Strategic Intervention Materials (sim) in Teaching Science Iv (physics): Its Effectiveness
JOCELYN O. DY, DepED
The main concern of this study was to prepare, validate and test the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in Science IV (Physics).
The researcher made use of descriptive and experimental methods of research. Control and experimental classes were used in determining the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM). Data collected were treated through the mean, weighted mean, standard deviation, and t-test.
Findings revealed that the Average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in Science of the Division of Albay in the National Achievement Test for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 was 34.25. The prepared Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) are curricularly valid with the curricular validation for all the components which yielded an average weighted mean of 4.80 which is verbally interpreted as Very Evident (VE). The Experimental Group has performed much better compared to the Control Group as revealed in the scores obtained by the two groups in the Post-Test. The 75 percent proficiency/performance level required in any subject area has been reached/attained in the Experimental Group. There is a significant difference in the achievement of the students and learning is higher on the part of the Experimental Group in the two grading periods. Finally, it suggests that the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) be adopted as instructional materials for teaching Science to facilitate learning and improve achievement of the students.
Keywords: Strategic Intervention Materials in Science Teaching
Teaching is instrumental to learning. Teaching and learning in science is at the helm of the concerns of every science educator today. Some educators suggest that a scientific curriculum should provide transfer of knowledge and understanding from the classroom to wide realm of experiences. (Cordia, 2000). This means that teaching should not only be limited to acquisition of knowledge but also in the development of thinking skills.
In teaching science, greater emphasis should be placed on science as a process and the development of higher cognitive skills through science process skills, and the relevance of the concepts and principles to daily life. Moreover, concept learning is inevitably involved in any science investigations. Real science is both a process and product inseparably joined.
The Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) is learner-centered. As such, teachers have to give prior attention to the characteristics of the students. For instance, to provide optimum instruction, it is important to know the appropriate teaching-learning approaches and strategies applicable to a certain group of students or learners. This knowledge will help the teachers design and tailor the activities to be conducted in the classroom.
Science and technology plays a vital role in building a strong foundation for economic and social progress. Physics, as one of the branches of science, has also an important part in this undertaking. However, while there are those who prefer to enjoy the subject, there are also those who prefer to do other things than to do the subject.
Some factors why students choose to continue physics or reject it, are related to what goes on in school and in the science lessons, and thus can be controlled to some extent by the individual teacher. Most students perceive the subject as very difficult, heavily content loaded, very dull and demanding passive reception rather than active involvement with the learning process(Woolnough,1994).
With the above-mentioned problems, the teacher cannot expect much from the students in terms of the application of concepts. This may even be the reason for obtaining low scores in science examinations, as in the case of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) examination where the Philippines ranked 36th in the Science test among the thirty-eight participating countries (Tan,1999).
Laviña (2000) emphasized that “the dismal result of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was a much-needed wake up call for the country”. Analysis of the test and the results Condes-Tandong showed that the Filipino students have difficulty for the following reasons: 1) they have not mastered the concepts needed to answer the items; (2) they do not understand the problem; and (3) the content related to some items is not formally taken up in the curriculum (Tandong, 2000).This implies that students do not master the concepts and lack conceptual understanding regarding the topics already covered. Enough content is covered but not much learning takes place. It is for this reason why the teaching of science must be student-centered and equipped with a variety of instructional learning strategies.
This dismal result gave evidence to the low performance of students in science. These students’ performance did not fare well with the expectations of educators as well as in the target of the Philippine Educational System. Some educators contend that teachers should train students in the process which enable them to understand content and monitor their own learning. According to this view, if students are trained to use comprehensive strategies and to monitor their application, the practice will lead to more effective comprehension and in turn facilitate acquisition of knowledge.
Lawson (1985) stated that most central of all educational objectives is helping the students to think. This is achieved with the use of instructional strategies and techniques to integrate the learning of subject matter with learning how to learn.Grant, et al (1991) recognized that Science teaching need to concentrate more on the content of Science and an expanded view of which the content of science embraces.
In its continuing effort to raise the quality of education in the country, the Department of Education (DepEd) continuously implements innovations particularly in Science. The focus of the Science Education Program of the Basic Education Curriculum is to make learning meaningful for students, in order to improve their achievement. In fact, most of the seminars, trainings and scholarships sponsored by the DepEd and Department of Science and Technology (DOST) for teachers teaching science subjects have the objectives of furthering the enhancement of their knowledge and skills in delivering goods to the students. Similarly, the Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE) is exerting its efforts to further enhance the skills and competencies of the teachers by sponsoring trainings and seminars. An example of this is the National Training on Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) Development in Summer 2005. The training workshop aimed to enhance teachers’ skill in test analysis and interpretation and capacitate them in developing various intervention materials for remediation and enrichment of learning (DepED Memorandum No.117 s. 2005).
