Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
SCIENCE BASED MODULAR WORKTEXT FOR
ENHANCING GRAMMAR LEARNING OF
FIRST YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
IN THE SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL
Marites A. Mopera
Southern Luzon State University, Philippines (maritesmopera@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
This study was concerned with the construction, validation, and acceptability of a Science based modular
worktext for enhancing grammar learning among the 90 first year high school students in the secondary Science
Curriculum School and 10 English teachers from the secondary and tertiary level schools in Lucban, Quezon.
This study used the descriptive design since the researcher developed a new instructional material which she
subjected to validation by administering a pretest and posttest. The acceptability measure using the
questionnaire which she adopted from Abrencillo (2008) and Ilagan (2006) was conducted after the
administration of the material. The findings revealed that a science based modular worktext was developed for
enhancing grammar learning of first year high school students .In terms of significant differences, statistical
analysis showed that the gained mean scores in the pretest and posttest were 23.16 and 34.61, respectively. The
obtained z-test value of 10.12 surpassed the tabular value of 2.58 at 0.01 level of significance. The level of
acceptability of the instructional material among English teachers in terms of content, appeal to target users, and
originality was acceptable since it gained an overall weighted mean of 3.48, 3.48, and 3.37, respectively. Its
clarity, on the other hand, received an overall weighted mean of 3.52 which fell under the very acceptable
descriptive rating while the level of acceptability of the instructional material among first year high school
students was very acceptable since each of the criterion basis- content, clarity, appeal to target users, and
originality gained an overall weighted mean of 3.93, 3.80, 3.91, and 3.93, respectively. Thus, the constructed
modular worktext is valid and acceptable. For this reason, the researcher recommended that English teachers
should adopt this constructed and developed science based modular worktext for enhancing grammar learning in
teaching English subject.
KEYWORDS
Science modular worktext, Construction, Validation, Student and teacher’s acceptability
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
Teaching of second language is not that easy. Despite of the various approaches, methods,
techniques and strategies suggested, it remains one of the challenging tasks among language
teachers. This circumstance has also called for the adaptation and utilization of sensible
workbooks which could strengthen the learner’s gained knowledge about the language from
the textbooks. Teachers believe that it could be one effective means of addressing the
difficulty since instructional worktext enhances knowledge, thinking skills, problem-solving
abilities of all students, as well as incorporate recent advances in disciplinary content (Nicoll,
2003).
The researcher, being in the field of teaching for almost eight years, has noticed that special
consideration is attributed to communication strategy over the learning strategy. She has
observed that the primary focus of language instruction lies on the concept of dynamic selfexpression. Consideration to structure becomes secondary among teachers, fearing to receive
the old-fashioned notion of being a “rule master.” Students’ answers are greatly
acknowledged regardless of the correct use as long as interaction takes place. This is
alarming on the teachers’ part because it reflects their effectiveness and efficiency. It
indicates poor teaching performance.
Laboratory High School teachers, being concerned to the students’ total development, utilize
workbooks which strengthen the learner’s gained knowledge from the textbooks. These aid
the learning of understanding the principles of grammar. But they don’t really help the school
in meeting its objective, L2 competence. The exercises given aren’t enough to make them
comprehend the concepts of grammar. Those workbooks fail to give excellent result.
Realizing the need for a more effective supplementary material, the researcher became eager
to develop her own worktext employing Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) to improve the
quality of language learning. She read from the article of Azar (2003) that GBT approach as a
method of teaching grammar is the starting point and foundation for the development of all
language skills. GBT provides information about English grammar accompanied by
numerous and varied practice opportunities ranging from simple to complex manipulation of
form. The instructional material is a modular worktext since exercises were presented with
varying level of difficulty after the discussion of grammar concepts. It isn’t just language
focused but is integrated to science to enhance the students’ concepts on selected topics in
Science so that learning is not confined to only one discipline.
i. The Present Study
In this study, the researcher aimed to develop a science based modular worktext for
enhancing grammar learning of first year students at the Laboratory Schools of the College of
Teacher Education, Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon AY 2009-2010.
