RESEARCH ARTICLE ISSN 1936-6612

Copyright © 2018 American Scientific Publishers Advanced Science Letters

All rights reserved Vol. 24 No. 11
Printed in the United States of America

Factors Affecting the Implementation of Science

Investigatory Projects and its Implications to the
National Science and Technology Fair
Denis Dyvee R. Erraboa,1, Rodney T. Cajimatb,1,2, Antriman V. Orleansc,3
1
Science Education Department, De La Salle University - Manila, Philippines;
2
College of Teacher Education, Nueva Vizcaya State University – Bambang Campus, Philippines
3
College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research, Philippine Normal University, Philippines

Science Investigatory Project (SIP) is one of the manifestations of scientific literacy. These SIPs are presented in National
Science and Technology Fair (NSTF), a national competition participated by 17 regions in the Philippines and organized by
the Bureau of Curriculum Development. An explanatory method of research analyzes the factors affecting its implementation.
Difficulties and challenges were identified threat in the realization of the SIPs however, best practices can be used as exemplars
to alleviate those problems. Interestingly, statistical analysis shows no significant difference in the perceived self-efficacy of
researchers and advisers in the conduct of SIPs. Thus, challenges and difficulties are not hindrance in joining NSTF. The study
recommends synergy among stakeholders of the Department of Education.

Keywords: Perceived Self-Efficacy; Research Difficulties; Science Investigatory Project; National Science and technology
Fair

