Jigsaw Strategy in Teaching Philippine Narratives in English

jigsaw strategy in teaching philippine narratives…rjgacantilado 1

Chapter I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

Teaching of literature is a very laborious yet rewarding endeavour. It requires

continuous study of literature, general knowledge, creativity in designing classes and

passion in teaching. Although it is very intensive, Fernando (2000) assures us that “in the

hands of a creative, dedicated teacher, even the mundane of language activities can come

alive in the classroom with effective learning transfer taking place.”

Literature classes invite numerous methods of teaching. However, it seems that

literature teachers are resorting to only a few, not to mention traditional methodologies, in

teaching the field. Gocer (2010) said that in activity-based education, teaching literary

genres was mostly based on narration. In a study of Ahmad and Aziz (2009) found out

that teachers still practice being the „custodian of knowledge‟ whenever necessary. 79.3

% of students thought that teachers carried out the whole class instruction, 40.8%

perceived that teachers read, paused and explained every paragraph, and 35.3% witnessed

teachers explaining texts throughout the lesson.

On the other hand, international studies including those of Gocer (2010) and

Hwang and Embi (2007) prove that student-centred teaching strategies are effective in

teaching literature - one of them being the jigsaw-learning technique. It is one of the

many strategies under the concept of cooperative learning, which constitutes a great deal

to the body of pedagogical researches (Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, 2000). This study

is an attempt to prove the flexibility of cooperative learning, in this case applying jigsaw


learning technique in teaching Philippine narratives; this can be an addition to those

numerous studies and further strengthen the proofs of the effectiveness of cooperative

especially nowadays that student-centred learning approaches are being encouraged as

evident in the curricular programs being developed and implemented around the world.

Background of the Study

As mandated by the Revised Secondary Education Curriculum in the Conceptual

Framework in English, one of the goals of the program is to achieve literary competence

and appreciation of the Filipino youth (Andrada, 2010). With the Understanding by

Design as the overall approach in teaching all the subjects including English, the

Department of Education guarantees better student performance in schools nationwide.

However, the same problems mentioned earlier are still evident here in the

Philippines, wherein the methods of teaching literature are limited to activity-based

practices such as lecture and discussion despite the emergence of student-centered

teaching practices which can also be used in teaching literature. Since the teacher tends to

talk more during classes, students lose their interest and essentially don't learn the target

lesson. Also, teachers generally lack effort in making ways to motivate students to view

literature as an interesting and enjoyable subject.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued DepEd Advisory No. 339 to

promote the advocacy of the Philippine Center of International Poets, Playwrights,

Essayists and Novelists which held a series of teaching literature workshops, realizing the

need to promote Philippine literature and to assert the continuing relevance in the

educational curriculum and in nation-building, provide critical guidance and resource


materials to teachers, and to foster the reading habit to expand the readership of books

especially of Philippine literature. More than this, there is an urgent need for researches

that will strengthen the core of the importance of innovative methodologies in teaching

literature.

Based from the concepts presented, the researcher decided to conduct a study on

the utilization of the jigsaw learning technique in the context of teaching Philippine

narratives in English.

Statement of the Problem

This study was conducted to find out if the jigsaw-learning technique is effective

in the teaching of Philippine literature to first year high school students of Matandang

Sabang National High School, for the academic year 2011-2012.

Specifically, this study sought to achieve the following objectives:

1. Measure the significant difference between the mean difference of the literature

pretest and posttest scores of the students in the jigsaw and activity-based class.

2. Determine the students‟ perception of the jigsaw strategy in terms of:

2.1 Understanding the lesson;

2.2 Class participation and;

2.3 Sustained motivation

Siginificance of the Study

This study may be an addition to the proofs of the changing role of students from

being passive learners to active builders of learning. The results of this study may also

encourage literature teachers who want to upgrade the declining interest of students in


literature, particularly narratives. Likewise, they will find the jigsaw-learning technique

as a means to channel individual abilities to productive group learning. This may also

help curriculum designers to consider the jigsaw-learning technique as an option to aid

teaching Philippine narratives. Administrators of teacher-training institutions may deem it

necessary to provide further practice and experience for pre-service and in-service

literature teachers. Future researchers may also find this study as a source of a follow-up

investigative undertaking since the researcher believes that this study is one of the first of

its focus in the Philippines, as to strengthen the facts laid out by this study.

There might be extraneous variables that can invariably affect the findings such as

the cultural and educational background of the students, thus affecting the reliability of

the findings. Also, the selection of the samples was based only on the students‟ academic

standing in English prior to the intervention studies.

Time constraint was another limitation. It is impossible for the researcher to carry

out an extensive study in such a short period of time. The respondents were not able to

get enough practice in the class especially the interpersonal and small group skills. Due to

the time-constraints, the actual time needed for each activity had to be shortened and this

might have effects on the outcome of the lessons conducted.

Scope and Delimitation

This study attempted to find out the effectiveness of the jigsaw-learning technique

in teaching Philippine narratives in English to first year students of Matandang Sabang

National High School.

The study is limited to determining the applicability of jigsaw strategy in teaching


Philippine narratives in English. Summative tests for students is limited to researcher-

made multiple choice-type of test. Likewise, perception tests is limited to researcher-

made questionnaire for identifying students‟ perception of the jigsaw strategy in terms of

understanding the lesson, class participation and student motivation.

Definition of Terms

The terms appearing below are defined according to how they are explained in

similar studies, pedagogical references and their peruse in the study:

Class Participation is the active involvement of the students in interactions among

themselves and between them and their teacher. This parameter was tested by the

researcher as to its manifestation based on the student respondents‟ perception.

Activity-based Class is the group of students learning literature through activity-based

methods. This is the control group the researcher used in the study.

Cooperative Learning (Lantin and Sangalang, 2009) is a generic term referring to the

existence of a group of students working together towards one common goal or

the perceived learning outcome. This encompasses the jigsaw learning technique.

Jigsaw Class is the group of students learning literature through the jigsaw learning

technique. This is the experimental group the researcher refers to.

Jigsaw Learning Technique is a cooperative learning technique wherein every student is

individually accountable to learn a concept fragment assigned to him and

positively dependent on his classmates in learning the remaining concept

fragments. The researcher employed this technique in teaching the narratives

during his literature class interventions.

Philippine Narratives in English are prose accounts of Filipino authors written in


English, including anecdotes, folktales and short stories. Selections from this

body of literature including Anecdotes About Rizal, Adventures of Rizal, Lapu-

Lapu, My Brother’s Peculiar Chicken, and Bread of Salt are the literary pieces

chosen by the researcher to use in his intervention studies.

Sustained motivation is the consistent force influencing students to learn. The extent of

its manifestation in both groups was determined in this study.

Understanding the lesson pertains to the students‟ comprehension of the selected

narratives to be read. The researcher attempted to determine its level in both

learner groups.


Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

In the last many years, researchers, theorists, educators and linguists here and

abroad have written articles and published books and periodicals which seem to point to

the effect that the power of cooperative learning – which encompasses the jigsaw strategy

- in equipping students is indisputable. Researchers agree that it is a flexible tool for the

innovative teacher but the extent of its usefulness becomes the point of their argument: in

this case, its use in the teaching of literature. How to make the teaching of literature

compatible with the necessity and the pedagogical value of developing the students‟

critical awareness so that they become critical readers of literary texts and not passive

accumulators of whatever is being taught to them is the challenge being faced by English

teachers of today around the world. Many have delved in this body of research and came

with different answers to the following questions:

1. What are the advantages of jigsaw learning technique when used in teaching

literature?

2. How powerful is cooperative learning as a tool in education?

3. Why should we pay attention to the teaching of literature?

This chapter focuses on the aforementioned questions.

Cooperative Learning in Teaching Literature

Longo (2007) attested that cooperative learning represents a methodological

approach which achieves the purpose of creating a hermeneutic community conducive for


teaching and learning literature because it is most suitable in making different

interpretations to emerge. It is ideal because in it, students learn to deal with the conflict

of literary interpretations. He listed the advantages of using it in teaching literature as

follows:

1) Emphasis on diversity. Students deal with different people and different

interpretations, thus resulting not only to a better understanding of the text but of

their classmates as well;

2) Recognition of individual differences. Students face different viewpoints and

responses to the issues being discussed, making the result of their efforts more

comprehensive;

3) Promotion of the aptitude for socializing. The exchange of interpretations of literary

texts and the exchange of points of view leads students to interact with fellow

students.

4) Promoting learning through the active involvement of students. Students are more

active when working in a small group and more involved in the issues under

investigation and discussion; they learn to think critically as they share the

process of interpretation of the text with their classmates;

5) Increasing the possibilities of receiving personal feedback. Exchange and personal

feedback is enhanced and increased in small groups, unlike in large groups

wherein only a few students express their ideas and points of views. Thus the

learner can strengthen their skill at interpreting literary texts.

In a study of Gocer (2010), teacher respondents came to the conclusion that

jigsaw technique, currently applicable in contemporary education, is effective in the


learning process. Jigsaw technique is more effective in achieving permanent learning.

Also, it is successful in acquiring detailed knowledge in literary genres, interactions with

friends, no loss of attention throughout the lesson, permanent learning and increase in

success. Students recommended that lessons should be taught this way in the normal

classroom conditions. With regard to the teaching of literary genres, the class teacher‟s

mentioning of the students having developed positive dependency by emphatic approach

and conducted cooperative activities, altogether coincide with the philosophy of

cooperative learning and thereby, prove the effectiveness of the applied jigsaw technique

in literature teaching.

In another study by Hwang and Embi (2007), group activities, including jigsaw

activities, ranked first among all the language-based activities employed by teachers in

teaching literature. Also, the teacher respondents‟ answers to the researchers‟

questionnaire reveal that they recognize the need for students to actively participate in the

process of understanding the meaning of text and the need for students to work with their

classmates in the process of understanding the text.

The preceding citations consolidate the fact that in order for learner-centered

literature class to truly happen, cooperative learning must be employed. Since students,

generally, are fond of talking about different things wherever and whenever, the teacher

may harness this habit and transform it into a useful one by having them talk about

literary texts. Moreover, learning is more effective because they are intrinsically

motivated; they are interested in the subject and enjoy the interaction from beginning to

end. More importantly, both students and teachers recommend its use because there is

effective transfer of learning which is more permanent and positive.


Probst (2004) said: “Unless students read and respond, there is no literature to

teach – only texts and information about texts…The student of literature who hides in the

crowd or parrots the thinking of classmates has not begun to learn literature…Insofar as

the classroom permits students to avoid dealing with responses, it permits them to ignore

the literature.”

Jigsaw is said to be able to increase student learning since it is less threatening for

many students, it increases the amount of student participation in the classroom, it

reduces the need for competitiveness and it reduces the teacher‟s dominance in the

classroom (Longman Dictionary, 1998). Consequently, jigsaw strategy can successfully

reduce students‟ reluctance to participate in the classroom activities and help create an

active learner-centered atmosphere.

In agreement with Probst, a literature class with the teacher as the center of

discussions, being the sole source of literary information, does not really transfer literary

learning but only literary information. Students need to respond to the texts in order for

effective transfer of learning to take place. However, the affective filter in teacher-

centered classrooms are too high, making them hesitant to participate in discussions.

With cooperative learning strategies at hand, students are able to speak out because they

are only discussing with their classmates, therefore lowering the affective filter.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is actually a generic term that refers to numerous methods

for organizing and conducting classroom instruction. Stahl (1992) said that the most

distinctive feature of cooperative learning groups which separates it from other group


tasks is that it emphasizes academic learning success for each individual and all members

of the group. This is ensured by a clear set of specific student learning outcome

objectives, complete set of task-completion directions or instructions, heterogeneous

groups, equal opportunity for success, positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction,

positive social interaction behaviors and attitudes, access to information, opportunities to

accomplish information-processing tasks, sufficient learning time, individual

accountability, public recognition and rewards for group academic success, and post-

group reflection on within-group behaviors.

Most teachers who claim to be employing cooperative learning strategies in their

classes are not actually doing so. Merely because students work in small groups does not

mean that they are cooperating to ensure their own learning and the learning of all others

in their group, which is the true essence of cooperative learning. The aim is not just to

complete a task as a group, but to learn as a group through the process of completing the

task.

According to Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2000), the research on cooperative

efforts, furthermore, has unusual breadth, that is, it has focused on a wide variety of

diverse outcomes. Over the past 100 years, researchers have focused on such diverse

outcomes as achievement, higher-level reasoning, retention, time on task, transfer of

learning, achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, continuing motivation, social and

cognitive development, moral reasoning, perspective-taking, interpersonal attraction,

social support, friendships, reduction of stereotypes and prejudice, valuing differences,

psychological health, self-esteem, social competencies, internalization of values, the

quality of the learning environment, and many other outcomes.


Cooperative learning is based solidly on a variety of theories in anthropology,

sociology, economics, political science and psychology. In psychology, where

cooperation has received the most intensive study, cooperative learning has its root in

social interdependence, cognitive-developmental and behavioral learning theories. It is

rare that an instructional procedure is central to a wide range of social science theories.

The variety of cooperative learning methods available for teacher use, ranging

from very concrete and prescribed to very conceptual and flexible, contributes to the

widespread use of cooperative learning.