Specifically, it sought to answer three questions: (1) What instructional material can be
developed for enhancing grammar learning of first year high school students; (2) Is there a
significant difference between the students’ pretest and posttest scores after the use of
modular worktext; and (3) What is the acceptability level of the instructional material for
enhancing grammar learning of first year high school students among English Teachers and
Students?
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
The coverage of the lessons developed into worktext was topics taken from the fourth grading
period. They were uses of the simple present tense, subject-verb agreement, sentence pattern,
changing declarative sentence to interrogative, adding tag question, voices of the verb in
basic tenses, and changing active to passive voice in basic tenses.
An achievement test composed of 50 items was also constructed. This served as the tool for
the pretest and posttest. Another instrument in the form of acceptability questionnaire was
also developed. This was used as the basis on how to measure the level of acceptability of the
modular worktext among the teachers and students.
Along with the process of material preparation, the researcher considered the idea of Rionda
(1996), a teacher-training specialist at the College of Education in the University of the
Philippines, which stated that in developing materials whether for general or specific
purposes, the material writers need to follow a system of material design. This system
presents a plan for designing, developing, trying out and evaluating new sets of materials.
Learning is conscious knowledge of language rules, which is derived from formal instruction.
Learning strategies are specifications taken by learner to make learning easier, faster, more
enjoyable, more self-directed and more translatable to new situations, which is the core
concern of this material. For this reason, the researcher came up with her own process shown
in the paradigm below:
Research Paradigm
Input
Reading of
books,
journals,
magazines &
internet
surfing
Process
Development of:
*Modular Worktext
*Achievement Test
* Acceptability
Questionnaire
* Validation
* Administration of
Pretest
* Administration
Modular Worktext
* Posttest
* Acceptability Test
Output
Valid and
Acceptable
Science
Based
Modular
Worktext for
Enhancing
Grammar
Learning
Fig. 1 A Modified IPO Model on the Development of Science Based Modular Worktext
for Enhancing Grammar Learning of First Year High School Students
The research paradigm shows the process of developing the modular worktext. From the
input, it is revealed that the first phase of the development involves readings of books,
journals and magazines. Internet surfing is also a means of gathering information. The phase
of process covers development of modular worktext, construction of achievement test and
acceptability questionnaire, validation of the instrument and the administration of pretest,
modular worktext, posttest and acceptability test. After doing the process, it produced the
accepted modular worktext for enhancing science concepts utilizing Grammar Based
Teaching Approach.
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
METHODOLOGY
i. Population
The respondents of this study were the first year students who were taking English I at SLSUCTE Laboratory High School for the academic year 2009-2010. The total population was 93
where 34 are males and 59 are females. They were grouped homogeneously into two
sections. However, the population was reduced to 90 because those who were absent during
the posttest were excluded from the list. Likewise, the ten (10) English teachers who
validated and accepted the instructional material were considered as another group of
respondents.
ii. Research Instrumentation
The researcher developed first her modular worktext utilizing Grammar Based Teaching
Approach for enhancing science concepts of first year high school students. Then, it was
subjected to validation.
(a) Development of the Modular Worktext
To develop the modular worktext, the researcher identified the topics in English which served
as the lesson for enhancing science concepts. Then, she made a lot of evaluation on the
various workbooks in English to get idea in designing appropriate means of presenting the
lessons and drills. By doing such, the researcher was able to see the strengths and weaknesses
of each that affect the students’ mastery of the lesson. This helped her to make her own
design. After her careful study and evaluation of the different workbooks, she came up with
these five parts of the modular worktext:
A. Know Thy Term. This contains the definition of the grammatical terms to be discussed
in the lesson. It gives students familiarity on the concept of the grammar lingo.
B. Dig-in with the Sample. This contains the presentation of examples for clearer
understanding of the concept provided in Know Thy Term. It gives students time to think
critically on how the language works as they analyze the examples.
