1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Study
Education is the only means through which a society adjusts with its needs. Across the
world, education is the primary agent of transformation towards sustainable development. It is a
fact that quality science education is a vehicle that plays an important role in producing the best
quality of graduates who will become great leaders and manpower for the country.
Yet, a dismal plight has been seen education these days. The existing pandemic has altered
education delivery services. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted life around the globe in 2020. As in
any other sector, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected education in many ways. Government
actions have followed a common goal of reducing the spread of coronavirus by introducing
measures by limiting social contact. Many countries suspended face-to-face teaching affecting
students. Where possible, traditional classes are being replaced with books and materials taken
from school. Various e-learning platforms enable interaction between teachers and students, and, in
some cases, national television shows or social media platforms are being used for education. Some
education systems announced exceptional holidays to better prepare for this distance-learning
scenario.
In terms of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on different countries’ education
systems many differences exist. This lack of homogeneity is caused by such factors as the start and
end dates of academic years and the timing of school holidays. While some countries suspended inperson classes from March/April until further notice, others were less restrictive, and universities
were only advised to reduce face-to-face teaching and replace it with online solutions wherever
practicable. In other cases, depending on the academic calendar, it was possible to postpone the
start of the classes. Fortunately, there is a range of modern tools available to face the challenge of
2
distance learning imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using these tools, the modification of
contents that were previously taught face-to-face is easily conceivable.
There are however other important tasks in the learning process, such as assessment or
autonomous learning, that can still be challenging without the direct supervision of teachers. All
these arguments end in a common topic: how to ensure the assessment’s adequacy to correctly
measure students’ progress. Thus, how can teachers compare students’ results if they differ from
previous years? On one hand, if students achieve higher scores than in previous years, this could be
linked with changes in the format of the evaluation tools. On the other hand, lower grades could
also be caused by the evaluation format change or be attributable to autonomous learning as a less
effective teaching method. One of the emanating new methods in teaching and learning today is the
modular approach wherein teacher intervention is very minimal or limited. This style of teaching
and learning is student-centered since the student has to learn everything in the module by his own
effort and phase. This method deviates from the traditional classroom situation wherein a teacher
presents the lesson and the students just listen to learn the concepts presented. It is on this milieu
that the researcher is prompted to undertake a study do a study which will find out the effectiveness
of face-to-face learning and modular learning in teaching science to Grade 9 students.
Past researches have been done to assess the student’s achievement using the modular
method of teaching in areas such as the social sciences, languages and arts but dearth of studies
have been done to assess the students’ achievement using the modular method of teaching science,
thus, this investigation fills up the research gap.
This study, therefore, assessed the efficiency of modular method in the teaching of science
in secondary schools by getting the grades of students as bases of their performance. This study
further determined the students’ grades using face-to-face instructional approach as representation
of their performance, as well. Lastly, inasmuch as performance is possibly linked to learning
retention, both performances of the students in the twin approaches were considered to finally
determine their retention level so that intervention could be done.
3
Theoretical Framework
Varieties of teaching methods that will fixate on cumulating methods that can best realize
the creative and constructive engagement with learning activities that leads to understanding. Even
very good designed modules, with very well-defined learning outcomes, can fail if the edification
strategies employed are infelicitous to inspirit and support the learners towards meeting the desired
learning outcomes. Hence, the present study is anchored on two theories: Zone of Proximal
Development by Vygotsky and Behaviorism by B.F. Skinner.
Vygotsky posited that learning is problem solving and that the social construction of
solutions to problems is the basis of the learning process. Vygotsky described the learning
process as the establishment of a “zone of proximal development” in which the teacher, the
learner, and a problem to be solved exist. The teacher provides a social environment in which the
learner can assemble or construct knowledge necessary to solve the problem. This theory was
used since the study ushers learners to assemble or construct knowledge in their self learning modules.
Behaviorism led to the development of taxonomies of learning because it emphasized the
study and evaluation of multiple steps in the learning process. Behaviorists repeatedly studied
learning activities to deconstruct and define the elements of learning. Benjamin Bloom (1956) was
among the early psychologists to establish a taxonomy of learning that related to the development
of intellectual skills and to stress the importance of problem solving as a higher order skill.
Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook: Cognitive domains remains a
foundational text and essential reading within the educational community. Bloom’s taxonomy is
based on three (out of six) key elements as follows: Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent
parts, and determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose
through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Understanding: Constructing meaning from
oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing,
4
inferring, comparing, and explaining. Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling
relevant knowledge from long-term memory.
The theory on behaviorism was used in the study much more Bloom’s taxonomy as
learners need to analyze the modules, understand content and remember lessons in which
remembering
redounds
to
their
retention
of
learning.
5
Conceptual Framework
Science Performance
using Face-to-face
Approach
Science Performance
using Modular
Approach
Students’ Level of
Retention in Learning
Figure 1. Schematic diagram
The figure above illustrates the flow of the present study which started with
identifying the students’ academic performance in Science using face-to-face and
modular approaches and brought to comparison. Moreover, it also attempted to identify
the relationship between the students’ academic performance in Science using face-toface and modular approaches to their level of retention in learning Science.
6
Statement of the Problem
The aim of the study was to determine significant difference between science
performances of the students in face-to-face and modular approaches and if the two
approaches could facilitate retention of learning in Science to the Grade 9 students.
Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:
1. What is the students’ academic performance in Science using face-to-face
approach?
2. What is the students’ academic performance in Science using modular
instruction?
3. Is there a significant difference between students’ academic performance in
Science using face-to-face and modular instruction?
4. What is the students’ level of retention in learning Science?
5. Is there a significant relationship between students’ academic performance in
Science using face-to-face approach and their level of retention in learning
Science?
6. Is there a significant relationship between students’ academic performance in
Science using modular instruction and their level of retention in learning Science?
Ho1: There is no significant difference on the students’ academic performance in
Science between face-to-face and modular instruction.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between students’ academic performance in
Science using face-to-face approach and their level of retention in learning Science.
7
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between students’ academic performance in
Science using modular approach and their level of retention in learning Science.
Significance of the Study
The present research area is significant due to the reason that nowadays modular
teaching approach has become convincingly a popular teaching approach in all
disciplines and previous studies supported the idea of research in this field as well. Its
significance is evident based on the fact that nowadays there is dire need to introduce new
methods of teaching in sciences. Furthermore, it seeks to find out its significance to the
following stakeholders:
Students. The result of the study will give awareness to them retention of
learning Science is very important as it serves as knowledge stocking which can be
readily retrieved for application or future use – entrance tests, scholarships.
Science teachers. This inquiry may provide them an avenue to strengthen
modular and face-to-face approaches or even apply blended learning so that students’
retention will be improved.
School administrators. The result of the study will be the basis for administrators
to implement instructional approaches – eclectic perhaps, to better students’ performance
in Science and better improve retention of learning in Science.
Future researchers. This study will encourage them to conduct more studies
related to the present study focusing on other approaches such as blended and offline
learning.
8
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The study focused on the academic performance in Science of Grade 9 students of
Buug National High School for the School Year 2020-2021 where modular instruction is
currently. It also covered their academic performance in Science for the previous school
year when face-to-face approach was still used (S. Y. 2019-2020). The study also
proceeded to determining retention of learning in science.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined operationally for better understanding:
Face-to-Face Instruction. This refers to the past learning modality where teachers
and students are present in a physical classroom for teaching and learning purposes.
Modular instruction. This refers to a style of teaching and learning wherein teacher
intervention is minimal or limited, the student has to learn everything in the module by
his or her own effort.