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to prepare, validate and determine the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in Science IV (Physics). Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of Albay Division in the National Achievement Test, for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005?
2. What Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in teaching Physics can be prepared from the results of the National Achievement Test?
3. Are the prepared Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) curricularly valid?
4. What are the achievements of the students exposed to the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) compared to the students taught in the
5. Is there significant difference in the achievement of the students in the control group and experimental group?
The null hypothesis forwarded in this study, is that there is no significant difference in the achievement of the students in the control group and experimental group.
This study is primarily based from Constructivist Theory of Learning of Dewey and Vigotsy. However, there are other theories found to be applicable in this study, such as the Conversational Theory which fit into the constructivist framework. The emphasis is on the learner as an active “maker of meanings”. And the Behavioral theory of Watson is found to be applicable since its premise is on the change in the behavior of an organism as product of learning.
Since the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) used by the students involved several parts wherein the students worked on, it is in this context that learner-teacher dialogue was observed. It follows from this; constructivists maintain that learners need to be empowered and to have control over the learning process. So the teacher relinquishes a great deal of authority and becomes a facilitator.
And the researcher’s theory named as Strategic Intervention Theory (SIT) premises that the learning environment should be deluged with new products, instructional media, curricular materials, tools and modern equipment that can be utilized maximally to facilitate the presentation of science concepts with ease and accuracy, and then the desired output on high performance level can be attained. To be able to meet the challenges of modern science instruction, much of the development in science education has to do with how science is taught. Students should be given a chance to learn in an environment where there is no teacher dominance. It is worthwhile to try new modes of teaching where the center of attraction is the student or the learner.
The interlinking relationships of the three famous learning theories above such as Constructivist theory, Conversational theory, and the Behavioral theory as well as the researcher’s theory named as Strategic Intervention Theory, where the achievement of the students basically evolved. It is in the use of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) where these theories would surface from among the students.
BRIEF REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Intervention Materials in Science Teaching
Researchers in Science teaching are trying to find out how science can be taught in such a way that children will learn the fundamental concepts of both physical and biological science. At the same time, they learn that while scientific ideas are based on the observation of natural phenomena, these are also the product of human inventiveness and imagination. Problems in science will always arise as a child observes nature. One may wonder or be astonished over a certain phenomenon and may even call it a miracle. The child may be frustrated when he fails to find an adequate explanation.
Bruce, et al (2001) pointed out that the development of positive attitudes towards any school subject is fundamental for several reasons. First, attitude is related to achievement and may enhance cognitive development directly. Second, positive attitude toward a subject makes students more likely to engage in lifelong learning both formally and informally. More specifically, in the area of science teaching, positive attitude affects both course and career choices.
According to Bretz (2001), Novak’s Theory of Human Constructivism states that “a meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting, leading to human empowerment for commitment and responsibility”. Meaningful learning will only occur when education provides experience that requires students to connect knowledge across the three domains either cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domain. Students must not only read concepts, but must also design and carry out experiments in the laboratory which will allow them to connect these abstract concepts to choices they must make in their daily lives.
The science teacher must design a learning experience which will attend to three domains. Science students must have an understanding of and a commitment to the requisite conditions for meaningful learning. Science teacher need an equally important obligation to inform themselves of what their students already know, so that they can teach accordingly. Novak’s theory gives the “irreducible commonplace” - the evaluation. Evaluation is obviously important in measuring learning outcomes. Test will assess students’ cognitive, practical and social skills.
According to Town (2000), experiential learning theory uses personal experience as the focal point for learning because it gives meaning to abstract concepts. It characterizes learning as continuous process grounded in experience. Concepts are derived from and continuously modified by experience throughout life. Learning is a process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Thus, learning requires both perceiving and transforming an experience. Perception alone is not enough because something must be done so that experience brings about learning.
Collette and Chiapette (1994)said that, “there is a good match between student’s developmental stage and the cognitive complexity of the instructional materials. Students have a greater chance to achieve the desired learning outcomes”. However, they continue when the materials are too abstract and complex, many students may fail to comprehend the subject matter. If science teachers and curriculum writers which to identify learning outcomes that students can attain, they must be aware of the cognitive operations, scheme, or reasoning patterns required to learn a given amount of materials.