C. Get-in with the Structure. This contains the structural presentation of the grammar
lingo in Know Thy Term. It guides the students in determining the change that happens
to language structure as one topic interferes.
D. Work-on It. This contains the different exercises for understanding the concept of the
topic in Know Thy Term. It measures the students’ learning acquisition regarding the
lesson after analyzing Dig-in with the Sample and Get-in with the Structure. The
exercises are presented from simple to complex instruction.
E. Think about It! Write your Thoughts. This contains questions about the Science
concepts presented in the Work on It. This measures the students’ understanding on the
science concepts embedded in the exercises.
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
(b) Validating the Instrument
The researcher validated the modular worktext by requesting time and asking sincere
assessment from English teachers in SLSU, LHS, and Paaralang Sekundarya ng Lucban
about the face and content validity of the instructional material she developed. Prior to this,
she sought permission from their principals and heads to let her consult them during their
available time. Comments and suggestions were considered for enhancement and
improvement. Then, she administered it to her respondents.
(c) Development of Achievement Test
The researcher followed several steps in developing the achievement test.
1. Construction of the Table of Specification
The researcher constructed a table of specification for fair distribution of items among the
selected topics in English. It was also her way of being guided on how to distribute the
questions evenly to the three main domains of the cognitive objectives- knowledge,
comprehension and application from which they received the percentage distribution of
twenty percent, forty percent and forty percent respectively.
2. Development of the Achievement Test
She developed the achievement test which is a multiple type composed of fifty items to
facilitate ease in evaluation. The topics included were uses of the simple present tense,
subject verb agreement, sentence pattern, changing declarative to interrogative, adding tag
questions, voices of the verb in basic tenses, and changing active to passive voice in basic
tenses. These were lessons taken from the fourth grading period. The researcher constructed a
brief but clear direction. Questions were made according to the sequence of the lesson in the
table of specification. Each item has four options which were carefully drafted to stimulate
critical thinking in choosing the right answer.
3. Content Validation
She validated the achievement test. She showed it first to her adviser and consulted some
English teachers for their comments and suggestions on the content of the test. Then, she
administered it to second year Polaris after she was granted with permission by the principal.
These students had already taken up the lessons and so were able to answer the test. During
the administration, it was found out that there were questions with no answer either because
they were unclear or all the choices were right or wrong.
4. Item Analysis
The result of the test was item analyzed. It was found out that items 8, 11, 20, 25, 32, 35, 36,
39, 43, 45, 46, and 47 were either very easy or difficult. These were rejected and replaced by
new ones. Items 1, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34,
37, 40, 41, 49, and 50 needed revisions and so were revised. Items 4, 5, 10, 19, 23, 42, and 44
may need revision and so were revised.
(d) Development of Acceptability Questionnaire
To determine the acceptability level of the modular worktext for enhancing science concepts,
the researcher adopted the questionnaire of Abrencillo (2008) and Ilagan (2009). However,
some modifications were done to suit it with the present instructional material.
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
iii. Data Gathering Procedure
After validating the instrument, the researcher made a letter of request signed and approved
by her adviser addressed to Southern Luzon State University, College of Teacher EducationLaboratory Schools' principal to allow her to use the first year students as her respondents.
The duration of her study covered the needed time for some selected topics in the fourth
grading period.
The researcher provided each of the respondents a copy of the modular worktext. Pretest was
given to diagnose the students’ learning on the topic. Later, posttest was administered to
measure the difference on the posttest score from the pretest’s after using the modular
worktext.
iv. Statistical Treatment
To determine the acceptability of the modular worktext, the researcher used the weighted
mean formula:
WM =
where
4𝑓 + 3𝑓 + 2𝑓 + 1𝑓
𝑁
WM = weighted mean
f = frequency of responses
N = number of the respondent
The acceptability level of the modular worktext was interpreted using the scale for
acceptability rating scale by Abrencillo (2008).
