CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with the presentation of data, statistical analysis of the

data gathered and the interpretation of the results.

Least Mastered Competencies in Grade 8 Science

Table 1
Mean Performance of Grade 9 Students (previously Grade 8) on the
Diagnostic Examination for Science

QUARTER TOPICS WEIGHTED DESCRIPTIVE

MEAN RATING
Laws of Motion 2.37 Least Mastered
First Work, Power and Energy 2.90 Near Mastery
Quarter Sound 2.44 Least Mastered
Light 2.33 Least Mastered
Heat 2.22 Least Mastered
Electricity 2.50 Least Mastered

The data provided in Table 1 shows the subtopics in Unit 1 – Force,

Motion and Energy which are identified as least mastered competencies. In Unit

1 – Force Motion and Energy (Physics), the least mastered competencies fall on

five (5) out of six (6) subtopics. These subtopics are Laws of Motion, Sound,

Light, Heat and Electricity. The lowest weighted mean (WM) belongs to the

subtopic about Heat (module 5 in Grade 8 Science Module). The highest

weighted mean but classified as near mastery (NM) is the subtopic on Work,

Power and Energy. The reason given by teachers interviewed about Work,

Power and Energy was that students have good background knowledge on the
 41

concepts and that teachers had an easier time explaining the subtopic. It was

also mentioned that the subtopic on Work, Power and Energy was easier to

relate with everyday experiences. No learning competency in all six (6) subtopics

in Unit 1 falls on Mastered (M) or Highly Mastered (HM). When the students’

performance was taken as a whole (average weighted mean), it was found to be

“least learned”.

The results implied that concepts under the topics, Laws of Motion,

Sound, Light, Heat and Electricity were not mastered by most students indicating

that they did not fully understand the main concepts. These are the topics that

should be given focus when teaching Science to Grade 8 students in the First

Quarter. This means that educators need to pay extra attention to the learning

competencies covered by the above mentioned topics in Force, Motion and

Energy found to be least mastered. Consulting the K to 12 Science Curriculum

Guide points to the following least mastered competencies: for Laws of Motion:

(1) relates the laws of motion to bodies in uniform circular motion and (2) infers

that circular motion requires the application of constant force directed toward the

center of the circle; for Sound, the learning competency is: (1) infers how the

movement of particles of an object affects the speed of sound through it. The

learning competency for Light is: (1) explains that red is bent the least and violet

is bent the most according to their wavelengths or frequencies. For the subtopic

about Heat the learning competency is: (1) differentiates between heat and

temperature at the molecular level. The subtopic about electricity has the least

mastered competencies as: (1) compares power rating and energy consumption
 42

of various electrical appliances and (2) explains the functions of circuit breakers,

fuses, earthing, double insulation and other safety devices in the home.

From the interviews gathered from Grade 8 teachers, the least mastered

competencies category obtained from the data may be due to some topics not

being tackled in the classroom. The main reason given to the researcher is due

to the numerous topics and or activities being covered in Unit 1 – Force, Motion

and Energy. For example Unit 2 about Earth Science only has three (3) modules

while Unit 1 has six (6) modules as contained in the Science Learners’ Manual

for Grade 8. There are also teachers who devoted a longer time in recalling past

lessons from Grade 7 thus they do not have enough time for all the activities

leading them to skip some topics/activities, especially the hands-on activities and

or when the examination period is nearing. Another reason cited is the problem

of applying the spiral progression approach in all six (6) modules of Unit 1. At

least three teachers mentioned that they only selected activities with minimal

preparation and materials to be used. Some teachers opened the fact that they

do not have enough background knowledge regarding the abstract concepts in

physics and this is reflected on how they introduced difficult concepts mostly by

having short discussion with limited application. Some teachers also find some

activities in the Grade 8 module harder and more hectic when being performed.

They also skipped lessons if there were no available teaching tools and or

materials. Thus they only focus their time on the topics that were familiar to them

or easy to teach.
 43

Specifically for the subtopic “Laws of Motion”, teachers commonly view the

activity about circular motion as time consuming because it required preparation

of circular motion models. Instead, the teachers preferred giving lecture

discussion on the definitions of uniform circular motion, centripetal acceleration

and also teach the formulas that were helpful in problem solving. Some teachers

were missing the chance to observe real life objects exhibiting this particular type

of motion as said by a master teacher who made classroom observations.