1. INTRODUCTION The recently concluded National Science and

The Philippine educational system has
continuously improving its practices towards the
realization of scientific, technological and environmental
literacy. Like many countries all over the globe, science
programs are being advanced to prepare the students to
become critical thinker, and skilled of cooperation and
innovativeness [1]. The articulation of the K to 12 basic
education curriculum in the Republic Act 10533 mandates
inquiry-based standards approach in science curricular
framework. Linn, Davis & Bell (2004) defined inquiry-
based as an intentional process of diagnosing problems,
critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alternatives,
planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching
for information, constructing models, debating with peers
and forming coherent arguments [2]. Model-based inquiry
is students’ investigations carried out in active and constant
experimentation and modelling [3].
a
Email Address: denis_errabo@dlsu.edu.ph
b
Email Address: rodney_cajimat@dlsu.edu.ph
c
Email Address: orleans.av@pnu.edu.ph
7885
Technology Fair (NSTF) 2017 is a culmination of this
model-based inquiry, which provides an avenue for the
basic education scientific community to exchange
information supported by scientifically sound solution and
to recognize the most creative and innovative inquiry
process in exploring scientific principles and applications.
To emanate the demonstration scientific skills and attitudes
Science teaching in the Philippines are encouraged to
incorporate a Science Investigatory Projects (SIPs) as part
of the performance task. It drives to provide a backbone of
the “basics” in science research directing fundamental
information to practical application in addressing
phenomena. However, supporting this process of inquiry
can be attributed to the limitations of the learning
institutions to scaffold investigations that the students are
exploring [4].
Inquiry-based learning is a process of diagnosing
problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing
alternatives, planning investigations, researching for
conjectures, searching for information, debating with peers
and forming coherent arguments [2]; carried out in active
and constant experimentation and modelling [3]. Yet, pre-
determined by limitations of the learning institutions [4].
Teachers are main factor on making or losing participants
in Science Investigatory Projects (SIPs) [5]; they should be
trained to harness their skills [6]; and expected to have
positive attitude towards research and mentoring students
[7]. Most likely, when students manifest higher self-
efficacy, they put more effort on to a task. Self-efficacy is
a belief to accomplish a task [8]; and regulated to pursue it
[9]. Expanding effort in doing research visualizes error as
indicators of more efforts to be done [8]. Thus, chooses
appropriate technique in upgrading the processes [10]. As
far as the interaction of the variables are concerned the
current study aims to identify difficulties, challenges, and
best practices of the student-researchers (SRs) and
research-advisers (RAs) in the conduct of SIPs and
determine the significant difference in the perceived self-
efficacy (PSE) amongst respondents. Specifically, this
study aims to answer the following questions:
1.   What are the difficulties, challenges, and best practices
of the student-researchers and research-advisers in the
conduct of SIPs?
2.   Are there significant differences in the perceived self-
efficacy (PSE) of the student-researchers and teacher-
advisers of the NSTF per group classification?
2. METHODOLOGY
This study participated by 13 regions in the
Philippines which comprised of 61 RAs and 59 SRs
considered as finalists of the National Science and
Technology Fair (NSTF), by which 104 come from the
public school and 16 were from the private school.
The group classification by performance of the
individual SR (see table 1) is based on the z-scores of the
rating on their SIPs (as shown in section 2.2 under rating
of the science investigatory project). Z-score group
classification is used to determine the group performance
of the student-researchers via norm-reference - Low
Performing Group (LPG): ≤ -0.99; Average Performing
Group (APG): -0.01 to 0.01; and, High Performing Group
(HPG): ≥ 0.99. Furthermore, these groupings were used
to classify the perceived self-efficacy, difficulties,
strengths, challenges, best practices, problems encountered,
and opportunities of the student-researchers in conducting
their science investigatory project.
The RAs were classified according to the mean
score of their region (see table 1). The mean scores were
obtained based on the average rating of the region’s SIP
entry to the NSTF. The LPG ranks from 10th to 13th; the
APG ranks from 4th to 9th and the HPG ranks from 1st to
3rd. The RAs were assigned to their respective region
mean score and classified according to its rank.
Table 1. The z-score and regional ranking
Classification z-score Frequency Region Frequency
of SRs Rank of RAs
LPG ≤ -0.99 18 10th -13th 14
APG -0.01 to 0.01 31 4th - 9th 36
HPG ≥ 0.99 10 1st - 3rd 11
Total 59 Total 61
2.1 Research Instrument
The instrument involves a questionnaire and rating
sheet used by the judges. The questionnaire contains the
profile, PSE, and difficulties of SRs and RAs.
Profile. Includes region in the Philippines, school
category, and project cluster.
General SE Scale. The questionnaire adopts the
tool developed by Schwarzer & Jerusalem (1995) that
contains 10-item questions to measure SRs and RAs PSE
[11] in doing action research using 4 point-scale (1-not at
all true; 2-hardly true; 3-moderately true; and 4-exactly
true).
Difficulties of SRs in doing the SIPs
Questionnaire. Refers to the scale of difficulty in
preparing an SIPs as: 1-Very Difficult; 2-Moderately
Difficult; 3-Easy; and 4-Very Easy. The items comprised
their difficulties in research topic, research problems,
rationale of the project, review of related literature and
studies, research methods (including laboratory activities,
material construction, experimentation, etc.), data analysis
and interpretation, and conclusion and recommendation.
The levels of difficulty from moderately to very difficult
were given emphasis to identify the difficulty of the low
performing group of SRs.
Difficulties for being a RAs of a SIPs
Questionnaire. It refers to the scale of difficulty in
mentoring SRs as: 1-Very Difficult; 2-Moderately Difficult;
3-Easy; and 4-Very Easy. The items comprised their
difficulties in selection of the participants, joining the
research fair in the division, regional and national levels,
funding of the project, research methods (including
laboratory activities, material construction,
experimentation, etc.), data analysis and interpretation, and
accomplishing the required forms. The levels of difficulty
from moderately to very difficult were given emphasis to
identify the difficulty of the low performing group of RAs.
Rating of the SIPs. The ratings of the SIPs were
determined by experts from the academe research industry
and rated according to the criteria provided by the Intel ®
International Science and Engineering Fair focusing on
creative ability (30%); scientific thought (30%);
thoroughness (15%); skill (15%); and clarity (10%). The
ratings were tabulated and transformed into z-scores for
group classification of every SRs while, the average rating
per region was assigned to the RAs and ranked for the
group classification.
Qualitative Responses. Two questions were used
to gather responses of the SRs and RAs: (1) What
 RESEARCH ARTICLE ISSN 1936-6612