Bednar, et.al. (1995)in analysis of content of the Instructional Design, one system would see components as facts, principles, concepts and procedures, while the goals would be to remember, use, or find; and the other is the analysis of specific prerequisite learning. In essence, the analysis pre-specifies all of the relevant contents and the logical dependencies in between the components of the content. They anticipated that the development of a validated self-learning system, in almost every content area, will be a major challenge for educational technologies during the coming decade.
According to Fraser and Giddings as cited by Wheatley (1995), in their study were able to investigate the usefulness of the developed and validated New Personal Form of the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) because some existing instruments were discovered to be unsuitable for Science Laboratory classes. The study came up with a “new, widely acceptable and class nationally validated questionnaire and is made available for assessing, evaluating, and researching the unique and important environment of Science Laboratory classes. Dechsri, et al (1997)conducted a study on the effect of a laboratory manual incorporating visual information processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Results showed that the manual incorporating visual information processing characteristics helped students gain significantly higher scores in the achievement test and psychomotor skills and also stimulated students to develop more favorable attitudes toward laboratory activities.
Synthesis of the State-of-the Art
The reviewed foreign literatures of Bednar (1995), Bruce (2001), Bretz (2001) and Town (2001) were found relevant to the present study since they dealt on the improvement of the curriculum through the use of the comprehensive instructional materials which is the central focus of this study that reinforced the findings and conclusions. They provided theories and concepts on the science teaching, more importantly on providing the students concrete experiences on the use of effective instructional materials for a better school’s achievement of the students. Collette and Chiapetta (1994) has the same line of thinking, they said that “there is a good match between students’ developmental stage and the cognitive complexity of the instructional materials. Students have a greater chance to achieve the desired learning outcomes. The foreign related studies conducted by Wheatley (1995), and Dechsri, et al. (1997) were all related to the present study since they are focused on the development and validation of instructional materials.
These studies are very much related to the present study since both studies covered development and validation of instructional materials for science subject, but of different groups of students. The present study is focused on the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) development, validation and the effectiveness was determined.
Gap Bridged by the Study This study, therefore, is a modest attempt to fill the gap noted in previous studies. Although there have been a number of literature and studies presented about instructional preparation in Science yet not one covered the preparation of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in Science IV (Physics). The validity and effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) were also determined.
Research Design The descriptive and experimental methods of research were employed in this study. Descriptive research is a purposive process of gathering, analyzing, classifying, and tabulating data prevailing conditions, practices, beliefs, processes, trends, and cause-effect relationships and then making adequate and accurate interpretation about such data with or without the aid of statistical methods (Calderon, 1993). This method was used in determining the curricular validity of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM).
The experimental method of research was employed in this study using two groups of subjects as the control and experimental group, respectively. Experimental method of research is a method or procedure involving the control or manipulation of conditions for the purpose of studying the relative effects of various treatments applied to members of a sample, or of the same treatment applied to members of different samples (Calmorin, 1995) It is a problem solving approach that embraces studies of an experimental nature in which the systematic study of social life is carried out under conditions of control and experiment.
According to Aquino (1993), this is a design to investigate possible cause-and-effect relationship by exposing one or more experimental groups to one or more treatment conditions and comparing the results to one or more control groups not receiving the treatment, random assignment being essential.
The students in the two classes in Science IV (Physics) handled by the researcher were the respondents in this study. They were the fourth year High School students in Marcial O. Rañola Memorial School, Guinobatan, Albay during the first and second grading periods, school year 2006-2007.
Sevilla (1996) cited Gay that for experimental studies, 30 students make already a good sample. Thus, there were 50 students involved in the whole study and this makes it a good sample for this research.
There were 25 students in each class during the pre-test. The basis in selecting as to who should belong to the control or experimental class was through their average grade in Science III (Chemistry) and Mathematics III in the third year equated with their age. Since Science IV (Physics) required pre-requisite skills in Math and Science; hence, the average grade in Math III and Science III was considered in selecting the students who were involved in the study.
There were two classes used by the researcher. Both classes were composed of 25 students, a total of 50 students involved in the study. The control class was composed of 25 students, too. The control class did not use the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM). The researcher, therefore, used the traditional approach or expository teaching in the control class while the strategies and activities included in the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) were used in the experimental class.