On the other hand, the subtopic about “Heat” involved preparation of

different materials and experimental set-ups. The teachers viewed the activities

here as requiring too much time and effort from students. Teachers instead gave

background checking on the modes of heat transfer from Grade 7 and through a

lecture gave the meaning of processes like melting and evaporation. Hands on

experience in the performance of experiments were being neglected and rote

learning became the norm on this topic.

At the same time, the topic on “Electricity” was usually neglected because

some terms or concepts were said to be unfamiliar. The activities also involved

the use of expensive materials and equipment which was considered a

disadvantage for schools with a limited number of laboratory equipment (e.g.

ammeter and voltmeter). It was also observed by the master teachers

interviewed that some teachers have limited teaching background on the topic

about electricity. They were also not able to provide or improvise the materials

needed for the activity.

 44

The lesson on “Sounds” is viewed by some teachers as difficult to explain.

The activities here also require time and preparation. The teachers in the regular

sections complained about this because the students were not bringing the

complete materials for experiments. The depth of the topic discussion was only

superficial and practical applications of concepts like sound propagation and the

use of different frequencies of sound were not being taught or even observed by

students.

Likewise, the topic on “Light” was just being discussed for the sake of

completing the topics before the first quarterly examination as said by some

teachers interviewed. The grade 8 Science modules provided six (6) experiments

on this topic and sometimes the experiments on the other topics were not yet

accomplished. Due to time constraints, the teachers were resorting to lecture

discussions about the concepts of light spectrum and its properties. Learning by

doing experiments was not being practiced because the focus shifts on catching

up on lessons before an assessment of student learning happen.

Results of this study are somehow related to the findings of Kim and So

(2009) about project based learning in which it was pointed out that there is a

trend of increasing least mastered competencies in Physics in junior high

schools. Two factors pointed out in the study contributing to the problem are (1)

lack of appropriate learning tools and improvised materials and (2) insufficient

teacher background. Sadowska and Kaminska (2010) stated that one problem in

teaching physics is the quality of textbooks. They also stated that the changes in

the curriculum result in “small changes” in handbooks. Publishers want to be on

 45

time with new student books and that textbooks are written quickly because they

must be available for students (Sadowska & Kaminska, 2010).

Sicuyan (2013) stated that high school students have difficulty in grasping

the concepts about electromagnetism, sound waves and light. Other topics like

light and its colors have prevailing misconceptions. This lead to the increase of

least mastered competencies in physics. Several subtopics in physics were

found to have prevailing misconceptions which lead to the same problem of least

mastered competencies. Rodante (2009) pointed out misconceptions in

introducing heat and thermal energy to fourth year high school. Mina (2008)

pointed out the difficulty of correcting misconceptions about inertia in a laboratory

high school. Educational researchers and teachers are well aware that

misconceptions, erroneous ideas that differ from the scientifically accepted ones

are very common amongst students. Daily experiences, creative and perceptive

thinking and science textbooks give rise to students' misconceptions which lead

them to draw erroneous conclusions that become strongly attached to their views

and somehow affect subsequent learning (Mina, 2008). On the other hand,

Mendez (2007) studied misconceptions in light and sound waves in teaching it to

eight graders in a high school with no physics laboratory.

In response to the results of this study, the time is now to act and address

this problem of increasing least mastered competencies in K to 12 Science. The

study focused on the development of an interactive cooperative learning tool

which can be used to enhance the least mastered competencies in Unit 1 –

Force, Motion and Energy.

 46

Interactive Cooperative Learning (ICL) Tool

The developed interactive cooperative learning tool covers all subtopics in

Unit 1 – Force, Motion and Energy. It was developed to enhance the least

mastered competencies in Unit 1. It was considered by the researcher because

of the time frame in the conduct of the study scheduled in the First Semester of

SY 2014-2015.

The Interactive Cooperative Learning (ICL) tool has two integral parts, the

printed material and online material. The printed instructional material developed

consist of the following parts: title, overview with related concepts, cooperative

learning goals or objectives, and learning activities that involve K to 12 inspired

assessment namely KPUP (Knowledge, Process, Understanding and

Performance. The interactive media or the online material was supported by the

developed learners’ material in Zondle specifically zTP (Zondle Team Play).