Retention of learning. This refers to the scores obtained from concepts in science that
is retained in the student’s mind.
Science performance. This refers to the students’ performance in 1st and 2nd quarter
using face-to-face (Grade 8 -School Year 2019-2020) and modular instruction ( Grade 9
School Year 2020-2021).
Spiral learning. A teaching method based on the premise that a student learns more
about a subject each time the topic is reviewed or encountered.
9
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature and Studies
This chapter presents review of literature and studies that have direct bearing in
the research undertaking.
Face-to-face learning
Face-to-face learning is an instructional method where course content and
learning material are taught in person to a group of students. This allows for a live
interaction between a learner and an instructor. It is the most traditional type of learning
instruction. Learners benefit from a greater level of interaction with their fellow students
as well. In face-to-face learning, students are held accountable for their progress at the
class’s specific meeting date and time. Face-to-face learning ensures a better
understanding and recollection of lesson content and gives class members a chance to
bond with one another.
It is essentially a teacher-centered method of education, and tends to vary widely
among cultures. Many modern education systems have largely shifted away from
traditional face-to-face forms of educational instruction, in favor of individual students’
needs.
Face-to-face education involves traditional classroom learning. Students who
study at a face-to-face learning institute attend classes daily. Classes vary from early
morning to afternoon lessons.
10
Components of Module
Each module has a distinct training element; it covers either a single element of
subject matter content or a group of content elements objectives; preferably in behavioral
form Daries (1981). A recognized level of proficiency or a qualification can be achieved
through the completion of a series of modules. Zuga (1999) stated that when vendors sell
individualized instructional modules “the ability to manage the classroom” was
mentioned frequently. Daugherty and Foster (1996) found that using individualized
instructional modules reduces the time it takes teachers to develop a technology-based
program.
According to Jenkins and Walker (1994), the basic principles of modular courses
involves the division of the curriculum into limited units or modules of learning which
are assessed at the end of that unit, with the student building up a degree or award
through such learning being credited. Modular approach has three basic boundaries, these
are: the modular course, where an individual course is modularized without any formal
relationship to other courses; the modular field or faculty, where groups of related
courses are modularized within a common framework and allow for cross-access; and the
modular degree, where all courses operate within a common set of modular regulations.
Modular approach also develops learner autonomy, if capability means anything it means
being able to control your own learning, set your own goals and be responsible for your
own achievements – knowing your strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Module developments promote practice to plan and develop modular materials.
Module writers develop a common frame work for the design and development of
modular materials. Brown and Atkins (1991) state that when designing modules, it is
11
essential for teachers to be aware of concepts of deep and surface approaches to learning.
Many researches have previously been conducted on the relationship between courses
and the approach students take to learning. Martn,Saljo (1976), Entwistle(1981),
Gibbs(1992), Ramsden(1992), Biggs(1999) found positive relationship between
curriculum and learning approaches.
The goal of the modules is to provide resources to instructors that will allow them
to transform their classrooms into active, student-centered learning environments. Joanne
L. Stewart, Valorie L. Wilkerson (1999). The following common characteristics of a
module can be distinguished that it is self-contain , independent instruction unit,
systematically organized, well defined have a means of evaluating the work. Sejpal
(2013), Brown et al (1977).
The essential components of a module are (i) Rationale, An overview of the
content of module and explanation of why the learner should study it. (ii) Objectives,
What is expected outcomes of module? This is stated in behavioral or performance term
(iii) Entry test, to determine if the learner has pre-requisite skills needed to enter the
module and check. (iv) Multi-media materials, A wide variety of media is used so learner
can involve actively and utilize their senses. Kochhar S.K (2008) Singh Y.K, SharmaT.K
& Upadyay Brijesh (2008) Shivarajan K(1997), Riasat Ali(2010)
Knight 2002 points
out those Modules are not developed in separate way. but within a course or programme
structure. Marton and Saljo (1976), Entwistle (1981), Gibbs (1992), Ramsden, (1992),
Biggs (1999) studies supported module design. There are a variety of modules for the
design of courses in higher education Toohey (1999), Biggs (1999) many of the same
issues are relevant in the context of designing modules. There are three major stages in
12
preparing the design of a module. These stages are planning, preparing the draft of the
module and revising the draft after trying it out.
Toohey (1999) offers the following definition: “A teaching strategy is a plan for
learning, and it includes the presentations which the teacher might make, the exercises
and learning activities designed for students, av-aids which will be supplied or suggested
for students to work with, in which they show of their growing understanding and
capability will be collected.”
Modular teaching is one of the most widespread and recognizes teaching learning
techniques in many countries including other Western countries and Asian region.
Modular approach is used almost in all subjects like natural science, specifically in
biology and medical education and even in social sciences as well as in computers
education. Manlove and David (1985). It considering the individual differences among
the learners which necessitate the planning for adoption of the most appropriate teaching
techniques in order to help the individual grow and develop at her/his own pace.
Types of Modular Method
The modular method can be further subdivided as to modular self-paced
instruction and modular cooperative learning. Both have different impact on learning
concepts in science. The modular self-paced instruction is a kind of modular approach
wherein the student studies all concepts written in the module by himself, by his own
effort and by his own understanding. On the other hand, the modular cooperative learning
is a kind of modular approach wherein the student studies with his peers, they get to ask
13
one another on concepts which are not clear to them, and they get to share ideas with one
another just like brainstorming.
According to Pahila (1994), in area such as biology, which is a non-computational
science, students taught under the modular self-paced instruction performed better than
those students who were taught using the modular cooperative learning. On the other
hand, students who were taught using traditional method performed better than those
students who were taught using the modular cooperative learning. But students who were
taught using modular self-paced instruction did not show greater advantage in
achievement over those who were subjected to the traditional method. It is the task now
of the researcher to find out if the same result will come out.
Factors affecting retention of concepts in science were also considered in the
research such as student abilities, which includes mathematical ability and reading
comprehension, student characteristics or study habits, and student background, which
includes parental involvement and curriculum. These factors were not considered by
Pahila (1994) in her research which the researcher deemed important in the retention of
concepts in chemistry both in the traditional method and modular method.
Cross as cited by Balderas (2016) on the characteristics of module he stressed that
learning modules are the progeny of two reform movements in education that included
programmed learning and mastery learning. Mastery learning plans contain the major
features of the present day modules, such as: Educational objectives were specified.
Instruction was organized into learning units. Diagnostic progress tests were administered
after each unit. Mastery of one unit was required before the learner is allowed to proceed
to the next module or unit. She said that modules should be self-contained, self-pacing,
14
short and well defined, adequately motivating, properly sequenced, providing
opportunities for interaction with learners, clearly written with correct language, accurate,
not in conflict with other subject matter and values, and utilizing every opportunity to
achieve learning outcomes.
Nepomuceno as cited by Balderas (2016) described the modules in the following
on a distinctive, identifiable skills or set of skills or outcomes other than skills. It is fairly
short so as to make students use their study time efficiently. It is essentially self-teaching,
even though it may encourage group work.
It blends theory and practice, and combines doing with reading and reflecting. It
provides a list of further readings or sources related to the skill being promoted. It
provides suggestions to students for participating in the design of their own projects,
explanatory activities, and evaluation criteria. It is reality-oriented in the sense that it
involves the students in real situation if not possible, tried to use stimulation technique. It
provides feedback for improvement and redesigning. With these characteristics, he cited
the following reasons why modules are needed in teaching. The first is to develop
learning autonomy, ensure satisfactory minimum standards, provide remedial units,
provide basic education, upgrade content, enhance competencies of teachers, integrate
theory and practice, cater for individual differences in learning, cater for different groups
within the one course, consolidate critical points in a course, facilitate industrial
certification, provide resources for distance education, encourage mastery and encourage
a changed role for the teachers. He also define module as the one that provides
opportunity for organizing numerous sequences of experience to reflect special interests
of the teacher or student.
