Chapter II Research Methods
This chapter presents the research methodologies used in the study. This includes the research design, location, participants, instrumentation, data gathering procedure, and data analysis.
Research Design
The independent variables in this study are the chemistry students, and the chemistry faculty members/ laboratory technicians. The survey questionnaire made for the chemistry students, and chemistry faculty members/laboratory technicians were given to assess their procedure awareness and laboratory practices. Also, another questionnaire was made to evaluate the extent of conformance of the procedure and practices to EMS of the two groups. The outcomes of the assessments show the extent of procedure awareness and practice in the chemistry laboratory as well as the extent of conformance to EMS of students, faculty and technicians through their mean values. This description indicates that the researcher used a non-experimental, survey research design. This is also a quantitative and correlational research since the results were interpreted using statistical tools manifesting interrelationships of the variables. Moreover, the execution of interviews used to summarize the conception of the Environmental Management Model of a Chemistry Laboratory implies a qualitative and descriptive research designs relative to the description of the situation and experiences of the respondents.
Location
This study was conducted in four private colleges and universities located in Metro Manila and the province of Cavite. The participating institutions were chosen based on the following: one must have an installed chemistry laboratory; offers any science related discipline with chemistry course for Higher Education Department (HED) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) strand for Senior High School Department (SHSD).
Participants
The faculty member and laboratory technician participants were chosen based on their job designations and knowledge in chemistry laboratory. They are presently handling or have taught any chemistry subject and have facilitated a chemistry laboratory experiment in the campus where they represent.
For the student participants, they are under the tertiary or senior high school department, who has taken chemistry laboratory subject in 2nd term of AY 2018 – 2019, in their corresponding institution.
The researcher underwent a preliminary profile check and visit to the participating institutions, in which the number of enrolled students that used the chemistry laboratory per term and per program for AY 2018 – 2019 were collected. This is to have a projection on the number of respondents and group of students that might be assessed and to have an orientation on the possible date or term the subject chemistry is offered.
Table 1
The Data of the Number of Chemistry Students per Course or Strand, and per Term for each Campus, AY 2018 – 2019
Campus Course / Strand 1st term 2nd term 3rd term
Big School
Medical Technology 1,581 1,279
N/A
Nursing 0 1,122
Biology 296 132
Psychology 0 8
STEM 375 375
Small School 1
Mechanical Engineering
74 384 371
Electrical Engineering Electronics Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Engineering Small
School 2
Psychology 38 6
N/A
STEM 152 152
HUMSS 32 0
Small School 3
Mechanical Engineering
Not yet
operational 250
No chemistry
course offered Electrical Engineering
Electronics Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Engineering
STEM 220 220 N/A
Small School 4
STEM
360 360 N/A
Originally, there were five chosen contributing campuses. The researcher learned, upon setting up an appointment for survey, that the administrators in Small School 4 has changed their offering period of chemistry subject, from grade 12 first semester to second semester. The reason is because the senior high school building was needed to be renovated, hence a new chemistry laboratory is still under construction during that time.
Because of the time constraints and the justification that removing Small School 4 respondents from the sample size will not greatly affect the result of the study, the researcher together with the adviser have decided to move on with the data analysis. This event was then notified to the panel chair and members, who all approved this course of action.
With the population presented in the previous table, it is more reasonable and workable to gather data from the students of second term, AY 2018 – 2019. This is for the reason that there are more available respondents who already finished any chemistry subject more recently. Also, the acquired population helped the researcher figure the sample size for each group respondents, in which campuses were divided into “big school”
and “small schools”. The exact number of participants and how they were gathered is presented in the Data Gathering and Procedure part.
In terms of the processes and information regarding regulatory compliance and their actual practices on laboratory waste and safety, the feedbacks and explanations were acquired through the supervisors, pollution control officers, and safety officers under the Facilities and Technical Services Department of each campus. Facilities and Technical
Services Department is the common responsible unit that handles engineering, utilities, cleanliness, and security matters in their respective campuses.
Instrumentation
The chosen participants were given a survey questionnaire, sample of each is exhibited in Appendix A. The same set of questionnaires was assigned for every respondent irrespective of the group. The questionnaire has three parts. The first part of the questionnaire is for the personal information of the respondents so as to determine their qualification. The second part is for the respondents to assess the indicated laboratory procedures and practices in terms of implementation and frequency of implementation. The third part contains questions on how the laboratory procedures and practices conform to environmental management system.
