The Effectiveness of Intervention Materials in Improving Learners’ Competence in Grade 7 Students in Biology

The Effectiveness of Intervention Materials in ImprovingLearners’ Competence in Grade 7 Students in Biology

____________

An Action Research Presented toThe Division of Calamba City

____________

By:

SHEILA JAVIER-VILLAREAL

1

2013

Title : The Effectiveness of Intervention Materials

in Improving

Learners’ Competence in G7 Students in

Biology

Researcher : Sheila Javier-Villareal

Abstract

The implementation of K to 12 programs using the spiral

approach in teaching Science is on hardcore. Based on the studies

of Javier (2013),after one year the Status of the Implementation

of Spiral Approach in teaching Science, it was found out that in

the Learners’ Competency is least managed. The start of the

second quarter is new to students and they find it hard to

organize and understand each topic due to the learning gap. In

line with this, the researcher would like to make an intervention

material that will help improve the students’ competency in

second grading period (biology) with the used of scaffold. This

2

research aims to determine the effectiveness of the intervention

material that used scaffold in teaching Biology. The statistical

treatments used in the study are weighted mean and t test. Based

on the data gathered, the mean gained by experimental group is

higher than the mean gained by the control group. The computed t

value showed that there is significant difference between the

mean of two groups. Therefore the intervention materials is an

effective way of improving students’ competence.

Key words: Scaffold, Intervention, Learners’ Competence

Introduction

The implementation of K to 12 programs using the spiral

approach in teaching Science is on hardcore and problems are

always predicted. Based on the studies of Javier (2013),after one

year the Status of the Implementation of Spiral Approach in

teaching Science, it was found out that in four areas such as

Teaching Competency, Learners’ Competency, Assessment Tools and

3

Instructional Materials, the least managed of them all is the

Learners’ Competency.

The learners’ are the center of educative process. Since the

implementation of the K to 12 for high school is too soon, the

learning gap for each subject areas are experienced. Students are

too immature for the content of the four learning areas in

science due to the content that they had learned in their

elementary levels.

One of the least learned topics in Grade 7 Science is

Biology. The start of the second quarter is new to students and

they find it hard to organize and understand each topic due to

the learning gap. Students lack deeper understanding of the given

topics. Although the learners’ materials are cleared and easy to

understand, students are having hard time in the topic and it was

found out in the study of Javier (2013), that the science skills

and competencies that were expected to the students are not on

the highest level, in line with this the researcher would like to

make an intervention material that will help improve the

students’ competency in second grading period which is biology

with the used of scaffolding strategy.

4

Lange (2012), confer that scaffolding is a particularly

effective method to use with children in failing schools. This

study will be conducted as what is recommended in Javier (2013)

Master’s Thesis entitled Management on the Implementation of

Spiral Approach in Science Classroom.

Statement of the Problem

This action research sought to improve learners’ competency

using an Intervention Materials that uses tools to scaffold of

selected Grade 7 students in second grading period-Biology.

Specifically, this study aimed to answer the question:

1. Is the intervention material that used scaffolding

instruction effective in improving learners’ competency?

2. Is there significant difference between the mean of

experimental and control group?

Brief Review of Related Literature

According to Sawyer (2006), instructional scaffolding is a

learning process designed to promote a deeper level of learning.

Scaffolding is the support given during the learning process

which is tailored to the needs of the student with the intention

of helping the student achieves his/her learning goals.5

Alibali (2006) enumerated the scaffold techniques which

include tools used to introduce new content and tasks to help

students learn about the topic such as Venn diagram, prepared

cards given to individual or groups of students to assist in

their discussion about a particular topic or content area, maps

that show relationships, samples, specimens, illustrations,

problems, more detailed information to move students along on a

task or in their thinking of a concept, prepared handouts that

contain task- and content-related information, but with less

detail and room for student note taking, suggestions and clues to

move students along.

Ngeow and Yoon (2001) emphasized that scaffold instruction

is also employed in problem based learning environments. Problem-

based learning (PBL) is an educational approach that challenges

students to "learn to learn".” In this type of classroom the

teacher must assess the activities that the students can perform

independently and what they must learn to complete the task. The

teacher designs activities which offer just enough of a scaffold

for students to overcome this gap in knowledge and skills.

6

According to Barredo (2010) intervention materials help

teachers provide the students the needed support to make

progress. It increase and deepen their skills, knowledge and

understanding from concrete science to what is abstract. It gives

the students the opportunity to explore their understanding and

make sense of new scientific ideas.

