1
NAT
Overview
and 2012
Test Results
Department of Education
National Education Testing and Research Center
DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
2
1. What is the NAT?
The National Achievement Test (NAT) is a
Philippine-made standardized test designed to
determine pupils/students’ achievement level,
strengths and weaknesses in five key curricular subject
areas at the end of the school year.
2
3
2. What is the purpose of the NAT?
The NAT was developed to measure what pupils/students in Grade Three,
Grade Six and Fourth Year know and can do in five subject areas: Science,
Mathematics, English, Filipino, and HeKaSi (Heograpiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika) in
elementary and Araling Panlipunan in secondary level.
Specifically, the test aims to:
1.
provide empirical information on the achievement level of pupils/students
to serve as guide for policy makers, administrators, curriculum planners,
supervisors, principals and teachers in their respective courses of action.
2. identify and analyze variations on achievement levels across the years by
region, division, school and other variables
3
3. determine the rate of improvement in basic education with respect to
individual schools within certain time frames.
3. Who are the target clienteles of the
NAT in 2013?
Grade 3 - public schools (census)
- Madrasah schools
Grade 6 - public and private schools (census)
Year 4 - public and private schools (census)
4
4
4. What is the coverage of the NAT and how many
test items does it comprise?
TEST
NAT G3
Subject Area Coverage 1. Science
NAT G6
NAT Y4
1. Science
1. Science
2. Mathematics
2. Mathematics
2. Mathematics
3. English
3. English
3. English
4. Filipino
4. Filipino
4. Filipino
5. HeKaSi
5. Araling Panlipunan
Critical Thinking Skills
(20 items)
Number of Items Per
Subject
Total Number of Items
5
15- Sci, Math
30-Eng, Fil
40
60
(Except for Math, 50)
90 items
200
310
5
6
Planning the Test
5. How is the NAT
developed?
Developing the Table of Specifications
Item Writing
Test Assembly and Review of Test Items
Test
Development
Process
Pilot Testing or Try Out of the Test
(at least 2 forms of the final test)
Item Analysis
No
Reject
Validity/Reliability
Items
Useful
Yes
Organize final form of the test
Norming
6
Preparation of the Test Manual/Examiner’s Handbook
7
6. What features characterize the NAT?
• A multiple-choice test
• A sampling of competencies intended for the whole year
coverage
• A standardized test with mostly moderately difficult items
• Anchored on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives /
Dimensions
• High-Ordered Thinking Skills (HOTS)
• The performance of an examinee is compared to the
performance of a national populace.
• The rating is expressed in percentage score or percent of
correct responses.
7
8
7. What is the rationale of DepEd in administering the
NAT in Grade Three, Grade Six and Fourth Year?
The NAT is a system-based assessment specifically designed to gauge
learning outcomes across target levels in identified periods of basic education.
NAT-Grade Three
- Pursuant to Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP), it serves as midassessment of elementary education.
NAT-Grade Six
- It serves as terminal exit assessment of elementary education and as
measurement of incoming first year students’ readiness for high school
(pursuant to DepED Order No. 5, s. 2005).
NAT-Fourth Year
- It serves as exit assessment of the secondary level of basic education
(pursuant to DepED Order No. 5, s. 2005).
8
9
8. What information is derived from the NAT
Certificate of Rating (NAT-COR)?
• Raw scores obtained by an examinee five subjects are
reported in a table alongside with the percentage scores.
• Total test scores for raw and percentage scores are revealed
at the bottom part of the table.
• A quartile distribution of the obtained of mean percentage
scores is provided to guide end-users in interpreting test
results.
• Percentage of Correct Responses (PCR) per learning
competency by subject area is likewise presented to have a
glimpse on the performance of the pupil/student in every
skill measured in the test.
10
10
Facsimile of the
COR for NATGrade 6
11
(Back Portion)
12
9. How are the NAT scores reported and
interpreted to each examinee?
13
The NAT results are interpreted in quartile distribution of Mean
Percentage Scores (MPS) to indicate the percentage of correctly answered
items in a test or subject area proficiencies. It is also used in classifying
test performances of schools, divisions, regions and the total country.
