S-GIM: A Tool for Improving Grade 10 Student’s Performance in
Solving Polynomial Equations
_______________________
Action Research Paper
_______________________
Proponent:
Sherelyn S. Alcantara
Teacher III
August 2021
ABSTRACT
Title
:
S-GIM: A Tool for Improving Grade 10 Student’s
Performance in Solving Polynomial Equations
Researcher
:
Sherelyn S. Alcantara
Institution
:
Luis Palad Integrated High School
Tayabas City
Year Written
:
2020-2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Self-Guided Intervention Materials (S-GIM) was developed to improve the
performance of students who are having difficulty solving polynomial equations. The
significant difference in learner’s pretest and posttest was determined to test its
effectiveness. The research was conducted last March 2020 at Luis Palad Integrated High
School with 39 Grade 10 student respondents. The mean, standard deviation, and two-tailed
paired sample t-test were the statistical tools used in the data analysis. Student-respondents
manifested a low level of skill in solving polynomial equations in the pretest and increased to
the average mastery level in the posttest. Furthermore, the two-paired t-test indicated a
significant difference between the pretest and posttest results, suggesting that the
intervention was helpful in increasing students' ability in solving polynomial equations.
Students Perception Survey by Espinosa (2012) was used to gather students’ perceptions
on the utilization of S-GIM. Students were motivated and encouraged to learn new topics in
Mathematics after finding explanations in S-GIM that were clear and suited to their
requirements. In addition, it was suggested that Mathematics teachers should develop
Self-Guided Intervention Material for the remaining lessons, particularly for the least
mastered skills, which were not included in the researcher's intervention material.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to extend their warmest thanks and deepest gratitude the
following:
Dr. Gener C. Delos Reyes, school principal, and Dr. Ma. Aillen A. Averilla, Dr.
Geraldine M. Constantino, and Mrs. Maricel L. Abella, assistant principals, for their
valuable support, technical assistance, and encouragement to accomplish this research;
To the dynamic Research Coordinator Mr. Marvin Rosales, to the head teacher,
Mrs. Josephine B. Ramos, master teachers, Mrs. Maria Victoria T. Landicho and Mrs.
Josephine P. De Castro, and to her co-teachers in the Mathematics Department whose
guidance, patience, suggestions, and deep concern encourages them to continue and for
sharing their intellectual capacity and giving technical assistance and editing the work that
made this action research paper a very successful one.
To her beloved family, for never-ending support, understanding, and unfading love
and concern which serve as her strong foundation in achieving her goals in life.
Above all, to Almighty God and Savior Jesus Christ, for providing her knowledge,
patience, strength, courage, and love that led to the realization of this endeavor. To all
people who became part of her research, a million thanks and sincere appreciation for their
concern and support.
SSA
Context and Rationale
The World Health Organization has designated Covid 19 (new coronavirus infections)
a worldwide public health emergency. National lockdowns were imposed in countries all
around the world with the aim of flattening the epidemic curve. This resulted in the shutdown
of schools in many nations, affecting over 1 billion children’s education (Sahu, 2020).
In the midst of the crisis, the Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Briones
announced the Basic Education - Learning Continuity Plan (BE-LCP), which would serve as
a guide for DepEd in delivering education throughout the COVID-19 epidemic. The country's
continuing threat posed difficulties for basic education. To guarantee that students
accomplish important curriculum goals, teachers must adapt to different learning modes
(DepEd Order No. 31 s 2020).
The transition in school delivery of teaching and learning to modular remote learning
makes it more difficult, particularly in teaching mathematics. Teachers had difficulty teaching
Mathematics even before the pandemic, especially when there were a large number of
non-numerates, a low level of interest in Math, and a lack of abilities in various learning
competencies (Mendoza, 2018).
Mathematics concepts in K to 12 curriculum are spiraling, which means that as the
students advance from one level to the next, the contents become more complex
(Department of Education, 2013). Mathematics is composed of Number Sense, Patterns and
Algebra, Measurement, Geometry, Statistics and Probability at each year’s level under the
new curriculum, but with an increasing level of complexity (SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011).
In this sense, students were required to master basic mathematical abilities in order to
understand higher mathematics ideas (Mabilaran et. al, 2019).