Synthesis

Raymond, Olson, and Pratt and Bransford et. al expounded the

zone of proximal development that is the child can do by himself

and the things that he can do with the assistance of others. They

explained how the teachers can use scaffolding instruction in

order for the students to reach mastery level with the assistance

of the teachers by doing things beyond their knowledge. On the

other hand Hartman enumerated scaffolding techniques such as

models, cues, prompts, hints, partial solution, think loud

modeling and direct instruction. On the other hand Barredo

enumerated the importance of intervention materials in improving

students’ competence.

Theoretical Framework

7

According to Raymond (2006), scaffolding instruction as a

teaching strategy originates from Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural

theory and his concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The

zone of proximal development is the distance between what

children can do by themselves and the next learning that they can

achieve with competent assistance. It is that area between what a

learner can do independently (mastery level) and what can be

accomplished with the assistance of a competent adult or peer

(instructional level). Vygotsky believed that any child could be

taught any subject effectively using scaffolding techniques by

applying the scaffolds at the ZPD. Moreover, Olson & Pratt (2000)

explain that in scaffolding instruction, a more knowledgeable

other provides scaffolds or supports to facilitate the learner’s

development. The scaffolds facilitate a student’s ability to

build on prior knowledge and internalize new information. The

activities provided in scaffolding instruction are just beyond

the level of what the learner can do alone.

In addition, Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000) confer that

the more capable other provides the scaffolds so that the learner

can accomplish (with assistance) the tasks that he or she could

8

otherwise not complete, thus helping the learner through the ZPD.

On the other hand, Hartman (2002) expound that in the educational

setting, scaffolds may include models, cues, prompts, hints,

partial solutions, think-aloud modeling and direct instruction.

Conceptual Framework

For the students to learn the lesson easily teachers need to

revised and construct activities and lesson that is easier for

them to comprehend. The teachers need to make an instruction that

will guide the learner to independent and self-regulated

competence of skills. The independent variable is the

intervention material. This will be used by the experimental

group. After the used of the intervention material, competent

learners were expected.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

Methodology

Research Design

9

InterventionMaterial

CompetentLearners

This action research used single group with pre-test and a

post-test design. In this design, the experimental group is

exposed to the intervention materials that used scaffold. It was

validated by the teachers of CNHS. Before the start of the

experiment the experimental and control group will be given pre-

test, then after the experimental period they will be given

post-test. The scores will be analyzed after the post test.

Subject of the Study

This study was conducted in Calamba National High School. It

utilized forty 30 students of Grade 7 Newton and forty students

of Grade 7 Galilei of the school year 2013-2014 for Second

Grading Period-Biology.

Population and Sampling

Purposive sampling is used in this study.

Instrument

The Enhancement Material based on Javier Master’s Thesis was

revised so that it scaffold instruction was used. The

intervention materials are used in teaching Biology in Grade

Seven for second grading period. To identify if it will help

improve the learners’ competency, the experimental group used

10

the intervention materials while the control group used the

module that was given by the Department of Education.

Data Collection

The score of each group was collected and their weighted

mean was computed. The means of each group were compared using t

test.The data were collected using the pre-test and post-test of

the two groups (experimental and control group).The experimental

group was exposed to the intervention materials. The scores of

pretest and posttest were collected and were analyzed.

Statistical Treatment

The statistical treatment used in this research was weighted

mean and t-test. The formula for T-test is

The formula for the weighted mean is

n

x x

n

1ii

Intervention Procedures

The proponent of this action research used the interventionmaterial that is composed of different activities of the topicpresented in the modules that were given by the Department of

11

Where:is the t-value, n is the number of population

of the groupis the mean of the first group , is the variance of

the first group

Where X = sample mean,

n

1iix = sum of all

values of variable x, and n = number ofrespondents.

Education. It was constructed by the researcher, some was fromthe internet and modified by the researcher so that it usedscaffolding strategy.

The Grade 7 Newton (Experimental Group) used theintervention materials that involve activities and worksheet thatused scaffold. Before the intervention, G7 Galilei (ControlGroup) and G7 Newton (Experimental Group) was given 50 itemstest. Their scores was determined their level of performance.

Both of the experimental and control group was given thesame quizzes and long test. After finishing all the lessons andtopics for Second Grading Period, they were given posttest thatwas computed to determine their academic progress.

Scores on the pretest and posttests of G7 Newton and Galileistudents will serve as the basis in determining the effectivenessof Intervention Materials in increasing their performance level.The researcher was ascertained suggestions, improvements andrecommendations to improve the quality of teaching Biology in G7Science.