For example: Performance of School X
• School X has overall Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 52%. It is
classified as upper average in school performance.
• School X has MPS of 80% in English. It has superior performance
in English.
13
Quartile Distribution
76-100%
Descriptive Equivalent
Superior
51-75%
Upper Average
26-50%
Lower Average
0-25%
Poor
10. How is the Mean Percentage Score
(MPS) interpreted?
The MPS indicates the ratio between the number of
correctly answered items and the total number of test
questions or the percentage of correctly answered items in a
test.
•
For instance, a 50 MPS in one subject area would mean that
an examinee correctly answered 20 out of 40 test items
(NAT-Grade 6).
•
On the other hand, a 60 MPS for a total score means that
an examinee correctly answered 6 out of 10 questions in the
test.
•
14
14
15
11. Is there a passing score in the NAT?
None.
It uses the MPS to indicate the percentage of
correctly answered items in a test.
The computation of grades in school, however, is
done very differently from the NAT.
15
(Refer to DepED Order No. 73, s. 2012, “Guidelines
on the Assessment and Rating of Learning Outcomes
under the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum;
www.deped.gov.ph)
16
16
12. Does an MPS below 75 mean that the
examinees failed the test?
• No.
• An MPS below 75 would mean that the examinees’
test performance does not belong to the upper average
of the total number of test-takers.
• The standard criterion set by the Department in terms
of achievement level is 75% which is the national target.
17
17
18
The
Performance of
Grade Three
Pupils in the
NAT
Department of Education
National Education Testing and Research Center
The National Performance of Grade Three Pupils
in the NAT Subtests
19
70
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORES
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SY2007-2008
SY2008-2009
SY2009-2010
SY2010-2011
SY2011-2012
RC-ENGLISH
RC-FILIPINO
59.03
59.37
61.74
56.13
54.42
56.96
54.76
61.25
62.06
58.61
GRAMMAR
ENGLISH
58.15
62.93
61.94
59.38
57.23
GRAMMAR
FILIPINO
48.24
58.15
63.94
64
56.97
SCIENCE
MATH
OVERALL
56.13
60.51
61.68
53.48
55.15
62.8
62.4
65.09
64.15
59.87
57.42
59.3
62.44
59.58
56.98
• On the average, the Grade 3 children in public schools obtained an
MPS of 56.98 in the 2012 NAT. This finding is a retrogression in
relation to the previous years’ performance.
20
Percentage Distribution of Examinees by Achievement Level
In Overall Test
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Absolutely No
Mastery
Very Low
Low
Average
SY2009-2010
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
96 - 100% Mastered
Moving Towards
Mastery
SY2010-2011
Closely
Approximating
Mastery
Mastered
SY2011-2012
SY2009-2010
SY2010-2011
SY2011-2012
n
n
n
%
%
%
34,803
1.78
19,379
0.98
11,972
0.60
86 - 95% Closely Approximating Mastery
284,441
14.57
239,391
12.08
207,286
10.40
66 - 85% Moving Towards Mastery
651,190
33.36
632,856
31.94
588,707
29.53
35 - 65% Average
725,775
37.18
749,781
37.84
757,484
38.00
15 - 34% Low
252,453
12.93
335,415
16.93
423,627
21.25
3,138
0.16
4,243
0.21
4,165
0.21
354
0.02
162
0.01
154
0.01
5 - 14% Very Low
0 - 4%
Absolutely No Mastery
N=
1,952,154
1,981,227
1,993,395
21
Percentage Distribution of Examinees by Achievement Level
by Subject Area in the 2012 NAT – G3
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Absolutely No
Mastery
RC - English
Very Low
RC - Filipino
Low
Average
Grammar English
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
Moving Towards
Closely
Mastery
Approximating
Mastery
Grammar Filipino
Science
Mastered
Mathematics
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION EXAMINEES
RC - English RC - Filipino
Grammar Grammar
English
Filipino
Science
Mathematics
96 - 100% Mastered
1.02
1.54
10.69
6.35
1.97
7.65
86 - 95% Closely Approximating Mastery
9.08
10.86
12.59
11.07
13.96
17.98
66 - 85% Moving Towards Mastery
25.29
29.01
21.80
25.53
27.31
22.81
35 - 65% Average
40.68
40.56
26.23
32.48
27.70
26.59
15 - 34% Low
21.90
16.51
20.18
18.21
22.21
20.18
5 - 14% Very Low
1.94
1.42
6.35
4.84
6.33
4.35
0 - 4% Absolutely No Mastery
0.09
0.10
2.16
1.51
0.52
0.44
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
TOTAL
The Regional Performance of Grade Three Pupils in the NAT
Subtests
22
OVERALL
80
70
74.47
60
68.43
50
40
30
64.12
62.03
57.28
53.27
56.23
62.19
60.25 60.94
54.81
54.13 54.22
51.91
50.22
54.50
45.17
20
10
0
• CARAGA Region had the best performance in the NAT
Grade 3 among the regions.