difficulties you encountered (as a RAs or as a SRs) in reaching and joining the national fair is the most difficult.
making the SIPs; and (2) What is the best practice of your The culmination of SIPs in Philippines ends here, and the
school to excel in SIPs? winners will represent the nation in the international fair.
The entries for the NSTF are all winning entries from the
2.3 Statistical Analysis 18 regions of the Philippines which conform to the
standards of the regional selection review committee board.
The z-scores of the SIPs were obtained to classify The regional level is participated by the different divisions
the individual SRs into groups. The average scores of the in the region and the regional science high school.
SIPs per region were assigned to the RAs per region as a Moreover, prior to the national competition several Intel ®
basis for group classification. The levels of difficulty from ISEF documents are required to submit for further scrutiny
moderately to very difficult were tabulated and ranked for and validation. Supposedly this is non-difficult part if the
its frequency and percentage to give emphasis on the local selection review committee follows the prescribe
difficulty of the low performing group of SRs and the RAs. guidelines of conducting SIPs from the district, to division
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized to determine and regional level. Thus, a qualifier may not be accepted if
the significant difference of the PSE composite mean found non-adherence to the prescribe guidelines.
scores of the SRs and RAs when grouped according to their
performance in the NSTF. The p-value of <0.05 is Table 2. PSE composite mean scores and ANOVA
considered significant.
PSE Composite Mean Scores*
3. RESULTS Group Classification Student- Research-
Researchers Advisers
Table 2. Ranking of difficulties •   Low Performing Group 32.33 35.21
Range*
•   Average Performing 33.39 32.61
Areas of Difficulty Total % Rank Group
A B •   High Performing Group 32.60 33.00
•   F-value .561 2.886
Student-Researchers •   p-value .574 .064
•   Research Topic 7 3 10 55.56 4
•   Statistical Difference Not Significant Not Significant
Formulation
•   Research Problems 8 1 9 50.00 5 *Note: Range for PSE composite scores is 10-40. High value is regarded as high in PSE.
Formulation
•   Rationale Making 10 1 11 61.11 3 A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare
•   RRL 9 4 13 72.22 1
•   Research Methods 8 4 12 66.67 2
the PSE composite mean scores of the SRs and RAs when
•   Conclusion and 4 1 5 27.78 6 classified according to LPG, APG and HPG. It was found
Recommendation out there was no significant difference of the PSE
Research-Advisers composite mean scores of the SRs group. Similarly, there
•   Selecting 6 4 10 71.43 5 was no significant difference of the PSE composite mean
Participants scores of the RAs group classifications. Results reflect an
•   Joining Division 7 1 8 57.14 6
Fair
optimistic self-belief [11] that one can perform a novel or
•   Joining Regional 8 5 13 92.86 2 difficult tasks, or cope with adversity -- in various domains
Fair of human functioning. PSE facilitates goal-setting, effort
•   Joining National 2 12 14 100.00 1 investment, persistence in face of barriers and recovery
Fair from setbacks. Likewise, ANOVA for SRs and RAs reveal
•   Funding 3 10 13 92.86 2
that their PSE composite scores are the same across the
•   Research Methods 4 8 12 85.71 4
•   Analysis and 5 5 10 71.43 5 group classifications. Their PSE is high as evident in the
Interpretation mean composite scores of the group classifications of RAs
•   ISEF forms 4 3 7 50.00 7 and SRs. Hence, the difficulties and challenges
*Note: A- Moderately difficult; B-Very Difficult encountered along the process by the SRs and the RAs
manifest positive dispositions in tasks completion. The
The SRs revealed that most difficult part is the PSE of the teachers in mentoring towards SIP is the same
review of related literature and studies. Interpreting regardless of their performance (whether low, average, or
scientific papers require technical skills and in-depth high) in the NSTF. Since the SRs and RAs maintain high
familiarity on the variables to be considered. Since these PSE, this manifest efficiency of students and teachers in
variables are jargon by nature a strong foundation on those the field of SIPs.
principles are deemed necessary. It is understandable that
problems in conducting SIPs emanate here because this is
the foundation of structuring the research problems and
paradigms. Addressing difficulty in reviewing related
literature and studies also influences the direction of the
research investigation. While, the RAs revealed that
7885
Table 3. Responses of the student-researchers 3.1 Implication of the Implementation of the SIPs
What are the difficulties you encountered (as
Group Classification a student-researcher) in making the science SIPs making envisions the promotion of scientific
investigatory project? literacy, the terminal goal of science learning in the basic
One of the main difficulties in conducting education department. Quantitative analysis show in
the science investigatory project is finding a ranking that the review of related literature and studies is
•   Low Performing
source of funds. Most processes are the most difficult part of conducting SIP. Contrary to this
Group
expensive and usually beyond the financial qualitative analysis shows funding is the most difficult part,
capacity of a student.
since the processes go beyond from the financial capacity
Giving students the chance to present their of the students. This finding is supported by the RAs as
•   Average
thoughts and supporting them all throughout
Performing Group
and the project.
most difficult process in mentoring. However, RAs
consider collaboration with the parents, teachers and other
•   High Performing stakeholders as the best practice to combat this difficulty
Lack of time
Group
in the conduct of the SIP. Despite the difficulties however,
their PSE shows that they maintain optimistic self-belief in
Table 3 shows the responses of the student- doing SIPs regardless of the group classification. It only
researchers as represented by their group classification on implies that Filipino SRs are resilient over difficulties but
the difficulties encountered in the conduct of their SIPs. when supported (e.g. financial) can produce better SIPs
This includes inadequate time of preparation; complete and more competitive entries in the NSTF. Thus, this study
support and guidance and finally; the source of funds. recommends funding support for the SRs to be extended to
the RAs and become part of the annual school budget
Table 4. Responses of the research-advisers allocation. Furthermore, this encourages school heads and
managers to strengthen the synergize the interaction
What are the
difficulties you
What do you think between parents, concerned teachers and students specially
is the best practice during the SIP season. Curriculum specialists and
encountered (as a
of your school to
Group Classification teacher-adviser) in
excel in science supervisors on the other hand develop annual programs
making the science such as capacity building, seminar-workshop and research
investigatory
investigatory
project?
project? immersion activity to improve the research quality. It is
also suggested that they make policy on teachers’
Collaboration with scholarship grant, university and research industry
•   Low Performing the parents, teachers linkages and partnership and concretize research
Financial support
Group and other curriculum.
stakeholders