Despite the fact that the teacher played an essential part in the teaching-learning
process, it was clear that many students did not understand the concepts of Mathematics
(Coronacion and Roman, 2019). Furthermore, Ganal et al. (2014) found that students who
did not master basic mathematical skills would struggle to acquire higher-level math. When
students' problems were not addressed, they lost interest in the topic, which was one of the
reasons for their inadequate knowledge of mathematics. According to Alburuto (2017),
students who do not acquire mathematical skills or grasp the ideas presented may have low
results on the National Achievement Test (NAT).
In almost all levels, Filipino students registered low performance in Mathematics
nationwide (Del Cesar et. al, 2016). The decrease in the National Achievement Test (NAT)
performance from 50.7% in the SY 2007 – 2008 to 46.3% in the SY 2011 – 2012 of
secondary schools supported this finding (Antiporda, 2014).
As a result of this, the Philippines is ranked 115th out of 142 countries in the Global
Competitiveness Report. However, in 2018-2019, MPS scores for Mathematics 10 were
59.36 %t, and in 2019-2020, they were 62.57 %. Although there was a rise, it fell well short
of the national objective of at least 75 % MPS. This suggested a lack of understanding of
instruction and poor academic achievement.
Based on the result of the previous summative assessment, items # 13, #17, and #33
gained a percentage of the correct response of 29.77%, 19.2%, and 27.5%, respectively.
These were interpreted as low mastery levels. These items were identified in MELC 12:
solving problems involving polynomials and polynomial equations of Mathematics 10 Quarter
1. In addition, this competency was one of the learner’s needs in the Individual Learning
Monitoring Plan (ILMP). Prior to this, in the previous school years, this competency was
included in the Learning Management Plan (LMP) as one of the topics for intervention.
The Department of Education required teachers to assess if the necessary
information and abilities critical to understanding were established. If this is not the case,
teachers should give appropriate interventions to correct the problem. The department
employed Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) as a remedial technique. Strategic
Intervention Materials were included in the teaching method, according to Dy (2015), to
promote student participation and enhance their level of understanding. Various studies have
demonstrated that using SIM effectively reduced the least learned skills in Mathematics
subjects, therefore addressing low performance (Dumigsi and Cabrella, 2019). SIM
increases students’ understanding and improves the competency level of students
(Cernechez, 2014). Ranada (2108), also found out that SIMs were effective as remediation
instructional materials and had a positive effect on addressing the students’ least mastered
competencies or skills in Math.
According to the Classroom Assessment Policy Guidelines (DepEd Order 08 s.
2015), sufficient and appropriate intervention materials were required to guarantee that
learners were prepared for summative tests. Additionally, under the DO no.8 s. 2015,
instructors must guarantee that learners get remediation by the fifth week of any quarter if
their raw results in summative assessments are regularly below expectations. This could
help a student avoid failing a subject at the end of the year. Despite the epidemic, the
Department of Education guaranteed that students who did not demonstrate progress in
attaining the essential learning criteria were subjected to intervention. In the Memorandum
DM-CI-2020-00162, teachers with this kind of learner were advised to prepare an Individual
Learning Monitoring Plan (ILMP). As part of the ILMP, intervention strategies can take any of
the following forms. 1) increasing the time it takes to complete activities, 2) changing the
level of difficulty of content/tasks, 3) providing scaffolding activities, 4) monitoring students’
progress regularly, 5) offering example prototype learning models.
The researchers used this concept to develop Self-Guided Intervention Materials
(S-GIM) as a tool for intervention strategies to improve the academic performance of Grade
10 pupils in solving polynomial equations.
Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy
Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) were effective as remediation instructional
materials and had a positive effect on addressing the students’ least mastered competencies
or skills in Math (De Jesus, 2011). It tends to re-teach lessons that are unclear to the
students and assist them in mastering abilities. SIM, according to Rodrigo (2015), helps to
(a) improve student’s performance particularly in the least learned skills ; (b) involve learners
through engaging tasks; (c) hook students’ interest through visually attractive content; and
(d) motivate learners to think critically and learn actively.
The researcher used this information to create Self-Guided Intervention Materials
(S-GIM) as a tool for remediating students who were not reaching the requisite learning
skills. It contained puzzles, games, pictures, and concept maps that helped students
increase their mastery of skills in polynomial equation solving skills. The materials were
formatted in the DepEd SIM format. Title cards, guide cards, activity cards, assessments,
and reference cards were all key components.
Action Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to see if (S-GIM) might help grade 10 students
improve their academic performance in solving polynomial equations. The following
questions were specifically addressed in this study:
1. What is the academic performance of grade 10 students in solving polynomial
equations based on the pretest?