Results and Discussions

Table 1

Pre-test and Post-Test Results of the Experimental & Control

Group

ScoreBracket

Control Group Experimental Group

Pretest Posttest Pretest PosttestF % F % f % F %

38-50 3 10.00 4 13.33 0 0 4 13.3325-37 11 36.67 11 36.67 0 0 19 63.33Below 25 16 53.33 15 50.00 30 100 7 23.3

12

Total 30 1000 30 100 30 100 30 100%Mean 22.7 23.23 11.5 28.53SD 10.99 11.94 4.99 9.59MPS 45.40 46.46 23 57.07

The table shows that the weighted mean of 45.40 of the

control group was higher than the mean of experimental group

which is 23 during the pretest while during posttest the mean of

experimental group increases and became 57.07 which are greater

than the mean of control group which is 46.46. The mean gain of

the experimental group is very high compare to the mean of

control group.

Table 2t- Test for Significant Differences

Group Mean Sd t – values Interpretation

DecisionComputed Critic

alValue

Control 23.23

11.94

1.83 1.671

p < 0.05(df = 58)Significant

Reject:HoExperiment

al28.53

9.72

Based on the table presented above the t-ratio is 1.83 which

is higher than the critical value of 1.671 which means that there

13

is a significant difference between the mean of control and

experimental group.

Conclusion

The null hypothesis that the intervention material is not

effective in improving the students’ competence is rejected

because based on the result; the weighted mean shows that the

mean of experimental group is higher compared to the control

group. That the mean gained of experimental group is higher than

the mean gain of the control group. The computed t ratio shows

that there is a significant difference between the mean of two

groups. Therefore intervention materials that used scaffolding

technique is an effective way of improving students’ competence

in Biology.

References

Bassiri, M. (2012). The Impact of Scaffolding as a Strategy for Teaching Reading on the Motivation of Iranian Learners

Barredo, K (2013) Development on the Academic Performance on

Science Using Strategic Intervention Material

Javier, S. (2013). Management on the Use of Spiral Approach in Science Classroom

Larkin, M. (2002). Using Scaffolded Instruction to Optimize Learning.

14

Van Der (2002). Scaffolding as Teaching Strategy

APPENDICES

15

Appendix A

Table 2

Grade Seven Newton ( Experimental Group ) Scores in Pretest andPost Test

Boys Pretest Post Test1 BANUT, EMERSON 15 382 BRIN, JOSHUA 14 323 Bellien, Jezrell Jay A. 31 374 CORO, NEIL MARTIN 9 235 DELA CRUZ, FRANZ SAMUEL 13 346 DELA CRUZ, JOHN LESTER 6 217 DICHOSO, JOHN CARL C. 9 218 GENEBLAZO, SAMMY 12 309 GUERRERO, MATH JOVETH 9 2610 ILAG, ARVIN 16 2711 MADRID, HENRY JAMES 12 2112 MARTIN, JOHN CARLO 13 2413 MATEO, AARON JANN 16 3014 PIANO, FLORENCE 21 4115 TOLENTINO, VEEJAY 12 32

GIRLS1 AMOGUIS, MARRT JANE 8 282 ANGELES, ROSE ANN 10 353 DE GUIA MARRY ANN 13 494 EVANGELISTA, EUNICE 8 25

16

5 LIZARDO, AVIE 10 326 LIGUIT, SHEILA MAE 8 247 LLORERA, DANNA MAE 10 208 LOVERIA, JUDEL MAY 7 289 MATANGUIHAN JOHANNA 11 2810 OCAMPO, JOANNE MARIE 11 2711 OCAMPO, LEA JANE 7 2612 PAJARES, KIM 8 2913 SILVA, ANGELICA 6 2714 TORRES, JOANNE MARIE 6 3815 URSUA, MARIA THERESE 14 34