15
Self-instructional units allow the teacher to focus on student deficiencies in
subject matter that must be corrected and also serve to eliminate the necessity of covering
subject already known to the student. It provides a way of assessing students’ progress in
learning. It reduces the routine aspects of instruction learning. The teacher is free to
engage in personal contact with the student. The independent nature of self-instructional
units facilitated the updating of study materials without major revisions. It serves as
model for teachers who wish to develop their own materials and insert their own
personality.
The European Learning Path Organization as cited by Mercedes (2016) talk about
the difference between a “module” and a “unit”. A module aims at developing a clearly
identifiable and certifiable portion of the curriculum, expressed in terms of competence
objectives. These objectives should be achieved within a clear and realistic time limit
(language modules usually range between 20 and 30 hours). This time limit is an
important feature of the modular organization, since the whole curriculum is built around
the idea that time and human and material resources should be spent to achieve
foreseeable results. This, of course, may introduce an element of rigidity – this is why a
modular organization implies constant monitoring and feedback to ensure that learning is
really work-in-progress. Units, too, are generally based on clearly defined objectives
(often described in terms of grammar, vocabulary, functions, skills, etc.).
Modules, however, seem to be aiming higher – to enable learners to achieve a
level of competence which should be described in terms other than just grammar,
vocabulary or functions. Units often remain a sub-division of modules (although they
may also be called in different ways: stages, steps, etc.), but the focus of modules – their
16
overall organizing principle - should be of a different kind. Mercedes also define module
as having the statement of purpose, desirable prerequisite skills, instructional objectives,
implementers of the modules, the modular program, related experience, evaluative
pretest, and assessment of module.
According to Mariani (2009), the concept of module is strictly linked to the idea
of a flexible language curriculum, which should provide all those concerned with
education (primarily learners and teachers, but also parents and administrators, as well as
society at large) with a framework to establish clear and realistic language learning
objectives.
Sejpal (2013) emphasized that the utilization of such packages takes into account
individual differences and sanctions students to work because “Telling is not edifying and
heedfully aurally perceiving is not learning. However it is a process of first
understand and then express the idea or knowledge. One of the largest changes in recent
years has been the addition of technology education facilities with individualized
instructional modules.
Studies on Modular learning
Ali (2010) On the Effectiveness of Modular Teaching in Biology at Secondary
Level at Asian Social Science, the major purpose of the study was to explore the impact
of modular teaching on the achievements of students. The results of the study were in the
favor of modular teaching approach and Findings reported significant gender difference
in general comprehension of male and female learners where male learners performed
significantly better than female learners on general comprehension based test therefore, it
17
is suggested that this approach should be widely used in conventional classroom at
various levels of education. He further conclude that most learning packages are entirely
individualized but group experiences can be built in it. The main driving force behind the
introduction of modules in teaching learning process lies in the fact that they have roles
that can help to solve key educational problems. This is largely because they satisfy the
basic condition for promoting effective learning and are extremely flexible in
implementation. The use of such packages takes into account individual differences and
permits students to work at their own pace.
Malik (2012) on her study about the effects of modular and traditional approaches
on students’ general comprehension, her paper addresses the differential effect on
students’ general comprehension taught through modular and traditional teaching
approaches at secondary school level. The study was conducted in one male and one
female secondary school. Sample for conducting experiment was selected randomly from
population of grade 9 students. Data was obtained through administration of general
comprehension based teacher-made test. The data was analyzed by applying statistical
package for social science through independent sample t test. Conclusions showed that
there were significant differences between modular and traditional in general
comprehension of students’. Findings depicted that students taught through modular
approach gained higher mean score in teacher made general comprehension-based test
than students taught through traditional approach. Findings reported significant gender
difference in general comprehension of male and female students where male students
performed significantly better than female students on general comprehension based test.
18
Students’ Retention of Learning
Prensky (2010, p. 23) states that “Today’s students will not live in a world where
things change relatively slowly (as many of us did) but rather in a future where things
change extremely rapidly—daily and exponentially. So, today’s teachers need to be sure
that, no matter what subject they are teaching, they are teaching it with that future in
mind”. In the period when we face massification of higher education, globalization,
penetration of technologies into everyday life and education and their availability and
accessibility it has to have the influence on the assumptions about learning.
Benson and Brack (2010) transferred the old conventions (applied in behaviourist
approach) to new constructivist assumptions. Learning is from the constructivist
viewpoint “conceptualized as an active process in which learners construct new ideas or
concepts based upon their own knowledge, both old (from the past) and new. Learning is
seen as occurring best when it is situated in authentic contexts. Hence, problem-based and
case-based learning are founded on constructivist ideas” (ibid, p. 3). Social
constructivism emphasizes the collaborative nature of learning. It is a variety of cognitive
constructivism.
Generally, the philosophy of constructivism highlights and stresses the
importance of social interaction in building (constructing) knowledge. Individual learning
needs an independent autonomous learner who is ready to apply different learning
strategies effectively; and individual learning is essential to develop teamwork and
collaboration skills. At the same time to build a community the participants must
collaborate and cooperate. A considerable amount of literature has been published on
19
different forms of teaching its organization, teaching methods and techniques.
Technology enhanced learning has become a regular part in teaching practice in many
higher education institutions. This naturally led to conducting research on its use,
methodology, interaction (Watts, 2010; Chickering&Gamson, 1989), activities (Salmon,
2000; MacKenzie& Ballard, 2015), different tools (Lehman &Conceição, 2010), software
development, VLEs (Weller, 2007), effectiveness (Nguyen, 2015).
Conrad & Donaldson (2004, p. 4) state that: “Bruner, Vygotsky, and Piaget all
embraced the philosophy that humans do not learn in a vacuum but rather through
interaction”. Various studies report the positive effect of interaction on the increase in the
educational effectiveness and promotes deeper learning (Mayer & Chandler, 2001; York
& Richardson, 2012; Tsai, 2011). As it has been mentioned, it is important to build a
positive and supportive atmosphere. Considering the learners, especially if they are in
new environment (both – new technology and new group) we have to satisfy their needs,
especially the safety needs, love needs and esteem needs.
Conrad and Donaldson (2004) discuss an engagement of teacher and students in
e-course and they identify 4 phases in which learners’ and teachers’ roles differ. The first,
initial phase (they name it Phase 1) is very important as the attitudes are formed
especially in this phase. A learner is in the role of newcomer and teacher usually provides
“socializing activities” to help learners to know each other and to help them to get
oriented in a VLE and course itself (ice-breakers, (threaded) discussions about
community issues.
Palloff and Pratt (2007, In: Lehman, Conceição, 2010, p. 8) “consider social
presence to be a critical element in online community building”. The way students
20
participate and contribute to the educational process is influenced by various factors
(motivation, aptitude, attitude, age, etc.). The learner style as one of the factors that may
influence the success of the educational process have been studied by number of
researchers (Chen et al., 2015; Kamuche, 2011; Wilkinson, Boohan& Stevenson, 2013;
Kaminski, et al., 2005). Kaminiski, et al. (2005) applied Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
and found a significant level of relation between grades and learning style. They divided
students to dominant and non-dominant and report that “looking at the dominant learner,
the majority of highest grades are awarded to convergers” (p. 10.508.11).