Point Score
Range Interval
Descriptive Rating
4
3
2
1
3.51-4.00
2.51-3.50
1.51-2.50
1.00-1.50
Strongly Acceptable (SA)
Acceptable (A)
Fairly Acceptable (FA)
Not Acceptable(NA)
To determine the significant difference in the pretest and posttest score after using the
modular worktext, the z-test formula was used:
𝑥2 − 𝑥1
𝑧=
√𝑆𝑑1 + 𝑆𝑑2
𝑛
𝑛
where
z = z value
x2 = mean of the students in the posttest
x1 = mean of the students in the pretest
Sd2 = squared deviation in the posttest
Sd1 = squared deviation in the pretest
n = number of students in the posttest
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1
Summary of Values for Testing Significant Differences Between
The Pretest and Posttest Scores
N
Total
number of
items
Mean
SD
Pretest
90
50
23.16
7.01
Posttest
90
50
34.61
8.13
Difference
between means
z-value
11.456
10.12
Table 2
Weighted Mean on the Acceptability Level of Content of Science Based
Modular Worktext for Enhancing Grammar Learning of First Year
High School Students by English Teachers and Students
Criteria
A. Content
English
Teachers
Descriptive
Rating
A. WM
Students
Descriptive
Rating
A.WM
1. The topics are well arranged to provide clear
sequence of understanding.
3.40
A
3.98
VA
2. The different parts aid the students in grasping
the concept of the English lesson in a systematic
way.
3.40
A
3.92
VA
3. It provides sufficient repetition of learning through
examples to easily understand the concept.
3.40
A
3.97
VA
4. It provides a variety of exercises from simple to
complex manipulation for mastery of concepts
and skill.
3.60
VA
3.90
VA
5. The ideas and concepts from Science are well
expressed in the material.
3.60
VA
3.90
VA
OVERALL Weighted Mean
3.48
A
3.93
VA
7
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Table 3
Weighted Mean on the Acceptability Level of Clarity of Science Based
Modular Worktext for Enhancing Grammar Learning of First Year
High School Students by English Teachers and Students
Criteria
B. Clarity
English
Teachers
Descriptive
Rating
A. WM
Students
Descriptive
Rating
A.WM
1. The lessons are organized and clear.
3.40
A
3.96
VA
2. Directions are understandable and easy to
follow.
3.60
VA
3.91
VA
3. Lessons are well explained and become the
preparatory stage for the exercises.
3.40
A
3.92
VA
4. The hierarchy of the exercises is presented
from simple to complex.
3.60
VA
3.94
VA
5. The size of prints is readable and can easily be
recognized.
3.60
VA
3.27
A
OVER ALL Weighted Mean
3.52
VA
3.80
VA
Table 4
Weighted Mean on the Acceptability Level of Appeal to Target User of
Science Based Modular Worktext for Enhancing Grammar
Learning of First Year High School Students
by English Teachers and Students
Criteria
C. Appeal to the Target User
English
Teachers
Descriptive
Rating
A. WM
Students
Descriptive
Rating
A.WM
1. It captivates the learner’s interest.
3.40
A
3.90
VA
2. It stimulates the learner’s interest in
answering the different activities.
3.60
VA
3.90
VA
3. It enables learners to develop their critical
thinking.
3.40
A
3.94
VA
4. It strengthens the students’ positive attitude
about Science.
3.60
VA
3.86
VA
5. It is worth of time, effort and energy of the
learners.
3.40
A
3.94
A
OVERALL Weighted Mean
3.48
A
3.91
VA
8
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Table 5
Weighted Mean on the Acceptability Level of Originality of Science Based
Modular Worktext for Enhancing Grammar Learning of First Year
High School Students by English Teachers and Students
Criteria
D. Originality
English
Teachers
Descriptive
Rating
A. WM
Students
Descriptive
Rating
A.WM
1. The design and appearance of the modular
worktext are exceptionally different from other
worktext.
3.40
A
3.96
VA
2. The material serves as the new model in
teaching English.
3.60
VA
3.91
VA
3. It provides a variety of relevant evaluation
measures.