23
Most Improved Region in the NAT Grade Three
(National)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2010-2011
2011-2012
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORES
SCHOOL
YEAR
I
II
III IV-A IV-B
V
VI
VII
VIII IX
X
XI
XII
NCR
CAR
ARM CAR
M AGA
20102011
60.94 56.47 61.83 61.48 64.49 54.96 57.12 50.91 72.53 65.48 63.00 55.05 64.41 51.47 52.13 55.98 75.70
20112012
53.27 57.28 62.03 56.23 64.12 54.13 54.22 50.22 68.43 60.25 60.94 54.81 62.19 45.17 51.91 54.50 74.47
• Regions II and III are the most improved regions in the
NAT Grade 3.
Most Improved Region by Cluster
(Cluster 1)
24
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
III
IV-A
V
VI
SY 2010-2011
SCHOOL YEAR
VII
VIII
NCR
SY 2011-2012
CLUSTER 1 - MPS
III
IV-A
2010-2011
61.83
61.48
2011-2012
62.03
56.23
V
VI
VII
VIII
NCR
54.96
57.12
50.91
72.53
51.47
54.13
54.22
50.22
68.43
45.17
Cluster 1 – Large Size Region (100,001 examinees and above)
* Based on the SY 2010-2011 clustering of regions
• Region III is the most improved region in the 2012 NAT Grade 3.
Most Improved Region by Cluster
(Cluster 2)
25
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
X
XI
SY 2010-2011
SCHOOL YEAR
2010-2011
2011-2012
I
60.94
53.27
X
63.00
60.94
XII
IX
ARMM
SY 2011-2012
CLUSTER 2 - MPS
XI
XII
55.05
64.41
54.81
62.19
IX
65.48
60.25
ARMM
55.98
54.5
Cluster 2 – Medium Size Region (75,000 – 100,000 examinees)
* Based on the SY 2010-2011 clustering of regions
• All Cluster 2 regions had retrogressed in NAT Grade 3 performance in
the 2012 when compared with the previous year.
Most Improved Region by Cluster
(Cluster 3)
26
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
II
IV-B
SY 2010-2011
SCHOOL YEAR
2010-2011
2011-2012
II
56.47
57.28
CAR
CARAGA
SY 2011-2012
CLUSTER 3 - MPS
IV-B
CAR
64.49
52.13
64.12
51.91
CARAGA
75.70
74.47
Cluster 3 – Small Size Region (74,999 examinees and below)
* Based on the SY 2010-2011 clustering of regions
• Region II is the most improved region in 2012 NAT Grade 3.
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT G3 Performance*
Area
SchoolRelated
Variables
Variable
Learning Environment
1.School Location
2.Science Laboratory
3.Computer Laboratory
4.Electricity Supply
5.Internet Access/Connection
6.EDQ #3 – Reading materials/aids
Others:
1.Type of Public School
2.Class Size
3.Class Shift
4.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in RC-English
5.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in English Grammar
6.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in Science
7.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in Mathematics
8.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in RC-Filipino
9.Pupil-Textbook Ratio in Filipino Grammar
School Header Variables:
1.NAT Review
2.Yearly NAT Results
3.Obtaining the NAT Results
4.NAT as an ECARP Evaluation Strategy
Category with Best
Performance
27
MPS
Outside the town proper
With Science Laboratory
Without Computer Lab.