With the previously cited researchers having summed up hundreds of studies –

which can be overwhelming for the researcher to cite them all – validating the

effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies as compared to individualistic ones, this

body of research has considerable generalizability since these researches have been

conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in

different settings and countries and in eleven different decades, since research

participants have varied widely as to cultural background, economic class, age, and

gender, and since a wide variety of research tasks and measures of the dependent

variables have been used. There may be no other instructional strategy which has

achieved such intensive research, simultaneously diverse outcomes and pursuance

because of its guaranteed effect based on theoretical underpinnings.

Jigsaw Learning Technique

Aronson (2000) explained the procedure in using the jigsaw learning technique as

follows:


1. Divide students into 5- or 6-person jigsaw groups. The groups should be diverse

in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, and ability.

2. Appoint one student from each group as the leader. Initially, this person should be

the most mature student in the group.

3. Divide the day's lesson into 5-6 segments.

4. Assign each student to learn one segment, making sure students have direct access

only to their own segment.

5. Give students time to read over their segment at least twice and become familiar

with it. There is no need for them to memorize it.

6. Form temporary "expert groups" by having one student from each jigsaw group

join other students assigned to the same segment. Give students in these expert

groups time to discuss the main points of their segment and to rehearse the

presentations they will make to their jigsaw group.

7. Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups.

8. Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group. Encourage others in

the group to ask questions for clarification.

9. Float from group to group, observing the process. If any group is having trouble

(e.g., a member is dominating or disruptive), make an appropriate intervention.

Eventually, it's best for the group leader to handle this task. Leaders can be

trained by whispering an instruction on how to intervene, until the leader gets the

hang of it.

10. At the end of the session, give a quiz on the material so that students quickly

come to realize that these sessions are not just fun and games but really count.


Aronson (2000), the proponent of the jigsaw strategy stated: “The jigsaw

classroom is a cooperative learning technique with a three-decade track record of

successfully reducing racial conflict and increasing positive educational outcomes. Just as

in a jigsaw puzzle, each piece--each student's part--is essential for the completion and full

understanding of the final product. If each student's part is essential, then each student is

essential; and that is precisely what makes this strategy so effective.”

Johnson and Holubec (cited in Mengduo and Xiaoling, 2010) listed five principles for

jigsaw strategy:

a. Positive Interdependence

Each group member‟s efforts are required and indispensable for the group

success. Each group member has to make unique contributions to the joint effort.

b. Face-to-face promotive interaction

Group members have to orally explain how to solve problems, teach one‟s

knowledge to others, check for understanding, discuss concepts being learned and

associate the present learning with the past one.

c. Individual and group accountability

Group members are responsible in ensuring not only their individual learning but

also their groupmates‟ as well.

d. Interpersonal skills

These include leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication and

conflict-management skills.

e. Group processing

Effective working relationships and feedback are important.


The preceding citations emphasized the role of each learner not only in their own

learning but in the learning of others as well. Being responsible for others and for the

group‟s accomplishment brings forth positive pressure upon students which reinforces

them to master the concept assigned to them. This is especially true to lower-achieving

students who tend to lag behind the rest of the class. They are able to get back to the

mainstream class because they get to mingle with higher achieving students; moreover,

they are motivated to do their best because their groupmates are dependent on them.

Therefore, when put in groups meant to accomplish a task, students become

interdependent.

Holliday (2002) found that depending on classmates for success places peer

pressure on lower achieving students to increase the level of their work. Peer pressure

due to interdependence became an excellent source of motivation for these students.

Xiaoling and Mengduo (2010) concluded in their study that through the jigsaw

strategy, students‟ reluctance and anxiety to participate in the classroom activities is

greatly reduced. Students testified, “We do not feel nervous as we used to be…we enjoy

it and are eager to participate in the jigsaw activities.” Others noted that reading and

discussing helped them better in forming their own opinions, and they enjoyed hearing

more than just the instructor‟s voice. Still others noted that they had to learn the material

by heart because they were expected to teach it.

When peer pressure is properly and positively employed, students are reinforced

to accomplish their task and leads to the improvement of their learning behavior. The fact

that others depend on what you will share with them raises one‟s self-esteem which is a


significant factor for effective learning to take place. A student who recognizes his/her

value in the classroom unconsciously develops a positive learning behavior.

Thompson and Pledger (1998) said, “Academically, the jigsaw method in K+12

settings is likely to have a positive impact on academic achievement.”

Aronson (2005), the original developer of the jigsaw method, found that students

taught using the jigsaw method showed a greater academic improvement than other

students.

In study of Carpenter (2006), the jigsaw strategy was compared with other

teaching methods, including lecture, discussion, case study and team project. There were

109 respondents who underwent pretest and posttest. Results of the tests indicated that

the students‟ scores improved most under the jigsaw method. This finding suggests that

moderately-active learning methods such as the jigsaw method are more effective than

the lecture, discussion and case study methods.

In another study by Xiaoling and Mengduo (2010), the results attested that the

jigsaw strategy is an effective strategy to integrate various language skills in an English

class with the teacher no longer the sole provider of knowledge.

The main reason which accounts for the impressive results of the aforementioned

studies and literature is the students‟ mastery of each concept. In the jigsaw strategy, a

student needs to thoroughly study the concept assigned to him/her with those who have

the same assignment as his/hers. Therefore, concepts are clarified because of groupwork.

However, the crucial part here is the transfer of mastered concepts from the student to

his/her groupmates. Unless each student clearly conveys what he/she has mastered, the


rest of the group will remain clueless as to how the concepts will be unified as one and

how they are going to accomplish the assigned task.

Teaching of Literature

Rositter (2002) enumerates the dynamics of stories in teaching. First, stories are

effective as educational tools because they are believable, memorable, and entertaining.

The believability stems from the fact that stories deal with human or human-like

experience that we tend to perceive as an authentic and credible source of knowledge. As

an audience, we are engaged with the story on the levels of landscape of action and the

landscape of consciousness and it is through this dual involvement that we enter into the

minds of the characters and deeper into the meaning of the story. We must fill in, from

our own store of knowing, that which is unspoken. In so doing, we create as well as

discover meaning, and we pose the questions we ourselves need to answer.

Second, the learner involvement factor is also related to the power of stories to

stimulate emphatic response. It is the particularity of the story – the specific situation, the

small details, the vivid images of human experience – that evokes a fuller response than

does a simple statement of fact. This detail provides the raw material for both cognitive

appreciation and affective response to the experience of another person. Educational

programs that aim to foster tolerance, appreciation of diversity, and a capacity of

perspective taking draw upon this dynamic of story. Third, stories educate as instruments

of transformation, as well as information. Because stories lead from the familiar to the

unfamiliar, they provide an entryway into personal growth and change.


The believability of stories being discussed in classrooms can be more effective

and emphatic if the students do the storytelling themselves. With the teacher as the sole

storyteller in the class, there is no assurance that all are being engaged in the story. But

with cooperative learning tasks at hand, there is an even greater probability of active

involvement because students can do even more than just storytelling; they can

immediately share insights and experiences related to the story being told. Consequently,

there is an unconscious effort from the students to truly know and remember the story,

leading them to true learning.

Parkinson and Reid (2000) listed ten reasons and benefits of teaching literature:

1. It promotes cultural understanding and awareness

2. It exemplifies expressiveness and language diversity (Linguistic model)

3. It trains the mind and sensibility.

4. It extends linguistic competence.

5. It is a genuine linguistic material

6. It is a potential archive for memory.

7. It assists the learner in assimilating language rhythm.

8. It generates genuine motivation.

9. It can be a basis for genuine interaction of learners.

10. It is a handy resource.

Cruz (2009) said a year before RSEC was implemented, “Right now, literature is

usually taught only once a week in English classes. The rest of the week, English is

taught as a language, with hardly any reference to literature. What English teachers use

now are texts written by non-literary writers. Non-literary writers, needless to say, do not


win Nobels, Bookers, Pulitzers, nor National Book Awards for the correctness and

elegance of their writing. Students right now are not exposed to the best writing done in

the English language, since the best writing is done by literary writers. They do not really

have an accurate idea of what good English looks like.”

Before, literary texts were only considered as sources of moral lessons and

promoters of a thousand advocacies. But in the contemporary setting, literature even

plays a more important part – in the training of the mind, in motivating students, and

most importantly in the students‟ assimilation of the second language used in the literary

texts. Furthermore, literature orients students to recognize the aesthetic use of English

and motivating them by the realization of the true worth of studying English.

Ahmad and Aziz (2009) noted: “Throughout the teaching process of developing

students‟ ability to learn literature, teachers have a very important role to play. It is in

their capacity as a teacher that they play an important role in cultivating the love and

interest for literature in students. Their passion for the subject, which is naturally

articulated and expressed through their methodologies and approaches, has the power to

influence the students‟ interest and perception of life. Needless to say, it is up to the

teacher to create and promote a positive environment and learning attitude for the

students to feel comfortable with literature learning and not to feel scared and intimidated

by the complexity of the texts chosen. Literature teachers have a challenging task to

ensure that the students learn, let alone like the subject.”

LoMonico (2010) said: “As English teachers, our role is to change students‟

perception about the value of literature…[Our] role is to convince them that they can get

it.”


Although contemporary and learner-centered strategies such as cooperative

learning have made their way to the field of education, the teacher still has an important

role – even more important and crucial than the previous ones – in the classroom. If

literature teachers of the yesteryears are only required to have a thorough knowledge of

literary texts and deliver it to their students, they are faced with a greater challenge today

– that is, to guide, facilitate, and ensure that students learn literature, as much as possible

by themselves. Furthermore, literature teachers need to enhance their creativity and

resourcefulness as to make literature as interesting and worthy of students‟ attention.

Conceptual Framework

Teachers of literature are faced not only with the challenge of mastering literary

knowledge but also facilitating students‟ learning of literature on their own. With the

decline of students‟ interest in studying literature, teachers must learn to adapt innovative

methodologies to teach it since the role of students in literature classes is no longer a

passive one. Activity-based teaching is of decreasing value in contemporary education;

now that student-centered approach is being encouraged, cooperative learning is very

suitable and the jigsaw learning technique is an indispensable tool. The teaching method

is aimed to bring a different dimension in teaching literature and improve students‟

involvement in learning literary texts. The teacher is no longer the sole provider of

literary knowledge; rather, the students have direct access to literary information and

have a more immediate, convenient, and expressive shared interpretation of the literary

texts. Once students are done learning the concepts through interdependence and

involvement in groupworks, the teacher is responsible for assessing students‟ learning of


literature. The jigsaw learning technique is aimed at better performance of students in

terms of social learning skills, sustained motivation and achievement in learning

literature.

Research Paradigm

Fig. 1 The Research Paradigm for Jigsaw Learning Technique in Teaching Philippine Narratives

This research paradigm was designed by the researcher in such a way that would

emphasize the students as the center of the whole research process, illustrate the

necessary elements to gear students in learning literature as provided by the jigsaw


learning techqniue, and indicate the attributes of the literature teacher who is willing to

use the said teaching methodology.

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest score

differences between activity-based and jigsaw literature classes.


Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides the research design and statistical treatment used in the

study. Likewise, this identifies the respondents and the sampling techniques employed.

Validation techniques for the instrument and data gathering procedures complete the

procedures utilized.

Research Design

The study employed the experimental research design wherein a new strategy in

teaching literature was compared with the activity-based one based on certain parameters.

The researcher grouped the respondents as to control and experimental. The study is both

qualitative and quantitative in nature.

Population

The respondents of the study are from the two sections of first year high school

students of Matandang Sabang National High School composed of sixty-five (67) boys

and fifty-five (55) girls totaling to one hundred twenty (120) students. The classes are

generally heterogeneous in nature and the level of students‟ performance in both sections

are apparently the same. The school is located in a remote barangay in Catanauan,

Quezon and is underexposed to intervention studies. Hence, the researcher‟s conviction

that his study will yield more authentic results in this institution.


Sampling Procedures

The sixty (60) respondents of the study comprise fifty percent (50%) of the one

hundred and twenty (120) population of the freshmen class of Matandang Sabang

National High School, having only two (2) sections. The researcher employed the

fishbowl technique of drawing lots to determine the thirty (30) research respondents from

each section. The researcher limited both sections‟ respondents to thirty (30) on purpose

because the jigsaw strategy has a tendency to lose its effect in a class with a greater size

than this; so as to keep this variable constant, the researcher also limited the activity-

based class‟ size to thirty (30). The groupings in the jigsaw class were done randomly.

Instrumentation

The research employed a researcher-made pretest and posttest questionnaire to

determine the range of improvement of students in learning literature under two different

methodologies, the activity-based method and the jigsaw learning technique. The test

questionnaire is composed of ten questions for each of the five selections discussed.

The research also employed a survey type questionnaire to determine the

students‟ perception of the jigsaw learning technique in terms of understanding the

lesson, class participation, and sustained motivation. It is answerable using a Likert-type

checklist with options Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.

First, the researcher sought the characteristics of each of the terms and set ten

statements for each for the survey-questionnaire. He then requested his adviser, two

faculty members and a high school teacher to evaluate the instrument as to layout and

statement structure and content.


