Science Investigatory Project-a lecture delivered

Mariano Marcos State University
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
Laoag City

Teacher Induction Seminar
October 22-26, 2007

MARICEL P. CARIDAOAN
Lecturer

Science Investigatory Project (SIP)

What is an investigatory project?

- an investigation about a scientific problem (question);
- a problem-solving process using the scientific method.

GETTING STARTED
Pick Your Topic: Get an idea of what you want to study.
Research Your Topic: Go to the library or internet and learn everything you can on your topic. Gather existing information on your topic.
Organize: Organize everything you have learned about your topic.
Make a Timetable: Choose a topic that not only interest you, but can be done in the amount of time you have. Use a calendar to identify important dates.
Plan Your Experiments: Once you have a feasible project idea, write the research plan. This plan should explain how you will do your experiments and exactly what it will involve.
Consult Your Adviser: You are required to discuss your research plan with your adviser and other adults to be involved in experimentation.
Conduct Your Experiments: Give careful thought to experimental design. During experimentation, keep detailed notes of every step of the experiment, measurements and observations.
Examine Your Results: Upon completion of the experiments, examine and organize your findings. Did your experiments give you the expected results? If possible, statistically analyze your data.
Draw Conclusions: Which variables are important? Did you collect enough data? Do you need to conduct more experimentation? If your results do not support your original hypothesis, you still have accomplished successful scientific research.
Phases Of Conducting An Investigatory Project

PHASE I : THE PROPOSAL
The proposal is a detailed written plan of how the project will be done. It is like designing an experiment. Since it is yet to be done, the future tense of the verbs is used.

It contains the following parts:
1 Problem - It is stated as a question/scientific inquiry.
2. Title - It is patterned from the question, however it must contain only the essential words.
3. Rationale- The background of the problem. It answers the following questions:
a. How did you arrive at that kind of problem?
b. Why do you like to investigate that kind of problem where in fact there are hundreds of problems out there?
4. Materials- What are the things you need in solving your problem? Are you going to buy them or just borrow?
5. Procedure
a. What are the orderly steps you are going to do to solve your problem?
b. How are you going to present the data that you will gather? Will it be through graphs or tables?
6. Implication
In case your problem will be solved, what will be its importance to the school or to the community? Will your findings benefit others?
7.Time Table- How are you going to schedule the making of your project against the deadline set by your teacher? Are your schedules attainable?
8.Budget
a. How much each material you need costs in the market?
b. How much are you going to spend for the project as a group? How much will be the contribution of each member?
c. Do your parents approve your budget? Did your leader inform them about the possible expenses through a letter?
9.PROPONENTS- Who proposes the project? The group names appear here.

PHASE II: THE INVESTIGATION
As soon as your proposal is approved you can now start investigating. Your procedure will be your guide. Keep track of all your observations and data by placing them on a table. Document also your works by photographs, videos, etc.

PHASE III. THE OUTPUT
After conducting the investigation you are now ready to organize your gathered data and present your findings. The output has three levels:


1. THE WRITTEN REPORT

II. THE EXHIBIT
It is a showcase of your IP mounted on a board (to be explained by your teacher). It must attract viewers so that they may get interested to your IP.

III. THE ORAL DEFENSE
You will present your work to a panel of judges and they will ask you questions about your project.


REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INVESTIGATORY PROJECTS
geovisit();
I. Content
Apply/demonstrate scientific principles or attempt to provide new knowledge;
Be a result of continuing or parallel scientific research and investigation & not a copy of any previous research;
Have socio-economic significance and relevance to livelihood development; and
Contribute to the advancement of S&T and the development of the community.
II. Physical Set-up/Visual Display
The physical set-up must be attractive and informative. Interested spectators and judges should easily assess the study and the results obtained. Use clear and concise displays. Make headings standout, draw graphs and diagrams clearly and label them correctly. A one-page project abstract must be posted in one corner o the booth. Be sure to adhere to the IPSF size limitations and safety rules when preparing the display.
The maximum size of project display must be:
48 inches height25 inches width12 inches side
A Sample Diagram of a Science Fair Display
ITEMS NOT ALLOWED AT PROJECT OR IN BOOTH:
Living organisms, including plants
Human or animal food
Human/animal parts or body fluids (for example, blood, urine)
Preserved vertebrate or invertebrate animals
Plant materials (living, dead or preserved) which are in their raw, unprocessed or non-manufactured state
Laboratory/household chemicals
Poisons, drugs, hazardous substances or devices
Dry ice or other sublimating solids
Sharp items (for example, syringes, needles, knives)
Flames or highly flammable materials
Batteries with open-top cells
Photographs depicting vertebrate animals in surgical techniques, dissections, improper handling methods and improper housing conditions
Glasswares
Computer units & peripherals
Note: Prototype or model for technology projects maybe displayed but within allotted space for each project only.