With Electricity
Without Internet Access
Textbooks
61.43
61.24
60.58
60.61
60.63
59.31
Multi-grade Schools
Below 30
One Shift
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
60.33
60.58
59.34
58.02
62.13
60.80
61.38
61.98
60.66
With NAT review
Yearly tracking of NAT results
Division Office
Effective as assessment to
ECARP
60.57
60.86
60.66
60.99
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT G3 Performance*
28
Category with Best
Performance
MPS
Area
Student
Factor
Teacher
Factor
Home
Background
Variables
Variable
1. Gender
2. EDQ #9 – How Much do you like
Mathematics
EDQ Variables
1. EDQ #2 – Reading books in the
Library
2. EDQ #4 – Reading Class in
English and Filipino
3. EDQ #7 – Science class
experiment/observation
4. EDQ #8 – Assessment Strategies
5. EDQ #10 – Class Observation of
Principals
EDQ Variables:
1. EDQ #5 – Number of Children in
the Family
2. EDQ #6 – Family Support
*Sources of data:
Female
I like it very much
59.19
59.36
Twice a week
59.59
Individual reading
59.74
Sometimes
58.86
Give us a short quiz or test
Often;
Sometimes
60.33
57.99;
58.90
Two children
58.41
Mother
58.52
(1) Examiner’s Descriptive Questionnaire (EDQ)
(2) School Header (SH)
29
The
Performance of
Grade Six Pupils
in the NAT
Department of Education
National Education Testing and Research Center
The Performance of Grade Six Pupils in the NAT Subtests
30
90.00
80.00
Percentage Score
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
FILIPINO
MATHEMATI
CS
ENGLISH
SCIENCE
HEKASI
OVERALL
SY2006 - 2007
66.02
60.29
60.78
51.58
61.05
59.94
SY2007 - 2008
73.18
63.89
61.62
57.90
67.44
64.81
71.90
67.37
61.81
58.86
67.84
65.55
74.98
63.26
67.81
63.14
70.88
68.01
76.44
68.41
65.11
60.35
70.38
68.14
69.15
66.47
66.27
66.11
65.97
66.79
SY2008 - 2009
SY2009 - 2010
SY 2010 - 2011
SY2011 - 2012
**
*
*
*
*All private schools were included
**Sampling private schools only
31
Key Findings:
National Data
1.The achievement rate of Grade 6 examinees in the
NAT approximates a status quo performance for the
past three years.
2.Over the years, they performed best in Filipino in
contrast with the remaining subjects: Math, Science,
HeKaSi and English.
3.In the recent NAT, the examinees showed marked
increase in Science; while slightly improved
performance in English.
32
Percentage Distribution of Examinees by Achievement Level
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
SY2009-2010
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
96 - 100 % Mastered
Closely Approximating
86 - 95 %
Mastery
66 - 85 % Moving Towards Mastery
35 - 65 % Average
15 - 34 % Low
5 - 14 % Very Low
0-4%
Absolutely No Mastery
n=
SY2010-2011
SY2009-2010
n
%
2,659
0.14
SY2011-2012
SY2010-2011
n
%
10,294
0.55
SY2011-2012
n
%
5,906
0.31
242,624
13.07
306,448
16.48
272,803
14.31
906,171
642,895
61,826
142
55
1,856,372
48.81
34.63
3.33
0.01
0.00
827,234
640,804
74,114
140
6
1,859,040
44.50
34.47
3.99
0.01
0.00
845,935
684,234
97,755
191
13
1,906,837
44.36
35.88
5.13
0.01
0.00
Percentage Distribution of Examinees by Achievement Level
and by Subject Area
33
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
FILIPINO
MATHEMATICS
ENGLISH
SCIENCE
HEKASI
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EXAMINEES
MPS
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT FILIPINO MATH ENGLISH SCIENCE HEKASI
96 - 100 % Mastered
0.67
7.21
1.09
2.82
0.55
Closely Approximating
86 - 95 % Mastery
13.63
20.10
15.74
15.15 14.69
66 - 85 % Moving Towards Mastery
47.92
29.99
40.20
37.72 42.47
35 - 65 % Average
34.49
27.97
34.20
35.28 32.40
15 - 34 % Low
3.23
14.36
8.57
8.81
9.58
5 - 14 % Very Low
0.05
0.36
0.18
0.21
0.29
0-4%
Absolutely No Mastery
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
The Performance of Grade Six Pupils in the NAT SY2011-2012
34
90.00
79.48
63.85
72.60
67.18
70.39
80.36
66.71
66.21
66.13
54.88
30.00
59.87
40.00
72.87
68.43
67.94
50.00
69.35
60.00
70.27
70.00
71.90
80.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Key Findings:
Region VIII and CARAGA showed high performance in the NAT.