Steps in the Preparation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM)
This study started with the development of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in secondary Science IV (Physics). The procedure followed in gathering materials and information and in organizing these materials included the following:
A. Preliminary Phase
B. Preparation Phase
C. Evaluation/Validation Phase
A. Preliminary Phase
The first part in the preparation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) was the preliminary phase. It covered the reading, surfing the internet and selection of books and other reference materials in secondary Science IV (Physics) and the review of topics found in the Philippine Secondary Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC). The topics included in the first and second grading periods were:
A. First Grading Period
- Behavior of Light
- Image Formation in Plane Mirror
- Image Formation in Curved Mirrors
- Mirror Equation
- Refraction of Light: Snell’s Law
B. Second Grading Period
- Total Internal Reflection
- Image Formation in Lenses
- Lens Equation
- Vision Defects
- Interference of Light
- Diffraction of Light
- Polarization of Light
B. Developmental/Preparation Phase
The second phase in the SIM preparation was the organization of each topic in the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) and preparation of activities. Each topic prepared with Strategic Intervention Material (SIM) contains the five (5) components such as the guide card, activity card, assessment card, enrichment card, reference card and lastly the answer key card.
C. Evaluation/Validation Phase.
The last phase in the preparation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) was the evaluation phase both curricular and statistical to determine its effectiveness and acceptability. The curricular evaluation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) by the Physics experts was done to determine its curricular validity and the testing of the developed instructional materials to the experimental class for its statistical validation.
To evaluate the Strategic Intervention Materials, the 15 teacher-experts as respondents were given questionnaire using a 5-point scale. The components evaluated were on objectives under the Guide cards, activities under the activity card, evaluation under the assessment card, additional and follow-up activities under the enrichment card, list of concepts and reading materials under the reference card and the answers for the activities and assessment given under the answer key card. The qualitative interpretation of the 5-point scale are given as follows:
4.20-5.00 points for Very Evident (VE)
3.41-4.19 points for Evident (E)
2.61-3.40 points for Moderately Evident (ME)
1.81-2.60 points for Less Evident (LE)
1.00-1.80 points for Least Evident (LE)
These were based from the Standardized criteria prepared and issued by the Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE) and the Department of Education (DepED).
Construction of the test items
The researcher constructed two sets of 50-item test used in the pre and post tests, to measure achievement or performance of both groups in the two grading periods, based from the Table of Specifications or Budget of Work. The pre-test was tried out in another section in the fourth year handled by other Physics teacher. The try-out test results were subjected to item analysis to cast out or improve poor questions. This was done so that the Pre-test would contain good questions. The method used was U-L index method. This method of item analysis reveals the difficulty and discrimination indices.
The statistical evaluation was necessary to determine the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM). A pre-test and post-test were given to the respondents for the first and second grading period. It must be made clear that the test given to the experimental class was also given in the control class. Further, the questions given in the pre-test were the same questions given in the post-test.
The pre-test and post-test results of each group for each of the two grading periods were treated separately. However, to determine whether the achievement of the experimental class was better than the control class, the post-test results of both groups were computed using the t-test.
The statistical tools used in the study were the following:
Mean. This was used to determine where most of the scores of the students clustered. Since the number of students in each group was less than 30, then the ungrouped data was used. This was done by adding all the scores of the students and the sum was divided by their number.
Weighted Mean was used to determine the curricular validation of the
Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM).
Standard Deviation. This was used to determine the variability of the students’ abilities or scores. The mean was subtracted from the students’ scores. The difference was squared after which the summation was obtained.
t-test. This was used to find out whether the students who used the Strategic Intervention Materials performed well and achieved better than those who did not.
The data for the t-test were arrived at after determining the mean standard deviations of the two groups for the first and second grading periods.
Level of Significance
To interpret the significant difference of the achievement of the students who used and did not use the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM), the computed t-value was compared with the tabular t-value at .05 level of significance at 48 degrees of freedom. This was used also as the basis as to whether the null hypothesis would be rejected or accepted.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section answered and discussed the results on the basis of specific research questions.
The Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of Albay Division in the National Achievement Test, SY 2003-2004 and 2004-2005
The first research question was ‘What is the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of Albay Division in the National Achievement Test, for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005? The Mean Percentage (MPS) of Albay Division in the National Achievement Test school year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 of the three areas namely: English (47.38, 44.69; A=46.04), Science (35.26, 33.24=34.25) and Math (42.30, 41.50=41.90). The writer focused on the area of Science whereby the results gathered were: for school year 2003-2004, the Mean Percentage Score was 35.26 while for school year 2004-2005 was 33.24 with an average Mean Percentage Score of 34.25. It could be concluded that the performance level of the students in the Division of Albay was below 35 percent.
