🧠 RESEARCH DEFENSE Q&A

🔹I – INTRODUCTION
Q1: Why did you choose science anxiety and academic engagement specifically
among STEM students?
A: We chose science anxiety because STEM students often face pressure to excel
in science subjects, which can result in emotional stress. Academic engagement,
on the other hand, indicates students' active participation in learning. We wanted
to explore how these two variables interact.
Q2: What makes this topic significant in today’s educational context?
A: This topic is timely because many STEM students experience difficulties in
science-related subjects, which can affect their performance and persistence.
Understanding the link between anxiety and engagement can guide educators in
supporting students more effectively.
Q3: How did you determine that science anxiety is a concern at your school?
A: Based on informal discussions and classroom experiences, we noticed many
STEM students expressing nervousness, low confidence, and stress related to
science classes and exams. This observation aligned with existing literature.
Q4: What led you to believe it might impact academic engagement?
A: Emotional factors like anxiety are known to influence learning behaviors. We
hypothesized that science anxiety may affect how students engage with
academic tasks, either negatively or in ways not yet fully understood.
==Q4-A (inserted): What are the factors affecting academic
engagement of STEM students?==
==A: In our study, we focused specifically on science anxiety as a factor
affecting academic engagement. However, based on existing literature, other
factors such as teaching style, classroom environment, student motivation, and
self-efficacy may also play a role.==
==Q4-B (inserted): What is the gap or uniqueness of your study?==
==A: Our study focuses specifically on the local STEM student population and
the link between science anxiety and academic engagement—an area that is
often studied separately. Also most studies are generalized, which means there
studies does not focused on Senior High STEM students which spans across
diverse academic disciplines such as Junior High School students, College
students, and practice teachers. With our research it is now specifically focused
on STEM students, filling in the gap in the literature.

Additional Questions:
1. What is the Title of your study?
- Science anxiety and academic engagement of STEM students.
2. How did you come up with this title?
- We come up with this title through the research conceptualization that we have
made individually. With the help of our research conceptualization, our research
 adviser utilized our different ideas inorder for him to formulate the research title
that he assigned to us.
3. What are the variables of your study?
- There are two variables in this study: namely the independent variable is the
Science Anxiety and the dependent variable which is the variable under study is
the academic engagement of STEM students.
4. What is the problem of the study? How do you intend to solve it?
- The problem of the study which is under study is the academic engagement of
STEM students. The study aims to understand how science anxiety affects
academic engagement among STEM students.
== To solve this, we measured the levels of science anxiety and academic
engagement using adapted standardized questionnaires. We then applied Pearson
correlation to determine if a significant relationship exists between them. Based
on the results, we provided insights and recommendations to address the issue.
==
5. How relevant is your research in the field of science education?
- It is highly relevant, especially in understanding how psychological factors like
anxiety influence performance in science.
- The results can guide educators in creating strategies that minimize anxiety while
maintaining or improving academic engagement. ==

🔹M – METHODOLOGY
Q5: Why did you choose a correlational design instead of experimental
or qualitative?
A: We aimed to examine the natural relationship between two variables—science
anxiety and academic engagement—without manipulating them, making
correlational design the most appropriate.
Q6: Why did you use purposive sampling, and how might this affect
generalizability?
A: We selected STEM students because they are more exposed to science
subjects and relevant to our research focus. While purposive sampling may limit
generalizability, it ensures targeted and relevant data.
Q7: Can you tell us more about the validity and reliability of the scales
you used?
A: The instruments we used were adapted from established questionnaires. A
pilot test was conducted, and the internal consistency of the scales was
confirmed with Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.8, indicating strong reliability.
Q7: What research instrument or tools did you use?
A==We used two tools: the Science Anxiety Questionnaire and the
Student Science Engagement Scale. Academic engagement was
measured through three components: engagement in science lessons
and tasks, science learning involvement, and science effort and
preparation.==
Q8: What steps did you take to ensure the honesty and accuracy of
student responses?
A: We assured participants of confidentiality, clarified that responses would be
anonymous, and encouraged them to answer honestly without fear of judgment.
Q9: Why did you use Pearson correlation instead of Spearman’s rho?
A: Pearson correlation is appropriate for normally distributed continuous data.
Since our data met the assumptions of normality, we used Pearson’s r to
measure the strength and direction of the relationship.
Q10: Did you get any form of approval from a research ethics
committee or school administration?
A: Yes, we obtained permission from the school administration and ensured
ethical considerations such as informed consent and confidentiality were
observed.
==Q10-A (inserted): How did you come up with 64 respondents?==
==A: The estimated STEM student population at CMC is 76. Using the Raosoft
sample size calculator with a 95% confidence level, we determined that 64
respondents were required for our sample. ==