2. What is the academic performance of grade 10 students in solving polynomial
equations after using the Self-Guided Intervention Materials (S-GIM) based on the
posttest?
3. Is there any significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of
grade 10 students solving polynomial equations?
4. How do grade 10 students perceive the use of S-GIM in solving polynomial
equations?
Action Research Methods
Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information
There were 39 participants in the study, all of them were Grade 10, who were
enrolled in Modular Distance Learning and were categorized as learners who had not made
progress in the ILMP during the first quarter.
Students completed a 15-item multiple-choice test in Solving Polynomial Equations
as a pretest and posttest. The test assessed the student's ability to comprehend information
and solve problems. The Students Perception Survey, created by Espinosa et al., (2012)was
another form that students filled out. This is a ten-item questionnaire designed to find out
how students feel about using Self-Guided Intervention Materials (S-GIM). A 5-point rating
scale was used to assess each statement.
Data Gathering Methods
The researcher identified first the least mastered competencies of Grade 10 in the
summative assessment. Solving problems with polynomials and polynomial equations was
identified as the least mastered competency for the First Quarter of Mathematics 10 in both
the previous and current year. As a result, when designing Self-Guided Intervention
Materials, the researcher chose the least mastered competency and concentrated on solving
polynomial equations (S-GIM).
The researcher developed a 15-item pretest and posttest on the second week of
February 2021. In the same week,
the Head Teacher, Master Teacher, and Teacher I
validated the test. The researcher also developed the S-GIM and it underwent face and
content validation from the experts. The pilot-testing of Self-Guided Intervention Material
(S-GIM) was administered during the first week of March 2021 to the students who weren’t
selected to be research participants.
The researcher asked permission from the school to undergo the study. The
researcher obtained approval from the parents of the Grade 10 students who became part of
action research.
In gathering the data, the researcher administered first the pretest prior to the
intervention material. Thirty-nine (39) student-respondents were given a 15-item pretest
about solving polynomial equations. The intervention materials were distributed together with
activity sheets on the date of the retrieval and distribution. The S-GIM was given to the
respondents after they completed the pretest.
Posttests were given after students
completed the intervention. Learners who had made no progress so far studied the same
exercise till they were able to. The administration of the Student Perception Survey was the
next step. Data encoding, analysis, and interpretation were last stages of the research.
Data Analysis
The researcher utilized mean and mean percentage scores to calculate the
outcomes of the pretest and posttest. The computed MPS of the student’s performance was
categorized according to the NETRC (2012) descriptive equivalent of the National
Achievement Test (NAT) and classified as follows:
MPS
96-100%
86-95%
66-85%
35-65%
15-34%
5-14%
0-4%
Descriptive Equivalent
Mastered
Closely approximating mastery
Moving towards Mastery
Average
Low
Very Low
Absolutely No Mastery
To see if there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest, a
two-tailed paired-sample t-test was used. To compute the mean, standard deviation, and
dependent sample t-test, MS Excel ToolPak was utilized for correctness and accuracy. To
explain the responses within the Student’s Perception Survey, the weighted mean was used
and interpreted using the scale below:
Scale
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80
Results and Discussions
Verbal Description
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Moderately Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
This section includes both tabular and textual representations of data gathered from
the results pre-test, posttest, and Student’s Perception Survey. The data were treated with
appropriate statistical tests and were analyzed and interpreted to determine the answers to
the questions posed in the study.
Table 1. The Results of Pretest of the Academic Performance of Grade 10 Students
Test
Lowest
Score
Highest
Score
Mean
Pretest
1
11
4.33
Mean
Percentage
Score
28.89
Interpretation
Low
The table shows the result of students’ performance before and after the utilization of
S-GIM. The data provided in the table indicates that before the utilization of S-GIM students
the lowest score and the highest score were 1 and 11, respectively. The mean score in the
pretest was 4.33 and the mean percentage score of 28.89. Based on the descriptive
equivalent, the pretest score was interpreted as a low mastery level. This conclusion is
comparable to that of Dumigsi and Cabrella (2019), who discovered that the participants had
poor academic performance scores based on the frequency and percentage of the pretest
scores obtained before the study's conduct. Furthermore, the study corroborated Samosa
(2021) conclusion that the result of the pretest score before using the intervention was lower
than the mean score of the posttest after SIM was used.