Validation of Instrument

The test questionnaire was only validated by his adviser since there is no other

class discussing the chosen selections at the time and the test was purposely made for the

research itself. Likewise, after evaluators‟ on the survey questionnaire were considered

for revision of the instrument, the instrument was unable to undergo trial administration

since the questionnaire can only be answered by students who have studied through the

jigsaw learning technique and the researcher cannot find any class employing the

technique at the time. Therefore, the instrument was finalized and administered to the

target respondents.

Data Gathering Procedures

Necessary permits to conduct the research were first secured. A letter of approval

was sought from the Office of the Dean of the College of Teacher Education to allow the

researcher to conduct the research. Upon approval, the administration of pre-test was

conducted. The researcher then taught five literary selections to the experimental and

control groups using the jigsaw learning technique and the activity-based method,

respectively. The post-test and the survey-questionnaire were then administered. Results

were tabulated, subjected to statistical treatment and interpreted with the help of a

statistician.


Statistical Treatment

Data gathered from the pretest and posttest scores were subjected to an

independent two sample T-Test to facilitate analysis and interpretation since the

researcher has two sets of samples which underwent different treatments. The formulas

are as follows:

√

Where x1 = mean of differences in pretest and posttest scores of activity-based class

x2 = mean of differences in pretest and posttest scores of jigsaw class

0 = hypothesized value

s1 = standard deviation of the difference of pretest and posttest scores of activity-

based class

s2 = standard deviation of the difference of pretest and posttest scores of jigsaw

class

n1 = size of the activity-based class

n2 = size of the jigsaw class

Data gathered from the survey-type questionnaire were subjected to average

weighted mean to facilitate analysis and interpretation. The formula is as follows:


Where M = mean

f = frequency

N = total number of respondents

Descriptive Rating Scale

The following scale was used by the researcher to describe the results from the

statements in the survey-questionnaire.

SCALE INTERVAL DESCRIPTIVE RATING

4 3.25-4.00 Strongly Agree (SA)

3 2.50-3.24 Agree (A)

2 1.75-2.49 Disagree (D)

1 1.00-1.74 Strongly Disagree (SD)


Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the study. Analysis and interpretation are also

given in the discussion. The researcher‟s acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis is also

provided in the light of findings generated.

Table 1. Mean of Pretest and Posttest Score Differences of Jigsaw and Activity-

based Classes

Mean Difference

Activity-based

Class

Mean Difference

Jigsaw Class t-value t-tabular

9.4 16.6 4.7787 0.0000

df = 57

Table 1 presents the mean of the pretest and posttest score differences of the

jigsaw and activity-based classes.

The mean difference of the scores of the jigsaw class is higher than that of the

activity-based class, indicating a higher range of improvement. However, the scores of

the jigsaw class are more scattered, having a standard deviation equal to 6.27859 as

compared to that of the activity-based class equal to 5.295954.

The t-tabular value is equal to 0.000 and is less than the significance level equal to

0.05. Thus, the mean of the score improvement for the group of respondents under the

jigsaw learning treatment is higher. This strengthens the finding of Aronson that students

taught under the jigsaw method show greater academic improvement than other students.

Also, this supports Carpenter‟s finding that the jigsaw method is more effective than


activity-based methods such as lecture and discussion. Since there is a significant

difference between the mean score difference of the jigsaw and activity-based class, the

researcher rejected the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference

between the mean score difference of the two groups.

Table 2.1 Students’ Perception of the Jigsaw Learning Technique in terms of

Understanding the Lesson

4

(SA)

3

(A)

2

(D)

1

(SD) MEAN DR

UNDERSTANDING THE LESSON

1. My groupmates presented the

segments clearly. 23 7 0 0 3.77 SA

2. The lessons are relevant to real-life

situations. 12 18 0 0 3.40 SA

3. The lessons are built upon my prior

knowledge. 7 17 6 0 3.03 A

4. The experiences and feelings of the

characters in the story affect me. 6 14 8 2 2.80 A

5. My groupmates‟ storytelling engaged

me in the setting of the stories

presented.

2 11 17 0 2.50 A

6. My groupmates helped me develop a

new outlook in life through the

narratives.

2 23 5 0 2.90 A

7. My groupmates helped me to apply

my own solution to the story‟s

conflict.

4 19 6 1 2.87 A

8. I experience difficulty understanding

certain words and statements in the

narratives.

3 10 13 4 2.40 D

9. I find it hard to follow the flow of the

lesson. 2 5 17 6 2.10 D

10. I have met the learning objectives of the

lessons. 8 15 6 1 3.00 D

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 2.98 A

Table 2.1 presents the students‟ perception of the jigsaw learning technique in

terms of understanding the lesson.


Twenty-three (23) respondents from the jigsaw class comprised the majority of

the class who strongly agreed that their classmates have clearly presented the segments

assigned to them (3.77). In order of rank, the respondents also agreed that the lessons are

relevant to real-life situations (3.40), the lessons are built upon their prior knowledge

(3.03), they have met the learning objectives of the lessons (3.00), their groupmates

helped them develop a new outlook in life through the narratives (2.90), their groupmates

helped them to apply their own solution to the stories‟ conflicts (2.87), the experience and

feelings of the characters in the stories affect them (2.80), and their groupmates‟

storytelling engaged them in the stories settings (2.50).

Seventeen (17) students disagreed that they find it hard to follow the flow of the

lesson (2.10); also, they disagreed that they experienced difficulty in understanding

certain words and statements in the narratives (2.40).

Respondents from the jigsaw class generated an average weighted mean of 2.98 in

their perception of the jigsaw strategy in understanding the lesson equivalent to “agree.”

This means that majority of the students agree that the jigsaw learning technique helps

them in understanding the narrative texts, supporting the findings of Xiaoling and

Mengduo that the jigsaw learning technique helps students form their own interpretation

and understanding of the material being studied. Also, Gocer‟s study which attests that

jigsaw students are successful in acquiring detailed knowledge of the literary text also

strengthens this finding.

Table 2.2 presents the students‟ perception of the jigsaw learning technique in

terms of its effect on class participation.


Table 2.2 Students’ Perception of the Jigsaw Learning Technique in terms of Class

Participation

CLASS PARTICIPATION 4

(SA)

3

(A)

2

(D)

1

(SD) MEAN DR

1. I am able to answer the questions

raised by my teacher and classmates. 4 17 8 1 2.80 A

2. I share opinions, comments and

suggestions to the class. 4 19 6 1 2.87 A

3. I frequently ask questions to my

teacher and classmates. 3 17 6 4 2.63 A

4. I feel responsible about contributing to

the accomplishment of the group I

belong to.

2 22 5 1 2.83 A

5. I follow all of my teacher‟s

instructions. 17 11 2 0 3.50 SA

6. I feel out of place in the discussions. 3 8 13 6 2.27 D

7. I listen attentively to what my teacher

and classmates say. 15 15 0 0 3.50 SA

8. I involve in chatters instead of

discussions about the lesson. 1 6 14 9 1.97 D

9. I enjoy working with my classmates

during activities. 14 13 3 0 3.37 SA

10. I prefer to remain silent during the

activities. 1 4 11 14 1.73 SD

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.05 A

Seventeen (17) of the respondents agreed that they are able to follow all of their

teacher‟s instructions during the jigsaw intervention. All thirty (30) respondents from the

jigsaw class agreed that they listen attentively to what their teacher and classmates say.

Only three (3) respondents said that they don‟t enjoy working with their classmates

during the activities; the remaining twenty-seven (27) does. In order of rank, the students

also agreed that they share opinions, comments, and suggestions to the class (2.87), they

feel responsible about contributing to the accomplishment of the group they belong to

(2.83), they were able to answer the questions raised by their teacher and classmates

(2.80), and they frequently ask questions to their teacher and classmates as well (2.63).


On the other hand, only five (5) of the respondents prefer to remain silent in class;

the rest participate actively in class. There are eleven (11) respondents who felt out of

place in discussions; the rest feel they‟re keeping up with the classroom interactions.

Twenty-three (23) respondents stated that they did not involve in chatters during classes

while seven (7) respondents admitted they did.

The respondents of the jigsaw class generated an average weighted mean of 3.05

achieving a descriptive rating of “agree”; this means majority of the respondents agree

that the jigsaw learning technique has a significant effect in promoting positive class

participation. This strengthens Xiaoling and Mengduo‟s findings that jigsaw learning

technique reduces students‟ reluctance and anxiety to participate in classroom activities.

Also, the principles of jigsaw learning technique in terms of positive interdependence,

face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, interpersonal

skills and group processing as listed by Johnson and Holubec manifest in this finding.

Table 2.3 presents the respondents‟ perception of the jigsaw learning technique in

terms of its effect in sustaining their motivation.

All of the respondents are excited to come to the next day‟s class after the day‟s

lesson (3.77); also, all of them were looking forward to seeing improvement in their

performance (3.50). Only one (1) respondent did not enjoy the lessons from beginning to

end. Also, only one respondent did not find the lessons interesting and stimulating.

Moreover, only one respondent did not take down notes from what their teacher and

classmates said.

Only two (2) of the respondents did not give their best in performing activities.

Half of the jigsaw class talked about the lessons with their classmates after the class


Table 2.3 Students’ Perception of the Jigsaw Learning Technique in terms of

Sustained Motivation

SUSTAINED MOTIVATION 4

(SA)

3

(A)

2

(D)

1

(SD) MEAN DR

1. The lessons are interesting and

stimulating. 21 8 1 0 3.67 SA

2. I give my best in performing activities. 8 20 2 0 3.20 A

3. I take down notes from what my teacher

and classmates say. 16 13 1 0 3.50 SA

4. I talk about the lessons with my

classmates after the class period. 2 13 14 1 2.53 A

5. My focus is distracted from doing any

of the activities. 1 1 16 12 1.70 SD

6. I enjoy the lessons from beginning to

end. 25 4 1 0 3.80 SA

7. I take the lessons for granted. 1 1 1 27 1.20 SD

8. I look forward to seeing improvement

in my performance. 15 15 0 0 3.50 SA

9. I am excited to come to the next day‟s

class after the day‟s lesson. 23 7 0 0 3.77 SA

10. I manage to do things not related to the

lesson during the period. 8 2 11 9 2.30 D

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.38 SA

period while the other half did not. Only two (2) of the respondents took the lessons for

granted; also, only two (2) respondents had their focus distracted from doing any of the

activities. Ten (10) students managed to do things not related to the lesson during the

period.

The respondents of the jigsaw class generated an average weighted mean of 3.38

in their perception of the jigsaw learning technique in terms of sustaining their

motivation. This means that majority of the jigsaw class agreed that the jigsaw learning

technique is effective in maintaining their interest in literature lessons. This strengthens

the fact that the jigsaw learning technique is effective in sustaining students‟ interest

throughout the lesson as laid by the study of Gocer.


Chapter V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the study conducted. This also presents the

findings derived from the analysis and interpretation of the results. Moreover, this

imparts the conclusions framed and the recommendations formulated thereafter.

Summary

The teaching of literature invites various teaching methodologies. However, such

methods are limited to activity-based practices such as lecture and discussion here in the

Philippines. Since literature teachers generally lack efforts in motivating students to learn

literature and applying innovative strategies to ensure their learning, students are

becoming uninterested in learning literature resulting to the declining literary

appreciation and competence in the country.

This study attempted to determine the effectiveness of the jigsaw learning

technique in teaching Philippine narratives in English. Specifically, this study sought to

achieve the following objectives:

Specifically, this study sought to achieve the following objectives:

1. Determine the students‟ perception of the jigsaw strategy in terms of:

1.1 Understanding the lesson

1.2 Class Participation


1.3 Sustained motivation

2. Measure the significant difference between the mean difference of the literature

pretest and posttest scores of the students in the jigsaw and activity-based class?

3. Gauge the effectiveness of the jigsaw learning technique in teaching Philippine

Narratives in English better than the effect of activity-based methods.

The study employed the experimental research design that utilized authentic

assessment and quantitative analysis. Philippine narratives were used as content of a

literature test. A pretest was administered before intervention in each of the jigsaw and

activity-based classes. Then, a posttest and a survey-questionnaire was administered after

instruction. Using average weighted mean, test results were then compared and answers

to the questionnaire were analyzed and evaluated. The mean of the score differences of

the two groups were then subjected to t-test to further quantify the results.

Findings

Based on the discussions and interpretation of data, the researcher presented the

derived findings:

1.1 Jigsaw learning technique helps students understand the lesson attested by the AWM

of 2.98.

1.2 Jigsaw learning technique promotes active class participation as proven by the AWM

of 3.05.

1.3 Jigsaw learning technique sustains students‟ motivation in learning literature

supported by the AWM of 3.38.


2. Jigsaw learning technique increases literature learning as the t-test showed a computed

value of 4.7787 which is higher than the tabular value of 0.0000 at 0.05 level of

significance.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the researcher has come up with the following conclusions:

Jigsaw strategy helps students in understanding the lesson, participating in class

and sustaining their motivation aimed to learning literature.

Jigsaw strategy increases students‟ achievement in learning literature.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions, the researcher formulated the following

recommendations:

1. Validation procedures should include item analysis to ensure the reliability of the

pretest, posttest and survey-questionnaire utilized in the study.

2. Parallel studies using a larger population and longer time frame should be

conducted to further quantify and qualify the results of this study.

