EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION
MATERIALS (SIM) ON THE ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN CHEMISTRY OF
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS
...
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE
The mean percentile score of the Science rating obtained by
students in the National Achievement Tes...
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the level of
performance based on
pretest and posttest scores of
the students using th...
2. What is the level of
performance based on
pretest and posttest scores
of the students using the
Strategic Intervention
...
3. Is there a significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
the traditional methods
of ...
4. Is there a significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest scores
of students using the
Strategic Intervention
...
5. Is there a significant difference
between the pretest and posttest
scores of students in using the
traditional methods ...
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Strategic
In...
HYPOTHESES 1
Ho1 There is no significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
additional m...
Ho2 There is no significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
Strategic Intervention
Ma...
Ho3 There is no significant
difference between pretest
and posttest scores of
students using the traditional
methods of te...
Ho4 There is no significant
difference between the
gain scores of students
using the traditional
methods of teaching and
t...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TABLE 1. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the
Experimental Group Treated with Strategic
Int...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 2 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain
scores of Experimental Group Tr...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the Control Group
Treated with Traditional Method...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 3 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain
scores of Control Group Treated...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Pretest
Results of Experimental and Cont...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 5 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Posttest
Results of Experimental and Con...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 6 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Mean
Percentage Score in Periodical Test...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated t
at 0.05
Experimental 711 15.446 5.013 45
1.2461 1....
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 982 21.342 2.569 45
2.749 1.9...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t
at 0.05
Experimental 711
982
15.446
21.342
5.013
6...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 271 5.897 3.926 45
2.577 1.98...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 1853 40.28 5.068 45
0.8420 1....
SUMMARY
The strategic intervention
materials are effective in
mastering the competency
based – skills in chemistry
based o...
Intervention materials contributed to
better learning of the concepts among
students. Posttests and maintenance
tests indi...
CONCLUSION
In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were
drawn:
 The two groups of respondents had the sam...
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the outcomes and implications of the study, the
following are recommended:
 Chemistry teachers c...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Effects of Strategic Intervention Material on the Academic Achievements in Chemistry of Public High School Students by Angelyn P. Gultiano, Master in Education Administration

15,742 views

Published on

Chosen as the Best Thesis for Masters Degree batch 2012
Thesis on Effects of Strategic Intervention Material on the Academic Achievements in Chemistry of Public High School

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
11 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,742
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1,099
Comments
1
Likes
11
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Effects of Strategic Intervention Material on the Academic Achievements in Chemistry of Public High School Students by Angelyn P. Gultiano, Master in Education Administration