ITEMS ALLOWED AT PROJECT OR IN BOOTH:
Soil, sand, rock and or waste samples if permanently encase in a stub or acrylic.
Postal addresses, world wide web and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers of the contestants only.
Photographs and visual depictions of:
They are not deemed offensive or inappropriate.
Credit lines of their origins are attached.
They are from internet, magazines, newspapers and credit lines are attached.
They are photographs or visual depictions of the finalists.
They are photographs of human subjects for which signed consent form are at the project booth.
III. Abstract
Should consist of short, concise descriptions of the problem & its solution. It must be typewritten in the IPSF Official Abstract Form, one page only, single-spaced with a maximum of 250 words, in Times Roman style, font 11.
The abstract must state the following:
Purpose
Procedure Used
Results
Conclusion
IV. Research Paper
The research paper for an IPSF entry should contain the following:
Problem/s
Objectives
Methods & Procedures (described in detail)
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bibliography (at least 3 major references)
Ethics Statement. Scientific fraud and misconduct are not condoned at any level of research or competition. Plagiarism, use or presentation of other researcher’s work as one’s own, forgery of approval signatures and fabrication or falsification of data or approval dates will not be tolerated. Fraudulent projects are disqualified for the competition.
III. Format of Research Paper
The project write-up must be typewritten double-spaced in short bond paper (8”x11”) and follows the following format:
Title Page – title of the project must be brief, simple and catchy.
Abstract - should consist of short, concise descriptions of the problem & its solution. It must be one page only, single-spaced with a maximum of 250 words, typewritten in Times Roman style; font 11. It must also state the following:

Purpose
Procedure used
Results
Conclusion
Acknowledgement – contains the names of people & agencies that helped in the conduct of the work described.
Table of Contents – lists the different parts of the whole report with the corresponding page number of each part. The wording & grammar of the chapter titles, heading & title of tables & figures should be consistent.
Introduction – informs the reader of the problem under study. It shows the nature of scope and the problem, its historical & theoretical background & a review of literature relevant to the problem.
Background of the Study- states the rationale of the study. It explains briefly why the investigator chose this study to work on.
Statement of Problem/Objectives – the nature & scope of the problem should be presented with clarity. Two types of objectives maybe stated:
General Objective – this is related to the problem as given in the early part of the section.
Specific Objective – this states the purpose of each experiment conducted.
Significance of the Study- the importance of the study is explained in this part.
Scope and Limitations – states the coverage & extent of the study.
Review of Literature – sufficient background information should be presented for readers to understand & evaluate the results of the present study. Only the most important studies and theories written on the topic should be included.
Methodology – provides enough details so that a competent worker can repeat the experiments.
Materials/Equipment – the exact technical specifications, quantities and source of method of preparation for all materials used should be given. Specifically built equipment used in the study must be described and the description accompanied by a picture.
Treatment/General Procedure – the manner & sequence by which each experiment or set of observations were done & how measurements were obtained should be described in detail. Avoid using the “recipe style” when stating the step-by-step procedure. Use the narrative form in the past tense.
Results and Discussion – this maybe divided into sub-sections describing each set of experiment or observations.
Findings – the data maybe presented in full & discussed descriptively in the text or these maybe summarized in tables, pictures & graphs. The statistical test used to determine the possible significance of the finding should be described. Tables, pictures & graphs should make the presentation of the data more meaningful.
Analysis of Data – the interpretation of the findings are discussed & the significant features shown in the table, figures or graphs are pointed out.
Conclusions – the general truth implied or illustrated by the results should be clearly stated. The evidence based on the results should be summarized for each statement.
Recommendations – consists of suggestions on future actions such as a new direction of research or further experiments to be performed, practices that might be adapted or discarded in order to attain certain goals or objectives.
Bibliography – a list of the references used in guiding the research work and writing the papers.