3. Similar studies focusing on a different collection of narratives in English such as

Afro-Asian and English-American narratives or on a different literary genre such

as poetry, essay and drama is suggested by the researcher to strengthen the proof

of the effectiveness of the jigsaw learning technique in teaching literature as laid

by this study.


4. Future researchers of this study must improve the sampling procedures employed

in this study as to guarantee ideal groupings of respondents.

5. Further studies focusing on the perception of students and teachers about the

jigsaw learning technique based on other parameters such as development of

student relationships and teacher-student rapports are also suggested by the

researcher.


REFERENCES

A. Books

Lantin, Armin Joy P. & Sangalang, Anne Kristine M. (2009). A Belief Scale on

Cooperative Learning. The Assessment Handbook, Vol. 2, p. 23. Ateneo

de Manila University.

Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1998).

Longman Group UK Limited.

Parkinson, B. & Reid T. (2000). Teaching Literature in a Second Language.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Probst, Robert E. (2004). Response and Analysis: Teaching Literature in

Secondary School. (Luedeke, Lisa & Peake, Leigh, Eds.) Reed Elsevier,

Inc. Portsmouth, NH

B. Periodicals

Ahmad, Fauziah & Aziz, Jamaluddin (2009). Students’ Perception of the

Teachers’ Teaching of Literature Communicating and Understanding

Through the Eyes of the Audience. European Journal of Social Sciences,

Vol. 7, No.3. pp. 17-25

Carpenter, Jason M. (2006). Effective Teaching Methods for Large Classes.

Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, Vol. 24, No.2.

University of South Carolina.

Cruz, Isagani (2009, July 2). English in high school. The Philippine Star, p. A5

Fernando, Lloyd (2000, July 4). New Straits Times.

Mengduo, Qiao & Xiaoling, Jin. (2010). Jigsaw Strategy as a Cooperative

Learning Technique: Focusing on the Language Learners. Chinese

Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 33, No. 4. Harbin Institute of

Technology.

C. Unpublished Studies

Embi, Mohammed Amin & Hwang Diana (2007). Approaches Employed by

Secondary School Teachers to Teaching the Literature Component in

English.


Holliday, D. C. (2002). Using cooperative learning to improve the academic

achievements of inner-city middle school students. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New

Orleans, LA.

Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T. & Stanne, Mary Beth (2000). Cooperative

Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. University of Minnesota.

Longo, Giuseppe (2007). Teaching Literature: How? Towards New Paradigms in

the Didactics of Literature. Pp. 193-204. University of Verona, Italy.

Pledger L. & Thompson M. (1998). Cooperative learning versus traditional

lecture format: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the meeting of the

National Communication Association, New York City.

D. Electronic Sources

Aronson, Elliot (2000). Jigsaw in 10 Easy Steps. Retrieved January 21, 2012 from

www.jigsaw.org

Aronson, Elliot (2005). The Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved January 21, 2012 from

www.jigsaw.org

Gocer, Ali (2010). A Comparative Research on the Effectivity of Cooperative

Learning Method and Jigsaw Technique on Teaching Literary Genres.

Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 5, pp. 439-445, August 2010.

Retrieved January 21, 2012 from www.academicjournals.org

LoMonico, Michael (2010). Why We Teach Literature (and How We Could Do It

Better). Retrieved January 21, 2012 from http: //www.mcte.org/journal

Rossiter, Marsha (2002). Narrative and Stories in Adult Teaching and Learning.

Educational Resources Information Center.

Stahl, Robert J. (1992). The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the

Classroom. Educational Resources Information Center.

E. Other Sources

Andrada, Lolita (2010). Understanding by Design: The Core of the 2010 SEC.

Retreived January 21, 2012 from www.deped.gov.ph

Teaching Literature Workshops (DepEd Advisory No. 339, s. 2011). Retrieved

January 21, 2012 from www.deped.gov.ph

http://www.jigsaw.org/

http://www.jigsaw.org/

http://www.academicjournals.org/

http://www.deped.gov.ph/

http://www.deped.gov.ph/


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A

Communications

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Lucban, Quezon

January 26, 2012

Mr. JESSIE A. BONILLO

OIC, MatandangSabang National High School

Catanauan, Quezon

S i r:

The undersigned is a junior Bachelor in Secondary Education of the Southern Luzon State

University-College of Teacher Education and is working on a research on “Jigsaw Learning

Technique in Teaching Philippine Narratives in English”. My study aims to facilitate

students‟ learning and appreciation of literature. In view of this, I would like to seek permission

to conduct the study in your institution.

Believing that you value the purpose of studies in developing strategies for improving students‟

performance, I am hoping that this humble request will merit your most favorable approval.

I promise to treat all communication with utmost concealment.

Thank you very much. God bless you.

Respectfully yours,

RAFAEL JOHN G. ACANTILADO

Student-Researcher

Noted:

Prof. JUANCHO M. BABISTA

Research Adviser

Recommending Approval:

TERESITA V. DE LA CRUZ, Ed.D.

Dean, College of Teacher Education



APPENDIX B

Lesson Exemplars For Jigsaw Class

Semi-Detailed Lesson Plan

Teaching of Philippine Narratives

Jigsaw Class

I. Objectives

At the end of the lesson, the students are expected to:

1. Recall prior knowledge about Jose Rizal.

2. Synthesize Jose Rizal‟s personality through anecdotes about him.

II. Subject Matter

Topic: The Real Rizal

References: “Rizal‟s Slippers”, “Hit By A Book”, “Kite Rescue”, “Escape

from Embarassment”, “Pepe the Artist”, “The Invisible Ink” (adapted from

Zaide‟s account of Jose Rizal‟s life)

Materials: KWLH worksheets, images of Rizal, copies of anecdotes

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “I KNOW HIM!”

Show the students images of Jose Rizal and ask them what they

already know about him.

B. Pre-Reading Activity

1. Have the students fill out the KWLH table below. Tell them to leave

the last two columns blank to be answered after the reading activity.

What we

Know

What we Want

to find out

What we

Learned

How can we

learn more

C. Reading Activity

1. Students form groups of six and assign an anecdote to read for each

member.

2. Students proceed to their respective expert groups and discuss their

common assignment.

3. Students go back to their jigsaw groups, relay their assignment to their

groupmates, and listen to others‟ assignments as well.


D. Post-Reading Activity

1. Ask the students to sum up the characteristics of Jose Rizal presented

by the anecdotes.

2. Have the students fill out the last two columns of the KWLH table.




Jigsaw Class

I. Objectives

At the end of the lesson, the students must be able to:

1. Retell the “Adventures of Juan”

2. Recall other famous tales about Juan Tamad

3. Trace and predict the flow of the story

II. Subject Matter

Topic: ”The Adventures of Juan”, a Tagalog folktale as retold by Mabel

Cook Cole

Materials: Semantic Web, copies of the folktale segmented into six parts

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “I Want It All!”

- Ask the students to list down five things they want for the comfort

of their lives.


1. “Do You Remember?”

Have the students recall other famous tales about Juan Tamad. Ask

them to draw an image on each circle which best represents the story

involving Juan Tamad.

Juan Tamad


C. Reading Activity

1. Divide the story into 6 segments and distribute to members of every

jigsaw group.

2. Students proceed to expert groups to discuss their segment with others

having the same assignment. After the discussion, they will mark the column

of the segment assigned to them and fill it out with the information discussed

in the expert group. Before they return to their respective jigsaw groups, have

them fill out the PREDICT row.

Story Segment

#1

#2 #3 #4 #5 #6

PREDICT:

What could

have

happened?

TRACE:

What really

happened?

3. Students return to their jigsaw groups and find out what we really

happened in the other parts of the story. Have them fill out the TRACE row.


1. Ask the students to summarize the folktale by synthesizing the six

segments into a brief narration and write it in a sheet of paper.

2. Let the students compare and contrast the folktale with other stories they

know about Juan Tamad using this Venn Diagram.

Adventures of

Juan Other Tales

About Juan




Jigsaw Class

I. Objectives


1. Distinguish characteristics of a rooster from a hen

2. Apply own solution to the story‟s conflict

3. Identify the basic elements of the short story

II. Subject Matter

Topic: My Brother‟s Peculiar Chicken by Alejandro Roces

Materials: ambiguous images, pencils, sketch sheets

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “What You See is NOT What You Get”

Flash the pictures of ambiguous images and ask the students what they

see.


1. Distribute tasks of distinguishing a hen from a rooster as follows:

a. Sketch of a hen

b. Sketch of a rooster

c. Hen‟s distinct features

d. Rooster‟s distinct features

e. Hen‟s purposes

f. Rooster‟s purposes

2. Jigsaw members proceed to expert groups to gather information

about their assignments.


3. Students return to their repsective jigsaw groups and complete the

table below.

HEN ROOSTER

Sketch

Distinct Features

Purposes

C. Oral Reading


1. Ask the students: “If you were faced with the same conflict of

being confused, what would you do?” Allow various answers, as much

as possible from every one of them.

2. Instruct the students to analyze the elements of the short story,

“My Brother‟s Peculiar Chicken” using the following graphic

organizer to state their answers.

Elements of Short

Story

Plot

Conflict

Characters Setting Theme Point of

View




Jigsaw Class

I. Objectives


1. Utilize concepts of foreshadowing and other literary devices in

understanding the story.

2. Determine the theme underlying the story.

3. Create a summary of the story.

II. Subject Matter

Topic: The Bread of Salt by NVM Gonzales

Materials: music player, theme songs of teleseryes “Mula Sa Puso,” “Pangako

Sa‟Yo”, “Maria del Barrio”, “Rosalinda” and “Marimar.”

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “Heart-to-Heart”

Ask the students to describe their crushes and how far they have gone

in admiring their crush.

B. Narration

C. Post-Reading Activity

1. Instruct students to identify the importance of the characters and

the plot to what the story wants to tell us by answering the questions

that follow.

2. Distribute the segments to the members of the jigsaw groups.



3. Then allow them to discuss their answers with their respective

expert groups before returning to their jigsaw groups for sharing their

answers.

4. Play theme songs of famous teleseryes like “Mula Sa Puso,”

“Pangako Sa‟Yo”, “Maria del Barrio”, “Rosalinda”, “Marimar.” Ask what

these stories have in common with the short story, “The Bread of Salt.”

5. Ask the students to summarize the story.


APPENDIX C

Lesson Exemplars For Activity-based Class



Activity-based Class

I. Objectives

At the end of the lesson, the students are expected to:

1. Synthesize Jose Rizal‟s personality through anecdotes about him.

2. Reflect own traits upon the anecdotes.

II. Subject Matter

Topic: The Real Rizal

References: “Rizal‟s Slippers”, “Hit By A Book”, “Kite Rescue”, “Escape

from Embarassment”, “Pepe the Artist”, “The Invisible Ink” (adapted from

Zaide‟s account of Jose Rizal‟s life)

Materials: KWLH worksheets, images of Rizal, copies of anecdotes

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “I KNOW HIM!”

Show the students images of Jose Rizal and ask them what they

already know about him.


Have the students fill out the KWLH table below. Tell them to leave the

last two columns blank to be answered after the discussion.

What we

Know

What we Want

to find out

What we

Learned

How can we

learn more

C. Reading


1. Ask the students to sum up the characteristics of Jose Rizal

presented by the anecdotes.

2. Have the students fill out the last two columns of the KWLH table.





I. Objectives


1. Retell the “Adventures of Juan”

2. Recall other famous tales about Juan Tamad

3. Trace and predict the flow of the story

II. Subject Matter

Topic: ”The Adventures of Juan”, a Tagalog folktale as retold by Mabel Cook

Cole

Materials: Semantic Web, copies of the folktale segmented into six parts

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “I Want It All!”

- Ask the students to list down five things they want for the comfort

of their lives.


1. “Do You Remember?”

Have the students recall other famous tales about Juan Tamad. Ask

them to draw an image on each circle which best represents the story

involving Juan Tamad.

Juan Tamad


C. Reading Activity

1. Divide the story into 6 segments.

2. Tell the story to the students. Pause in between segments and have them

fill out the PREDICT row before proceeding to the next segment when they

can be able to fill out the TRACE row.

Story Segment

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

PREDICT:

What could

have

happened? -

TRACE:

What really

happened?


1. Ask the students to summarize the folktale by synthesizing the six

segments into a brief narration and write it in a sheet of paper.

2. Let the students compare and contrast the folktale with other stories they

know about Juan Tamad using this Venn Diagram.

Adventures of

Juan Other Tales

About Juan





I. Objectives


1. Distinguish characteristics of a rooster from a hen

2. Apply own solution to the story‟s conflict

3. Identify the basic elements of the short story

II. Subject Matter

Topic: My Brother‟s Peculiar Chicken by Alejandro Roces

Materials: ambiguous images, pencils, sketch sheets

III. Procedure

A. Motivation

1. “What You See is NOT What You Get”

Flash the pictures of ambiguous images and ask the students what they

see.



1. Instruct the students to distinguish a rooster from a hen in terms of

the following table:

HEN ROOSTER

Sketch

Distinct Features

Purposes

C. Oral Reading


1. If you were faced with the same conflict of being confused, what

would you do?

2. Analyze the elements of the short story, “My Brother‟s Peculiar

Chicken.” Use the following graphic organizer to state your answers.