Wilkinson, et al. (2013) applied Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style
Questionnaire (LSQ) that is derived from Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. In a group
of 260 university students with the reflector dominant learning style they have “not found
strong evidence of learning styles influencing examination results” (p. 308). Fleming, et
al. (2011) ran a longitudinal research and in their study they claim that “learning style is
not a fixed trait. Most students' individual learning style changed over the two time points
with the greatest improvement occurring in the Activist learning style” (p. 448).
Learner styles are characteristics that are considered especially in selecting the
most appropriate methods, techniques and learning strategies. Usually people possess
more than one style (does not matter which categorization or classification is considered),
they have “profile of styles” (Biggs, 2011, p. 79) even though there are usually one or
more dominant ones (Gardner, 2011; Sternberg, Zhang, 2011; Prextová, 2016). In case of
bigger classes one normally teaches learners with different styles and thus it would be not
appropriate to rigidly apply the methods for the selected type.
21
Dille&Mezack (1991) conducted research with the aim to identify predictors of
high risk for students in telecourses. Based on the premise that web-based learning leads
to social isolation and students are expected to be independent and autonomous, they
applied Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory to measure student learning style preference.
Dille&Mezack (ibid) reported that students who were not able to think abstractly and
relied on concrete experience were at more high risk. Virtual learning environment (VLE)
and technologies applied today allow different tools for socialization and also the
visualization of material and different types of interaction (Weller, 2007; Palloff& Pratt
2007; Russell, 2010).
In the present research we applied Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales to
identify the learners’ styles. Their classification is based on three pairs of dichotomies
that classify learners based on their social interaction, namely competitive-collaborative;
avoidant-participant; dependent-independent. Collaborative learners are ready to share
ideas, prefer group or pair work rather than individual work what is the preferred
interaction pattern of competitive learner. Those like to be in the center and communicate
rather with the teachers than peers.
Avoidants on the other hand do not want to communicate neither with the peers
nor with the teacher. They are not interested in the content or activities performed in the
class and are not motivated to take part in them. Their dichotomic pair is a participant, a
learner who is eager to help everybody and to do more than expected even without being
noticed and overpraised. The last pair of learner styles is dependent and independent and
simply can be characterized as those who learn what they have to and what they are said
22
to (dependent) or students intrinsically motivated, autonomous learners who are ready to
work on their own.
Grasha (2002) claims the learner styles should be understood as certain
preferences that occur or do not occur in particular situations. This might be explained
that learners act differently and apply different styles in particular, different situation.
What is important to say is that “While learners generally prefer certain styles, this
preference can and often does change depending upon how the teacher structures the
class” (Grasha, 2002, p. 171). These facts have to be carefully considered in planning
teaching as they have direct impact on the results of educational activities. Speaking
about the possibility to apply online or in-class courses Diaz &Cartnal (1999) stress that
in case learning is dependent on learning style and these styles vary between online and
in-class students then teachers should be aware of it and adjust their teaching and
instructional methods accordingly.
Grasha (ibid, p. 172) speaks about three options teachers have in planning the
lessons dealing with learner styles. They can design their instruction to accommodate
particular/prevailing styles; they can prepare their lessons to provide mismatches in the
prevailing styles learners possess or they can apply different processes “so that students
are exposed to methods that accommodate as well as provide “creative mismatches” with
their preferred learning styles”. There are studies published that have indicated that there
is relation of style and gender (Amira &Jelas, 2010; Halili et al., 2014). Also the relation
of the field and style was observed (Hamidah et al., 2009).
Reiser (2013) cited that students for them to develop understanding of subject
matter requires that teachers know what students already understand and believe about
23
the world. These prior conceptions serve as foundations for building new understandings.
Teachers can only use students' prior knowledge if they know what it is. For instance, in
science, we know that students are likely to hold a continuous model of matter rather than
a particulate model. Contextualization activities help relate the ideas to be learned to
students’ prior ideas. For example, benchmark lessons and bridging activities challenge
students to make predictions or explain findings and elicit prior understandings on which
new understandings can be built.
Reiser also added that students may bring particular kinds of knowledge and
experience that are unique to their cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Students may also lack the prior knowledge and experience necessary to engage in
dialogue and collaboration around particular scientific concepts simply because they have
not had access to certain experiences. In addition, students may bring epistemological
stances and ways of knowing that diverge from those valued in science classrooms and
communities. We use several strategies that make instructional materials accessible to
students and that teach science in deep and meaningful ways.
The strategies draw from, incorporate, extend, and challenge students’
community-based ways of knowing and funds of knowledge, such as locating community
problems related to the concepts under study, engaging youth in specific activities related
to those problems and involving parents and community members as classroom
participants who discuss their knowledge and experiences regarding science concepts and
related community problems.
According to UNICEF (2017) , the reason why we can no longer only rely on
‘business as usual’ strategies based on more teachers, more classrooms and more
24
textbooks, targeted interventions are needed to reach the most marginalized children and
youth who are out of school today, including those with disabilities; from ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities; and children affected by armed conflict.
Highland (2015) on her study about Self-Paced Individualized Learning, she point
out that students do not learn at the same rate or with the same methods as their peers.
She propose a solution to this by developing a self-paced, individualized classroom. A
classroom in which students are allowed to learn at their own pace and take control of
their learning. In this study she analyzed data taken from my classroom of 7th and 8th
grade mathematics students. She studied how taking control of their learning affected
their attitude and understanding of mathematics. The results showed increases in
students’ abilities to learn independently. Mathematics learning increased. The study
showed an increase of between 11 -55% more math standards attained during the school
year. Besides the mathematical knowledge gained, her students learned how to use an
informational text to gain understanding and clarity about a topic. They learned how to
take initiative and ask for help when needed. Students learned to trust one another and
seek help and lessons from peers. The study is important to the current study since it
gives the advantages of the modular learning approach and the benefit of having it in the
instruction; gives some issues that need to be present in the module of the learner; and,
shows the advantage of using modular teaching to the students.
Students’ Achievement in Science
Bodner (1983) says that science achievement is directly related to students’
perception skills. Seiler (2004) supported this statement in his study, he found out that as
25
the scientific ability level increases, the eases of getting high score in science exams also
increases.
Ho (1982) mentioned that learning science requires abilities to read and
understand scientific materials. This statement was supported by Gonzaga (2004) in her
study, she found out that there is a positive relationship between reading comprehension
level and the achievement of students in science.
De Baz (1994) state that the number of hours a student study science increases the
achievement in science and as a student achievement increases, the development of good
study habits also increases.
In a study done by Fehrmann, Keith and Reiners (1987) they found out that
increased parental involvement was positively related to student’s time spent on
homework and on their grades.
According to the Department of Education and Science (1991) in Stanmore,
schools implementing the modular approach in teaching and Learning ensures the
systematic development of interpersonal and communication skills.
In a parallel study done by Pahila (1994), she considered comparing modular
learning approach , and traditional method in teaching and learning science. In her study
she found out that students who were taught using traditional method performed better
than those students who were taught using the modular learning approach. And students
who were taught using modular learning instruction did not show greater advantage in
achievement over those who were subjected to the traditional method. However in her
studies she did not consider factors affecting retention of concepts and achievement in
chemistry such as student abilities, which includes mathematical ability and reading
26
comprehension, student characteristics or study habits, and student background, which
includes parental involvement and curriculum.
