The Effectiveness of Intervention Materials in Improving Learners’

Competence in Grade 7 Students in Biology

____________

An Action Research Presented to

The Division of Calamba City

____________

By:

SHEILA JAVIER-VILLAREAL

2013

1
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 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

2
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 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.

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.

3
 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.

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.

4
 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.

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

According to Raymond (2006), scaffolding instruction as a teaching strategy

originates from Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and his concept of the zone of

5
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 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

6
used by the experimental group. After the used of the intervention material, competent

learners were expected.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Intervention Competent
Material Learners

Methodology

Research Design

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

7
learners’ competency, the experimental group used 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

Where:
is the t-value, n is the number of population of the group
is the mean of the first group , is the variance of the first group
is the mean of the second group, is the variance of the second group

The formula for the weighted mean is

n
 xi
n
 xi Where X = sample mean, i 1 = sum of all values of
i 1
x 
n variable x, and n = number of respondents.

Intervention Procedures

The proponent of this action research used the intervention material that is
composed of different activities of the topic presented in the modules that were given by
the Department of Education. It was constructed by the researcher, some was from the
internet and modified by the researcher so that it used scaffolding strategy.

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

8
 Both of the experimental and control group was given the same quizzes and long
test. After finishing all the lessons and topics for Second Grading Period, they were
given posttest that was computed to determine their academic progress.

Scores on the pretest and posttests of G7 Newton and Galilei students will serve
as the basis in determining the effectiveness of Intervention Materials in increasing their
performance level. The researcher was ascertained suggestions, improvements and
recommendations to improve the quality of teaching Biology in G7 Science.

Results and Discussions

Table 1

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

Score Control Group Experimental Group

Bracket
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
F % F % f % F %
38-50 3 10.00 4 13.33 0 0 4 13.33
25-37 11 36.67 11 36.67 0 0 19 63.33
Below 25 16 53.33 15 50.00 30 100 7 23.3
Total 30 1000 30 100 30 100 30 100%
Mean 22.7 23.23 11.5 28.53
SD 10.99 11.94 4.99 9.59
MPS 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.

9
 Table 2
t- Test for Significant Differences
Group Mean Sd t – values Interpretation Decision
Computed Critical
Value
Control 23.23 11.94 p < 0.05
(df = 58) Reject:
Experimental 28.53 9.72 1.83 1.671 Significant Ho
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 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.

Van Der (2002). Scaffolding as Teaching Strategy

10
APPENDICES

11
 Appendix A

Table 2

Grade Seven Newton ( Experimental Group ) Scores in Pretest and Post Test

Boys Pretest Post Test

1 BANUT, EMERSON 15 38
2 BRIN, JOSHUA 14 32
3 Bellien, Jezrell Jay A. 31 37
4 CORO, NEIL MARTIN 9 23
5 DELA CRUZ, FRANZ SAMUEL 13 34
6 DELA CRUZ, JOHN LESTER 6 21
7 DICHOSO, JOHN CARL C. 9 21
8 GENEBLAZO, SAMMY 12 30
9 GUERRERO, MATH JOVETH 9 26
10 ILAG, ARVIN 16 27
11 MADRID, HENRY JAMES 12 21
12 MARTIN, JOHN CARLO 13 24
13 MATEO, AARON JANN 16 30
14 PIANO, FLORENCE 21 41
15 TOLENTINO, VEEJAY 12 32

GIRLS
1 AMOGUIS, MARRT JANE 8 28
2 ANGELES, ROSE ANN 10 35
3 DE GUIA MARRY ANN 13 49
4 EVANGELISTA, EUNICE 8 25
5 LIZARDO, AVIE 10 32
6 LIGUIT, SHEILA MAE 8 24
7 LLORERA, DANNA MAE 10 20
8 LOVERIA, JUDEL MAY 7 28
9 MATANGUIHAN JOHANNA 11 28
10 OCAMPO, JOANNE MARIE 11 27
11 OCAMPO, LEA JANE 7 26
12 PAJARES, KIM 8 29
13 SILVA, ANGELICA 6 27
14 TORRES, JOANNE MARIE 6 38
15 URSUA, MARIA THERESE 14 34