35
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT G6 Performance*
Area
Learning
Environment
School
Related
Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
School Location
Science Laboratory
Computer Laboratory
Internet Access/Connection
Electricity Supply
Others:
1. Public Type of School
2. Private Type of School
3. Class Shift
4. Class Size
5. Textbook-Ratio – English
6. Textbook-Ratio – Science
7. Textbook-Ratio - Mathematics
8. Textbook-Ratio - Filipino
9. Textbook-Ratio - HeKaSi
Category with Best
Performance
MPS
Outside the town proper
Without Science
Laboratory
Without Computer Lab.
Without Internet Access
With Electricity Supply
70.76
68.60
70.71
79.29
68.07
Non-Central Elem.School
Private Sectarian
One shift
Below 30
2:1
2:1
2:1
1:2
2:1
68.58
64.73
68.39
68.41
69.79
69.67
72.95
71.40
71.13
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT G6 Performance*
Area
Student
Variables
Variable
Category with Best
Performance
36
MPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Gender
EDQ #1 Activity – Perform Best
EDQ #13 Science
EDQ #14 English
EDQ #15 Mathematics
Female
Taking care of plants
Easy, because I study hard
Easy, because I study hard
Easy, because I study hard
68.57
69.16
68.49
69.03
68.52
1.
2.
EDQ #5 Teacher’s Attendance
EDQ #9 Teaching Strategies
Always present in school
They discuss the lesson the
whole period (chalk-talk
method), then ask questions
if there is remaining time
Never
Never
67.72
Teacher
Factors
3.
4.
EDQ #10 use of computer set
EDQ #11 TV, CD, DVD use
68.07
68.93
67.63
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT G6 Performance*
Area
Assessment
Strategies
EDQ Variables:
1. EDQ #6 Assessment
Strategies
2. EDQ #8 Asessment
Strategies
3.
Home
Background
Variable
Category with Best
Performance
Variable
Give a short written quiz
Fill in the blanks,
Identification, Sentence
completion type
Both A and B
37
MPS
68.37
68.05
68.37
ED Q #7 Performance and
Portfolio
EDQ Variable:
1. EDQ #2 Educational
Facilities at Home
TV and several magazines
and books
*Sources of data:
Examiner’s Descriptive Questionnaire (EDQ)
School Header (SH)
68.48
38
The
Performance of
Fourth Year
Students in the
NAT
Department of Education
National Education Testing and Research Center
The National Performance of High School Students in the NAT
39
Mean Percentage Score
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
OVERALL
FILIPINO
MATHEMATICS
SY2004 - 2005
SCHOOL YEAR
ENGLISH
SY2005 - 2006
SCIENCE
ARALING
PANLIPUNAN
CRITICAL
THINKING SKILL
TEST
SY2011 - 2012
CRITICAL
ARALING
MATHEMA
THINKING
OVERALL FILIPINO
ENGLISH SCIENCE PANLIPUN
TICS
SKILL
AN
TEST
SY2004 - 2005
46.80
42.48
50.70
51.33
39.49
50.01
NA
SY2005 - 2006
44.33
40.51
47.82
47.73
37.98
47.62
NA
SY2011 - 2012
48.90
51.27
46.37
51.80
40.53
54.22
48.57
On the average , the fourth year students obtained an MPS of 48.90 in the 2012
NAT, an improved performance when compared with the previous years (44.33
in 2006 and 46.80 in 2005).