This further implies that the students did not master the skills needed in the subject to attain a 75 percent performance level. Hence, the science teacher must provide a learning experience for the students which will attend to the three domains. This fact is supported by the Transformation Learning Theory of Wink (2001), that it is important for science educators to recognize the fact that a student who cannot solve certain problems is one who lacks particular knowledge. This is further supported by the Novak’s Theory of Human Constructivism whereby Bretz (2001) stressed that “a meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting, leading to human empowerment for commitment and responsibility”. Meaningful learning will only occur when education provides experience that requires students to connect knowledge across the three domains either cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domain.
The science teacher must design a learning experience which will attend to three domains. Science students must have an understanding of and a commitment to the requisite conditions for meaningful learning. Novak’s theory gives the “irreducible commonplace” – the evaluation. Evaluation is obviously important in measuring learning outcomes. Test will assess students’ cognitive, practical and social skills. Therefore, the results in the achievement test such as the National Achievement Test clearly show whether the students have gained and mastered the skills in a particular subject.
Prepared Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) In Teaching Science IV (PHYSICS)
The second research question was ‘What Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in teaching Physics can be prepared from the results of the National Achievement Test? The researcher was unable to gather information regarding the questions in the National Achievement Test, so instead based her topics from the Philippine Secondary Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC).
The organization of the topics in the Preparation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) followed the sequence of the topics found in the Science IV (Physics) textbook covering the Unit II – Energy in the Environment and with reference to the list of objectives and topics in the Philippine Secondary Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC).
The organization of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) followed the following sequence:
First Grading Period:
SIM 1 - Behavior of Light
2 - Image Formation in Plane Mirror
3 - Image Formation in Curved Mirror
4 - Mirror Equation
5 - Refraction of Light: Snell’s Law
Second Grading Period
SIM 6 - Total Internal Reflection of Light
7 - Image Formation in Lenses
8 - Lens Equation
9 - Vision Defects
10 - Interference of Light
11 - Diffraction of Light
12 - Polarization of Light
Curricular Validation Of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) In Science IV (Physics)
The third research question was ‘Are the prepared Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) curricularly valid?’ All the components/criteria in evaluating the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) obtained an average Weighted Mean (WM) of 4.82 which is interpreted as Very Evident (VE), it goes to show that the Strategic Intervention Material (SIMs) for the first and second grading periods are curricularly valid. It was perceived therefore that all the criteria or detailed guidelines were answered Very Evident and hence the SIMs 1 to 12 are curricularly valid and can now be used by the teachers and be given to the students to improve their learning.
This process was found similar to the one posited by Soriano (2000) on module preparation. While this is called Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) and the parts are referred to as Cards, but the descriptions are similar. Sorianoposits that the module is based on management principle; hence, the various lessons also follow the POLE (Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Evaluating) formula. This is, for easy understanding and good appreciation of the module, the instructional material has the following modular elements in each lesson: Objective, Lesson Abstract, Lesson Introduction, Sticklers, In-text Questions, Summary, Space and Assignment, and Self-testing.
This is also found similar to the study of Caculitan (2000) wherein the prepared instructional material was rated excellent by the teacher- evaluators in terms of overview, objectives, topics, activities and evaluation materials, thus the said instructional material was found curricularly valid hence, it could be used as instructional material in the classroom.
Comparison of the Achievements Of the Students Exposed to Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) and the Traditional Method
The fourth research question was ‘What are the achievements of the students exposed to the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) compared to the students taught in the traditional approach?’ Prior to the experiment a pre-test was administered in the first and second grading periods respectively to both the control and experimental groups and the scores obtained were, HS=19, 23; LS=10, 9; Mean=13.96, 14.56; SD=2.61, 2.92 for the Control Group and HS=18, 20; LS=9, 8, Mean=13.52, 13.48; SD= 2.90, 3.57 for the Experimental Group. It can be gleaned from the data that the Experimental Group performed less than the Control Group in the pre-test. This clearly shows that the information of the students in the experimental group about the topics/contents of Science IV was obviously a little lesser compared to the control group during the start of the grading period.