Table 2. The Results of Posttest of the Academic Performance of Grade 10 Students
Test
Lowest
Score
Highest
Score
Mean
Mean
Percentage
Score
Interpretation
Posttest
2
15
8.97
59.83
Average
Table 2 shows the result of the posttest of academic performance of Grade 10
students after using S-GIM. The lowest score of the posttest was a score of 2 and the
highest score of 15. The posttest result had a mean of 8.97 with a mean percentage score of
59.83 and was interpreted as an Average level of mastery.
Based on the gathered data from the pretest and posttest, the academic performance
of students increased positively. It can be observed that there was an increment of 4.64 of
the mean scores in the posttest. The outcome is consistent with the findings of Sinco (2020),
the utilization of Strategic Intervention Materials in learning least learned concepts helped
the students attain higher scores.
Table 3. Test for Pretest and Posttest Score of Students in the Utilization of S-GIM
Test
Mean
sd
Pretest
4.33
2.53
Posttest
8.97
3.80
t-computed
value
t-test
critical
value
degree
of
freedom
Sig.
(two-tailed)
Interpretation
9.38
2.02
38
0.000
Significant
Table 3 compares the average academic performance of the students, the standard
deviation in the pretest and posttest, the t-computed value, and the t-critical value. The
pre-test mean score of students was 4.33 with a standard deviation of 2.53 while in the
posttest the mean score was 8.97 with a standard deviation of 3.80.
Based on the result of a two-tailed paired-sample t-test, it appeared that the tcomputed value of 9.38 was exceeded in the t- critical value of 2.02 at the degree of freedom
of 38. The outcome is significant since the p-value is less than 0.05. When S-GIM is used,
students' pretest and posttest scores change significantly. The result implied that students’
performance improves after using S-GIM. The result confirmed the finding of Ranada (2018),
that SIMs were effective as remediation instructional materials and had a positive effect on
addressing the student’s least mastered competencies or skills in Math.
The perception survey questionnaire was used to find out how students felt about
using the S-GIM. The survey consisted of ten statements concerning the S-GIM and was
rated on a five-point scale with qualitative explanations. It was administered following the
study's posttest. Table 4 shows the results of the survey.
Table 4. The Result of Students’ Perception Survey
Statements
5
4
3
2
1
1. The S-GIM helped me understand the
lesson on Solving Polynomial Equations.
2. The presentation of the concepts in
S-GIM is clear and fitted to my needs.
3. I
could
easily
understand
the
explanations provided by the S-GIM.
4. Activities and tasks in the S-GIM were
very easy.
5. The time allotment is adequate.
11
9
14
5
0
Mea
n
3.67
13
11
11
4
0
3.85
7
13
14
5
0
3.56
7
7
14
11
0
3.26
8
9
12
10
0
3.38
12
10
11
6
0
3.72
6. After using the S-GIM, I learned the
concepts that were not fully understood in
the Module.
7. I enjoyed doing all the activities provided
in the S-GIM.
8. S-GIM used words and terms suited to
my reading comprehension.
9. S-GIM inspired and encouraged me to
learn more topics in Mathematics.
10. I want to use S-GIM in the regular
classroom teaching next time.
Scale
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80
Agree
Agree
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Agree
9
7
14
6
3
3.33
13
12
14
0
0
3.97
12
11
12
4
0
3.79
11
10
13
5
11
3.69
Overall weighted mean
Legend:
Interpretatio
n
3.62
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Verbal Description
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Moderately Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
The table below shows the frequency with which respondents answered the
question. Based on the result, statement 8 (S-GIM used words and terms suited to my
reading comprehension) and statement 2 (The presentation of the concepts in S-GIM is
clear and fitted to my needs) gain the highest mean scores of 3.97and 3.85, respectively.
Orhun (2002) confirmed the findings, indicating that most students have difficulties studying
Mathematics if appropriate resources aren't created. This might even be one of all the
factors that hinder the learners’ understanding of Mathematics. Since most of the students
agreed the word, terms, and concepts in S-GIM were cleared and fitted to their needs this
implied that S-GIM addressed this problem. According to Policarpio (2011), SIM was for
low-performing “students” therefore, it should be clear and easy to use.
Statement 9 (S-GIM inspired and motivated me to learn more about mathematics.)
with the mean of 3.79 interpreted as Agree was next to the rank. The 4th highest mean
statement was statement 6 which students agreed that they learned the concepts that were
not fully understood in the Module after using S-GIM. Bunagan (2012) agreed with the
findings, defining SIM as a method of rediscovering and reinforcing knowledge and abilities
(least mastered). Students may use it as a resource to assist them to master
competency-based abilities that they haven't been able to acquire during their modular
distance learning experience.