3.40
A
3.92
VA
OVERALL Weighted Mean
3.47
A
3.93
VA
The findings revealed that a science based modular worktext could be developed for
enhancing grammar learning of first year high school students. The topics are: uses of the
simple present tense, subject verb agreement, sentence pattern, changing declarative to
interrogative, adding tag questions, voices of the verb in basic tenses, and changing active to
passive voice in basic tenses.
In terms of significant differences, statistical analysis showed the gained scores in the
posttest as seen in the computed means of the pretest and posttest which were 23.16 and
34.61, respectively. The obtained z-test value of 10.12 surpassed the tabular value of 2.58 at
0.01 level of significance. Thus, the research hypothesis “There is no significant difference
between the pretest and posttest scores of the students,” is rejected.
The level of acceptability of the instructional material among English teachers in terms of
content, appeal to target user, and originality was acceptable since it gained an overall
weighted mean of 3.48, 3.48, and 3.37, respectively. Its clarity, on the other hand, received an
overall weighted mean of 3.52 which fell under the very acceptable descriptive rating while
the level of acceptability of the instructional material among first year high school students
was very acceptable since each of the criterion basis- content, clarity, appeal to target users,
and originality gained an overall weighted mean of 3.93, 3.80, 3.91, and 3.93, respectively.
Rionda (1996) explained this manner of the students’ response and acceptability – that where
learning strategies of the material are likened and understood by the learners, learning
becomes easier, more enjoyable and more self-directed. Likewise, Trowbridge (2000)
emphasized that teaching aid stimulates more of the students' senses. They frequently activate
the avenues of learning involving sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. Moreover, Ornstein
(1990) considered that appropriate visuals like charts, tables, drawings and the like enhanced
the students' interest to learning. Since the developed instructional material possesses these
conditions, the students highly accepted it.
Therefore, the constructed modular worktext is valid and acceptable and the science based
modular worktext for enhancing grammar learning is ready for adoption.
9
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
For this reason, the researcher recommended that English teachers should adopt this
constructed and developed science based modular worktext for enhancing grammar learning
in teaching English subject.
REFERENCES
Azar, B. (2007, September). Grammar Based Teaching: A Practitioner's Perspective.
Teaching English as a Second Language, 11(2).
Abrencillo, E.R. (2008). “Integrating Revised Bloom's Taxonomy in the Development of
Instructional Design for Science Learning Activitiesin Selected Topics in Biology”,
Unpublished Master's Thesis: Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon.
Badalamenti, V. et al. (2008). Grammar Dimensions. ASIA: Heinle a Division of Thomson
Learning.
Capco, C.M. Biology. (2003). Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House Inc.
Delos Reyes, Cecilia, R. (2004) Echoes 1. Valenzuela City JO-ES Publishing House Inc.
Espina, A. (2008). Exploring Science and Technology. Makati City: Diwa Learning Systems.
Ilagan, G.M. (2006). “Reading Remedial Measures: A Basis for an Intervention L:earning”,
Unpublished Master's Thesis: Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon.
Nery, R.F. et al. (2005). Language in Literature Grammar Workbook. Quezon City: Vibal
Publishing House Inc.
Salayo, R.A. (2003).“Instructional material in Elementary Algebra for Secondary Science
Curriculum”, Unpublished Master's Thesis: Southern Luzon Polytechnic College, Lucban,
Quezon.
Serrano, J.C. et al. (2004). English Communication Arts and Skills. Mandaluyong City: SIBS
Publishing House Inc.
Vallesteros, F.D.J.A. (2003).“Development and Validation of Instructional Material in
Teaching English III Utilizing Reflective Approach” Unpublished Master's Thesis: Southern
Luzon Polytechnic College, Lucban, Quezon.
Villaverde, M.A. (2003). “Development and Validation of Instructional Material in
Genetics”. Unpublished Master”s Thesis: Southern Luzon Polytechnic College, Lucban,
Quezon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_language_teaching
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/comlangteach/index.ht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_Learning_Theories
10