Categories for the Science Investigatory Project
Projects will be classified also according to specific fields of study.
Fair 1: LIFE SCIENCES
Botany - Study of plant life - agriculture, forestry, plant taxonomy, plant pathology, plant genetics, algae, etc.
Zoology - Study of animals - animal genetics, animal ecology, animal husbandry, cellular physiology, histology, animal physiology, etc.
Microbiology - Biology of microorganisms-bacteriology, virology, protozoology, fungi, bacterial genetics, yeast, etc.
Biochemistry - Chemistry of life processes - molecular biology, molecular genetics, enzymes, photosynthesis, blood chemistry, protein & food chemistry, hormones, etc.
Medicine and Health - Study of diseases and health of humans and animals -dentistry, pharmacology, pathology, ophthalmology, nutrition, sanitation, pediatrics, dermatology, allergies, speech and hearing, etc.
Ecology - branch of biology that studies the relationships between organisms and their total environment.
Fair 2: PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Chemistry - Study of nature & composition of matter and laws governing it - physical & organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, materials, plastics, fuels, pesticides, metallurgy, soil chemistry, environmental and materials chemistry, plastics, etc.
Physics - Theories, principles, and laws governing energy & the effect of energy on matter -solid state, optics, acoustics, particles, nuclear, atomic plasma, superconductivity, fluid and gas dynamics, thermodynamics, semiconductors, magnetism, quantum mechanics, biophysics, etc.
Mathematics - Development of formal logical systems or various numerical algebraic computations and the application of these principles-calculus, geometry, abstract algebra, number theory, statistics, complex analysis, probability.
Computer Science - Study & development of computer hardware, software engineering, internet networking and communications, graphics (including human interface), simulations/virtual reality or computational science (including data structures, encryption, coding & information theory).
Engineering - Technology; projects that directly apply scientific principles to manufacturing and practical uses -civil, mechanical, aeronautical, chemical, electrical, photographic, sound, automotive , marine, heating and refrigerating, transportation environmental engineering, etc.
Earth & Space Sciences - Geology, mineralogy, physiography, oceanography, meteorology, climatology, astronomy, speleology, seismology, geography, etc.
Environmental Science - Study of pollution (air, water and land) sources and their control.
Helpful Hints for Display
A Good Title: Your title is an extremely important attention-grabber. A good title should simply and accurately present your research. (See sample titles on pp. 27-29)
Take Photographs: Many projects involve elements that may not be safely exhibited at the fair but are an important part of the project. Take photos of the important parts/phases of your experiment to be used in your display. Visual presentations should depict proper handling methods and proper housing conditions.
Be Organized: Make sure your display is logically presented, scientific and easy to read. A glance should permit anyone (particularly the judges) to locate quickly the title, experiments, results and conclusions. Text should be simple and concise.
Eye-Catching: Make your display stand-out but not decorative. Use neat, colorful headings, charts and graphs to present your project. It is not even necessary to use a computer-based presentation except when it is an integral part of the project.
Display Board: Use light materials, collapsible, yet sturdy.
GUIDE FOR PROJECT ADVISER
The items below can be used as guide for the adviser in monitoring the project of his/her students, to make sure that the IPSF rules are followed.
Evidence of use of reference materials
Evidence of proper laboratory supervision
Use of accepted research techniques
Completed forms, signature and dates
Status of investigatory projects: original concept of study (does not violate intellectual property rights) or with innovation
Proper Use of pathogenic organisms, hazardous substances and devices/disposal of wastes
No. of students : individual or team
IRB/SRC approval of project before experimentation begins
JUDGING TIPS
Judges evaluate and focus on the following measures when they see your write-up and exhibit:
How well and confident you can talk about your work. Reading the project write-up or memorizing the text during the interview and science congress are both a disadvantage.
What you did in the current year.
How well did you follow the scientific methodologies and how much innovation was contributed
How detailed and accurate was your research.
What is the impact of your project.
Criteria for Judging
1. Creativity, Resourcefulness and Investigativeness
2. Scientific thought and engineering goal
3. Thoroughness
4. Research skills
5. Documentation, presentation and writing skills


References:
Intel Science Fair
Guidelines for Science Fair
http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/intel-philsciencefair/tips.html

Carrot Jelly

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study
Studies show hat children, generally do not want to eat vegetables. This is attributed to their high preference in meat and sweet foods.
Jelly is one of the foods, which more often than not are favorites of young people because of its sweetness. These are sold in the market and used as spread in sandwiches, cake filling and dessert. These jellies are made from different fruits extracts but sometimes added with artificial flavors and preservatives.
Oftentimes, carrots have been used mostly in cooking dishes and for desserts and candies. The famous of which is the carrot cake popular among English.
In this study, the group tried to make use of a vegetable using carrot as one of the main ingredients in making jelly. It was observed by them that carrots is one of the vegetables which children like only when mixed with meat dishes so the group made it into a jelly to increase its palatability.
It is therefore the aim of this study to produce a jelly from carrot which could be used as sandwich filing without using preservatives.

Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to produce jelly from carrot extract. Specifically it aims to answer the following:
1. What is the acceptability of the carrot jelly to school children?
2. What is the cost of production of carrot jelly?
Significance of the Study
This study wanted to investigate the production of jelly from carrot extracts. This was to source out possible jelly aside from the jelly sold in the market mainly made of fruit extract. This study was conducted to derive the necessary vitamins from carrots in a preparation which is liked best by children other than when used as ingredients in dishes.

Scope and Delimitation
The project was conducted in September 2007 by the group in resident in Brgy. 27 Laoag City. The formulated jelly was evaluated by non-trained elementary grade school pupils using the 9-point Hedonic Scale.