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Examinees in
Achievement Level in OVERALL PERFORMANCE
40
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Absolutely No
Mastery
Very Low
Low
Average
SY2004-2005
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
SY2005-2006
SY2004-2005
Moving Towards
Closely
Mastery
Approximating
Mastery
Mastered
SY2011-2012
SY2005-2006
SY2011-2012
n
%
n
%
n
%
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
96 - 100% Mastered
Closely Approximating
86 - 95%
Mastery
66 - 85% Moving Towards Mastery
15
0.00
0
0.00
578
0.04
72,457
7.06
78,704
7.69
156,379
11.40
35 - 65% Average
768,456
74.89
667,322
65.23
1,016,503
74.09
15 - 34% Low
184,831
18.01
270,941
26.49
198,221
14.45
5 - 14%
Very Low
300
0.03
4,376
0.43
247
0.02
0 - 4%
Absolutely No Mastery
56
0.01
1,652
0.16
39
0.00
1,026,115
1,022,995
1,371,967
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Examinees in
Achievement Level in All Subject Area
41
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
FILIPINO
MATHEMATICS
ENGLISH
SCIENCE
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL
MPS
ARALIN PANLIPUNAN
CRITICAL THINKING
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
CRITICAL
MATHEMAT
ARALING
THINKING
DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT FILIPINO
ENGLISH SCIENCE
ICS
PANLIPUNAN
SKILL
TEST
96 - 100% Mastered
0.00
1.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01
5.33
1.18
0.54
0.64
1.40
86 - 95%
Closely Approximating
Mastery
66 - 85%
Moving Towards Mastery
13.93
15.79
23.21
7.94
24.12
16.62
35 - 65%
Average
74.45
38.51
57.11
49.95
62.79
59.76
15 - 34%
Low
11.51
38.26
18.30
41.14
12.25
20.34
Very Low
0.09
1.06
0.17
0.41
0.18
1.45
Absolutely No Mastery
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.39
5 - 14%
0 - 4%
The Regional Performance of High School Students in the NAT Subtests 42
Regional Performance in Mean Percentage Score
70
62.42
48.44
48.92
48.11
47.98
49.32
49.10
55.38
51.98
49.75
III
IV-A
IV-B
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
NCR
CAR
ARMM
CARAG
A
42.60
47.75
50.20
47.17
50.46
46.36
49.75
51.98
55.38
48.44
48.92
48.11
47.98
49.32
49.10
37.11
62.42
37.11
46.36
II
47.75
I
47.17
30
50.46
40
50.20
50
42.60
PERCENTAGE SCORE
60
20
10
0
2012
CARAGA showed the best performance followed by Region
VIII in the NATY4. Five out of 17 regions surpassed the 50%
MPS: Regions III, IV-B, VII, VIII and CARAGA.
The Regional Performance of High School Students in the NAT
43
Mean Percentage Score
(Cluster 1)
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
III
SCHOOL
YEAR
2011-2012
IV-A
V
VI
NCR
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORES
III
IV-A
VI
VII
NCR
50.20
47.17
49.75
51.98
49.32
Cluster 1 – Large Size Region with 100,001 and more Examinees
Central Visayas Region showed the best performance in Cluster 1.
The Regional Performance of High School Students in the NAT
Mean Percentage Score
(Cluster 2)
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
I
SCHOOL YEAR
2011-2012
V
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORES
I
V
42.60
46.36
Cluster 2 – Medium Size Region with 75,000 to 100,000 Examinees
Bicol Region outperformed Ilocos Region in Cluster 2.
44
The Regional Performance of High School Students in the NAT
45
Mean Percentage Score
(Cluster 3)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
II
SCHOOL
YEAR
2011-2012
IV-B
VIII
X
XI
XII
CAR
ARMM
CARAGA
MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORES
II
IV-B
47.75
64.12
VIII
X
XI
XII
CAR ARMM
CARA
GA
68.43 60.94 54.81 62.19 51.91 54.50 74.47
Cluster 3 – Small Size Region with 74,999 and Below Examinees
CARAGA showed the best performance in NATY4 among Cluster 3 regions; with Region VIII
closely trailing behind.
