Supplementary Materials for Least Mastered Competencies in Teaching Biology 10 (original) (raw)

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to further elicit the use of supplementary materials for least mastered competencies in teaching Biology 10. This specifically aims to answer the level of acceptability of supplementary materials in teaching Biology, students' mean performance in Biology 10, and the significant difference between the students' mean performance in Biology 10 in terms of pre-test and post-test. The present study used the descriptive quantitative research method in gathering information. The scope of this study is centered only on measuring the acceptability of supplementary materials for least mastered competencies in teaching Biology 10. The data and information were gathered by using a survey questionnaire composed of 35 questions that are answered by the 130 grade 10 students from Sta. Catalina Integrated National High School as respondents of this study. The researcher also conducted a pre-test and post-test before and after the use of supplementary materials. Moreover, the primary data-gathered instrument used was a questionnaire with a 5-point Likert Scale with ratings of (5) Strongly agree, (4) Agree, (3) Moderately agree, (2) Disagree, and (1) Strongly disagree. Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation were used to determine the level of acceptability of supplementary materials in teaching Biology 10. In addition, paired t-test will be used to determine the significant difference in the students' mean performance in Biology 10. The overall results of the study revealed that the supplementary material for Biology 10 is very high. Specifically, the content, design adaptability, suitability, and usability, having an overall mean of 4.32, 4.34, 4.29, and 4.40 and 4.32 respectively, indicates that it received positive feedback from the students and can be effectively used for teaching Biology 10. Similarly, the students' mean performance in Biology 10 in terms of Pre-test was very satisfactory with a mean score of 31.47 and a standard deviation of 2.18. As for the Post-test, the students performed on an outstanding level, with a mean score of 34.17 and a standard deviation of 2.72. Findings show that from the very satisfactory it became outstanding, meaning that students learned from the lesson using the supplementary materials. Furthermore, there is an observed significant difference between the tests. This is evidenced by the computed t statistic which is-8.843, which implied that the post-test scores were higher than the pre-test scores due to the negative result. Additionally, the computed t-statistic is beyond the critical t-value of 1.979 and the computed p-value is less than the significance alpha of 0.05, hence the significance of the test. Based on the data gathered in this study, the researcher arrived at the conclusion that the null hypothesis stating that "There is no significant difference on the students' performance in Biology 10 in terms of pre-test and post-test" is rejected which calls for the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis.

Figures (7)

Table 1 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Content It presents the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Content. Ni The research was made to investigate the acceptability of the supplementary material (module). This was done through a series of questions via a questionnaire and it comprises seven variables to be examined — in terms of content, design, adaptability, suitability, and usability. Furthermore, the results of the research were validated by having the pre-test and post- test scores of the respondents.

Table 1 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Content It presents the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Content. Ni The research was made to investigate the acceptability of the supplementary material (module). This was done through a series of questions via a questionnaire and it comprises seven variables to be examined — in terms of content, design, adaptability, suitability, and usability. Furthermore, the results of the research were validated by having the pre-test and post- test scores of the respondents.

Table 2 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Design. It ilso presents the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Design.

Table 2 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Design. It ilso presents the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Design.

Overall Mean = 4.29 Standard Deviation = 0.59 Verbal Interpretation = Very High On the other hand, the table below shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Adaptability. The table also shows the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Adaptability.

Overall Mean = 4.29 Standard Deviation = 0.59 Verbal Interpretation = Very High On the other hand, the table below shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Adaptability. The table also shows the statements, mean, overall mean, standard deviation, remarks and verbal interpretation in terms of Adaptability.

Overall Mean = 4.40 Standard Deviation = 0.61 Verbal Interpretation = Very Hig!

Overall Mean = 4.40 Standard Deviation = 0.61 Verbal Interpretation = Very Hig!

Overall Mean = 4,32 Standard Deviation = 0.59 Verbal Interpretation = Very Hig} Table 5 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Usability.

