EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION MATERIALS (SIM) ON THE ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT IN CHEMISTRY OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS

ANGELYN P. GULTIANO

February 18, 2012

SPAMAST, Matti, Digos City Campus

MEAN PERCENTAGE SCOREThe mean percentile score of the Science rating obtained

by students in the National Achievement Test of the School Year 2009 – 2010 was noted and used for description. It was categorized according to Mastery Descriptive Equivalent into the following (NETRC,2010):

Mastered (M) -96% - 100% Close to Approximating Mastery (CAM) -86% - 95% Moving Towards Mastery (MTM) -66% - 85% Average Mastery (AM) -35% - 65% Low Mastery (LM) -15% - 34% Very Low Mastery (VLM) -5%- 14% Absolutely No Mastery (ANM) -0% - 4%

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1. What is the level of performance based on pretest and posttest

scores of the students using the traditional methods of teaching

chemistry?

2. What is the level of performance based

on pretest and posttest scores of the

students using the Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching

chemistry?

3. Is there a significant

difference between the pretest and

posttest scores of students using the traditional methods

of teaching chemistry?

4. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores

of students using the Strategic

Intervention Materials in teaching

chemistry?

5. Is there a significant difference between the

pretest and posttest scores of students in using the traditional

methods of teaching and the Strategic Intervention

Materials in teaching chemistry?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

 

 

  

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIM) on the Academic

Achievement in Chemistry of Public High School Students.

 

Teaching Strategies

In Chemistry

- TraditionalMethod

- Strategic Intervention

Materials

AcademicAchievement

of Students inChemistry

- Pretest- Posttest

- Gain Score-Periodical Test

HYPOTHESES 1

Ho1 There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest

scores of students using additional methods of

teaching chemistry.

Ho2 There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scoresof students using

Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching chemistry.

HYPOTHESIS 2

Ho3 There is no significant difference between pretest and posttest scores of students using the traditionalmethods of teaching and theStrategic Intervention Materials and the traditional method of teaching.

HYPOTHESIS 3

Ho4 There is no significant difference between the gain scores of

students using the traditional methods of teaching and the Strategic Intervention Materials.

HYPOTHESIS 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTABLE 1. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores

of the Experimental Group Treated with Strategic Intervention Materials.

Topics Pretest (%)

Posttest (%) Gain Score ( %)

1. Elements and their relations

67.61(MTM)

76.20(MTM)

8.59

2. Writing Chemical Formula

56.74(AM)

85.33(CAM)

28.59

3. Naming chemical formula

61.37(AV)

75.53(MTM)

14.16

4. Types of chemical reactions

49.28(AV)

88.77(CAM)

39.49

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFigure 2 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain scores of Experimental Group Treated with Strategic Intervention Materials.

Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PretestPosttestGain Score

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTable 2. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the Control Group Treated with Traditional Methods of Teaching.

Topics Pretest (%) Posttest (%)

Gain Score ( %)

1. Elements and their relations

52.67(AV)

61.00(AV)

8.33

2. Writing Chemical Formula

47.22(AV)

70.89(MTM)

23.67

3. Naming chemical formula

51.56(AV)

64.00(AV)

12.44

4. Types of chemical reactions

59.19(AV)

73.63(MTM)

14.44

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFigure 3 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain scores of Control Group Treated with Strategic

Intervention Materials.

Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PretestPosttestGain Score

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFigure 4 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Pretest Results of Experimental and Control Groups.

topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ExperimentalControl

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFigure 5 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Posttest Results of Experimental and Control Groups.

topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ExperimentalControl

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 6 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Mean Percentage Score in Periodical Test Results of Experimental and Control Groups.

periodical test

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

Experimental Control

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t

Tabulated t at 0.05

Experimental

711 15.446 5.013 45

1.2461 1.9870

Control 628 13.950 5.954 44

TABLE 3. Table of Difference in the Pretest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents

∑X Mean SD df Computed t

Tabulated t at 0.05

Experimental

982 21.342 2.569 45

2.749 1.9870

Control 797 17.717 4.358 44

TABLE 4. Table of Difference in the POST TEST RESULTS of the Experimental and Control Groups

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t

Tabulated t at 0.05

Experimental 711982

15.44621.342

5.0136.054

4510.167

10.045

1.9870

Control 628797

13.95617.717

5.9546.426

44

TABLE 5. Table of Difference in the Pretest and Posttest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents

∑X Mean SD df Computed t

Tabulated t at 0.05

Experimental

271 5.897 3.926 452.577 1.9870

Control 169 3.763 3.8958

44

TABLE 6. Mean Gain Scores in the Pre Tests and Post Tests of the Experimental and Control Groups

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents

∑X Mean SD df Computed t

Tabulated t at 0.05

Experimental

1853 40.28 5.068 450.8420 1.9870

Control 1656 36.80 7.1561 44

TABLE 7. Table of Difference in the Periodical Test Results between the Experimental and Control Groups

SUMMARY

The strategic intervention materials are effective in

mastering the competency based – skills in chemistry based on the mean gain scores in the posttests of

the experimental and control groups.

Intervention materials contributed to better learning of the concepts

among students. Posttests and maintenance tests indicated that students who were taught with material employing the causal

style of discourse had significantly better retention of facts and concepts and were

superior in applying this knowledge in problem-solving

exercises.

CONCLUSIONIn the light of the findings, the following

conclusions were drawn: The two groups of respondents had the same

level of Mental Ability before the treatments. The experimental and control groups performed

at the same level before the experiment. The experimental group performed better in the

posttest than the control group. The strategic Intervention materials were

effective in teaching competency-based skills. There was significant difference between the mean scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the outcomes and implications of the study, the following are recommended:

Chemistry teachers can use the strategic intervention materials made by the researcher to re-teach the concepts and skills and help the students master the competency-based skill.

Seminars and in-service training should be conducted in the division level regarding development and implementation of the strategic intervention materials in the classroom.

Chemistry teachers should develop more strategic intervention materials for the remaining lessons which were not included in researcher’s SIMS.

Strategic intervention materials for other subjects should be made to address the least mastered skills.

A similar study may be conducted covering a bigger number of respondents in another venue.