The title of the developed printed material is “Force, Motion and Energy:

Teaching Physics with Interactive Curricular Materials” defined the topic and the

strategies applied in this research (For the full content of the ICL tool please refer

to Appendix L). Learning competencies at the beginning of each subtopic in

Force, Motion and Energy allowed the learner to have clear expectations and

understanding of the topics to be discussed in the ICL tool. These are defined as

skills that the students need to learn at the end of each module. The overview

with learning concepts/essential questions refers to the important key points or

important ideas to be covered in the ICL tool. The learning activities with KPUP

(Knowledge, Process, Understanding and Performance) style of assessment is

 47

used to enhance every aspect of a desired competency. Activities under

“Knowledge” part contain short activities usually in the Think-Pair-Share design

to elicit prior knowledge and boost interest of the students. The activities covered

by “Process” enable students to experiment and explore the world of physics

through simple experiments with affiliated simulation online. The activities under

“Understanding” consist of a set of collaborative activities that help students

express themselves and demonstrate conceptual understanding. The activities

under “Performance” challenge the groups to demonstrate teamwork in creating

products and or outputs as a fusion of what they learned in a specific module.

Each module also contained a part called “Teachers’ Corner” in which educators

are advised to use interactive media like zTP (Zondle Team Play) and its

associated simulations from PHet Colorado interactive simulations.

The designed activities allowed students to use their prior knowledge and

skills to develop their ability to explain the hands-on experiences or manipulation

of scientific materials available in the classroom or in the Zondle Team Play

website. It also provided opportunities to represent their developing

understanding while being actively engaged in learning. Development of

observation skills which lead to understanding of the concepts are also

considered in the design of the ICL tool. The skills that need to be assessed in

the classrooms are presented in a nomenclature on knowledge, process,

understanding, and performance/product. This nomenclature was proposed in

order to develop the necessary skills of school children. In the past curriculum,

educators use different taxonomies that guide their assessment of students’

 48

learning such as the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, Gagne’s Taxonomy, Stiggins

and Conklin’s Taxonomy, Marzano’s dimensions of learning, DeBono’s six

thinking skills, and others. The developed ICL tool provided standards and a

mechanism on how to assess appropriately these standards.

Knowledge was defined by the Department of Education as facts and

information that students need to acquire. The knowledge domain contains

similar skills with Bloom’s taxonomy that includes defining, describing, identifying,

labeling, enumerating, matching, outlining, selecting, stating, naming, and

reproducing. Questions to assess the knowledge domain are included in the ICL

tool. Meanwhile, Process was defined by the Department of Education as

cognitive operations that the student performs on facts and information for the

purpose of constructing meanings and understanding. Cognitive operations are

specific procedures, tasks, heuristics, strategies, techniques, and mental

processes that learners use in order to arrive with an answer. It is concerned with

what individuals will do, think about, and go through in order to derive an answer.

Cognitive operations are manifested when students answer word problems in

physics; they show the teacher the strategy they used to arrive with their answer.

As in the ICL tool, after students explain the concept of electricity in science, the

teacher may ask how they learned the concept.

On the other hand, Understanding was defined by the Department of

Education as the enduring big ideas principles and generalizations inherent to

the discipline which may be assessed using the facets of understanding. The

perspective of understanding by Wiggins and McTighe (2005) is used.

 49

Understanding is to make connections and bind together our knowledge into

something that makes sense of things. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) further

elaborated that understanding involves “doing” and not just a “mental act” and

thus includes application. Understanding is classified into six facets: explain,

interpret, apply, have perspective, empathize, and have self-knowledge and are

properly measured in the ICL tool. Lastly, Product and Performance was defined

by the Department of Education as real life application of understanding as

evidenced by the students’ performance of authentic tasks. This technique

assesses what it is that students know and can do with the emphasis on doing.

Students perform, create, construct, produce, or do something. Performance and

product assessment involve ICL tool activities for which there is no correct

answer, continues over an extended period of time, and involves self-evaluation

of performances. Likely use of open-ended tasks aimed at assessing integrated

higher level cognitive skills. The product and procedure shown and demonstrated

by the students is marked using checklists, rubrics, and scales as contained in

the interactive cooperative learning tool.