  1. 1. EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION MATERIALS (SIM) ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN CHEMISTRY OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ANGELYN P. GULTIANO February 18, 2012 SPAMAST, Matti, Digos City Campus
  2. 2. MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE The mean percentile score of the Science rating obtained by students in the National Achievement Test of the School Year 2009 – 2010 was noted and used for description. It was categorized according to Mastery Descriptive Equivalent into the following (NETRC,2010):  Mastered (M) -96% - 100%  Close to Approximating Mastery (CAM) -86% - 95%  Moving Towards Mastery (MTM) -66% - 85%  Average Mastery (AM) -35% - 65%  Low Mastery (LM) -15% - 34%  Very Low Mastery (VLM) -5%- 14%  Absolutely No Mastery (ANM) -0% - 4%
  3. 3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1. What is the level of performance based on pretest and posttest scores of the students using the traditional methods of teaching chemistry?
  4. 4. 2. What is the level of performance based on pretest and posttest scores of the students using the Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching chemistry?
  5. 5. 3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students using the traditional methods of teaching chemistry?
  6. 6. 4. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students using the Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching chemistry?
  7. 7. 5. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students in using the traditional methods of teaching and the Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching chemistry?
  8. 8. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) on the Academic Achievement in Chemistry of Public High School Students.
  9. 9. HYPOTHESES 1 Ho1 There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students using additional methods of teaching chemistry.
  10. 10. Ho2 There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students using Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching chemistry. HYPOTHESIS 2
  11. 11. Ho3 There is no significant difference between pretest and posttest scores of students using the traditional methods of teaching and the Strategic Intervention Materials and the traditional method of teaching. HYPOTHESIS 3
  12. 12. Ho4 There is no significant difference between the gain scores of students using the traditional methods of teaching and the Strategic Intervention Materials. HYPOTHESIS 4
  13. 13. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION TABLE 1. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the Experimental Group Treated with Strategic Intervention Materials. Topics Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Gain Score ( %) 1. Elements and their relations 67.61 (MTM) 76.20 (MTM) 8.59 2. Writing Chemical Formula 56.74 (AM) 85.33 (CAM) 28.59 3. Naming chemical formula 61.37 (AV) 75.53 (MTM) 14.16 4. Types of chemical reactions 49.28 (AV) 88.77 (CAM) 39.49
  14. 14. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 2 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain scores of Experimental Group Treated with Strategic Intervention Materials. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Pretest Posttest Gain Score
  15. 15. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the Control Group Treated with Traditional Methods of Teaching. Topics Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Gain Score ( %) 1. Elements and their relations 52.67 (AV) 61.00 (AV) 8.33 2. Writing Chemical Formula 47.22 (AV) 70.89 (MTM) 23.67 3. Naming chemical formula 51.56 (AV) 64.00 (AV) 12.44 4. Types of chemical reactions 59.19 (AV) 73.63 (MTM) 14.44
  16. 16. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 3 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain scores of Control Group Treated with Strategic Intervention Materials. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Pretest Posttest Gain Score
  17. 17. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 4 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Pretest Results of Experimental and Control Groups. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 4 Experimental Control
  18. 18. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Posttest Results of Experimental and Control Groups. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 4 Experimental Control
  19. 19. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 6 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Mean Percentage Score in Periodical Test Results of Experimental and Control Groups. 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 periodical test Experimental Control
  20. 20. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t at 0.05 Experimental 711 15.446 5.013 45 1.2461 1.9870 Control 628 13.950 5.954 44 TABLE 3. Table of Difference in the Pretest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups
  21. 21. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t at 0.05 Experimental 982 21.342 2.569 45 2.749 1.9870 Control 797 17.717 4.358 44 TABLE 4. Table of Difference in the POST TEST RESULTS of the Experimental and Control Groups
  22. 22. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t at 0.05 Experimental 711 982 15.446 21.342 5.013 6.054 45 10.167 10.045 1.9870 Control 628 797 13.956 17.717 5.954 6.426 44 TABLE 5. Table of Difference in the Pretest and PosttestResults of the Experimental and Control Groups
  23. 23. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t at 0.05 Experimental 271 5.897 3.926 45 2.577 1.9870 Control 169 3.763 3.8958 44 TABLE 6. Mean Gain Scores in the Pre Tests and Post Tests of the Experimental and Control Groups
  24. 24. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t at 0.05 Experimental 1853 40.28 5.068 45 0.8420 1.9870 Control 1656 36.80 7.1561 44 TABLE 7. Table of Difference in the Periodical Test Results between the Experimental and Control Groups
  25. 25. SUMMARY The strategic intervention materials are effective in mastering the competency based – skills in chemistry based on the mean gain scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups.
  26. 26. Intervention materials contributed to better learning of the concepts among students. Posttests and maintenance tests indicated that students who were taught with material employing the causal style of discourse had significantly better retention of facts and concepts and were superior in applying this knowledge in problem- solving exercises.
  27. 27. CONCLUSION In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:  The two groups of respondents had the same level of Mental Ability before the treatments.  The experimental and control groups performed at the same level before the experiment.  The experimental group performed better in the posttest than the control group.  The strategic Intervention materials were effective in teaching competency-based skills. There was significant difference between the mean scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups.
  28. 28. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the outcomes and implications of the study, the following are recommended:  Chemistry teachers can use the strategic intervention materials made by the researcher to re-teach the concepts and skills and help the students master the competency- based skill.  Seminars and in-service training should be conducted in the division level regarding development and implementation of the strategic intervention materials in the classroom.  Chemistry teachers should develop more strategic intervention materials for the remaining lessons which were not included in researcher’s SIMS.  Strategic intervention materials for other subjects should be made to address the least mastered skills.  A similar study may be conducted covering a bigger number of respondents in another venue.

×