Elements of Short

Story

Plot

Conflict

Characters Setting Theme Point of

View





I. Objectives


1. Identify foreshadowing and other literary devices in the story.

2. Determine the theme underlying the story.

3. Create a summary of the story.

II. Subject Matter

Topic: The Bread of Salt by NVM Gonzales

Materials: music player, theme songs of teleseryes “Mula Sa Puso,” “Pangako

Sa‟Yo”, “Maria del Barrio”, “Rosalinda” and “Marimar.”

III. Procedure

D. Motivation

1. “Heart-to-Heart

Ask the students to describe their crushes and how far they have gone

in admiring their crush.

E. Narration

F. Post-Reading Activity

1. Discussion

o The Admirer o Who is the “Admirer” in the story? o What is your first impression of him? o What does he do daily? o What is the result of this routine? o What did he assume as an admirer,

inferring from the two last statements of

the story‟s fourth paragraph?

Aida

Describe Aida.

What is her role in the life of the narrator?

What does her action in the story‟s high

point tell about her?


The Pan De Sal and the Egg Yolk things

How many times does the word pan de sal

(Bread of Salt) appear in the story?

In what meal is it included in the Filipino

lifestyle?

Name foods having egg yolks as their

primary ingredient.

In general, who considers pan de sal as a

staple food in their meals? In what social

status do they belong to?

On the other hand, who considers “egg yolk

things” as a staple food in their lifestyle? In

what social status do they belong to?

What do these imply about the conflict in

the story?

o

The Musician

What instrument does the admirer play?

With whom was he being compared in

terms of his skill in playing his instrument?

What is its significance to him?

What where his achievements since he

learned his chosen instrument?

With whom did he come that led him to an

opportunity to meet Aida?

Why did he strive to study playing the

instrument?

o

The Party

Where was the party held?

What brought him to the party?

Who are the people at the party?

What is his role in the party? Is he aware of

his role?

Is Aida in the party? If she is, what is her

role in the party?

o

The Conflict

What made the boy-narrator embarrassed in

front of Aida?

What choices are left for him to take?

What did he do with the „egg yolk things‟?

Why did he do this?

Did the boy-narrator realize something at

this point? What is it?


2. Play theme songs of famous teleseryes like “Mula Sa Puso,”

“Pangako Sa‟Yo”, “Maria del Barrio”, “Rosalinda”, “Marimar.” Ask

what these stories have in common with the short story, “The Bread of

Salt.”

3. Ask the students to summarize the story.


APPENDIX D

Rizal’s Slippers

When he was a young boy, he rode a canoe with his father down the Pasig River.

Once there, one of his slippers fell from his feet and on to the river. He could not reach it,

so what little Pepe did was he threw the other slipper into the river, too. Asked why he

threw his other slipper, he replied that if someone saw one slipper, then it would be

useless. But if he threw the other slipper, some person might see the other half and can

still use it.

Hit By a Book

One day, many Ateneans, including Rizal, were studying their lessons at the study

hall. Two Ateneans, Manzano and Lesaca, quarrelled and violently hurled books at each

other. Rizal, who was busy at his desk poring over his lessons, was hit in the face by one

of the thrown books. He did not raise a cry or protest, although his wounded face was

bleeding. After the incident, he continued to attend his classes, feeling neither bitterness

nor rancor towards the guilty party.

Kite Rescue

One Thursday afternoon, being vacation day, the boys flew their kites from the

azotea. Young Rizal then was busy reading a Spanish book of fables at the window. After

a while he heard Julio Meliza from Iloilo, one of the smallest boarders, crying because

his kite was caught by the vines growing on the belfry of the Manila Cathedral which was

near the boarding house-house. The bigger boys werel aughing, making fun of Julio‟s

misfortune. Rizal closed the book he was reading and told Julio not to cry, for he would


try to retrieve the kite. True to his promise he courageously climbed the high cathedral

tower and successfully recovered the kite.

Escape from Embarassment

During his first day in Tokyo, Rizal was embarrassed because he did not know the

Japanese language. He looked like Japanese, but could not talk Japanese. He had hard

time shopping, for he could not understand and the Japanese children laughed at him. To

avoid further embarrassment, he studied Japanese language. Being an enthusiast, he also

studied the Japanese drama (kabuki), arts, music, and judo.

Pepe the Artist

At the age of five, he revealed his talents in sketching and sculpturing. When he

was six years old, an argument between his sister rise when they laugh at him, Jose kept

himself in silence but as they leave, he told them “All right laugh at me now, Someday

when I die, people will make monuments and images of me”.

The Invisible Ink

In his life, he came to admire Leonor Valenzuela, a tall girl from Pagsanjan. Rizal

send her love notes written in invisible ink, that could only be deciphered over the

warmth of the lamp or candle. He visited her on the eve of his departure to Spain and

bade her a last goodbye.


The Adventures of Juan Tagalog Folktale

Juan was always getting into trouble. He was a lazy boy, and more than that, he

did not have good sense. When he tried to do things, he made such dreadful mistakes that

he might better not have tried.

His family grew very impatient with him, scolding and beating him whenever he

did anything wrong. One day his mother, who was almost discouraged with him, gave

him a bolo and sent him to the forest, for she thought he could at least cut firewood. Juan

walked leisurely along, contemplating some means of escape. At last he came to a tree

that seemed easy to cut, and then he drew his long knife and prepared to work.

Now it happened that this was a magic tree and it said to Juan:

"If you do not cut me I will give you a goat that shakes silver from its whiskers."

This pleased Juan wonderfully, both because he was curious to see the goat, and

because he would not have to chop the wood. He agreed at once to spare the tree,

whereupon the bark separated and a goat stepped out. Juan commanded it to shake its

whiskers, and when the money began to drop he was so delighted that he took the animal

and started home to show his treasure to his mother.

On the way he met a friend who was more cunning than Juan, and when he heard

of the boy's rich goat he decided to rob him. Knowing Juan's fondness for tuba he

persuaded him to drink, and while he was drunk, the friend substituted another goat for

the magic one. As soon as he was sober again, Juan hastened home with the goat and told

his people of the wonderful tree, but when he commanded the animal to shake its

whiskers, no money fell out. The family, believing it to be another of Juan's tricks, beat

and scolded the poor boy.

Juan went back to the tree and threatened to cut it down for lying to him,but the

tree said :

"No, do not cut me down and I will give you a not which you may cast on dry

ground, or even in the tree tops, and it will return full of fish."

So Juan spared the tree and started home with his precious net, but on the way he

met the same friend who again persuaded him to drink tuba. While he was drunk, the

friend replaced the magic net with a common one, so that when Juan reached home and

tried to show his power, he was again the subject of ridicule.

Once more Juan went to his tree, this time determined to cut it down. But the offer

of a magic pot, always full of rice and spoons which provided wbatever he wished to eat

with his rice, dissuaded him, and he started home happier than ever. Before reaching

home, however, he met with the same fate as before, and his folks, who were becoming

tired of his pranks, beat him harder than ever.

Thoroughly angered, Juan sought the tree a fourth time and was on the point of

cutting it down when once more it arrested his attention. After some discussion, he

consented to accept a stick to which he had only to say, "Boombye, Boomba," and it

would beat and kill anything he wished.

When he met his friend on this trip, he was asked what he had and he replied:

"Oh, it is only a stick, but if I say 'Boombye, Boomba' it will beat you to death."

At the sound of the magic words the stick leaped from his hands and began

beating his friend until he cried:


"Oh, stop it and I will give back everything that I stole from you." Juan ordered

the stick to stop, and then he compelled the man to lead the goat and to carry the net and

the jar and spoons to his home.

There Juan commanded the goat, and it shook its whiskers until his mother and

brothers had all the silver they could carry. Then they ate from the magic jar and spoons

until they were filled. And this time Juan was not scolded. After they had finished Juan

said:

"You have beaten me and scolded me all my life, and now you are glad to accept

my good things. I am going to show you something else: "Boombye, Boomba'."

Immediately the stick leaped out and beat them all until they begged for mercy and

promised that Juan should ever after be head of the house.

From that time Juan was rich and powerful, but he never went anywhere without

his stick. One night, when some thieves came to his house, he would have been robbed

and killed had it not been for the magic words "Boombye, Boomba," which caused the

death of all the robbers.

Some time after this he married a beautiful princess, and because of the kindness

of the magic tree they always lived happily.


My Brother’s Peculiar Chicken Alejandro Roces

My brother Kiko once had a very peculiar chicken. It was peculiar because no one

could tell whether it was a rooster or a hen. My brother claimed it was a rooster. I claimed

it was a hen. We almost got whipped because we argued too much.

The whole question began early one morning. Kiko and I were driving the chickens from

the cornfield. The corn had just been planted, and the chickens were scratching the seeds

out for food. Suddenly we heard the rapid flapping of wings. We turned in the direction

of the sound and saw two chickens fighting in the far end of the field. We could not see

the birds clearly as they were lunging at each other in a whirlwind of feathers and dust.

“Look at that rooster fight!” my brother said, pointing exactly at one of the chickens.

“Why, if I had a rooster like that, I could get rich in the cockpits.”

“Let‟s go and catch it,” I suggested.

“No, you stay here. I will go and catch it,” Kiko said.

My brother slowly approached the battling chickens. They were so busy fighting that they

did not notice him. When he got near them, he dived and caught one of them by the leg. It

struggled and squawked. Kiko finally held it by both wings and it became still. I ran over

where he was and took a good look at the chicken.

“Why, it is a hen,” I said.

“What is the matter with you?” my brother asked. “Is the heat making you sick?”

“No. Look at its face. It has no comb or wattles.”

“No comb and wattles! Who cares about its comb or wattles? Didn‟t you see it in fight?”

“Sure, I saw it in fight. But I still say it is a hen.”

“Ahem! Did you ever see a hen with spurs on its legs like these? Or a hen with a tail like

this?”

“I don‟t care about its spurs or tail. I tell you it is a hen. Why, look at it.”

The argument went on in the fields the whole morning. At noon we went to eat lunch. We

argued about it on the way home. When we arrived at our house Kiko tied the chicken to

a peg. The chicken flapped its wings and then crowed.

“There! Did you hear that?” my brother exclaimed triumphantly. “I suppose you are

going to tell me now that hens crow and that carabaos fly.”


“I don‟t care if it crows or not,” I said. “That chicken is a hen.”

We went into the house, and the discussion continued during lunch.

“It is not a hen,” Kiko said. “It is a rooster.”

“It is a hen,” I said.

“It is not.”

“It is.”

“Now, now,” Mother interrupted, “how many times must Father tell you, boys, not to

argue during lunch? What is the argument about this time?”

We told Mother, and she went out look at the chicken.

“That chicken,” she said, “is a binabae. It is a rooster that looks like a hen.”

That should have ended the argument. But Father also went out to see the chicken, and he

said, “Have you been drinking again?” Mother asked.

“No,” Father answered.

“Then what makes you say that that is a hen? Have you ever seen a hen with feathers like

that?”

“Listen. I have handled fighting cocks since I was a boy, and you cannot tell me that that

thing is a rooster.”

Before Kiko and I realized what had happened, Father and Mother were arguing about the

chicken by themselves. Soon Mother was crying. She always cried when she argued with

Father.

“You know very well that that is a rooster,” she said. “You are just being mean and

stubborn.”

“I am sorry,” Father said. “But I know a hen when I see one.”

“I know who can settle this question,” my brother said.

“Who?” I asked.

“The teniente del Barrio, chief of the village.”


The chief was the oldest man in the village. That did not mean that he was the wisest, but

anything always carried more weight if it is said by a man with gray hair. So my brother

untied the chicken and we took it to the chief.

“Is this a male or a female chicken?” Kiko asked.

“That is a question that should concern only another chicken,” the chief replied.

“My brother and I happen to have a special interest in this particular chicken. Please give

us an answer. Just say yes or no. Is this a rooster?”

“It does not look like any rooster I have ever seen,” the chief said.

“Is it a hen, then?” I asked.

“It does not look like any hen I have ever seen. No, that could not be a chicken. I have

never seen like that. It must be a bird of some other kind.”

“Oh, what‟s the use!” Kiko said, and we walked away.

“Well, what shall we do now?” I said.

“I know that,” my brother said. “Let‟s go to town and see Mr. Cruz. He would know.”

Mr. Eduardo Cruz lived in a nearby town of Katubusan. He had studied poultry raising in

the University of the Philippines. He owned and operated the largest poultry business in

town. We took the chicken to his office.

“Mr. Cruz,” Kiko said, “is this a hen or a rooster?”

Mr. Cruz looked at the bird curiously and then said:

“Hmmm. I don‟t know. I couldn‟t tell in one look. I have never run across a chicken like

this before.”

“Well, is there any way you can tell?”

“Why, sure. Look at the feathers on its back. If the feathers are round, then it‟s a hen. If

they are pointed, it‟s a rooster.”

The three of us examined the feathers closely. It had both.

“Hmmm. Very peculiar,” said Mr. Cruz.

“Is there any other way you can tell?”


“I could kill it and examined its insides.”

“No. I do not want it killed,” my brother said.

I took the rooster in my arms and we walked back to the barrio.

Kiko was silent most of the way. Then he said:

“I know how I can prove to you that this is a rooster.”

“How?” I asked.

“Would you agree that this is a rooster if I make it fight in the cockpit and it wins?”

“If this hen of yours can beat a gamecock, I will believe anything,” I said.

