) Low Reading

Comprehension. The overall mean for the post-test control group is 2.18, which corresponds to

(ARC) Average Reading Comprehension. This means that the control group had the highest level

of reading comprehension in the literal aspect, followed by the inferential aspect, and the lowest

level of comprehension in the critical aspect.

In comparison to the control group, the experimental group, which used the PQ4R strategy, had a

little higher mean scores in all aspects of reading comprehension. The experimental group had a

mean score of 2.78 for the literal aspect, which is referred to as "HRC," a mean score of 2.11 for

the inferential aspect, which is referred to as "ARC," and a mean score of 2.50 for the critical

aspect, which is also referred to as "LRC." These findings indicate that using the PQ4R strategy

improved reading comprehension in all aspects.

When the overall mean scores for both groups were compared, the experimental group had a

higher mean score of 2.46, categorized as "ARC," compared to the control group's overall mean

score of 2.18, also categorized as "ARC." This indicates that the experimental group using the

PQ4R strategy achieved a higher level of reading comprehension than the control group.
 32

Finally, the data show that using the PQ4R strategy in the experimental group enhanced reading

comprehension in all aspects—literal, inferential, and critical. These imply that using the PQ4R

strategy can help improve reading comprehension abilities.

(Holt, 2023) Stated that several studies have explored the efficacy of the PQ4R study method,

with a particular focus on reading comprehension. These studies consistently demonstrate the

positive impact of PQ4R on students’ ability to understand and retain information from various

academic texts. PQ4R has proven to be an effective tool in improving reading comprehension

skills across different educational contexts.

4. Is there a significant difference in the students’ level of comprehension after

exposure to the PQ4R and the conventional approach?

There are no statistically significant differences in the student’s level of comprehension after

exposure to the PQ4R and the conventional approach. To examine the second hypothesis, the

means and standard deviations of both groups' results on the post-test were computed. An

independent sample t-test was used to measure the significance of the differences. Table 4

describes those results.

Table 4: Independent Samples T-Test on the Significant Difference Between

Exposure to the PQ4R and the Conventional Approach

Reading Mean Std. p-

Mean t (33) Interpretation
Comprehension Differences Deviation value
Conventional
2.53 Not
Approach
Literal -0.25 0.286 -1.252 0.219
PQ4R Significant
2.78
Strategy
 33

Conventional 2.24
Approach Not
Inferential 0.13 -0.337 0.486 0.630
PQ4R Significant
2.11
Strategy
Conventional 1.76
Approach Not
Critical -0.35 -0.069 -1.181 0.246
PQ4R Significant
2.11
Strategy
Significant if p < 0.05

As shown in Table 4, the "p-value" is a measure of the evidence against a null hypothesis.

In this context, a p-value greater than 0.05 indicates that there is not enough evidence to reject

the null hypothesis, suggesting that the differences observed are not statistically significant.

Therefore, the interpretation for all three categories (literal, inferential, and critical) is "not

significant." It will be significant if p < 0.05.

In summary, based on the p-values provided, there is no significant difference in reading

comprehension scores between the conventional approach and the PQ4R strategy in the three

categories measured.

According to Prima Rahmadia & Sitti FatimahIt 2020 itis concluded that there is an influence on

the reading comprehension of students who are given the PQ4R learning model and the

conventional learning model.

This finding is supported by Reem Hassan Al-Qawabeh1& Dr. Abdullah Ali Aljazi , 2018.

According to them, the results indicate that there is no statistical significant difference due to the

effect of the interaction between strategy.

34