Appendix B

Table 2Grade Seven Galilei (Control Group) Pre Test and Post Test

17

Appendix C

18

Boys Pre Test Post Test1 ABRIGO, MARLITO 32 392 ALCANTARA, BON RAPHAEL L. 31 30

3BARTOLOME, CHRISTIAN JEZZELP. 23 23

4 CABALLERO, ARVIN T. 31 285 DE QUIROZ, JOHN DENVER P. 32 286 FAMOSO, CHARLES RAY 19 207 FLORES, JOHN LOWEL H. 4 78 GALLOS, JOHN EDWARD T. 22 229 HACUTINA, WILLY C. 39 3010 JAVIER, QUISERVILLE P. 11 1511 MATANGGUIHAN, JAYVIE S. 24 2312 MERCADO, MARVIN P. 10 713 OLE, JOHN WILLIAM P. 11 1014 PUNZALAN, JOHN PATRICK A. 9 1215 TOBES, DARWIN D. 9 7GIRLS1 ANQUILO, KYLA GRACE 41 422 DE OCAMPO, RAZHALYN M. 24 273 DUMAYAS, RHICA MAE D. 1 274 JAGONOS, GINGER D. 21 185 LAT, RENNALYN G. 5 86 LIRIO, ZHYRA M. 4 47 MATIAS, BERLNY O. 21 228 MORALES, CINDERELLA FAYE 31 309 MORADO, JELLIE MAY L. 38 3810 NAYRE, MARIANNE C. 21 2011 OCAMPO, MAYLENE L. 26 2512 ROSARIO, JUDIE C. 28 2913 SERDAN, VANESSA T. 33 3414 TUNAY, ROSE ANNE F. 31 3515 VILLANUEVA, KRISTINE M. 37 40

Validity QuestionnairesName (optional):______________________School : _____________________________ Directions: Please read each statement below. How would youassess the validity of the intervention materials? Check (/) thecolumn that corresponds to your answer using the following scale:

5 Extremely Valid (EV)4 Highly Valid (HV)3 Valid (V)2 Moderately Valid (MV)1 Not Valid (NV)

Content 5 4 3 2 11. Are the specific objectives stated in everyactivity?2. Is it appropriate with the needs of thelearners?3. Are objectives and activities assessmentsavailable?4. Are the activities relevant and parallel tothe objectives?5. Are the contents in line with the objectivesof spiral approach in teaching?Instructional Design1. Is the delivery method used appropriatelyand successfully engages the students?2. Is it free from grammatical and informationerror?3. Is it free from copy right violation?4. Are the materials in each activityavailable?5. Are the activities and information adequateto the learners?Organization and Presentation1. Are the content and direction are clear andunderstandable?2. Are the requirements for the instructorclearly stated?3. Are the materials interactive?

19

4. Are the activities organized in a logicalmanner?5. Are the activities arranged according to thedegree of difficulty?Assessment1. Are there pretest and posttest before andstart of the topic?2. Are the assessments appropriate and suitableto the objectives? 3. Are assessments and practice questionsinteractive?4. Does it use authentic assessment tools?5. Does the assessment measures students’performance?

Appendix DTable 3

Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responsesas to Content of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD1. Are the specific objectivesstated in every activity?

3 8 4 0 0 3.93

HM

2. Is it appropriate with the needsof the learners?

2 8 5 0 0 3.80

HM

3. Are objectives and activitiesassessments available?

2 5 7 1 0 3.53

HM

4. Are the activities relevant andparallel to the objectives?

2 6 5 2 0 3.53

HM

5. Are the contents in line withthe objectives of spiral approachin teaching?

1 7 5 2 0 3.47

HM

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.65 HM

Table 4Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses

20

as to of Instructional Design of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD1. Is the delivery method usedappropriately and successfullyengages the students?

0 8 5 2 0 3.4 HM

2. Is it free from grammatical andinformation error?

1 8 6 0 0 3.6 HM

3. Is it free from copy rightviolation?

1 8 5 1 0 3.6 HM

4. Are the materials in eachactivity available?

1 6 3 3 2 3.06

A

5. Are the activities andinformation adequate to thelearners?

1 3 8 3 0 3.3 A

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.36 A

Table 5Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses

as to Organization and Presentation of InterventionMaterials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD1. Are the content and directionare clear and understandable?

2 4 4 5 0 3.20

A

2. Are the requirements for the 2 4 5 3 1 3.8 HM

21

instructor clearly stated? 73. Are the materials interactive? 1 7 4 3 0 3.6

7HM

4. Are the activities organized ina logical manner?

1 4 7 3 0 3.20

A

5. Are the activities arrangedaccording to the degree ofdifficulty?

1 4 6 3 2 3.13

A

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.41 HM

Table 6Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses

as to Assessment of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD1. Are there pretest and posttestbefore and start of the topic?

3 3 3 3 3 3.00

A

2. Are the assessments appropriateand suitable to the objectives?

3 3 5 2 2 3.20

A

3. Are assessments and practicequestions interactive?

3 3 6 2 1 3.33

A

4. Does it use authenticassessment tools?

2 7 4 1 1 3.53

HM

5. Does the assessment measuresstudents’ performance?

2 6 2 4 1 3.27

A

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.27

A

22