Conduct SIP 4. CONCLUSION

•   Average Linkage to higher
seminar for the
Performing Group institution
students The implementation of SIPs aim to showcase the
research capabilities of student-researchers and research-
Data Analysis,
Research Writing, advisers through the NSTF. Low performing groups of
The students were teacher-advisers and student-researchers experience
Lack of Facilities
fully guided by the
•   High Performing
and Devices,
advisers, and trained
identified difficulties in the conduct of SIPs. However,
Schedule and Load their PSE shows that they maintain optimistic self-belief in
Group from grade 7 up to
of the Students; and
Lower Grades in
grade10 doing SIPs regardless of whether they perform low,
other Academic average or high during the NSTF. Since challenges and
Subjects. best practices were revealed, these must be given
importance with school-based interventions supported by
Table 4 shows the response of the teacher-advisers the Department of Education Central Office.
on the difficulties encountered and best practices in SIP
mentoring according to their group classification. The
responses include rudiments of research writing,
inadequacy on the facilities and devices, students standing
and academic loads; linkages to higher institution and
finally; financial support. The best practices in SIP
mentoring includes collaboration with stakeholders in the
community; seminar in SIP given to the students and
finally; research curricular monitoring and progression all
throughout the junior high school program of the students.
 RESEARCH ARTICLE ISSN 1936-6612

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made possible through the help of the

Curriculum Standards Development Division of the
Bureau of Curriculum, Development of the Department of
Education, Philippines, the committee and people involved
in the National Science and Technology Fair 2017.

REFERENCES

[1]   Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012,
April). Using project based learning to teach 21st century
skills: Findings from a statewide initiative. Paper presented
at annual meetings of the American Educational Research,
Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
http://bie.org/images/uploads/general/21c5f7ef7e7ee3b9817
2602b29d8cb6a.pdf
[2]   Linn, M.C., Davis, E. A. & Bell, P. (2004) Internet
Environments for Science Education. Mahwah N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
[3]   Cheng, M. F., Lin, J.L.,Chang, Y. Li, H.W.,Wu T.Y& Lin,
D.M. (2014) Developing explanatory model based inquiry:
Journal of Basic Science Education, 13 (3) 351-360.
[4]   Emden, M., & Sumflth E. (2016) Assessing students’
experimentation processes in guided inquiry: International
Journal in Science and Mathematics Education, 14 (1), 29-
54.
[5]   Fisanick, L. M. (2010). A descriptive study of the middle
school science teacher behavior for required student
participation in science fair competitions (Doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania University, Indiana). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3403187).
[6]   Bulunuz, İ. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının geçmiş
öğretim kademelerindeki bilimsel araştırma projesi
deneyimlerinin değerlendirilmesi.
[7]   Korkmaz, Ö., Şahin, A., & Yeşil, R. (2011a). Bilimsel
araştırmaya yönelik tutum ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenirlik
çalışması [Study of validity and reliability of scale of attitude
towards scientific research]. Elementary Education Online,
10(3), 961–973. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-
online.org.tr/vol10say3/v10s3m13.pdf
[8]   Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and
Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall,
Englewoods Cliffs. NJ
[9]   Pajares, F. (1995). Self-efficacy in Academic Settings. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
[10]  Zimmerman, B. J and Bandura A. (1994) Impact of Self-
Regulatory Influences on writing Course Attainment.
American Educational Research Journal 3: 845-862.
[11]  Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-
Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston,
Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal
and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-
NELSON.

7885