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT Y4 Performance*
Area
Student
Variable
Variable
1. Gender
2. EDQ #4 – Financial Support
3. EDQ#5 – Distance of school from
home
4. EDQ#6 – Comm. Skills - English
5. EDQ#7 – Working at Home
6. EDQ#8 – Access to learning
resources
46
Category
with Best
Performance
MPS
Female
Little
50.56
48.89
Not at All
Not at All
Not at All
51.82
52.47
51.88
Not at All
50.10
*Sources of data:
Examiner’s Descriptive Questionnaire (EDQ)
School Header (SH)
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT Y4 Performance*
Area
Variable
EDQ Variables
1.EDQ #9 – Use of ICT
2.EDQ #10 – Short Tests
3.EDQ #11 – Active Participation
4.EDQ#12 – Feedback of assignments
5.EDQ #13 - English
Teacher
Factor
6.EDQ #14 - Science
7.EDQ#15 - Math
*Sources of data:
Examiner’s Descriptive Questionnaire (EDQ)
School Header (SH)
Category with Best
Performance
Seldom
Often
Often
Strongly Agree
Presenting first the
concept/theory followed by a
variety of examples and/or
situational roles and then
application concept.
Presenting first the
concept/theory followed by a
variety of examples and/or
situational roles and then
application concept.
Presenting first the formula
followed by varied examples
or situational cases.
47
MPS
50.91
50.95
50.91
49.99
51.36
52.29
50.50
Factors Associated with the 2012 NAT Y4 Performance*
Area
Variable
EDQ Variable:
1. EDQ #1 – Family Income
Home
Background
Variables
Category with Best
Performance
Salary from domestic
(goverment or private)
Two to Three
2. EDQ #2 – Family Size
3. EDQ#3 – Educational
Facilities at Home
48
MPS
50.34
49.32
Textbooks,
supplementary books,
newspapers, and
magazines
*Sources of data:
Examiner’s Descriptive Questionnaire (EDQ)
School Header (SH)
48.92
49
Correlates of the NAT
2012 Overall Score
Grade Three
Grade Six
Fourth Year
Correlates of the 2012 NAT G3 Overall Score
Model
8
Correlates of NAY
G3
(Constant)
8
1
2
3
R
50
R Square
.330m
.109
B
-21.141
Std. Error
.384
Grade in English
.303
.003
93.355 Higher Grade In English
Grade in Science
.170
.003
61.155 Higher Grade In
Science
2.021
.028
71.053 Regions with small
number of examinees
RegionCluster
t
-55.123
Description
4
Grade in Filipino
.165
.003
61.557 Higher Grade In Filipino
5
Grade in
Mathematics
.152
.003
57.369 Higher Grade In
Mathematics
6
Shifts per Day
-2.327
.046
-50.075 Single Shift
7
Age
-.068
.004
-17.206 Younger examinees
8
Class Size
.017
.002
8.659 Small Class Size
Note: The eight variables were found to be significant at 0.000 level.
51
Correlates of the 2012 NAT G3 Overall Score
• Eight variables out of 14 surfaced as correlates of
NAT G3 Overall Score
• The correlation between NAT G3 Overall Score
and the variables was found to be less moderate
(0.330)
• The identified variables could be accounted for
only 10.90% (R Square) of NAT G3 Overall Score
52
Correlates of the 2012 NAT G6 Overall Score
Model
14
Correlates of NAT G6
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
R
.330n
R Square
.109
Description
t
(Constant)
B
.281
Std. Error
.635
School Cluster
3.477
.024
142.978
Grade in Mathematics
.430
.004
95.849
TEEP
Grade in HEKASI
Shifts per Day
Grade in English
Class Size
Region Cluster
13.889
.325
-7.923
.277
.231
2.938
.093
.005
.070
.004
.003
.038
149.798
69.759
-112.653
64.632
85.461
78.223
Grade in Filipino
Grade in Science
Age
.242
.189
-.091
.004
.004
.022
56.858
46.761
-4.206
School with Small Number
of examinees
Higher Grade in
Mathematics
Teep Schools
Higher Grade in HeKaSi
Single Shift
Higher Grade in English
Small Class Size
Regions with small number
of examinees
Higher Grade in Filipino
Higher Grade in Science
Younger Examinees
Note: The twelve variables were found to be significant at 0.000 level.