“All right,” he said. “We‟ll take it to the cockpit this Sunday.”

So that Sunday we took the chicken to the cockpit. Kiko looked around for a suitable

opponent. He finally picked a red rooster.

“Don‟t match your hen against that red rooster.” I told him. “That red rooster is not a

native chicken. It is from Texas.”

“I don‟t care where it came from,” my brother said. “My rooster will kill it.”

“Don‟t be a fool,” I said. “That red rooster is a killer. It has killed more chickens than the

fox. There is no rooster in this town that can stand against it. Pick a lesser rooster.”

My brother would not listen. The match was made and the birds were readied for the

killing. Sharp steel gaffs were tied to their left legs. Everyone wanted to bet on the red

gamecock.

The fight was brief. Both birds were released in the centre of the arena. They circled

around once and then faced each other. I expected our chicken to die of fright. Instead, a

strange thing happened. A lovesick expression came into the red rooster‟s eyes. Then it

did a love dance. That was all our chicken needed. It rushed at the red rooster with its

neck feathers flaring. In one lunge, it buried its spurs into its opponent‟s chest. The fight

was over.

“Tiope! Tiope! Fixed fight!” the crowd shouted.

Then a riot broke out. People tore bamboo benches apart and used them as clubs. My

brother and I had to leave through the back way. I had the chicken under my arm. We ran

toward the coconut groves and kept running till we lost the mob. As soon as we were

safe, my brother said:


“Do you believe it is a rooster now?”

“Yes,” I answered.

I was glad the whole argument was over.

Just then the chicken began to quiver. It stood up in my arms and cackled with laughter.

Something warm and round dropped into my hand. It was an egg.


The Bread of Salt

by NVM Gonzalez (1958)

Usually I was in bed by ten and up by five and thus was ready for one more day

of my fourteenth year. Unless Grandmother had forgotten, the fifteen centavos for the

baker down Progreso Street - and how I enjoyed jingling those coins in my pocket!-

would be in the empty fruit jar in the cupboard. I would remember then that rolls were

what Grandmother wanted because recently she had lost three molars. For young people

like my cousins and myself, she had always said that the kind called pan de sal ought to

be quite all right.

The bread of salt! How did it get that name? From where did its flavor come,

through what secret action of flour and yeast? At the risk of being jostled from the

counter by early buyers, I would push my way into the shop so that I might watch the

men who, stripped to the waist, worked their long flat wooden spades in and out of the

glowing maw of the oven. Why did the bread come nut-brown and the size of my little

fist? And why did it have a pair of lips convulsed into a painful frown? In the half light of

the street, and hurrying, the paper bag pressed to my chest, I felt my curiosity a little

gratified by the oven-fresh warmth of the bread I was proudly bringing home for

breakfast.

Well I knew how Grandmother would not mind if I nibbled away at one piece;

perhaps, I might even eat two, to be charged later against my share at the table. But that

would be betraying a trust; and so, indeed, I kept my purchase intact. To guard it from

harm, I watched my steps and avoided the dark street corners. For my reward, I had only

to look in the direction of the sea wall and the fifty yards or so of riverbed beyond it,

where an old Spaniard's house stood. At low tide, when the bed was dry and the rocks

glinted with broken bottles, the stone fence of the Spaniard's compound set off the house

as if it were a castle. Sunrise brought a wash of silver upon the roofs of the laundry and

garden sheds which had been built low and close to the fence. On dull mornings the light

dripped from the bamboo screen which covered the veranda and hung some four or five

yards from the ground. Unless it was August, when the damp, northeast monsoon had to

be kept away from the rooms, three servants raised the screen promptly at six-thirty until

it was completely hidden under the veranda eaves. From the sound of the pulleys, I knew

it was time to set out for school.

It was in his service, as a coconut plantation overseer, that Grandfather had spent

the last thirty years of his life. Grandmother had been widowed three years now. I often

wondered whether I was being depended upon to spend the years ahead in the service of

this great house. One day I learned that Aida, a classmate in high school, was the old

Spaniard's niece. All my doubts disappeared. It was as if, before his death, Grandfather

had spoken to me about her, concealing the seriousness of the matter by putting it over as

a joke. If now I kept true to the virtues, she would step out of her bedroom ostensibly to

say Good Morning to her uncle. Her real purpose, I knew, was to reveal thus her assent to

my desire.


On quiet mornings I imagined the patter of her shoes upon the wooden veranda

floor as a further sign, and I would hurry off to school, taking the route she had fixed for

me past the post office, the town plaza and the church, the health center east of the plaza,

and at last the school grounds. I asked myself whether I would try to walk with her and

decided it would be the height of rudeness. Enough that in her blue skirt and white middy

she would be half a block ahead and, from that distance, perhaps throw a glance in my

direction, to bestow upon my heart a deserved and abundant blessing. I believed it was

but right that, in some such way as this, her mission in my life was disguised.

Her name, I was to learn many years later, was a convenient mnemonic for the

qualities to which argument might aspire. But in those days it was a living voice. "Oh that

you might be worthy of uttering me," it said. And how I endeavored to build my body so

that I might live long to honor her. With every victory at singles at the handball court the

game was then the craze at school -- I could feel my body glow in the sun as though it

had instantly been cast in bronze. I guarded my mind and did not let my wits go astray. In

class I would not allow a lesson to pass unmastered. Our English teacher could put no

question before us that did not have a ready answer in my head. One day he read Robert

Louis Stevenson's The Sire de Maletroit's Door, and we were so enthralled that our

breaths trembled. I knew then that somewhere, sometime in the not too improbable

future, a benign old man with a lantern in his hand would also detain me in a secret room,

and there daybreak would find me thrilled by the sudden certainty that I had won Aida's

hand.

It was perhaps on my violin that her name wrought such a tender spell. Maestro

Antonino remarked the dexterity of my stubby fingers. Quickly I raced through Alard-

until I had all but committed two thirds of the book to memory. My short, brown arm

learned at last to draw the bow with grace. Sometimes, when practising my scales in the

early evening, I wondered if the sea wind carrying the straggling notes across the pebbled

river did not transform them into Schubert's "Serenade."

At last Mr. Custodio, who was in charge of our school orchestra, became aware of

my progress. He moved me from second to first violin. During the Thanksgiving Day

program he bade me render a number, complete with pizzicato and harmonics.

"Another Vallejo! Our own Albert Spalding!" I heard from the front row. Aida, I

thought, would be in the audience. I looked around quickly but could not see her. As I

retired to my place in the orchestra I heard Pete Saez, the trombone player, call my name.

"You must join my band," he said. "Look, we'll have many engagements soon. It'll

be vacation time."

Pete pressed my arm. He had for some time now been asking me to join the

Minviluz Orchestra, his private band. All I had been able to tell him was that I had my

schoolwork to mind. He was twenty-two. I was perhaps too young to be going around

with him. He earned his school fees and supported his mother hiring out his band at least

three or four times a month. He now said: "Tomorrow we play at the funeral of a


Chinese-four to six in the afternoon; in the evening, judge Roldan's silver wedding

anniversary; Sunday, the municipal dance."

My head began to whirl. On the stage, in front of us, the principal had begun a

speech about America. Nothing he could say about the Pilgrim Fathers and the American

custom of feasting on turkey seemed interesting. I thought of the money I would earn.

For several days now I had but one wish, to buy a box of linen stationery. At night when

the house was quiet I would fill the sheets with words that would tell Aida how much I

adored her. One of these mornings, perhaps before school closed for the holidays, I

would borrow her algebra book and there, upon a good pageful of equations, there I

would slip my message, tenderly pressing the leaves of the book. She would perhaps

never write back. Neither by post nor by hand would a reply reach me. But no matter; it

would be a silence full of voices.

That night I dreamed I had returned from a tour of the world's music centers; the

newspapers of Manila had been generous with praise. I saw my picture on the cover of a

magazine. A writer had described how, many years ago, I used to trudge the streets of

Buenavista with my violin in a battered black cardboard case. In New York, he reported,

a millionaire had offered me a Stradivarius violin, with a card that bore the inscription:

"In admiration of a genius your own people must surely be proud of." I dreamed I spent a

weekend at the millionaire's country house by the Hudson. A young girl in a blue skirt

and white middy clapped her lily-white hands and, her voice trembling, cried "Bravo!"

What people now observed at home was the diligence with which I attended to my violin

lessons. My aunt, who had come from the farm to join her children for the holidays,

brought with her a maidservant, and to the poor girl was given the chore of taking the

money to the baker's for rolls and pan de sal. I realized at once that it would be no longer

becoming on my part to make these morning trips to the baker's. I could not thank my

aunt enough. I began to chafe on being given other errands. Suspecting my violin to be

the excuse, my aunt remarked:

"What do you want to be a musician for? At parties, musicians always eat last."

Perhaps, I said to myself, she was thinking of a pack of dogs scrambling for scraps tossed

over the fence by some careless kitchen maid. She was the sort you could depend on to

say such vulgar things. For that reason, I thought, she ought not to be taken seriously at

all.

But the remark hurt me. Although Grandmother had counseled me kindly to mind

my work at school, I went again and again to Pete Saez's house for rehearsals. She had

demanded that I deposit with her my earnings; I had felt too weak to refuse. Secretly, I

counted the money and decided not to ask for it until I had enough with which to buy a

brooch. Why this time I wanted to give Aida a brooch, I didn't know. But I had set my

heart on it. I searched the downtown shops. The Chinese clerks, seeing me so young,

were annoyed when I inquired about prices. At last the Christmas season began. I had not

counted on Aida's leaving home, and remembering that her parents lived in Badajoz, my

torment was almost unbearable. Not once had I tried to tell her of my love. My letters had

remained unwritten, and the algebra book unborrowed. There was still the brooch to find,


but I could not decide on the sort of brooch I really wanted. And the money, in any case,

was in Grandmother's purse, which smelled of "Tiger Balm." I grew somewhat feverish

as our class Christmas program drew near. Finally it came; it was a warm December

afternoon. I decided to leave the room when our English teacher announced that members

of the class might exchange gifts. I felt fortunate; Pete was at the door, beckoning to me.

We walked out to the porch where, Pete said, he would tell me a secret.

It was about an asalto the next Sunday which the Buenavista Women's Club

wished to give Don Esteban's daughters, Josefina and Alicia, who were arriving on the

morning steamer from Manila. The spinsters were much loved by the ladies. Years ago,

when they were younger, these ladies studied solfeggio with Josefina and the piano and

harp with Alicia. As Pete told me all this, his lips ash-gray from practising all morning on

his trombone, I saw in my mind the sisters in their silk dresses, shuffling off to church for

theevening benediction. They were very devout, and the Buenavista ladies admired that. I

had almost forgotten that they were twins and, despite their age, often dressed alike. In

low-bosomed voile bodices and white summer hats, I remembered, the pair had attended

Grandfather's funeral, at old Don Esteban's behest. I wondered how successful they had

been in Manila during the past three years in the matter of finding suitable husbands.

"This party will be a complete surprise," Pete said, looking around the porch as if

to swear me to secrecy. "They've hired our band." I joined my classmates in the room,

greeting everyone with a Merry Christmas jollier than that of the others. When I saw

Aida in one corner unwrapping something two girls had given her, I found the boldness

to greet her also. "Merry Christmas," I said in English, as a hairbrush and a powder case

emerged from the fancy wrapping. It seemed to me rather apt that such gifts went to her.

Already several girls were gathered around Aida. Their eyes glowed with envy, it seemed

to me, for those fair cheeks and the bobbed dark-brown hair which lineage had denied

them.

I was too dumbstruck by my own meanness to hear exactly what Aida said in

answer to my greeting. But I recovered shortly and asked: "Will you be away during the

vacation?" "No, I'll be staying here," she said. When she added that her cousins were

arriving and that a big party in their honor was being planned, I remarked: "So you know

all about it?" I felt I had to explain that the party was meant to be a surprise, an asalto.

And now it would be nothing of the kind, really. The women's club matrons

would hustle about, disguising their scurrying around for cakes and candies as for some

baptismal party or other. In the end, the Rivas sisters would outdo them. Boxes of

meringues, bonbons, ladyfingers, and cinnamon buns that only the Swiss bakers in

Manila could make were perhaps coming on the boat with them. I imagined a table

glimmering with long-stemmed punch glasses; enthroned in that array would be a huge

brick-red bowl of gleaming china with golden flowers around the brim. The local

matrons, however hard they tried, however sincere their efforts, were bound to fail in

their aspiration to rise to the level of Don Esteban's daughters. Perhaps, I thought, Aida

knew all this. And that I should share in a foreknowledge of the matrons' hopes was a

matter beyond love. Aida and I could laugh together with the gods.


At seven, on the appointed evening, our small band gathered quietly at the gate of

Don Esteban's house, and when the ladies arrived in their heavy shawls and trim panuelo,

twittering with excitement, we were commanded to play the Poet and Peasant overture.

As Pete directed the band, his eyes glowed with pride for his having been part of the big

event. The multicolored lights that the old Spaniard's gardeners had strung along the

vine-covered fence were switched on, and the women remarked that Don Esteban's

daughters might have made some preparations after all. Pete hid his face from the glare.

If the women felt let down, they did not show it.