Overall Mean = 4,32 Standard Deviation = 0.59 Verbal Interpretation = Very Hig} Table 5 shows the Level of Acceptability of Supplementary Materials in Teaching Biology 10 in terms of Usability.

Table 6 presents the Students’ Mean Performance in Biology 10 in terms of Pre-Test and Post-test. ao was remarked Strongly agree. Overall, the level of acceptability of supplementary materials in teaching Biology I0 in tegms of Usability attained a mean score of 4.32 and a standard deviation of 0.59 and was Very High among the students

Table 6 presents the Students’ Mean Performance in Biology 10 in terms of Pre-Test and Post-test. ao was remarked Strongly agree. Overall, the level of acceptability of supplementary materials in teaching Biology I0 in tegms of Usability attained a mean score of 4.32 and a standard deviation of 0.59 and was Very High among the students

Table 7. Significant Difference between the Students’ Mean Performance in Biology 10 in terms of Pre-T est and Post- test In table 7, there is an observed significant difference between the tests. This is evidenced by the computed t statistic which is -8.843. This implies that the Post-test scores were higher than the pre-test scores due to the negative result. Furthermore, the computed t statistic is beyond the critical t-value of 1.979 and the computed p-value is less than the significance alpha of 0.05, hence the significance of the test. From the findings above, we can infer that at 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis “There is no significant fference on the students’ performance in Biology 10 in terms of pre-test and post-test” is rejected. This calls for the -ceptance of the alternative which incites that there is a significant difference between the two.

Table 7. Significant Difference between the Students’ Mean Performance in Biology 10 in terms of Pre-T est and Post- test In table 7, there is an observed significant difference between the tests. This is evidenced by the computed t statistic which is -8.843. This implies that the Post-test scores were higher than the pre-test scores due to the negative result. Furthermore, the computed t statistic is beyond the critical t-value of 1.979 and the computed p-value is less than the significance alpha of 0.05, hence the significance of the test. From the findings above, we can infer that at 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis “There is no significant fference on the students’ performance in Biology 10 in terms of pre-test and post-test” is rejected. This calls for the -ceptance of the alternative which incites that there is a significant difference between the two.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (39)