After the experiment, which covered SIMs 1 to 12 for the two grading periods, a post-test was administered to both groups and the scores obtained were: HS=42, 43; LS= 14, 17; Mean=26.84, 25.20; SD=7.52, 7.23 for the Control Group and HS=47, 46; LS=37, 36; Mean=42.52, 41.48; SD=2.92, 3.14 for the Experimental Group. Analyzing the result of the standard deviation, the lesser its value (2.92, 3.14) the better because it only means the performance of the students was not far apart as evidenced by the highest score (HS) and lowest score (LS). This shows that the Experimental Group performed better than the Control Group during the Post-test as a result of the intervention materials used in the class.
This result is supported by the findings of Dechsri9 et al.,(1997) on the study on laboratory manual incorporating visual information processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Results showed that the manual incorporating visual information processing characteristics helped students gain significantly higher scores in the achievement test and psychomotor skills and also stimulate students to develop more favorable attitudes toward laboratory activities. The same findings were made by Cataneo (1995) in the use of Supplementary Exercises in Physics I. The findings revealed that the students obtained higher mean scores in three units when they used the supplementary exercises than the units when the supplementary exercises were not used. This finding agrees with Colette and Chiapetta (1994) who said that, “there is a good match between student’s developmental stage and the cognitive complexity of the instructional materials. Students have a greater chance to achieve the desired learning outcomes”.
Significant Difference in the Achievement of the Students in the Control and Experimental Groups
The fifth research question was ‘Is there significant difference in the achievement of the students in the control group and experimental group? The computed mean, Standard deviation and t in the pre and post tests were: Mean(Pre)=13.96, 14.56; Mean(Post)=26.84, 24.20; SD=2.61, 2.52; 7.52, 7.23; t=8.10, 6.82 for the Control Group and Mean(Pre)=13.52, 13.48; Mean(Post)=42.52, 41.48; SD=2.90, 3.57; t=35.24, 29.47 for the Experimental Group.
When the computed t for the experimental and control group was compared with the critical value, at 0.05 level of significance, it was noted that the computed t under the experimental group (t=35.24; 29.47) are much higher compared to the control group (t=8.10; 6.82)), hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. It could be concluded that there is really a big difference in the performance of the students and the learning is higher on the part of the experimental group. With this finding, it clearly indicates that SIMs 1 to 12 are very effective. Hence, the 75 percent proficiency/performance level required in the subject area was attained / reached by the experimental group.
This finding agrees with Deocariza (2004)wherein the PWA Based Workbooks in Science III that was developed was found to be effective in enhancing: a) students’ achievement in Science III, b) practical skills, and c) positive attitude towards practical work. Brophy (1998) also disclosed that learning is fun and exciting, at least when the curriculum is well matched to students’ interests and abilities and the teachers emphasizes hands-on activities.
This finding is consistent with previous research reports that the instructional device prepared by the teacher take the center stage in the teaching methodology. The teaching aids are used to provide a concrete experience about the lesson for the students since they are seen or heard or both. (Isorena 2000), Salandanan 1996, Gowin 1981) . “The students’ power to control better his later experience is grounded not so much in the teacher’s authority as in student’s understanding of how educative materials enhance and enlarge the range of experience. The teacher’s responsibility is to see that what the student takes from the educative materials does in fact help the student in this increased understanding.
The Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in Science of the Division of Albay in the National Achievement Test for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 is below the 75 percent level of proficiency level as required in any subject area. The prepared 12 Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) IV (Physics) possess curricular validity.
The achievement of the students in the experimental group who were exposed to the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) is higher and better compared to the students taught in the traditional approach both in the first and second grading periods. The 75 percent proficiency/performance level required in any subject area has been attained / reached in the experimental group. There is a significant difference in the achievement of the students in the control group and experimental group. This suggests that the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) be adopted as instructional materials for teaching Science to facilitate and improve performance. Furthermore, future researchers could work and prepare the same materials on other learning areas.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Acero, Victoria O. et al., 2000 Principles and Strategies of Teaching, First Edition, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Brophy, Jere. 1998 Motivating Students to Learn. United States of America: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.
Calderon, Jose F. and Expectacion C. Gonzales. 1993. Methods ofResearch and Thesis Writing. Manila: National Book Store.
Collette, A. T. and E.L.Chiapetta. 1994Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary School. New York Macmillan Publishing Company 1994.
Deauna, Melecio C.,et al. 2001 The World of Physics.SIBS Publishing House, Inc., 2001.
Evans, G. 2001. Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills. Victoria, Australia Council for Educational Research. Ltd., 1991.
Gowin, D. B. 1981. Educating, Cornell University, New York.