On a study done by Cachero (1994) which aim at generating the development and
evaluation of modules for enhancing problem-solving skills in Math for second year high
school students, she found out that the second year high school students encountered
difficulties in translating word phrases/sentences to algebraic expressions/equations,
transforming and solving equations, and acquiring the necessary technique for solving
word problems.
The following conclusions were made by Cachero (1994) in her study: majority of
the second year high school students recognized the need for additional learning aids in
acquiring the skills in problem-solving, the teachers and the students found the prepared
modules readable and possessing a highly favorable degree of content validity and
reliability and students who used the modules performed better than those who were
exposed to the traditional lecture-discussion method of instruction.
27
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
This chapter provides discussion on the research design, locale of the study,
respondents, sampling, research instrument, data gathering procedure, statistical tools,
and research ethics. It also includes the instrumentation use, procedure of the study and
the statistical treatment.
Research Design
The researcher design used in the study was descriptive quantitative since the
study attempted to describe performances of the students’ in Science and the study
involved numerical values that were subjected to statistical tests. It also used correlational
design as performances of students were correlated to their level of learning retention.
Locale of the Study
The study was conducted at Buug National High School where the researcher is
currently teaching. The said research environment was not only for convenience but also
because of the pandemic that has kept people from limited movement.
Buug National High School is located at Purok-3, Brgy. Manlin,,Buug,
Zamboanga Sibugay Province. The school was founded in 1996 and has a total of
40,000 square meters.
It has 43 classrooms (excluding computer lab, and other
curriculum workshops) that accommodate 1,800 students enrolled in this current school
year. It has 56 regular permanent teachers for both junior and senior high school, and 4
28
non- teaching personnel and currently headed by Mrs. Elisa Z. Claudio, School Principal
III.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the Grade 9 students of Buug National
High School and are officially enrolled for the School Year, 2020-2021. There were 186
students covered as samples from the total population (via Slovin).
Sampling Technique
A total of 350 hundred students comprises the Grade 9 students of Buug National
High School from the 8 sections (Gold, Silver, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Zinc, Mercury , and
and Platinum). Because of this huge population, the researcher used Slovin’s formula to
get the samples from the total population. The formula is given below:
N____
n= 1+ Ne2
where: n= sample size
N= population size
e= desired margin of error
Research instrument
In order to measure the variables of the study, the following instrument were
used: science performances of the students through grades in the two quarters (Grade 8
grades, face-to-face instruction and Grade 9 grades, modular instruction; and, 20-item
29
Science test that is representative of spiral learning of students in various fields of
science.
Data Gathering Procedure
Before the conduct of the study the researcher faithfully followed the following
steps: Once the sample size was determined, the researcher ensured that the ethical
measures were followed such as the permission letter sent to the school principal (for
extraction of grades) and to the parents of the students since they are not of legal age.
The administration of Science test was realized upon parents’ coming to school
who brought home the test for their children and returned the answered test material.
Upon completing the tasks, the researcher proceeded to tallying the data for use in
Chapter 4.
Statistical Tools
T-test was used in determining the significant difference between students’
Science performances in face-to-face and modular instructional approaches. Pearson
Product Moment Correlation was used to determine Science performances correlate to
students’ learning retention.
Research Ethics
The researcher ensured that the ethical measures were strictly followed since the
respondents involved were considered vulnerable. Permission letter was sent to the
school principal and to the parents of the students since they students are not of legal age.
The researcher also assured that identity of the students and all informational data
30
gathered from them were kept with confidentiality. Lastly, the researcher assured the
respondents that the results of the study would not be disposed anywhere else but only
used for the research.
31
Chapter 4
Results and Discussions
This chapter presents, analyzes and interprets data gathered form the research site.
This chapter further answers the specific research questions raised in the beginning
chapter.
The first question this study sought to answer was “What is the students’
academic performance in Science using face-to-face approach?”
Table 1. Students’ Academic Performance (face-to-face approach) (N=186)
Grading Scale
Frequency
Performance Description
________________________________________________________________________
90-100
41
Outstanding
85-89
89
Very Satisfactory
80-84
40
75-79
16
Fairly Satisfactory
Below 75
0
Did not meet
Satisfactory
Expectations
Mean
85.87
Very Satisfactory
________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 presents students’ academic performance in Science in face-to-face
approach. Results reveal that there are 41 students with “Outstanding” performance
having grades from 90-100; 89 students with “Very Satisfactory” performance having
grades from 85-89; 40 students with “Satisfactory” performance having grades from 80-
32
84; 16 students with “Fairly Satisfactory” performance having grades from 75-79. None
so far has a grade of below 75.
The mean obtained which is 85.87 indicates that the students’ performance in
Science using face-to-face approach is “Very Satisfactory”.
The second question this study sought to answer was “What is the students’
academic performance in Science using modular approach?”
Table 2. Students’ Academic Performance (modular approach) (N=186)
Grading Scale
Frequency
Performance Description
________________________________________________________________________
90-100
3
Outstanding
85-89
40
Very Satisfactory
80-84
105
Satisfactory
75-79
38
Below 75
0
Fairly Satisfactory
Did not meet
Expectations
Mean
82.13
Satisfactory
_______________________________________________________________________
Table 2 presents students’ academic performance in Science using modular
approach. Results bare that there are three students with “Outstanding” performance
having grades from 90-100; 40 students with “Very Satisfactory” performance having
grades from 85-89; 105 students with “Satisfactory” performance having grades from 8084; 38 students with “Fairly Satisfactory” performance having grades from 75-79. None
so far has a grade of below 75.
33
The mean obtained which is 82.13 indicates that the students’ performance in
Science using modular approach is “Satisfactory”.
Cf. Tables 1 and 2 it can be gleaned that students during face-to-face approach
have better grades compared to modular approach.
The third question this study sought to answer was “Is there a significant
difference on the students’ academic performance in Science using face-to-face and
modular approaches?”
Table 3. Significant Difference Between Students’ Performance using Face-to-face and
Modular Approaches at .05 Level of Significance
Results of Statistical Tests
Findings
Remark
________________________________________________________________________
t-value = 9.69763
p-value = .00001
-Lesser than .05 level of significance
Significant
________________________________________________________________________
Table 3 presents the statistical test to determine a significant difference between
students’ performance using face-to-face and modular approaches. The t-value of
9.69763 that leads to producing a p-value of .00001 indicates that there is a significant
difference between students’ performance using face-to-face and modular approaches.
This is so as the p-value is lesser than 0.05 level of significance. It is construed that
students prior to the pandemic (engaged in face-to-face instruction) have better grades.
However, the shift to modular instruction since face-to-face is not allowed has adverse
effect on students’ performance in Science since their grades decreased. Therefore, the
result means that better performance in Science can be achieved in face-to-face
instructional approach.
34
The above finding is substantiated by the study of Pahila (1994). She considered
comparing modular learning approach and traditional method in teaching and learning
science. In her study she found out that students who were taught using traditional
method performed better than those students who were taught using the
modular
learning approach.
The fourth question this study sought to answer was “What is the students’ level
of retention in learning Science?”
Table 4. Students’ Level of Learning Retention (N=186)
Numerical Scale
Frequency
Performance Description
________________________________________________________________________
17 - 20
3
13 -16
40
Very High
High
9 - 12
105
Moderate
5-8
38
Low
Below 5
0
Very Low
Mean
11.968
Moderate
_______________________________________________________________________
Table 4 presents students’ level of learning retention through a 20-item test that is
representative of their learning in various fields of science (from their previous years and
up to the present). Results show that out of 186 student respondents, there are three who
have “Very High” level of learning retention; 40, “High” level; 105, “Moderate” level
and 38 “Low” level. None so far has a “Very Low” level of learning retention.