  1. REFERENCES
  2. Abbasi, K., et. Al., (2013). The effect of learning via module versus lecture teaching methods on the knowledge and practice of oncology nurses about safety standards with cytotoxic drugs in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917132/ African Literature Reviews 2020. Content and style in Literature. Retrieved from https://africanliteraturereviews.wordpress.com/content-style-in-literature/
  3. Alelaimat, A. R. (2012), The Effect of Educational Modules Strategy on the Direct and Postponed Study's Achievement of Seventh Primary Grade Students in Science, in Comparison with the Conventional Approach. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081470.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj3pd2 9qqrwAhXvw4sBHWbQBc8QFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2kOArROj_tSICnRWoRoGh9
  4. Barnau, A. & Džuganová, B. 2017. The Effects of Captioning Videos on Learning English for Special Purposes. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tl&as\_sdt=0%2C5&q=Barnau+and+D%C5%BEuganov%C3%A1+2017&btnG=#d=gs\_qab s&u=%23p%3DEIHrYSa0ecUJ
  5. Bajrami, Menduh (2020). The Use of Supplementary Materials for Teaching High School Students in EFL. Retrieved from: http://anglisticum.org.mk/index.php/IJLLIS/article/view/2133
  6. Boisestate University (n.d.) Using a modular approach to course design. Retrieved from https://www.boisestate.edu/ctl-idea/teaching- with-tech/primer/using-a-modular-approach-to-course-design/
  7. Bujosa, M., Howard, M., Mcneill, K. and Loper, S. (2017). Designing and using multimedia modules for teacher educators: Supporting teacher learning of scientific argumentation. Retrieved from https://d-miller.github.io/DRK12/topic1/8407.pdf
  8. Butcher, C., Davies, C. And Highton, M. 2019. Designing learning: from module outline to effective teaching. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?hl=tl&as\_sdt=0%2C5&as\_vis=1&scioq=%22literature+study%22+usability+of+mobile+ap plications&q=designing+modules+for+learning&oq=designing+mod#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DwmAmQBs9j18J
  9. Cahyaningrum, D., Wahyuni, D., & Sulistyawati, H. (2016, January). Supplementary Materials Based on Constructivism Principles for Students' Effective Learning. In Proceeding of International Conference on Teacher Training and Education (Vol. 1, No. 1).
  10. Cohn C. 2016. Understanding Content Strategy Terms Clearly Retrieved from: https://www.compukol.com/understanding-content- strategy-terms-clearly/
  11. Danielson, J. 2014. Is the effectiveness of lecture capture related to teaching approach or content type?. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513003011
  12. Elcomblus Staff. (2020). The outcomes of student learning. Retrieved from https://www.elcomblus.com/the-outcomes-of-student- learning/
  13. Foss, K., Seals, C., Hague, D., and Mitek, A., (2021). The Effectiveness of Supplementary Materials in Teaching the Veterinary Neurologic Examination. Retrieved from: https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jvme-2021-0014
  14. Galih I. et al. 2019. of student work sheets based on analogy content in physical learning to improve critical thinking ability of high school students Informative, Interesting, Three Rules for Creating Quality Content in Digital Marketing. Retrieved from: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/informative-interesting-r\_b\_4914330
  15. Ganesh, L. (2017). The Effect of Comic Strips as a Supplementary Material to Teach Computer Networks. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6751091
  16. Habte, A. (2016). The development of supplementary materials for English language teaching in a scarce resource environment: an action research study. Retrieved from: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/7387
  17. Hanim F. et. al. 2017. The Effect of Students' Worksheet Based on Skill of Science and Motivation Process toward Learning Outcomes at Grade 4 SDNegeri 164330 Tebing tinggi. Retrieved from: http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-7%20Issue- 5/Version-7/I0705075761.pdf
  18. Hwang, I., Tam, M., Lam, S. and Lam, P. (2018). Review of Use of Animation as a Supplementary Learning Material of Physiology Content in Four Academic Years. Retrieved from https://www.academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1644
  19. Johnson A. And Jones C. 2019. Content Relevance and Usefulness: Why You Need It and 4 Ways to Achieve It. Retrieved from: https://review.content-science.com/content-relevance-and-usefulness-why-you-need-it-and-4-ways-to-achieve-it/
  20. Lasquite, M. 2016. Visual Literacy and Visual Communication: Their Role in Today's Content Marketing. Retrieved from https://visme.co/blog/visual-literacy-visual-communication-content- marketing/?fbclid=IwAR2dO43GBAySBW7Z4slCVLTTrzt0QneZLnZygeLQtpUh5CS_37xW-dylovI
  21. Logan, R., Johnson, C. and Worsham, J. (2021). Development of an e-learning module to facilitate student learning and outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1557308720301177