Lardizabal, A. et al. 1996. Principles and Methods of Teaching. 3rd Edition, Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., Quezon City, 1996.
Lawson, A.E. 1994. Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lupdag, Anselmo D. 2004. Educational Psychology. Quezon Citty: National Bookstore, 1984..Reprinted 2004.
Navaza, Delia Cordero and Cienvenido J. Valdes. 2000. Fourth YearPHYSICS Textbook. Manila: Phoenix Publishing House.
Ornstein, Allan C.. 1990Strategies for Effective Teaching. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, New York.
Peter Grant, et al. 1991. Better Links, Teaching and Strategies in the ScienceClassroom. STAV Publishing, Pty Ltd. Parkville Victoria, Australia, 1991.
Salandanan, Gloria G et al. 1996. The Teaching of Science (TeachingStrategies). Manila: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
Sanchez, Custodiosa Ancheta. 1998. Methods and Techniques ofResearch. Manila: Rex Book Store.
Sevilla, Consuelo 0. 1996.Research Methods. Manila: Rex Bookstore, 1996.p. 47
Soriano, Robert. 2000. Broadcast Management, A Course Module forCollege Students. Manila: Bookstore Publishing Corporation.
B. JOURNALS, PERIODICALS, MANUALS
1986 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Bretz, Stacey L. 2001. Journal of Chemical Education Online Symposium. JChemEd.Chem.wise.edu., August.
Bruce, et.al. 2001. “Executive Summary of the Research Synthesis on Effective Teaching Principles and the Design of Quality Tools for Educators”. Published Material
Cortez. Josefina R. “A Research-Based Teacher Education Reform for the Philippines”. PAGE Journal.
DepEd Memorandum No.117 s.2005
De Jesus Belen. “Accelerating Research Towards Global Competitiveness”. Paper Delivered at the Recent APCAS Region III Seminar in M.S. Enverga University Foundation. PAGE Journal. Vol.No. 2.
Dechsri, Precharn, et.al. 1997. “Effect of Laboratory Manual DesignIncorporating Visual Information Processing Aids in Students Learn in andAttitude.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 34 no. 9, November 1997.
Doll, R.C. Curriculum Improvement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Folder of the National Achievement Test Results (NAT), Division Office, Albay
Gardiner, Lion F. 1994. “The Educational Research and Information Center”. E.R.I.C. Digest, Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Students Learning” (Washington D.C.:E.R.I.C. Clearing House on Higher Ed.)
Gotengco, Jamesina Z. 1999. “Curriculum Innovation in Basic Education: Teachingand Learning Strategy”. The Modern Teacher. June.
Gregorio, Lucille. 1995. “Science and Technology Education for All the Challenge for Philippines 2000”. 30th Annual National Biota Convention and Seminar-Workshop Philippine Science High School.
Heather, Ryan. 1999. “Time for Research to Put Its Money”. Department of Health and Human Development, Massey University Delta Policy and Practice in Education, Vol. 51, Issue 2.
Lawson. Anton E. 1985. “A Review of Research on Formal Science Teaching”. Volume 22.
Ordillas, Teresita. 1993. “The Prospect of Quality Education.” The Modern Teacher.
Orion, Nir, et al. 1997. “Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing the Learning Environment of Outdoor Science Activities”. Science Education Journal. 8(2) John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Ramiso, Manuel. 1991. Philippine Journal of Education. Philippine Publishers Association of the Philippines, Inc., July.
Tan, Merle C. 1999. ”Why Philippines Ranked 36th in TIMSS 1999”. National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development, University of the Philippines. (UP NISMED).
Town, Marcy Hamby. 2001. “Kolb for Chemists: David A Kolb and ExperientialLearning Theory”. Journal of Chemical Education OnlineSymposium. JChemEd.Chem.Wise.edu.August.
Wheatley, John H. 1995. “Evaluating Cognitive Learnings in the College Science Laboratory”. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching,Volume 2, no.7, October.
Wink, Donald J. 2001. “Reconstructing Student Meaning: A theory of Perspective Transformation”. Journal of Chemical Education OnlineSymposium. JChemEd.Chem.wise.edu., August.
Woolnough, Bria E. 1994. “Why Students Choose Physics or Reject It”. Science Education.29 (6);368-381.
Yeany, et. al. 2001 “Executive Summary of the Research Synthesis on EffectiveTeaching Principles and the Design of Quality Tools for Educators”.
Yu, Vistro C. 1993 The Philippine Journal of Education. 72 (6) 246.