35
The mean obtained which is 11.968 generally speaks of the fact that students’
overall level of learning retention is only moderate. This seems to be a sad plight that
needs intervention.
The fifth question this study sought to answer was “Is there a significant
relationship between students’ academic performance in Science using face-to-face
approach and their level of retention in learning Science?”
Table 5. Significant Correlation Between Students’ Performance in face-to-face approach
and their Retention Level of Learning at .05 Level of Significance
Results of Statistical Tests
Findings
Remark
________________________________________________________________________
R-value = -0.0647
Weak Correlation
p-value = .38029
Greater than .05 level of significance
Not Significant
________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 presents the significant correlation between students’ performance in
face-to-face approach and their retention level of learning. Results disclose that the Rvalue of -0.0647 proves a weak correlation. The R-value producing a p-value of .38029
which is greater than 0.05 level of significance conveys the fact that there is no
significant correlation between students’ performance in science (face-to-face approach)
and their level of learning retention. As we see students’ performance in face-to-face is
very satisfactory yet this does not correlate to their learning retention level (only
moderate). As interpreted (Cf. table 4) there is a need to intervene students’ learning
retention.
The sixth question this study sought to answer was “Is there a significant
relationship between students’ academic performance in Science using modular approach
36
and their level of retention in learning Science?” This is answered in Table 6 as shown
below.
Table 6. Significant Correlation Between Students’ Performance in Modular Approach
and their Retention Level of Learning at .05 Level of Significance
Results of Statistical Tests
Findings
Remark
________________________________________________________________________
R-value = -0.0176
p-value = .811546
Weak Correlation
Greater than .05 level of significance
Not Significant
________________________________________________________________________
Table 6 presents significant correlation between students’ performance in modular
approach and their retention level of learning. Results disclose that the R-value of -0.0176
proves a weak correlation. The R-value producing a p-value of .811546 which is greater
than 0.05 level of significance conveys the fact that there is no significant correlation
between students’ performance in science (modular approach) and their level of learning
retention. As construed (Cf. table 4) there is a need to intervene students’ learning
retention.
37
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the study’s summary of findings, conclusion and
recommendations.
Summary of Findings
This study aimed to determine the Science performance of Grade 9 students of
Buug National High School in the barangay Manlin, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay. There
were 185 student respondents covered out of over 300 students. The final sample of 185
(via Slovin) were taken fairly from 8 sections. Performance of students in Science were
determined through their grades in face-to-face approach and modular approach. The
study further aimed to determine the students’ level of learning retention which was
realized by administering a 20-item test (standardized) representative of different fields of
Sciences.
Using a quantitative-descriptive design with major use of correlation design, the
study yielded the following major findings as summarized.
1. Students’ performance in Science based on their grades under face-to-face
instruction was “Very Satisfactory” as proven by the obtained mean of 85.87.
2. Students’ performance in Science based on their grades under modular instruction
was only “Satisfactory” as proven by the obtained mean of 82.13.
3. There was a significant difference between students’ performance using face-toface and modular approaches as the p-value of .00001 is lesser than 0.05 level of
significance. Students had better performance in Science via face-to-face
approach compared to modular approach.
38
4. The students’ level of learning retention was only “Moderate” with mean obtained
11.968.
5. There was no significant correlation between students’ performance in Science
(face-to-face) and their level of learning retention as proven by the statistical
result – with p-value of .38029 which is lesser than .05 level of significance.
6. There was no significant correlation between students’ performance in Science
(modular) and their level of learning retention as proven by the statistical result –
with p-value of.811546 which is lesser than .05 level of significance.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study it is concluded that students’ Science
performance proves better using Face-to-Face approach compared to modular approach.
It is concluded further students’ level of learning retention which never correlated to both
performance (face-to-face and modular) needs to be intervened as learning retention is
essential to acquiring or stocking knowledge not only in science but also in other
subjects.
Recommendations
Based
on
the
study’s
findings,
the
researcher
offers
the
following
recommendations.
1. Teachers teaching sciences need to apply blended learning. Module may not be
sufficient as a learning delivery modality. Online teaching-learning may be added
to the existing modality.
2. Teachers also need to come up with multiple ways to improve learning retention
of students through regular quizzes and exercises. Home assignments should be
39
given constantly. Video clips that relate to science topics may also be provided to
students for their viewing and listening.
3. The Department of Education is encouraged to allocate budget for poor students -to provide them laptops or netbooks for their use when online teaching-learning
will be adopted by teachers or by the school.
4. Future researchers may replicate this study or conduct similar one yet focusing on
other curricular subjects.
40
REFERENCES
Alumaga, M. (2008). Factors Affecting Chemical Literacy and Achievement of High
School Students. Unpublished Mater’s Thesis. University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
Cachero, M. (1994). Modules on Problem Solving for Second Year High School
Students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. De La Salle University, Manila.
Cavales, M. (2004). Explicit Instruction for Reading Comprehension in Mathematics and
Problem Solving Performance in Algebra. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University
of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
De Baz, T. P. (1994) Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Student’s Characteristics
and Achievement and Attitudes Toward Science. Doctoral Dissertation. Ohio State
University.
Fehrmann, P. G., Kerth, T. Z., & Reiners, T. M. (1987). Home Influence on School
Learning: Direct and Indirect Effects of Parental Involvement on High School
Grades. Journal of Educational Research 80, 330-336.
Jenkins, A. & Lawrie W. (1994). Developing Student Capability through Modular
Courses. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn.
Mariani, L. (2009). Teaching the Modular Way. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from
http://www.learningpaths.org/papers/modules.htm
Pahila, F. (1994). Differential Effectiveness of the Modular Approach in the Teaching of
Integrated Science. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. De La Salle University, Manila.
41
Seiler, J. (2000). Math Level and Science Achievement. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from
http://www.mrseiler.org-thesis.pdf.url
42
Appendix A
LETTER TO THE SCHOOLS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
June 21, 2021
DR. JEANELYN A. ALEMAN, CESO VI
OIC, Schools Division Superintendent
Division of Zamboanga Sibugay
Pangi , Ipil , Zamboanga Sibugay
Madam:
Greetings of Peace!
The undersigned is presently conducting a study on “Science Performance In
Face to Face and Modular Instruction and Learning Retention”, a requirement
leading to the degree Master of Arts in Education major in School Administration at
Mindanao State University- Buug Campus.
In this regard, may I request permission to administer the questionnaire-checklist
to the identified respondents covering 188 Grade 9 students of Buug National High
School where I am presently teaching.
43
Should you agree to conduct this study, please be so kind to give your consent by
signing this letter. Thank you very much and more power!
Very truly yours,
CATHERINE C. ELDIAN
Researcher
Noted:
ROVY M. BANGUIS ,Ph.D
ALDIN PAUL S. GENOVIA, Ed.D.,J.D.
Adviser
Dean, College of Education
Recommending Approval:
ELISA Z. CLAUDIO, Ed.D
School Principal III
Approved:
DR. JEANELYN A. ALEMAN, CESO VI
OIC, Schools Division Superintendent
Division of Zamboanga Sibugay
44
Appendix B
LETTER TO THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
May 25,2021
ELISA Z. CLAUDIO
Secondary School Principal III
Buug National High School
Manlin, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Thru Channel:
ALDIN PAUL S. GENOVIA, Ed.D., JD
Dean, College of Education
Ma’am:
Greetings of peace!
The undersigned is currently a Graduate student of MSU – Buug Campus
taking up Master of Arts in Education (MAED) major in School Administration.