The overture shuffled along to its climax while five men in white shirts bore huge

boxes of goods into the house. I recognized one of the bakers in spite of the uniform. A

chorus of confused greetings, and the women trooped into the house; and before we had

settled in the sala to play "A Basket of Roses," the heavy damask curtains at the far end

of the room were drawn and a long table richly spread was revealed under the

chandeliers. I remembered that, in our haste to be on hand for the asalto, Pete and I had

discouraged the members of the band from taking their suppers.

"You've done us a great honor!" Josefina, the more buxom of the twins, greeted

the ladies.

"Oh, but you have not allowed us to take you by surprise!" the ladies demurred in

a chorus.

There were sighs and further protestations amid a rustle of skirts and the glitter of

earrings. I saw Aida in a long, flowing white gown and wearing an arch of sampaguita

flowers on her hair. At her command, two servants brought out a gleaming harp from the

music room. Only the slightest scraping could be heard because the servants were

barefoot. As Aida directed them to place the instrument near the seats we occupied, my

heart leaped to my throat. Soon she was lost among the guests, and we played "The

Dance of the Glowworms." I kept my eyes closed and held for as long as I could her

radiant figure before me. Alicia played on the harp and then, in answer to the deafening

applause, she offered an encore. Josefina sang afterward. Her voice, though a little husky,

fetched enormous sighs. For her encore, she gave "The Last Rose of Summer";

and the song brought back snatches of the years gone by. Memories of solfeggio lessons

eddied about us, as if there were rustling leaves scattered all over the hall. Don Esteban

appeared. Earlier, he had greeted the crowd handsomely, twisting his mustache to hide a

natural shyness before talkative women. He stayed long enough to listen to the harp

again, whispering in his rapture: "Heavenly. Heavenly . . ."

By midnight, the merrymaking lagged. We played while the party gathered

around the great table at the end of the sala. My mind traveled across the seas to the

distant cities I had dreamed about. The sisters sailed among the ladies like two great

white liners amid a fleet of tugboats in a bay. Someone had thoughtfully remembered-and

at last Pete Saez signaled to us to put our instruments away. We walked in single file

across the hall, led by one of the barefoot servants.


Behind us a couple of hoarse sopranos sang "La Paloma" to the accompaniment

of the harp, but I did not care to find out who they were. The sight of so much silver and

china confused me. There was more food before us than I had ever imagined. I searched

in my mind for the names of the dishes; but my ignorance appalled me. I wondered what

had happened to the boxes of food that the Buenavista ladies had sent up earlier. In a

silver bowl was something, I discovered, that appeared like whole egg yolks that had

been dipped in honey and peppermint. The seven of us in the orchestra were all of one

mind about the feast; and so, confident that I was with friends, I allowed my

covetousness to have its sway and not only stuffed my mouth with this and that

confection but also wrapped up a quantity of those egg-yolk things in several sheets of

napkin paper. None of my companions had thought of doing the same, and it was with

some pride that I slipped the packet under my shirt. There, I knew, it would not bulge.

"Have you eaten?"

I turned around. It was Aida. My bow tie seemed to tighten around my collar. I

mumbled something, I did not know what.

"If you wait a little while till they've gone, I'll wrap up a big package for you," she added.

I brought a handkerchief to my mouth. I might have honored her solicitude

adequately and even relieved myself of any embarrassment; I could not quite believe that

she had seen me, and yet I was sure that she knew what I had done, and I felt all ardor for

her gone from me entirely.

I walked away to the nearest door, praying that the damask curtains might hide

me in my shame. The door gave on to the veranda, where once my love had trod on

sunbeams. Outside it was dark, and a faint wind was singing in the harbor. With the

napkin balled up in my hand, I flung out my arm to scatter the egg-yolk things in the

dark. I waited for the soft sound of their fall on the garden-shed roof. Instead, I heard a

spatter in the rising night-tide beyond the stone fence. Farther away glimmered the light

from Grandmother's window, calling me home. But the party broke up at one or

thereabouts. We walked away with our instruments after the matrons were done with

their interminable good-byes. Then, to the tune of "Joy to the World," we pulled the

Progreso Street shopkeepers out of their beds. The Chinese merchants were especially

generous. When Pete divided our collection under a street lamp, there was already a little

glow of daybreak.

He walked with me part of the way home. We stopped at the baker's when I told

him that I wanted to buy with my own money some bread to eat on the way to

Grandmother's house at the edge of the sea wall. He laughed, thinking it strange that I

should be hungry. We found ourselves alone at the counter; and we watched the bakery

assistants at work until our bodies grew warm from the oven across the door. It was not

quite five, and the bread was not yet ready.


APPENDIX E

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS

TOPICS No. of

Hours

COGNITIVE LEVELS TOTAL K

(30%)

C

(30%)

A

(20%)

S

(10%)

E

(10%)

Lapu-Lapu 1 3 3 2 1 1 10

The Real Rizal 1 3 3 2 1 1 10

Adventures of Juan 1 3 3 2 1 1 10

My Brother‟s Peculiar

Chicken 1 3 3 2 1 1 10

Bread of Salt 1 3 3 2 1 1 10

15 15 10 5 5 50

K = Knowledge

C = Comprehension

A = Anlaysis

S = Synthesis

E = Evaluation


APPENDIX F

TEST ON PHILIPPINE NARRATIVES IN ENGLISH

Directions: Write the letter of your best answer on the answer sheet provided. Do not write anything on

this questionnaire sheet.

Lapu-Lapu

1. What did Magellan order the neighboring villages‟ chiefs to do as a symbol of honouring

Humabon?

a. Bow down before Humabon b. Kiss Humabon‟s feet

c. Kiss Humabon‟s hand d. Kneel before Humabon

2. What did Magellan boast of when he met Humabon and his court in the shores of Cebu?

a. Armors b. Religion c. Ships d. Spain

3. Aside from Humabon, to whom did Magellan ask the chiefs to pay tribute?

a. Governor of Spain b. King of Spain

c. Queen of Spain d. Prince of Spain

4. Why did Humabon accept the Spanish domination?

a. He was afraid of them. b. He was bribed by them.

c. He was impressed by them. d. He was threatened by them.

5. Why did Magellan burn Mactan‟s villages?

a. Humabon prompted him to burn them.

b. Lapu-Lapu challenged him to burn them.

c. Lapu-Lapu defied his orders.

d. Lapu-Lapu was an enemy of his companion Humabon.

6. What lead Lapu-Lapu‟s men to victory over the Spaniards?

a. The Spaniards‟ weakness b. Their fighting stamina

c. Their powerful weapons d. Their warfare tactics

7. How did Lapu-Lapu feel when he said, “And who is this Spanish king that he should command

Lapu-Lapu and demand tribute?”

a. Angry b. Defiant c. Hesitant d. Insulted

8. Why did Lapu-Lapu fought the Spaniards?

a. He didn‟t want his people to be under foreign rule.

b. He still wanted to be the leader of Mactan.

c. He wanted to show his bravery to the Spaniards.


d. The Spaniards were allies of his enemy Humabon.

9. What parts of the Spaniards body were unprotected by their armor?

I. Arms II. Head III. Legs

a. I and II b. II and III c. I and III d. II only

10.Who among the warriors used spears and kampilans?

I. Humabon and his men II. Lapu-Lapu and his men III. The Spaniards

a. I only b. II only c. I and II d. II and III

Adventures of Juan

11. Why was Juan always getting into trouble?

I. He is aggressive. II. He is lazy. III. He is senseless.

a. I and II b. II and III c. I and III d. II only

12. What did his mother give him to gather firewood?

a. Bolo b. Dagger c. Machete d. Yataghan

13. What did his friend offer Juan in order to deceive him?

a. Lambanog b. Retsina c. Tokay d. Tuba

14. How did his mother feel as implied in the statement, One day, his mother, who was almost

discouraged with him...sent him to the forest, for she thought he could at least cut firewood?

a. Annoyed b. Desperate c. Frustrated d. Hopeful

15. What was the magic tree trying to do when it said, “If you do not cut me, I will give you a

goat that shakes silver from its whiskers.”?

a. It was rewarding Juan. b. It was trying to bribe Juan.

c. It was trying to convince Juan. d. It was warning Juan.

16. Why did Juan become the object of his family‟s ridicule since his deal with the magic tree?

a. Because he always got in trouble. b. Because he can‟t prove his powers.

c. Because he got lazier. d. Because he lied to them.

17. How did Juan feel when he said, “You have beaten me and scolded me all my life, and now

you are glad to accept my good things.”?

a. Angry b. Insulted c. Hurt d. Revengeful

18. What was the cause of Juan‟s belief that the tree lied to him?

a. His family‟s contempt b. His foolishness

c. His friend‟s deceiving d. His senselessness


19. What rewards did the magic tree give him?

I. Cat that shakes silver from its whiskers

II. Net which when thrown anywhere will return full of fish

III. Pot of bottomless rice

a. I only b. I and II c. II and III d. I and III

20. What can we infer from all the actions taken by Juan in his dealings with the magic tree?

a. He was simply delighted by what the magic tree can do.

b. He wants to prove his family that he is not worthless.

c. He wants to take revenge on his family.

d. He was afraid of the consequences if he cut it down.

The Real Rizal

21. Whose kite did Jose Rizal rescue on one of his vacations in Manila?

a. Jose Meliza b. Jose Mendoza c. Julio Meliza d. Julio Mendoza

22. How old was Rizal when he began sculpturing and sketching?

a. 4 b. 5 c. 6 d. 7

23. In what river did Rizal‟s slippers fell to when he was a young boy?

a. Marikina River b. Pagsanjan River

c. Pandacan River d. Pasig River

24. What did Rizal foretell when he argued with his older sisters?

a. His being the national hero b. His being a martyr

c. His exile in Dapitan d. His monuments and images

25. Why did Rizal write his love letters to Leonor Valenzuela in invisible ink?

a. He wants to impress her. b. Leonor wrote to him in invisible ink.

c. Leonor told him to do so. d. Their affair was a secret.

26. Why did Rizal not raise a cry or protest against Manzano and Lesaca when they hit his face

with a book?

a. He was too busy studying. b. It was just an accident.

c. Nothing would happen if he will complain. d. They were his best friends.

27. Why was his Japanese looks a cause of embarrassment to Rizal?

a. He couldn‟t speak Niponggo. b. He is a Filipino.

c. He is too short. d. His eyes were too chinky.

28. How did his father feel when Rizal threw his slipper to the river?

a. Angry b. Amused c. Curious d. Shocked


29. What were Rizal‟s hobbies as a child?

I. Reading II. Music III. Artworks

a. I and II b. II and III c. I and III d. III only

30. Where was Rizal when he studied kabuki, arts, music and judo?

a. China b. Japan c. Korea d. Singapore

My Brother’s Peculiar Chicken

31. Why was Kiko‟s chicken peculiar?

I. It is a binabae. II. It is a binalake. III. It is larger than an ordinary chicken.

a. I and II b. I and III

c. I only d. II only

32. Who did they consult regarding the case, considering expertise in poultry raising?

a. Chief of the village b. Mr. Cruz

c. Their father d. Their mother

33. What made Kiko fully convinced that the chicken is a rooster?

a. Its arena fight b. Its crow

c. Its long tails d. The spurs on its legs

34. What is shown by the narrator‟s insistence that the chicken is a hen?

a. His eye for chickens b. His foolishness

c. His pride d. His stubbornness

35. What was Kiko trying to do when he said, “I suppose you are going to tell me now that hens

crow and that carabaos fly.”

a. Convince his brother. b. Discourage his brother.

c. Persuade his brother. d. Tease his brother.

36. Why did the poultry expert suggested to kill the chicken?

a. To convince Kiko to believe his brother b. To end the brothers‟ argument

c. To examine the chicken‟s insides d. To know if it‟s a hen or a rooster

37. What is shown by Kiko‟s picking the red rooster as his chicken‟s opponent?

a. His conviction b. His foolishness

c. His pride d. His stubbornness

38. Why did the opponent rooster do a love dance?

a. Because it was afraid to fight Kiko‟s chicken

b. Because it was preparing to attack Kiko‟s chicken

c. Because Kiko‟s chicken did a love dance too

d. Because Kiko‟s chicken is a hen


39. What are the characteristics of a hen?

I. Can lay eggs II. Has a comb or wattles

III. Pointed feathers on its back IV. Rounded feathers on its back

a. I only b. I and II

c. I and III d. I and IV

40. What did the peculiar chicken and the various opinions of the elders cause between the

narrator and his brother Kiko?

a. Agreement b. Amusement

c. Argument d. Dilemma

The Bread of Salt

41. What is the Filipino‟s term for Bread of Salt?

a. Pan de Americano b. Pan de coco

c. Pan de sal d. Pandelimon

42. Where is Aida‟s home located?

I. Beyond the seawall II. east of the plaza III. further than the riverbed

a. I and II b. II and III

c. I and III d. III only

43. Where does the boy-narrator‟s grandmother put the fifteen centavos for the bread of salt?

a. Cupboard b. Fruit jar

c. Money box d. Piggy bank

44. What did the boy narrator assume when he said, “Her real purpose, I knew, was to reveal thus

her assent to my desire”?

a. Aida doesn‟t like him. b. Aida has a crush on her.

c. Aida rejects him. d. Aida wants to see him.