C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Antones, Belinda B. 1998. “Development and Validation of An Assessment Tool in Science III in the Division of Albay.” Master’s Thesis, Bicol University, Legaspi City.
Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Pery. 1995. “Instructional Technology Past,Present, and Future.” Second Edition Englewood Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Binayung, Lilia. 1996. ”Development and Validation of a Module in Mathematics forThird Year High school students of Las Pinas College.” Master’s Thesis, Intramuros Manila, 1996.
Caculitan, Edith P. 2000 ”A College Resource Book in Earth Science: Its Utilization and Effectiveness.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Saint Anthony, City of Iriga.
Cataneo, Gene A. 1995. “Supplementary Exercises in Physics 1 (Mechanics and Heat)” Master’s Thesis, Naga College Foundation, City of Naga.
Celis, Amelia B. and Elsa R. Español. 1997. “Exploratory Visual Materials: TheirEffect on Science and Mathematics Achievement of Grade One Pupils” Mater’s Thesis, Mabini College, Daet, Camarines Norte, October.
Cordia, Henrietta Leyva. 2000. ”The Effect of Concept Mapping In Enhancing theLevel of Cognitive Development of Freshmen College Students”. Doctoral Dissertation, Bicol University.
Deocariza, Era Espelimburgo. 2004. “Development and Validation of Practical Work Approach Based Workbook in Science III.” Master’s Thesis, Bicol University, Legaspi City.
Digo, Gerry S. 2001. “Development and Validation of Laboratory Activities for theUse of Improvised Electrolysis Apparatus.” Master’s Thesis, Bicol University Legaspi City.
Domantay, Remedios I. 1999. “Instructional Modules on Plant and CropProduction.” Master’s Thesis, University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City.
Dorosan, A. 1998. “The Efficacy of an Inquiry-Oriented Learning Environment inEnhancing the Performance of H.S. Physics Students” Dissertation, De La Salle University.
Gavina, Wenceslao D. 2001. ”Proposed Laboratory Manual In AC Circuits.”Master’s Thesis, Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges, Nabua, Camarines Sur.
Guanzon, Goyeta N. 2000. “Supplementary Instructional Modules in TeachingScience and Technology III.” Master’s Thesis, University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City.
Isorena, Shiela M. 2000. “Development of Instructional Materials in PhysicsTeaching Using STS Approach” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bicol University, Legasp City.
Laviña, Elenita. 2000. “Developing Higher Order Thinking Skills in Mathematics.” Dissertation, Bicol University, Legazpi City.
Lomask, Michael S., et. al. 1995. “The Development and Validation of AnAssessment of Safety Awareness of Science Teachers Using Interactive VideodiscTechnology”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Copyright 1995, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mapula, Nerbie Miraflor. 2000. “Instructional Modules on Complex Numbers forFourth Year High School.” Master’s Thesis, Bicol University, Legaspi City.
Ortega, Ray B. 1996. “A Reference Manual in Genberal Zoology.” Master’s Thesis, University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City.
Pontillas, Virginia V. 2002. “Instructional Modules in Differential Calculus for Engineering Students.” Master’s Thesis, Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges, Nabua Camarines Sur.
Salcedo, Maria Laarni M. 2003. “Construction and Validation of InstructionalModules in Pathophysiology.” Masters Thesis, University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City.
Salvadora, Agnes B. 1996. “Supplementary Learning Materials in TeachingBiology”. Master’s Thesis, University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City.
“Students Performance in the TIMSS”.. 1997. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of the Philippines, College of Education.
Tataro, Maritta Almonte. 2000. “Modular Instruction on Humanities Utilizing Bicol Mateials: Its Effects on Students’ Performance”. Master’s Thesis, Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges, Nabua, Camarines Sur, 2000.
Atherton J S (2005) Learning and Teaching; Theories of Learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 23 November 2005 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/theories.htm
Atherton J S (2005) Learning and Teaching; Constructivism in learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 23 November 2005 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm
Atherton J S (2005) Learning and Teaching; Cognitive theories of learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 23 November 2005 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/cognitive.htm
Edita Galo on January 17, 2019:
Can I ask a copy of a standardized quentionaire? Thank youMa'am!
antonia orilla on October 26, 2017:
can i ask a copy of standardized questionnaire? thanks
JC Laylo on April 03, 2016:
Good day Ma'am. Is it okay if I will request your list of references for this dissertation? Thank you and God bless you!