Comparison of Students Performance in the Pre-test and Post-test

Table 2
Comparison of the Pre-test and Post-test
Scores of Grade 8 Students
Force Lowest Highest Mean SD Computed Tabular Significance
Motion & Score Score z-value value (p-value =
Energy 0.000)
Pretest 6 19 11.8 3.13
33.525 1.98697 Significant
Posttest 19 36 30.6 3.95
 50

Table 2 shows the mean values for the pretest and post-test. The post-test

mean is higher (30.6) than the pre-test mean (11.8) indicating improved

performance in the test after the treatment. The standard deviation for the pretest

3.13 is still close to the standard deviation for the posttest which is 3.95. The

tabular value at significance level 0.05 and degrees of freedom 89 is 1.98697.

The z-computed value (33.525) is greater than the critical value and infers a

“significant difference”.

The p-value is smaller than the chosen alpha level (0.05) thus the null

hypothesis should be rejected and it can be stated that there is a real difference

between the pretest and post-test. The results show that the students who were

subjected to the use of the developed interactive cooperative learning (ICL) tool

improved their performance in the post-test. It can be implied here that learning

and competencies is best achieved and mastered when students are provided

with an instructional material that includes activities requiring active participation

and cooperation.

The result is similar to the studies of Lumadi (2013), Del Mundo (2010),

Jotia (2011), Sicuyan (2013), Conte (2012), and Gujjar (2007), in which their

prepared instructional materials resulted to an increase students’ performance to

subsequent test (post-test).

 51

The Level of Acceptability of the Developed Interactive Cooperative

Learning (ICL) Tool on Grade 8 Teachers

Table 3
Mean Distribution of Teachers’ Level of Acceptability of the ICL tool on
Learning Objectives and Activities

STATEMENTS 4 3 2 1 WM DR
A. Content (Learning Objectives and Activities)
1. The topics are well arranged to provide clear 13 2 0 0 3.87 SA
sequence for understanding.
2. It provides sufficient concretizing experience for 10 5 0 0 3.67 SA
learning through examples and illustrations to
easily understand the concept.
3. The ideas and concepts are well-expressed in 9 6 0 0 3.60 SA
the material.
4. It provides a variety of exercises and drills for 5 9 1 0 3.27 SA
mastery of concepts and skills.
5. The learning objectives are well stated and easy 10 5 0 0 3.67 SA
to understand.
Average weighted mean 3.62 SA

Statements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 under Content in Table 3 have a weighted

mean of 3.87, 3.67, 3.60, 3.27 and 3.67 respectively with all of them falling under

“strongly acceptable”. This meant that the topics are well arranged with complete

objectives. It also shows that the activities provided concrete experiences, and

that ideas and concepts are well written and expressed. This can be supported

by the interviews with teachers saying that this was the first time they

encountered activities with game based learning (Zondle). At the same time,

teachers said that they appreciated the cooperative learning objectives in the ICL

tool since it generally fosters teamwork and discipline among students. This is

confirmed by the study of Torralba (2007) stating that every modular part of an

instructional material should take up a particular concept or topic at a time. This

 52

accounted for cooperative learning with a more in-depth study and concentration

on one subtopic.

Table 4
Mean Distribution of Teachers’ Level of Acceptability of the ICL tool on
Clarity of the Material

STATEMENTS 4 3 2 1 WM DR
B. Clarity
1. The lessons are simplified due to integration of 8 7 0 0 3.53 SA
the material.
2. It includes the text and activities which are easy 12 3 0 0 3.80 SA
to understand and follow.
3. Lessons and activities are well-explained and 5 5 0 5 2.67 A
practical to use.
4. The material is readable and enjoyable to use 11 4 0 0 3.73 SA
for classroom instruction.
Average weighted mean 3.43 SA

Statement 1, 2 and 4 under Clarity in Table 4 got a weighted mean of

3.53, 3.80 and 3.73 with a descriptive rating of “strongly acceptable” implying that

teachers became engaged in using the ICL tool with the integration of simplified

materials. The teachers said that they are more comfortable in using the ICL tool

that includes text and activities which are easy to understand and follow as

compared to the standard Grade 8 module. It was also pointed out that teachers

preferred the ICL tool because it was easy to explain and enjoyable to use for

classroom instruction through Zondle Team Play. Statement 3 under Clarity got a

weighted mean of 2.67 with a descriptive rating of “acceptable”. The main reason

given to the researchers by the evaluators here was the practicality and usability

part of the ICL tool in which Zondle needs internet access before actual use. It

was suggested by teachers that the usability and practicality be enhanced in the

ICL tool through the integration of improvised materials available in the locality.
 53

Table 5
Mean Distribution of Teachers’ Level of Acceptability of the ICL tool on
Appeal to the Target User