The survey questionnaire was firstly modified from the study of Villalobos (2013) and the Laboratory Safety Inspection Form (2019) of Stony Brook University, NY while the interview questions were formulated by the researcher. The constructed sets of questionnaires were also consulted to persons who are specialized in the field being tested to increase the source of information, including the research adviser. The first expert is a Manufacturing and Supplier Quality Assessments (MSQA) Manager of Pfizer Incorporated and a faculty member of Chemical Engineering Department of University of Santo Tomas.
Another expert is an Honors Chemistry Teacher of Casa Grande Union High School, Arizona USA, who is pursuing Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Management. Lastly, a specialist in Quality Control from various pharmaceutical laboratories with skills on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and,
ISO on Quality Management System and Laboratory Management, who’s presently teaching chemistry and physics to STEM strand students at Trece Martires City Senior High School, Cavite.
After several deliberations and consultations with the experts, the devise went through a statistical validation procedure by attaining the Cronbach’s alpha. The questionnaires were answered by 2 sections from the Degree of Medical Technology, composed of a total of 73 students from the big school. The following are the results of the alpha (α) coefficient values of the reliability test:
Table 2
Alpha values per test of the dependent variable with corresponding verbal interpretation
Variables Α Verbal Interpretation
Usage of chemicals 0.771 Acceptable
Safety in the laboratory 0.783 Acceptable
Handling and storage of reagents 0.775 Acceptable
Laboratory Wastes Disposal 0.789 Acceptable
Conformance to EMS 0.902 Excellent
Overall 0.874 Acceptable
Overall, there is an acceptable reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.874.
In addition, the list of questions that were asked to the interviewees can be found at Appendices B and D: Questionnaire for chemistry laboratory students; Questionnaire for faculty and laboratory technicians; and Interview questionnaire for FTS personnel respectively.
Data Gathering Procedures
The student respondents were selected based on their population size during the 2ndsemester of AY 2018-2019 and the total sample size was achieved with Slovin’s Formula, to find an appropriate size from the population with confidence level of 95%.
Stratified sampling technique was applied in order to calculate the number of students from each campus.
Table 3
The detailed number of computed sample size of chemistry students per course or strand, and per campus
Campus Course/Strand Population
size
Sample size (8.5%)
Big School
Medical Technology 1,279 109
Nursing 1,122 95
Biology 132 11
Psychology 8 1
STEM 375 32
Small School 1
Mechanical Engineering
384 33
Electrical Engineering Electronics Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Engineering Small
School 2
Psychology 6 1
STEM 152 13
Small School 3
Mechanical Engineering
250 21
Electrical Engineering Electronics Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Engineering
STEM 220 19
Small
School 4 STEM 360 31
TOTAL 4,288 366
The schedule of distributing the survey was done by appointment to each campus and respective departments, on the start of the following term after the research proposal.
It was first coordinated with the campuses’ directors or program heads. The time allotted was depending on the availability of the respondents present on the scheduled date and the distribution was facilitated personally by the researcher.
The survey was already accomplished in Big School, Small School 1, Small School 2, and Small School 3 until the researcher was advised with the changes in Small School 4. There was a renovation of the whole Senior High School building, which made their chemistry laboratory premises unavailable for holding a chemistry laboratory class. Due to the sudden change in the curriculum, the target student respondents became unready and unreliable at the time of the survey. Consequently, the sample size became 335 students.
The chemistry faculty members and laboratory technicians were selected out of Purposive sampling technique considering the size of the population and the schedule of classes or their shift work particularly in Big School. The latter has the greatest number of chemistry laboratory classrooms, compared to the Small Schools wherein they only have one laboratory classroom, and schedule of laboratory classes in the Big School were distributed throughout the day. The intention of this method is to bring about the goal of maximizing the use of the laboratory that is eco-friendly, safe and could sustain the carrying capacity. The total sample size of teachers and laboratory technician is fourteen detailed in Table 4.
Table 4
The detailed number of chemistry teacher and laboratory technician respondents for the survey per campus
Campus Teachers Laboratory Technicians
3 Small Schools
1 respondent for each campus
1 respondent for each campus
1 Big School
am schedule 2 respondents 2 respondents pm schedule 2 respondents 2 respondents
For the interview, by means of stratified sampling technique, 1 student was interviewed per each Small School, while 9 students were randomly selected from the Big School. This was obtained based on a 1:3 sample size ratio of Small and Big School. The interviewees were chosen randomly on the same day the survey was conducted. There was a preliminary interview in person supported by answers collected through email.