Students also agreed that “they want to use S-GIM in the regular classroom”, “they
could easily understand the explanations provided by the S-GIM, and “S-GIM helped them
understand the lesson on Solving Polynomial Equations”. Students find Mathematics topics
more engaging when intervention materials are well-designed, according to Togonon (2011),
as referenced by Luzano (2020). This might also prove that learning occurs when there will
be a new face of the materials being used within the classroom.
However, three of the statements were interpreted as “Moderately Agree”. The lowest
of them with a mean rating of 3.26 was statement no. 4 (activities and tasks in the S-GIM
were very easy). The other indicators interpreted as Moderately Agree were statement 7 (I
enjoyed doing all the activities provided in the S-GIM) and the statement (The time allotment
is adequate). The researcher asked some respondents regarding this, and they explained
that instructions/tasks made them confused. However, the respondents' total mean rating is
3.62, which is regarded as agree. This indicates that the students believe S-GIM is an
effective tool in improving performance in solving polynomial equations. According to Dy
(2011), Strategic Intervention Materials were the highly recognized tools for resolving the
students' poor performance. SIM also refers to instructional tools that are included in
teaching methods in order to excite pupils and therefore improve their level of
comprehension.
Summary of Findings
The results are provided here based on the data analysis and interpretation.
1. The study revealed that the mean score in the pretest was 4.33 with a mean
percentage score of 28.89 and interpreted as a Low Level.
2. The study revealed that the posttest result had a mean of 8.97 with a mean
percentage score of 59.83 and was interpreted as an Average level of mastery.
3. The t-computed value of the two-tailed paired-sample test is 9.38, which is more than
the t-critical value of 2.02, degree of freedom of and p<0.05. This indicates that
students who used S-GIM had significantly different pretest and post-test results.
4. Statements 8, 2, and 9 had the highest mean scores of 3.97, 3.85, and 3.79.
respectively, on the Students’ Perception Survey and were interpreted as Agree. The
majority of the respondents agreed that S-GIM used words and terms suited to their
reading comprehension, the presentation of the S-GIM were clear and fitted and
S-GIM enthused and motivated them to explore new mathematics topics. The lowest
mean rating of 3.26 (Moderately Agree) was statement no. 4 (activities and tasks in
the S-GIM were very easy). The respondents' total mean rating was 3.62, which was
interpreted as agree.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the study's findings.
1. Grade 10 students’ academic results revealed a Low Level of Skill in solving
polynomial equations based on the pretest.
2. Students showed an Average Level of skill in solving polynomial equations after
using the Self-Guided Intervention Materials (S-GIM) based on the posttest.
3. The intervention was an effective tool in improving students’ performance in solving
polynomial equations.
4. Students perceived Self-Guided intervention Materials as effective intervention tools.
S- GIM's explanations were clear and suited to the students' needs. They were
motivated and inspired to explore new mathematics topics.
Recommendations
The following suggestions were made from given conclusions:
1. Since the use of Self-Guided Intervention Material (S-GIM) helped to improve
students’ performance, teachers should adopt it as a strategy or instructional material
in teaching Mathematics lessons.
2. Seminars and in-service training on the development and implementation of the
Self-Guided Intervention Material (S-GIM) in distance learning should be held at the
division level.
3. Mathematics teachers should develop
Self-Guided Intervention Material for the
remaining lessons, particularly for the least mastered skills, which were not included
in the researcher's intervention material.
4. The conduct of similar studies with easier and more enjoyable activities is
recommended.
5. Use S-GIM in the other least mastered competency in Mathematics to further validate
the study.