45. Why was the boy-narrator regarded as “Albert Spalding”?

I. He is as romantic as Albert Spalding.

II. He looks like Albert Spalding.

III. He plays the violin like Albert Spalding.


c. I and III d. III only

46. What brought him to the house of Don Esteban?

a. Aida‟s presence in the party

b. An invitation from the Buenavista women‟s club

c. His being member of the band

d. The asalto


47. Why did the boy-narrator threw the egg yolk things away?

a. He did not like their taste.

b. They were becoming sticky in his pocket

c. They were becoming sticky under his shirt.

d. They were the cause of his embarrassment.

48. Who foretold his being starved in the asalto?

a. Aida b. His aunt

b. His bandmates d. His grandmother

49. Which of the following are “egg yolk things”?

I. Caviar II. Leche flan III. Omelette


c. I and III d. I only

50. Why did the boy narrator strive to excel in sports and academic activities?

a. To become famous in school

b. To gain Aida‟s approval

c. To keep up with his classmates

d. To meet his grandmother and aunt‟s expectations


APPENDIX G

Key To Correction

1. C

2. A

3. B

4. C

5. C

6. A

7. B

8. A

9. C

10. B

11. B

12. A

13. B

14. D

15. B

16. B

17. D

18. C

19. C

20. B

21. C

22. B

23. D

24. D

25. D

26. B

27. A

28. C

29. C

30. B

31. D

32. B

33. A

34. A

35. D

36. D

37. A

38. D

39. D

40. C

41. C

42. C

43. B

44. B

45. D

46. C

47. D

48. B

49. B

50. B


APPENDIX H

Answer Sheets For Pretest And Posttest

ANSWER SHEET (PRETEST)

Name:

Date:

1. 26.

2. 27.

3. 28.

4. 29.

5. 30.

6. 31.

7. 32.

8. 33.

9. 34.

10. 35.

11. 36.

12. 37.

13. 38.

14. 39.

15. 40.

16. 41.

17. 42.

18. 43.

19. 44.

20. 45.

21. 46.

22. 47.

23. 48.

24. 49.

25. 50.

ANSWER SHEET (POSTTEST)

Name:

Date:

1. 26.

2. 27.

3. 28.

4. 29.

5. 30.

6. 31.

7. 32.

8. 33.

9. 34.

10. 35.

11. 36.

12. 37.

13. 38.

14. 39.

15. 40.

16. 41.

17. 42.

18. 43.

19. 44.

20. 45.

21. 46.

22. 47.

23. 48.

24. 49.

25. 50.


APPENDIX I

Republic of the Philippines


College of Teacher Education

Lucban, Quezon

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Greetings!

I am Rafael John G. Acantilado, a student from the College of Teacher Education,

Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon.

I would like to ask for your help in accomplishing this survey questionnaire which

will greatly contribute to the success of my undergraduate thesis entitled “Jigsaw

Learning Technique in Teaching Philippine Narratives in English.”

Please answer the questions honestly and rest assured that all your answers will be

kept with utmost confidentiality.

Your cooperation will be deeply appreciated.

Name: _________________________________ Date: __________________

Direction: Indicate your perception of the use of the Jigsaw Learning Technique in

teaching Philippine narratives by checking the box corresponding to the

following scale:

4 – strongly agree

3 – agree

2 – disagree

1 – strongly disagree

UNDERSTANDING THE LESSON 4 3 2 1

1. The presentations of the lessons are clear and

well-organized.

2. The lessons are relevant to real-life situations.

3. The lessons are built upon my prior

knowledge.

4. The experiences and feelings of the

characters in the story affect me.

5. I am engaged in the setting of the stories

presented.

6. I have developed a new outlook in life

through the narratives.


7. I am able to apply my own solution to the

conflicts of the stories presented.

8. I experience difficulty understanding certain

words and statements in the narratives.

9. I find it hard to follow the flow of the lesson.

10. I have met the learning objectives of the

lessons.

CLASS PARTICIPATION

1. I am able to answer the questions raised by

my teacher and classmates.

2. I share opinions, comments and suggestions

to the class.

3. I frequently ask questions to my teacher and

classmates.

4. I feel responsible about contributing to the

accomplishment of the group I belong to.

5. I follow all of my teacher‟s instructions.

6. I feel out of place in the discussions.

7. I listen attentively to what my teacher and

classmates say.

8. I involve in chatters instead of discussions

about the lesson.

9. I enjoy working with my classmates during

activities.

10. I prefer to remain silent during the activities.

SUSTAINED MOTIVATION

1. The lessons are interesting and stimulating.

2. I give my best in performing activities.

3. I take down notes from what my teacher and

classmates say.

4. I talk about the lessons with my classmates

after the class period.

5. My focus is distracted from doing any of the

activities.

6. I enjoy the lessons from beginning to end.

7. I take the lessons for granted.

8. I look forward to seeing improvement in my

performance.

9. I am excited to come to the next day‟s class

after the day‟s lesson.

10. I manage to do things not related to the lesson

during the period.


APPENDIX J

Computation of Two Sample T-test

Activity-based Jigsaw

Mean 9.433333 Mean 16.6

Variance 28.04713 Variance 39.42069

SD 5.295954 SD 6.27859

1.

2. (No difference between two treatments)

3. (Difference between two treatments)

4.

5. Test statistic:

√

√

6. Calculation:

( )

√

7. P-value:

( )


APPENDIX K

Test Scores and Differences of Jigsaw Class

Jigsaw Class

List of Students Scores Difference

Pretest Posttest

Agaton, Jinnybeth 20 26 6

Agaton, Lyka 8 31 23

Balmes, Joel 13 28 15

Caparros, Elmer 16 27 11

De Borja, Mariecris 21 38 17

De Luna, Jensel 16 32 16

De Luna, Jiruel 18 41 23

De Luna, Maraya 17 34 17

Dunggan, Pio 18 40 22

Falconite, Daryl 15 32 17

Garcia, Jemima 16 41 25

Gonzales, Robie Ann 12 21 9

Hugo, Myrna 11 29 18

Ilagan, Mar 12 24 12

Largo, Emmalyn 12 29 17

Lobaton, Joyce Ann 19 41 22

Mahinay, Felix 15 42 27

Marquez, Patrick John 9 25 16

Matias, Luwis 14 18 4

Mingi, Jerome 14 37 23

Morada, Kenji 17 40 23

Organo, Glessa 11 28 17

Organo, Reynaldo 14 36 22

Palmero, Neshell 22 29 7

Pastorpide, Jezza 15 35 20

Pereyra, Alvin 22 27 5

Perpinan, Almar 11 24 13

Pizarra, Joanne 7 27 20

Ramos, Marlon 8 29 21

Ramos, Ron Ron 13 23 10


APPENDIX L

Test Scores and Differences of Activity-based Class


List of Students Scores Difference

Pretest Posttest

Agaton, Ricky 18 24 6

Araneta, Jay Nino 14 18 4

Argamosa, Sherwin 13 21 8

Batugon, Evangeline 9 19 10

Bico, Mark Kleiton 16 27 11

Caparros, Gigi 13 18 5

Catausan, Mary Rose 15 28 13

Dinglasan, Romester 14 17 3

Dunggan, Perlita 9 17 8

Esquillo, Kent C-Jay 10 23 13

Estipona, Regine 17 24 7

Fortin, Lane 9 12 3

Garcia, John Merlo 13 24 11

Lavina, Willord 16 20 4

Llanes, Louwill 14 24 10

Marquez, Daisy 10 30 20

Menes, Judy Lyn 20 25 5

Molina, Abeguel 14 21 7

Mosnit, Engiel 14 26 12

Opina, Jecel 12 22 10

Palmero, Gilbert 14 32 18

Par, John Michael 23 25 2

Pedrigal, Bon Ryan 23 28 5

Perjes, Airene 15 26 11

Persia, Christian 14 30 16

Persia, Pancho 20 30 10

Pizarra, Jessa Mae 13 26 13

Racal, John Melbert 16 32 16

Rogel, Demver 9 30 21

Venturero, Melvin 7 15 8

Average Difference 9.7


APPENDIX M

Computation Of Variance Of Test Scores

Activity-

based

Jigsaw Activity-based

Jigsaw

Score

Difference

Score

Difference Mean

Mean

21 27 9.4333333 4.613371648 16.6 3.72966

20 25 9.4333333 3.850153257 16.6 2.4331

18 23 9.4333333 2.530613027 16.6 1.41241

16 23 9.4333333 1.486934866 16.6 1.41241

16 23 9.4333333 1.486934866 16.6 1.41241

13 23 9.4333333 0.438659004 16.6 1.41241

13 22 9.4333333 0.438659004 16.6 1.00552

13 22 9.4333333 0.438659004 16.6 1.00552

12 22 9.4333333 0.227164751 16.6 1.00552

11 21 9.4333333 0.084636015 16.6 0.66759

11 20 9.4333333 0.084636015 16.6 0.39862

11 20 9.4333333 0.084636015 16.6 0.39862

10 18 9.4333333 0.011072797 16.6 0.06759

10 17 9.4333333 0.011072797 16.6 0.00552

10 17 9.4333333 0.011072797 16.6 0.00552

10 17 9.4333333 0.011072797 16.6 0.00552

8 17 9.4333333 0.070842912 16.6 0.00552

8 17 9.4333333 0.070842912 16.6 0.00552

7 16 9.4333333 0.204176245 16.6 0.01241

7 16 9.4333333 0.204176245 16.6 0.01241

6 15 9.4333333 0.406475096 16.6 0.08828

5 13 9.4333333 0.677739464 16.6 0.4469

5 12 9.4333333 0.677739464 16.6 0.72966

5 11 9.4333333 0.677739464 16.6 1.08138

4 10 9.4333333 1.017969349 16.6 1.50207

4 9 9.4333333 1.017969349 16.6 1.99172

3 7 9.4333333 1.427164751 16.6 3.17793

3 6 9.4333333 1.427164751 16.6 3.87448

2 5 9.4333333 1.90532567 16.6 4.64

1 4 9.4333333 2.452452107 16.6 5.47448

TOTAL 28.04713 39.42069


APPENDIX N

Photos of Researcher’s Intervention Studies

Photo 2 Mrs. Elvira A. Rodil, cooperating

teacher, being observed in her class by the

researcher before the intervention

Photo 3 Respondents answering pretest

Photo 1 Researcher playing the guitar as part of

his lesson, "Bread of Salt" Photo 4 Students creating images distinguishing

hens from roosters for the lesson, "My Brother's

Peculiar Chicken

Photo 5 Students connecting the parts of the

story of "The Adventures of Juan" Photo 6 Students answering posttest


RESEARCHER’S PROFILE

RAFAEL JOHN G. ACANTILADO

Sitio Pinagkaisa, Brgy. Matandang Sabang Silangan

Catanauan, Quezon

CP. No. 09199862856

E-mail: [email protected]

A. PERSONAL DATA

Name : RAFAEL JOHN G. ACANTILADO

Present Address : 9440 ME San Luis Interior St.

Barangay 10

Lucban, Quezon

Home Address : Sitio Pinagkaisa

Brgy. Matandang Sabang Silangan

Catanauan, Quezon

Birthday : November 15, 1993

Birthplace : Tarlac, Tarlac

Gender : Male

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Language Spoken : Filipino, English

B. EDUCATION

Tertiary : Bachelor in Secondary Education

(Undergraduate)

Specialization: English



Lucban, Quezon

2009- to date

Secondary : Matandang Sabang National High School

Catanauan, Quezon

2005-2009

mailto:[email protected]


Elementary : Catanauan Central School

Catanauan, Quezon

1999-2005

C. AFFILIATIONS

1st Year Representative : Student Council


2009-2010

1st Year Ambassador : Future English Language Teachers (FELT) Circle

2009-2010

Educational Committee Head : Student Council


2010-2011

Literary Editor : The Footprints

The Official Publication of the


2010-2011

President : Southern Luzon State University Chorale

2010-2011

Editor-in-Chief : The Footprints



2011-to date

Staff Writer : The Footprints



Member : Future English Language Teachers (FELT) Circle

2009-to date

D. SEMINARS/TRAININGS

Participant : 2009 A Special Lecture for FELT Circle

(The Proper Use of English Terminologies)

Lucban, Quezon

June 30, 2009



(A New Approach on Teaching and Learning

English)

Lucban, Quezon

August 8, 2009

Participant : 2010 Seminar on HIV/AIDS

Lucban, Quezon

March 9, 2010


(Body Language-Unfolding the Meaning)

Lucban, Quezon

January 2010


(Extemporaneous/Impromptu Speaking)

Lucban, Quezon

January 2010


(Vocabulary Building)

Lucban, Quezon

March 26, 2010

Participant : 2011 Campus Journalism

(Commercial)


September 5-8, 2011


(News Script)


September 5-8, 2011


(Photojournalism)


September 5-8, 2011


(Radiobroadcasting)


September 5-8, 2011


E. HONORS/AWARDS

Dean‟s Lister : College of Teacher Education

2009-to date

Outstanding Campus Journalist : 2011 Campus Journalism


September 5-8, 2011

Best News Anchor : 2011 Campus Journalism


September 5-8, 2011

5th

Place Editorial Cartooning : 2011 Campus Journalism


September 5-8, 2011

3rd

Place Newswriting : 2011 Campus Journalism


September 5-8, 2011

Jigsaw Strategy in Teaching Philippine Narratives in English

Documents