STATEMENTS 4 3 2 1 WM DR
C. Appeal to the Target User
1. It captivates the learner’s interest. 13 2 0 0 3.87 SA
2. It enables the learners to develop their critical 8 7 0 0 3.53 SA
thinking skills
3. It motivates the learners to foster creativity and 12 3 0 0 3.80 SA
innovativeness.
4. It is novel, interactive and adaptive to the needs 10 5 0 0 3.67 SA
of the learners.
Average weighted mean 3.72

Statement 1, 2, 3 and 4 under “Appeal to the Target User” in Table 5 got a

weighted mean of 3.87, 3.53, 3.80 and 3.67 respectively. The evaluators agreed

that the visual appeal of the material, diagrams and illustrations are appropriate

to ideas and concepts presented and captivated learners’ interest. In the

interview with teachers, it was pointed out that the interactive simulations

provided in the ICL tool greatly enhanced the interest of the students and

teachers. They also said that the ICL tool promoted collaboration and creative

expression because students were tasked to manipulate the science simulations

and they arrived at different outputs that satisfied the objective of the activities.

For example in the simulation for balanced and unbalanced forces, the teams

demonstrated critical thinking and arrived at different configurations in the see-

saw game but all were considered correct. With an average weighted mean of

3.72 which is “strongly acceptable”, it can be inferred that the material had a very

good visual appeal to target users in which it enthrals interest, enable critical

thinking, and creativity applicable to all types of learners. This also satisfied the
 54

criteria of Torralba (2007) that an instructional material should be adequately

motivating to build up interest among the students.

Table 6
Mean Distribution of Teachers’ Level of Acceptability of the ICL tool on
Originality in Presentation

STATEMENTS 4 3 2 1 WM DR
D. Originality in Presentation
1. The design and appearance of the material are 11 4 0 0 3.73 SA
exceptionally unique compared to pre-existing
material (Grade 8 Science Learners’ Module)
2. The material serves as a new model of 7 8 0 0 3.46 SA
instruction in teaching K to 12 Science.
3. It provides a variety of relevant evaluation 10 5 0 0 3.67 SA
measures.
Average weighted mean 3.62

Statement 1, 2 and 3 under Originality in Presentation in Table 6 got a

weighted mean of 3.73, 3.46 and 3.67 respectively and with a descriptive rating

of “strongly acceptable”. This pointed out that the evaluators agreed that the

design and appearance of the material is unique and different from existing

modules in Grade 8 Science. They specifically pointed out the uniqueness of

Zondle as a game based learning platform in which it readily provides formative

and summative assessment for student teams’ use. From the interviews, the

teachers agreed that the ICL tool can be a new model of instruction in teaching K

to 12 Science because it integrated new technology previously untapped by

educators. Likewise, it can be inferred that the ICL tool provides updated and

relevant evaluation materials to teachers as reflected in the ICL tool use of KPUP

(Knowledge, Process, Understanding and Performance) style of assessment.

According to Saavedra and Opfer (2012) teachers play a central role in

making the lessons exciting. To be effective, any instructional material must be

 55

unique and relevant to students’ lives. In developing or reviewing curriculum,

there is a need to ensure that learning resources support the learning activities

and/or the evaluation materials are aligned to the needs, interests and abilities of

the learners.

Furthermore, Mansilla and Gardner (2009) said that students must apply

the skills and knowledge they gain in one discipline to another in the use of any

interactive instructional material. In connection with this, planning an instructional

material needs to consider the activities to be included and evaluators should

always look upon the material if it encourages transfer of knowledge. McLoughlin

(2006) suggested that a printed instructional material can be combined with

modern methods of instructional design like the integration of interactivity through

internet simulations. In addition, the learning materials need to be evaluated in

terms of learner responses and preferences so that instructional designers can

learn about the needs and cognitive styles of learners and become more

responsive to these needs in the design of materials.

Binder, et al. (2010) stated that the attention span of students regarding

the use of an instructional material can be increased with added interaction and

additional simplification of tasks. Harackiewic and Hulleman (2009) focused on

the role of team achievement goals in promoting the perception of team oriented

values and subsequent interest in learning materials. Teachers can help students

sustain attention and interest for tasks even when the tasks are challenging. This

could mean the use of scaffolds like the use of interactive media (game-based

learning platforms like zondle) to sustain interest and attention of learners.