As a requirement of the course, I am presently undertaking a study
entitled “SCIENCE PERFORMANCE IN FACE-TO-FACE AND MODULAR
INSTRUCTIONS AND LEARNING RETENTION” which aims to gather insights from
the target respondents and interpret these perceptions in order to help recommend
45
viable inputs to the teaching-learning process and decision-making in the existing
circumstances.
In this connection, I am humbly requesting your good office to allow me
to gather data from the randomly selected GRADE 9 Students in our campus. Rest
assured that the data collected will be held with utmost confidentiality.
Result of this study will be furnished to your office with the hope that this
could contribute to the furtherance of the academic pursuit of the University.
Anticipating that this request be given your kind and favorable
consideration and approval.
Thank you and more power!
Respectfully yours.
CATHERINE C. ELDIAN
Researcher
Noted:
ROVY M. BANGUIS , Ph. D.
Adviser
Approved by ;
ELISA Z. CLAUDIO, Ed.D
Principal III
46
Appendix C
LETTER TO THE CLASS ADVISERS
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
May 25, 2021
Junie B. Baylon
GRADE 9 -SILVER ADVISER
BUUG NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
MANLIN,BUUG,ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY
Sir ;
Greetings of peace!
The undersigned is currently a Graduate student of MSU – Buug Campus
taking up Master of Arts in Education (MAED) major in School Administration.
As a requirement of the course, I am presently undertaking a study
entitled “SCIENCE PERFORMANCE IN FACE-TO-FACE AND MODULAR
INSTRUCTIONS AND LEARNING RETENTION” which aims to gather insights from
the target respondents and interpret these perceptions in order to help recommend
viable inputs to the teaching-learning process and decision-making in the existing
circumstances.
47
In this connection, I am humbly requesting your permission to allow me
to gather data from the randomly selected students from your section.
Rest assured that the data collected will be held with utmost confidentiality.
Anticipating that this request be given your kind and favorable
consideration and approval. May God bless you always.
Thank you and more power!
Respectfully yours .
CATHERINE C. ELDIAN
Researcher
48
Appendix D
LETTER OF CONSENT TO THE PARENT/S
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
Title of Research: ‘’Science Performance and Learning Retention in
Face- to Face and and Modular Instruction and
Students’ Learning Retention”
Researcher:
Catherine C. Eldian
Your permission is being sought to have your child participate in this study.
Please read the following information carefully before you decide whether or
not to give your permission.
Purpose of study:
The way students learn nowadays are a fairly new development.
There are lots of learning modalities applied due to the ongoing Covid19
pandemic.
However, there remains a need to understand how these different
learning modalities work and how effective they are to facilitate students’
learning .
This study will examine what learning modality is more effective and
efficient in facilitating learning.
49
Procedures involved in the study:
The researcher will collect data from their class advisers to using
their 1st and 2nd quarter grades from previous year and the present school year
where a new learning modality is introduced to them.
As a secondary procedure, participants will receive a notification
letter, through their parents the consent form and a copy of the questionnaire
to complete and return in a self-addressed envelope.
Incentives/benefits for participation:
There are no direct benefits to your child, but your child will receive
a small gift for participating. The results of this study, however, will increase
our knowledge of the various reading techniques and strategies used by
college students.
Discomforts/risks:
The risks in this study are minimal (i.e., no greater than those
ordinarily encountered in daily life or the performance of routine physical or
psychological examinations or tests).
There are no foreseeable discomforts or dangers to either you or
your child in this study.
Incentives/benefits for participation:
There are no direct benefits to your child, but your child will
receive a small gift for participating.
50
The results of this study, however, will increase our knowledge of
how and what learning modalities are more efficient for your child.
Time duration of participation:
Participation in the study will not exceed 1 hour.
Statement of confidentiality:
All records are kept confidential and will be available only to
professional researchers and staff. If the results of this study are published, the
data will be presented in group form and individual children will not be
identified.
Voluntary participation:
Your child’s participation is voluntary. If you feel your child has in
any way been coerced into participation, please inform the faculty advisor.
We also ask that you read this letter to your child (if ageappropriate) and inform your child that participation is voluntary.
At the time of the study, your child will once again be reminded of this by the
researcher.
Termination of participation:
If at any point during the study you or your child wishes to
terminate the session, we will do so.
This research has been reviewed and approved by Mindanao state
University-Graduate studies.
If at any time before, during or after the experiment your child
experiences any physical or emotional discomfort that is a result of his/her
51
participation, or if you have any questions about the study or its outcomes,
please feel free to contact us.
SIGNING THE FORM BELOW WILL ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE STUDY DURING SCHOOL HOURS WITHOUT YOUR PRESENCE.
If you do not sign and return this form, the researchers will understand that
you do not wish to allow your child to participate.
I, the parent or guardian of _______________________________, a minor
______ years of age, permit his/her participation in a program of
research named above and being conducted by Catherine C.
Eldian .
_______________________________________
Signature of Parent or Guardian
________________________________________________
Please print your name here.
__________
Date
52
Appendix E
LETTER OF ASSENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
Dear Respondent,
My name is CATHERINE C.ELDIAN , a student of Mindanao State
University -Buug Campus graduate school, presently teaching at Buug National High
School ,and I am conducting a study examining students’ performance and learning
retention in Face-to-face and modular instructions.
The results of this study will hopefully determine what learning modality
is appropriate and effective to cope up with the learners needs despite the ongoing
pandemic that is affecting the whole world’s educational system.
I am interested in your experiences as learners who are subjected in
todays way of learning, so I have enclosed a questionnaire which asks you to
respond to a series of statements and questions.
The items in the questionnaire focus on your learning retention on the
subject SCIENCE. Series of questions were taken from your previous lessons .
53
Finally, I want to stress that your participation in this study is
voluntary and all efforts to protect your identity and keep the information
confidential will be taken. I have enclosed a consent form for your review.
Please read the form and feel free to contact me if you have any
questions about the study. If you choose to participate, please sign, initial and date
the consent information form and return it along with the completed questionnaire
in the self-addressed envelope.
I look forward to learning about your experiences .
Your participation will be greatly appreciated.
God Bless .
Sincerely,
Catherine C. Eldian
Researcher
54
Appendix F
TEST QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
BUUG NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Manlin, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Name of Respondent : ____________________
Score: _____________
DIRECTIONS:
There are 20 questions on the test. Each question is followed by three or four
choices, numbered 1 through 4. Read each question carefully.
Decide which
choice is the best answer and mark your answer in the row of circles for each
question by filling in the circle that has the same number as the answer you have
chosen.