12
 Appendix B

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

Boys Pre Test Post Test

1 ABRIGO, MARLITO 32 39
2 ALCANTARA, BON RAPHAEL L. 31 30
3 BARTOLOME, CHRISTIAN JEZZEL P. 23 23
4 CABALLERO, ARVIN T. 31 28
5 DE QUIROZ, JOHN DENVER P. 32 28
6 FAMOSO, CHARLES RAY 19 20
7 FLORES, JOHN LOWEL H. 4 7
8 GALLOS, JOHN EDWARD T. 22 22
9 HACUTINA, WILLY C. 39 30
10 JAVIER, QUISERVILLE P. 11 15
11 MATANGGUIHAN, JAYVIE S. 24 23
12 MERCADO, MARVIN P. 10 7
13 OLE, JOHN WILLIAM P. 11 10
14 PUNZALAN, JOHN PATRICK A. 9 12
15 TOBES, DARWIN D. 9 7
GIRLS
1 ANQUILO, KYLA GRACE 41 42
2 DE OCAMPO, RAZHALYN M. 24 27
3 DUMAYAS, RHICA MAE D. 1 27
4 JAGONOS, GINGER D. 21 18
5 LAT, RENNALYN G. 5 8
6 LIRIO, ZHYRA M. 4 4
7 MATIAS, BERLNY O. 21 22
8 MORALES, CINDERELLA FAYE 31 30
9 MORADO, JELLIE MAY L. 38 38
10 NAYRE, MARIANNE C. 21 20
11 OCAMPO, MAYLENE L. 26 25
12 ROSARIO, JUDIE C. 28 29
13 SERDAN, VANESSA T. 33 34
14 TUNAY, ROSE ANNE F. 31 35
15 VILLANUEVA, KRISTINE M. 37 40

13
 Appendix C
Validity Questionnaires
Name (optional):______________________
School : _____________________________
Directions: Please read each statement below. How would you assess the
validity of the intervention materials? Check (/) the column 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 1
1. Are the specific objectives stated in every activity?
2. Is it appropriate with the needs of the learners?
3. Are objectives and activities assessments available?
4. Are the activities relevant and parallel to the objectives?
5. Are the contents in line with the objectives of spiral approach
in teaching?
Instructional Design
1. Is the delivery method used appropriately and successfully
engages the students?
2. Is it free from grammatical and information error?
3. Is it free from copy right violation?
4. Are the materials in each activity available?
5. Are the activities and information adequate to the learners?
Organization and Presentation
1. Are the content and direction are clear and understandable?
2. Are the requirements for the instructor clearly stated?
3. Are the materials interactive?
4. Are the activities organized in a logical manner?
5. Are the activities arranged according to the degree of
difficulty?
Assessment
1. Are there pretest and posttest before and start of the topic?
2. Are the assessments appropriate and suitable to the
objectives?
3. Are assessments and practice questions interactive?
4. Does it use authentic assessment tools?
5. Does the assessment measures students’ performance?

14
 Appendix D
Table 3
Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses
as to Content of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD
1. Are the specific objectives stated in every 3 8 4 0 0 3.93 HM
activity?
2. Is it appropriate with the needs of the 2 8 5 0 0 3.80 HM
learners?
3. Are objectives and activities assessments 2 5 7 1 0 3.53 HM
available?
4. Are the activities relevant and parallel to the 2 6 5 2 0 3.53 HM
objectives?
5. Are the contents in line with the objectives of 1 7 5 2 0 3.47 HM
spiral approach in teaching?
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.65 HM

Table 4
Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses
as to of Instructional Design of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD
1. Is the delivery method used appropriately and 0 8 5 2 0 3.4 HM
successfully engages the students?
2. Is it free from grammatical and information 1 8 6 0 0 3.6 HM
error?
3. Is it free from copy right violation? 1 8 5 1 0 3.6 HM
4. Are the materials in each activity available? 1 6 3 3 2 3.06 A
5. Are the activities and information adequate to 1 3 8 3 0 3.3 A
the learners?
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.36 A

15
 Table 5
Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses
as to Organization and Presentation of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD
1. Are the content and direction are clear and 2 4 4 5 0 3.20 A
understandable?
2. Are the requirements for the instructor clearly 2 4 5 3 1 3.87 HM
stated?
3. Are the materials interactive? 1 7 4 3 0 3.67 HM
4. Are the activities organized in a logical 1 4 7 3 0 3.20 A
manner?
5. Are the activities arranged according to the 1 4 6 3 2 3.13 A
degree of difficulty?
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.41 HM

Table 6
Frequency and Weighted Mean Distribution of the Responses
as to Assessment of Intervention Materials

STATEMENT EV HV MV V NV WM VD
1. Are there pretest and posttest before and 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 A
start of the topic?
2. Are the assessments appropriate and 3 3 5 2 2 3.20 A
suitable to the objectives?
3. Are assessments and practice questions 3 3 6 2 1 3.33 A
interactive?
4. Does it use authentic assessment tools? 2 7 4 1 1 3.53 HM
5. Does the assessment measures students’ 2 6 2 4 1 3.27 A
performance?
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.27 A

16