Additional Question:
1. AQ: How did you conclude that there is a moderate level of
anxiety? Or How did you conclude that the overall mean 3.40 is
moderate level?
We based our interpretation on the scale we adopted in the study which we can see from
our research instrument in Science Anxiety Questionnaire (SAQ). For the 5-point
Likert scale, the levels are commonly interpreted as follows:

• 1.00 - 1.49: Very Calm (Low Anxiety)

• 1.50 - 2.49: Fairly Calm (Mild Anxiety)

• 2.50 - 3.49: Neutral (Moderate Anxiety)

• 3.50 - 4.49: A Little Nervous (High Anxiety)

• 4.50 - 5.00: Very Nervous (Severe Anxiety)

by looking at this scale we could see that 3.40 is interpreted as moderate level

2. AQ: How did you conclude that there is a moderate level of

engagement? Or How did you conclude that the overall mean of
academicengagement 3.17 is at moderate level?
We based our interpretation on the scale we adopted in the study which we can see from
our research instrument in Students' Science Engagement Scale (SSES). For the 4-
point Likert scale, the levels are commonly interpreted as follows:

• 1.00 - 1.49: Very Not True to Me (Low Engagement)

• 1.50 - 2.49: Not True to Me (Mild Engagement)

• 2.50 - 3.49: True to Me (Moderate Engagement)

• 3.50 - 4.00: Very True to Me (High Engagement)

by looking at this scale we could see that 3.17 is interpreted as moderate level

🔹R – RESULTS
Q11: What do you mean by a "moderate level" of science anxiety and
engagement?
A: Our scoring rubric categorized means between 2.51 and 3.50 as “moderate.”
Both science anxiety and academic engagement fell within this range, meaning
students sometimes experienced anxiety and were moderately engaged.
Q12: Which component of academic engagement scored highest?
A: Among the three components—engagement on science lessons and
tasks, science learning involvement, and science effort and preparation
—Engagement on Science Lessons and Tasks had the highest mean.
Q13: What was the correlation result between the two variables?
A: The Pearson correlation coefficient was r = 0.551, which indicates a
moderate positive correlation between science anxiety and academic
engagement.

📊 Common Interpretation of Pearson’s r:

r-value (absolute value) Interpretation

0.00 to 0.10 Very weak or no correlation
0.10 to 0.30 Weak (low) correlation
0.30 to 0.50 Moderate correlation
0.50 to 0.70 Strong (moderate-high)
0.70 to 1.00 Very strong correlation

🔹 Note: The closer r is to 1 or -1, the stronger the relationship.

🔹 A positive r means both variables increase together; a negative r means as one increases, the other
decreases.

💡 Example from your study:

You got an r = 0.551, which falls within the 0.50 to 0.70 range, so it's considered a moderate to
strong positive correlation.

Q14: Was the correlation statistically significant? What was the actual
p-value?
A: Yes, the correlation was statistically significant. The actual p-value was 0.000,
which is well below the standard significance level of 0.05, indicating a strong
statistical basis for the relationship.
Q15: How do you explain the positive correlation between science
anxiety and academic engagement?
A: This suggests that students who experience anxiety may still be academically
engaged—possibly because they are driven by the pressure to perform or
maintain academic standing, especially in a competitive strand like STEM.
==Q15-A (inserted): What is the implication of the findings of your
study?==
==A: The implication is that science anxiety, while often viewed negatively, may
also function as a motivator for students to stay engaged and perform
academically. Educators should balance support and challenge to harness this
dynamic productively.==
Additional Q:
1. AQ: How does science anxiety affect academic engagement?
- Science anxiety may lead to reduced academic engagement by causing
students to avoid science-related tasks or feel incapable of succeeding.
However, our study found a moderate level of academic engagement and
a positive correlation (r = 0.551) between the two variables, suggesting
that some students remain academically engaged despite experiencing
science anxiety.

🔹D – DISCUSSION
Q16: How do your findings compare with previous literature?
A: While most previous studies show a negative correlation between anxiety and
engagement, our result showed a moderate positive correlation. This may reflect
unique behavioral or motivational dynamics in our specific population of STEM
students.
Q17: How should educators respond to your finding that science anxiety
positively correlates with engagement?
A: Educators should not assume all anxiety is harmful—some level may motivate
students to try harder. However, teachers must also recognize when anxiety
becomes overwhelming and offer emotional support alongside academic
instruction.
Q18: What would you recommend for future researchers?
A: Future research could use a qualitative design to explore the reasons behind
this positive correlation. It would also be helpful to examine related variables like
motivation, teaching methods, and self-efficacy to better understand student
behavior.

Let me know if you'd like this version exported to Word or Google Docs, or if you
want a mock oral defense based on this Q&A.

------------------------GOD BLESS--------------------------