53
Correlates of the 2012 NAT G6 Overall Score
• Twelve variables out of 14 surfaced as
correlates of NAT G6 Overall Score
• The correlation between NAT G6 Overall
Score and the variables was found to be
less moderate ( 0.330)
• The identified variables could be
accounted for only 10.90% (R Square) of
NAT G6 Overall Score
54
Correlates of the 2012 NAT Y4 Overall Score
Number of Variables
Included
11
Correlates of NAT Y4
Overall Score
11
2
3
R Square
.196
B
-99.901
Std. Error
.785
Grade in English
.808
.006
138.723 Higher Grade in English
Grade in AP
.674
.006
Grade in Mathematics
.597
.006
17.105
.129
113.191 Higher Grade in Aralin
Panlipunan
108.174 Higher Grade in
Mathematics
132.347 TEEP Schools
(Constant)
1
R
.443m
t
-127.327
Description
4
Teep
5
Grade in Science
.585
.006
100.004 Higher Grade in Science
6
Grade in Filipino
.496
.005
93.159 Higher Grade in Filipino
DivisionCluster
3.620
.046
8
Shifts per Day
-3.831
.061
9
Class Size
.116
.003
35.964 Small Class Size
-1.890
.050
-.179
.006
-37.546 Small Number of
Examinees
-28.933 Younger
7
10
11
RegionCluster
Age
79.500 Divisions With Small
Number of Examinees
-62.336 Single Shift
Note: The eleven variables were found to be significant at 0.000 level.
55
Correlates of the 2012 NAT Y4 Overall Score
• All variables surfaced as correlates of NAT
Y4 Overall Score
• The correlation between NAT Y4 Overall
Score and the variables was found to be
moderate ( 0.443)
• The identified variables could be
accounted for only 19.60% (R Square) of
NAT Y4 Overall Score
56
Policy
Recommendations
- School Level
- Division Level
- For Teachers
- Central Office Level
Policy Recommendations
NAT G3, G6 and Y4
57
SCHOOL LEVEL
1. Provide remedial classes to poor readers.
2. Early detection of potential non-readers in the first grade should be a
primary concern in each school.
3. Producing fluent readers in the third grade should form part of the
crafted vision in each school.
4. Developing reading comprehension skills should permeate all learning
areas not only in reading.
5. Maximize the implementation of ECARP at the school level.
6. Expose students to authentic learning activities using constructivist
approach (learning by doing).
7. School-based assessment for learning (formative assessment) should
utilize varied forms of assessment.
8. Conduct Parent-Teacher-Child Conferencing on the child’s progress in
school.
9. Maximize the utilization of NAT results for intervention and remedial
instruction.
Policy Recommendations
NAT G3, G6 and Y4
DIVISION LEVEL
1. Support sustainable implementation of programs geared
towards raising learning outcomes
 School commitment
 R.O., C.O. support
2.Strengthen educational supervision at the school level.
3.Subject area specialists be made available to schools
without specialists (twinning system).
4.Provide supplementary materials (modular form) to
enhance the competencies of those in schools with more
than one shift as an enabling mechanism to extend time
on task.
58
Policy Recommendations
NAT G3, G6 and Y4
CAPABILITY BUILDING FOR TEACHERS
1. Make developing genuine love for reading among
children a part of the in-service training for teachers.
2.Provide training for teachers on developing children’s
strategies in reading.
3.Provide formative assessment/evaluation training.
CENTRAL OFFICE
1. Reinforce the stipulations of the DECS Order No. 34, s.
2001, requiring all students to read two books a year and
must show evidence of having at least read one book in
the vernacular and one book in English per year before
being promoted to the next grade or year level.
59
60
• End of Presentation