  22. Mondal, G. C. & Majumder, P., (2020). Factors that Determine the Choice of Instructional Strategies in Teaching at Secondary Schools, Academia.Edu. Retrieved from: Https://Www.Researchgate.Net/Publication/344307897_FACTORS_THAT_DETERMINE_THE_CHOICE_OF_INSTRUCTION AL_STRATEGIES_IN_TEACHING_AT_SECONDARY_SCHOOLS Nepomuceno 2016. Development of Module. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313759438\_Development\_of\_E-Learning\_Module\_in\_Basic\_Electricity NSU Florida (2020). The Benefits Of Using Supplemental Resources In The Online Classroom, Using Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle, And Sharing Video In Courses. Retrieved from: https://www.nova.edu/lec/This-Week-in-the- LEC/2020/June/This%20Week%20In%20The%20LEC%20The%20Benefits%20of%20Using%20Supplemental%20Resources%2 0in%20the%20Online%20Classroom,%20Using%20Kolbs%20Experiential%20Learning%20Cycle,%20and%20Sharing%20Vide o%20In%20Courses.html
  23. Nurhajati, D. (2016). Project-Based Learning used to develop supplementary materials for writing skill. The Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 2, 51-56.
  24. Nusir, S., Alsmadi, I., Al-Kabi, M., And Shardqah, F. 2011. Designing an interactive multimedia learning system for the children of primary schools in Jordan. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?hl=tl&as\_sdt=0,5&as\_vis=1&scioq=%22literature+study%22+usability+of+mobile+applic ations&qsp=1&q=interactive+multimedia+learning+modules&qst=ib#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DS_26vw3C8kYJ
  25. Oclarit G. 2017. Effectiveness of Virtual Laboratory as Innovativestrategy in Improving Student's Learning outcomes In Physic. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/35865624/
  26. Otjen, J, And Thapa, M. 2014 .Techniques for creating video content for radiology education. Radiographics. Retrieved from https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/rg.347130122
  27. Peng, Q., Liu, Y. and Gu, P. (2017). Improvement of Product Adaptability by Efficient Module Interactions. Retrieved from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IDETC-CIE/proceedings-abstract/IDETC-CIE2014/V004T06A044/253993
  28. Perera (n.d.). The Selection and Use of Supplementary Materials and Activities. Retrieved from: https://www.tktcambridge.com/module-two/the-selection-and-use-of-supplementary-materials-and-activities/ Pop, M. and Salzberg, S. (2015). Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-015-0668-z
  29. Ramadhan F. and Irwanto A. 2017. Using Virtual Labs To Enhance Students' Thinking Abilities, Skills, And Scientific Attitudes. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326189362 Retrieved from: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/does-your-content'
  30. Richards, J. & Rodgers, T., (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Approaches\_and\_Methods\_in\_Language\_Teach.html?id=HrhkAwAAQBAJ&redir\_esc =y 775 www.ijrp.org Brent Rza G. Aragon / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
  31. Salame, I. & Nikolic, D., (2021). Examining Some of the Challenges Students Face in Learning about Solubility and the Dissolution Process, Interdisciplinary J ENV SCI ED, Volume 17, Issue 3 -In Progress, Article No: e2237. Retrieved from https://www.ijese.com/article/examining-some-of-the-challenges-students-face-in-learning-about-solubility-and-the-dissolution- 9333
  32. Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & Williams, M. (2011). Selection and use of supplementary materials and activities. In The TKT Course Modules 1, 2 and 3 (TKT Course, pp. 161-165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139062398.027
  33. Stickler, U. et al 2017. Synchronous communication technologies for language learning: Promise and challenges in research and pedagogy Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317828426\_Synchronous\_communication\_technologies\_for\_language\_learning\_Promis e_and_challenges_in_research_and_pedagogy
  34. Tek Mani Karki (2016). Supplementary Resource Materials in English Language Classrooms: Development and Implementation. Retrieved from: https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/TUJ/article/view/24791/20897
  35. Toro, V., et. al., (2019). The Use of the Communicative Language Teaching Approach to Improve Students' Oral Skills. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1200055.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxj4v2 0KrwAhVFBKYKHWlACB4QFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw0HUpkjQnnjC2M2Q6cVMEDQ
  36. Villegas, R., Yang, J., Hong, S., Lin, X. And Lee, H. 2017. Decomposing motion and content for natural video sequence prediction. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?hl=tl&as\_sdt=0%2C5&as\_vis=1&q=content+of+the+video&btnG=#d=gs\_qabs&u=%23p %3DL9iuyxNqKZcJ
  37. Wasserman J. n.d. 2.4.13 Overview of Learning Activities/ Retrieved from: http://www.pcrest.com/research/fgb/2\_4\_13.pdf What is content evaluation-and why do it?
  38. Weller (2021). How to Teach Effectively Using Supplementary Materials. Retrieved from: https://barefootteflteacher.com/how-to- teach-effectively-using-supplementary-materials-dc22a0153de6
  39. Wiley University Services (n.d.). Using Supplemental Resources in the Online Classroom. Retrieved from: https://ctl.wiley.com/using- supplemental-resources-online-classroom/