Action Plan
Target
Activity
Persons
Involved
Time
Frame
Expected
“Output”
Estimated
Resource to
be Used
Completed
Action
Research
To discuss the
results of the
action research
● Conduct LAC
Sessions
● Accept
suggestions/
recommendations
● Prepare
documentation
Head
Teacher,
Master
Teachers,
and
Math
Teachers
September
2021
Well-informed
teachers
about the
research
findings
To identify the
least mastered
competencies
from Quarterly
Assessment
that
can be
improved
through S-GIM
● Analysis of
Quarterly
Assessment
results
● Prepare a list of
least mastered
competencies
Head
Teacher,
Master
Teachers,
and
Math
Teachers
Year-round
Identified least
mastered
competencies
that can be
improved by
S-GIM
To identify
students who
need
intervention
● Preparation for the
list of students for
S-GIM per grade
level
Math
Teachers
Year-round
Identify
students who
will undergo
intervention
using S-GIM
To prepare
S-GIM
● Plan for the
strategies to be
used
● Assign the task
● Validate the
materials
● Reproduce the
material
Math
Teachers
Year-round
Self-Guided
Intervention
Material
Various
Materials
To
implement
the intervention
using the S-GIM
● Prepare a
schedule for
distribution of
intervention
materials
● Conduct of Pre-test
● Distribute the
intervention
materials
● Conduct of posttest
Math
Teachers
Year-round
Improve
students’
performance
of the
competencies
Pretest and
Posttest
Test
“Results”
Item Analysis
● Analysis of the
effectiveness of the
S-GIM
To
encourage ● Publish results in
other schools to
Division
do intervention
Publication
using S-GIM
● Present research
results
Research
Coordinator
Year-round
Encourage
schools to do
S-GIM
REFERENCES
Antiporda, J. 2014. Passions Run Low in Math, Science. www.manilatimes.net. Date
Retrieved: February 13, 2020.
Cernechez, B. R. 2014. Strategic intervention material in grade 7 mathematics. Master’s
Thesis. Bicol University Graduate School. Legazpi City. Date Retrieved: February 13,
2020
Del, Cesar et. al. 2016. The extent of Readiness of Grade 10 Students for General
Mathematics of Senior High School in Sorsogon City, Philippines.
Department
of
Education
Memorandum.
2020.
From
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/20201029_Summary-of-DepE
d-COVID-19
Memoranda_v17.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1YdHiP_ENUIwrCbFT
PT08UmJ9EQqinT7m1hPuDrFzzi3aU-oHD4FC4AA.
DepEd Order No. 8 s. 2015. Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12
Basic Education Program
DepEd Order No. 12 s. 2020. Adoption of Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan For
School Year 2020-2021 in the Light of Covid-19 Public Health Emergency.
DepEd Order No. 31 s. 2020. Interim Guidelines for Assessment and Grading Light of the
Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan. From
DM-CI-2020-00162 – Suggested Strategies in Implementing Distance Learning Delivery
Modalities (DLDM) for School Year 2020-2021.
Dumigsi, M. & Cabrella, J. 2019. “Effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Material in
Mathematics as Remediation for Grade 9 Students in Solving Problems Involving
Quadratic Functions”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335432286. Date
Retrieved: February 4, 2020
Dy, J. 2007. “Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) in Teaching Science IV (Physics)”
(Retrieved February 4, 2020)
Dy, L. 2011. Teaching Physics through strategic intervention materials.
Ganal, Nicette N. and Marissa R. Guiab. 2014. Problems Encountered by Students Towards
Mastering Learning Competencies in Mathematics. www.questia.com. Date
Retrieved: February 13, 2020
Mabilaran et. al, 2019. Determinants of Problem-Solving Performance in Mathematics 7: A
Regression
Model.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zussette-Aplaon/
publication/335099202. Date Retrieved: February 4, 2020
Mendoza,
L.
2018.
Challenges
in
Teaching
Mathematics.
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/sunstar-pampanga/20180608/28176274495
1759
Rodrigo R. Importance of Strategic Intervention Materials; 2015.
(Retrieved
October
15,
2016)
Available:http://duyong.net/teacherscorner/6925-importance-of-strategic-intervention-material.
Orhun, N. 2002. The effects of learning styles on high school students‟ achievement on a
mathematics course. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(14), 1158-1165.
Policarpio, J. 2011. Strategic Intervention Materials: A Closer Lock [Blogspot]. Retrieved
from https://tsoktok.blogspot.com/2010/11/strategic-intervention-materials-sim.htm
Ranada, M. J. 2011. Effectiveness of SIM-enhanced constructivist- oriented instruction in
developing graphing skills. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Bicol University Graduate
School. Date Retrieved: February 13, 2020
Rodrigo R. 2015. Importance of Strategic Intervention Materials; (Retrieved October 15,
2016)
Available:
http://duyong.net/teacherscorner/6925-imortanceof-strategicintervention-material. Date Retrieved: February 4, 2020
Samosa, Resty C. (2021). COSIM (Comics Cum SIM): An Innovative Material in Teaching
Biology. Available Online at: https://www.scholarzest.com Vol. 2. No.4, April 2021,
ISSN: 2660-5570
SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011. Mathematics framework for Philippine basic education.
Manila: SEI-DOST &