Example:
1. What is the number of sense organs in our body?
(a) two
(b) four
Correct method to answer:
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(c) five
(d) six
55
A. BIOLOGY
1. Name the branch of medical science which is concerned with the study of disease
as it appears in its natural surroundings, and as it affects a community of people
rather than a single individual.
a. oncology
b.toxicology
c.phrenology
(a)
(b)
(c)
d.epidemiology
(d)
2. The control centre of all the activities of a cell is
(a) nucleus
(b) nucleoplasm
(a)
(c) cytoplasm
(b)
(d) organelles
(c)
(d)
3. The organism containing only a single cell is called
(a) unicellular organism
(c) organelle
(b) multicellular organism
(d) all of these
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4. The fastest-running terrestrial animal is:
a) cheetah
b) lion
c) man
(a)
(b)
(c)
d.) jaguar
(d)
5. Yeast, used in making bread is a:
a) plant
(a)
b) fungus
(b)
c) bacteria
(c)
d) seed
(d)
56
EARTH SCIENCE
6. Pangaea is the name of a former continent that included:
a) all the continents
b) only Europe and Asia
c) only South America and Africa
(a)
(b)
d) only North and South America
(c)
(d)
7 .The solidified lava of a volcano belongs to which rock family? Is it:
a) igneous
b) metamorphic
(a)
(b)
c) sedimentary
(c)
d) fossilized
(d)
8. Which of the following energy sources does NOT originally come from the Sun?
a. wind
b.) Ocean thermal energy conversion
c. geothermal
d.
hydroelectric
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
9. The tanning rays of the sun are called:
a. infrared rays
(a)
b visible light
(b)
c. ultraviolet rays
(c)
(d)
d.gamma rays
57
10. A seismograph is a device used to:
(a) sound an alarm,
(b) prevent earthquakes from occurring,
(c) record the vibrations produced during an earthquake
(d) calm the seismologist during an earthquake
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
PHYSICS
11. Of the following units, the one that is a unit of energy is
a. Newton
(a)
b. Joule
(b)
c. Meter
(c)
d. Liter
(d)
12. A stationary object may have
a. potential energy
b. velocity
c. kinetic energy
d.
acceleration
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
13. Which is the best example that something has kinetic energy?
a. a car parked on a steep hill
b. a tennis ball rolling across the court
c. a picture hanging on the wall
d. a piece of coal before it's burned
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
58
14. Conservation of energy means that:;
a. energy can be created but not destroyed
b. energy can be destroyed but not created
c. energy can both be created and destroyed
d. energy can neither be created nor destroyed
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
15.What kind of quantity is momentum?
a. Scalar
b.Vector
c. metric
d. meter
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
D.CHEMISTRY
16. Which of the following has the longest wavelength?
a) X rays
a)
b) microwaves
(b)
c) green light
(c)
d) UV light
(d)
17. Which of the following scientists was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1911 for the
discovery of the radioactive elements, radium and polonium?
a. John Dalton b. Dmitri Mendeleev
a)
(b)
c. Emil Fischer
(c)
(d)
d. Marie Curie
59
18. Which of the following refers to the scattering of light by colloidal particles?
a. Rutherford effect
a)
b.Tyndall effect c. Thompson effect
(b)
(c)
d.none of these
(d)
19. Which noble gas has the highest melting point ?
a. argon
a)
b. krypton
(b)
c. xenon
(c)
d. radon
(d)
20. Which of the following is the element represented by the symbol B?
a. Barium
a)
b.Bismuth
(b)
c.Boron
(c)
d.Beryllium
(d)
60
Appendix G
RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF GRADES
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
No.
1.
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Face to face
(school Year 2019-2020)
1st quarter
Grades
89
90
87
89
86
85
79
90
84
84
83
83
86
85
87
84
88
89
90
89
87
84
91
80
84
95
89
88
2nd quarter Grades
89
92
86
90
87
85
83
90
89
85
85
82
87
86
88
83
87
86
91
88
86
86
84
82
88
86
85
91
Modular
(school Year 2020-2021
1st quarter
Grades
83
88
85
86
84
79
81
87
81
79
81
80
81
79
85
80
84
83
87
81
84
83
84
79
77
79
77
79
2nd quarter Grades
84
87
84
85
83
81
82
85
80
77
80
79
83
82
85
81
86
81
85
83
84
82
83
80
79
81
78
80
61
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
84
94
94
87
75
85
79
78
83
79
87
79
87
85
83
84
83
80
83
88
84
86
89
82
81
86
94
93
93
92
93
90
88
87
89
88
90
87
85
93
89
85
86
88
87
86
86
88
81
81
82
70
78
79
84
83
88
81
88
87
85
89
82
84
85
89
85
87
85
86
84
90
86
85
89
91
93
92
89
88
85
89
91
88
88
93
90
87
89
87
89
84
84
85
84
79
85
84
83
80
81
82
85
82
85
82
81
84
85
79
78
80
79
81
84
82
78
84
90
91
90
93
91
85
85
84
86
85
86
84
83
90
87
83
84
86
85
84
83
83
80
81
84
80
79
81
80
84
83
84
83
80
83
82
81
82
76
77
82
80
84
78
82
85
89
87
88
89
87
86
82
84
80
87
81
80
79
85
85
80
82
87
84
82
62
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
89
89
90
86
87
90
89
87
90
91
89
85
84
86
85
84
89
79
78
75
87
84
86
90
88
84
86
90
88
84
88
85
90
82
88
86
82
85
86
86
92
76
79
75
80
79
90
88
91
88
88
91
88
89
92
90
93
88
88
87
88
85
90
82
84
83
89
86
85
87
85
86
85
87
85
86
85
83
89
82
81
90
88
85
84
84
91
82
83
84
79
82
79
80
79
81
77
80
81
86
87
88
85
87
80
78
77
76
80
84
83
75
84
87
79
80
79
83
79
80
79
83
84
81
84
80
85
81
81
84
83
80
84
80
80
75
82
80
83
82
80
80
79
84
80
82
89
87
85
80
78
79
82
79
77
80
82
75
80
80
77
81
83
82
77
81
83
81
85
82
80
77
80
84
82
80
83
77
86
78
77
75
80
77
63
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
84
82
88
85
87
90
79
84
85
94
93
90
90
92
93
91
89
87
86
90
92
90
89
86
85
87
90
87
75
77
80
83
90
88
75
79
80
75
82
94
79
75
87
80
75
77
86
84
86
83
84
92
81
83
88
90
92
91
90
91
94
95
90
88
89
91
90
89
87
85
84
86
89
88
79
85
79
78
92
86
80
79
85
87
85
83
76
77
77
82
80
70
80
75
84
80
83
85
80
80
84
84
85
85
84
89
87
86
84
86
80
87
84
85
84
85
83
84
80
82
75
79
77
80
86
80
75
79
80
81
76
81
76
77
81
75
78
78
76
75
86
83
87
80
83
84
85
88
86
82
86
90
85
80
80
84
83
87
83
85
86
85
83
84
82
84
75
84
75
77
87
84
75
75
81
83
79
84
78
75
81
75
77
75
64
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
92
78
94
77
76
92
79
79
80
80
85
80
89
95
80
95
87
85
86
89
79
86
92
73
90
83
86
82
77
86
78
79
86
88
88
77
85
75
79
86
78
81
75
79
82
79
80
84
82
84
84
80
80
85
81
75
87
82
84
79
80
83
81
83
80
80
81
84
65
Appendix H
CURRICULUM VITAE
Republic of the Philippines
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
7009 Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
BOR Resolution No. 168, S. 2010
CATHERINE C. ELDIAN
Maganay , Buug , Zamboanga Sibugay
cathycafugauan@gmail.com
09515720840
PERSONAL INFORMATION
BIRTHDATE
:
DECEMBER 8, 1978
BIRTH PLACE
:
BUSBOS , JOLO SULU
CIVIL STATUS
:
SEPARATED
RELIGION
:
ROMAN CATHOLIC
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
GRADUATE
: Master of Arts in Education
Major in School Administration
Mindanao State University-Buug
2021
COLLEGE
: Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Biology
Mindanao State University- Buug
2001
66
HIGH SCHOOL
: Mindanao State University-Buug
1997
ELEMENTARY
: Buug Pilot Central School
1991
WORK EXPERIENCE (if applicable)
Date Started – Date Ended
: Position
Teacher 1
Company Dep-Ed
TRAININGS / SEMINARS / WORKSHOPS ATTENDED
Title of Training/Seminar/Workshop
Venue
Date