Table 5
The detailed sample size of students for the interview derived from ratio and proportion
Campus
Sample size (Survey)
Sample size (Interview)
Big School 248 9
Small School 1
87
1
Small School 2 1
Small School 3 1
As for the chemistry teachers and laboratory technicians, with the use of Stratified sampling technique, 1 faculty/laboratory technician was interviewed per each Small School, while 4 faculty/laboratory technicians were randomly selected from the Big School.
This was obtained based on a 3:4 sample size ratio of Small and Big School.
Table 6
The detailed sample size of teachers/laboratory technicians for the interview derived from ratio and proportion
Campus
Sample size (Survey)
Sample size (Interview)
Big School 8 4
Small School 1
6
1
Small School 2 1
Small School 3 1
As the main reference for the generation of the Environmental Management Model of Chemistry Laboratory, the researcher has attended relevant trainings and seminars including a Chemical Management training for Globally Harmonized System (GHS):
Labelling and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for pure substances and mixtures and a Chemical Management seminar about Philippine Chemical Regulations governing chemical importation, handling, and disposal. See Appendix I for the certificates of participation. The interview with the Facility and Technical Services Department Heads of the campuses was also became a source for the content on the Environmental Management Guide for Philippine Schools’ Chemistry Laboratory.
Data Analysis
The data gathered from the primary instrument, that is in the second and third part of the survey questionnaire, were statistically analyzed through SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software, using the following statistical tools: weighted mean to determine the mean score of each group of respondents (chemistry students group, and chemistry faculty members and laboratory technicians group) for each category in the survey questionnaire; t-Test to find out if there is a significant difference in the ratings between the group of respondents in each category; and Pearson’s r Correlation to verify if there is a significant association in the procedure awareness and chemistry laboratory practices, and the extent of conformance to EMS.
The following are the verbal interpretations with corresponding scale used to describe the results of the mean values. The first set of Likert scale is for the extent of awareness followed by the extent of practice in the laboratory adopted from the “Analyses and Methods for Likert Scale Data” of Aasa, O. in 2016.
Extremely Aware (EA) 4.51 – 5.00 Moderately Aware (MA) 3.51 – 4.50 Somewhat Aware (A) 2.51 – 3.50 Slightly Aware (SA) 1.51 – 2.50 Not at all Aware (NA) 1.00 – 1.50
Extremely Practice (EP) 4.51 – 5.00 Moderately Practice (MP) 3.51 – 4.50 Somewhat Practice (P) 2.51 – 3.50 Slightly Practice (SP) 1.51 – 2.50 Not at all Practice (NP) 1.00 – 1.50
Next is the verbal interpretation for the extent of conformance to EMS, implemented by Villalobos (2013), as shown below:
Very High Conformance (VH) 4.51 – 5.00 High Conformance (HC) 3.51 – 4.50 Moderate Conformance (MC) 2.51 – 3.50 Least Conformance (LC) 1.51 – 2.50 Non-Conformance (NC) 1.00 – 1.50
To give meaning to the correlation coefficient, r, the strength, and the direction of the relationship between two variables must be determined. In SPSS correlation table, the Sig.
(2 tailed) is the p-value that is also interpreted. The following table is the basis for interpretation:
Table 7
The Interpretation Table for Correlation Correlation
coefficient (r)
Strength Direction p-value
0.00 – 0.19 Very weak (+) positive r values: positive linear correlation
(-) negative r values: negative linear correlation (0) zero r value: no
linear correlation
If p-value < 0.05:
with statistically significant bivariate
association If p-value > 0.05:
no statistically significant association
0.20 – 0.39 Weak
0.40 – 0.59 Moderate
0.60 – 0.79 Strong
0.80 – 1.0 Very Strong
Notes. The range and the verbal description for the strength and direction was retrieved from the book of Evans, J. (1996) while the steps for interpreting the SPSS output for a Pearson’s correlation was from the tutorial site of Dr. Heidel (2021).
For the interview part, deductive analysis was applied by the researcher after gathering and summarizing the shared experiences and practices of the respondents for each built category.
A deductive approach as described by Amy Blackstone (2012) is associated with scientific approach in analyzing research. The researcher inquires on existing theories, procedure, or system and then tests on the hypotheses in reference to the collected data.
It starts from a general level of focus to a more specific level of focus. This may apply for qualitative method of analysis.