Definition of Terms
Acceptability refers to the degree of liking or disliking of a particular product.
Jelly is a clear preserve from strained fruit juices, generally with added sugar.
Preference refers to the choice made by panelists among several products.





























CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Carrot is native in Eurasia and northern Africa, and widely distributed throughout the North Temperate Zone; the name is also applied to the root of this plant. The wild variety, popularly known as Queen Anne's lace, has a tough, woody root, unsuitable as food. The cultivated variety is the popular table vegetable. It is a biennial. During the first season of its growth it forms a rosette of finely divided leaves and stores a surplus of food in its root, which thus becomes large and fleshy. Roots vary from globular to long and tapering. First-season carrots are harvested for food. If left in the ground for a second season, a terminal bud in the center lengthens, at the expense of the food stored in the root, into a bristly branched stem 91 to 152 cm (36 to 60 in) tall. This stem bears a nest-like umbel of white or pinkish flowers. The central flower of each umbelet is often purple. The fruit of the plant consists of two one-seeded nutlets, each of which has four rows of radiating spines, which cause the ripe seeds to cling to animals and thus to be dispersed to new locations. The plant does well in deep, rich soils and each seed should be planted 45 to 65 cm (18 to 26 in) apart.
Popular varieties among cultivated carrots are the Oxheart, the Chantenay, the Danvers Half-Long, and the Danvers Long. Large-rooted late types are used for stock feeding and are relished by farm animals. Because of this vegetable's inherent sweetness, it has been used for desserts and candies long before the ubiquitous carrot cake. The Irish and English make a carrot pudding, the French make a cream with candied slivers of carrots in it, "tzimmes" a sweet carrot stew, is traditional for the Jewish New Year and early New Englanders gave carrot cookies as Christmas gifts. Two billion pounds of carrots are grown annually in this country alone, mainly in Texas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Quite a few also emanate from Holtville, California which dubs itself "The Carrot Capital of the World." The carrot gets its characteristic orange colour from β-carotene, which on consumption by humans is metabolised into vitamin A. Massive overconsumption of carrots can cause hypercarotenemia, a condition in which the skin turns orange (although this is superior to overdose effects of vitamin A, which can cause liver damage). Carrots are also rich in dietary fibre, antioxidants, and minerals.















CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Jelly Formulation
The following formulation was used in making the jelly:
4 cups of carrot extract
3 cups sugar
3 tablespoon of calamansi
The following steps were followed in making the jelly.
Peel and slice the carrots in thin pieces.
Cook it until tender.
Get the extract using the blender and strain it using a jelly bag.
Heat the mixed ingredients together for 30 minutes until the mixtures become viscous. Let it cool.

Sandwich preparation
Get two pieces of bread.
Spread over pieces 2-table spoonful of the jelly.
Wrap it using a table napkin.

Product Evaluation
Consumer acceptability: Use of 9-point Hedonic Scale. The formulated carrot jelly sandwich was evaluated as to their acceptance and preference of panelists. All evaluator-respondents using a 9-point Hedonic Scale are non-trained and came from the elementary grades with age ranging 7 to 13 years. They were grouped into 2, first group with age ranging from 7-10 and second group 11-13.

Cost Analysis
A simple cost analysis based on all the expenditures incurred and (projected) sales of the jelly sandwich. The quantity and amount of expenditure were computed. Projected income and sales were compared to the price of existing jelly candy in the market.
















CHAPTER IV
RESULT, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Product Evaluation
General Acceptability. Acceptability of the carrot jelly used as sandwich spread was determined by untrained panelist with age range of 7-13 years old from elementary school. The product was acceptable to the panelists as indicated by the general acceptability mean score of 8.70, meaning that every panelist accepted and liked very much the product.
Table 1 shows that there is not much variation in scores of the sensory attributes with the carrot jelly ranging from 8.6 to 8.8. It also shows that there is higher score in the lower ages as compared to that of the older pupils however; they represent the basic description of like very much.

Table 1. Mean scores of carrot jelly as evaluated by grade school children.

Treatment
(Age level-years)
General Acceptability

Color

Appearance

Flavor/Taste
7-10
8.80
8.80
8.70
8.60
11-13
8.60
8.80
8.60
8.90
Overall
8.70
8.80
8.65
8.75
Interpretation
Like very much
Like very much
Like very much
Like very much

Color. Both group of children assessing the carrot jelly according to color had the same mean score of 8.8 (like very much).
Appearance. Appearance has a value had s higher score for the younger evaluators at 8.7 as compared to 8.6 for the older evaluators. The scores, however, were very similar.
Flavor/Taste. Higher mean score was registered from the older evaluators at 8.9 as contrasted with the mean score of the younger evaluators 8.6.

Economic Analysis
A simple cost analysis was conducted in the production of jelly candy from carrot extract. Expenditures incurred amounted to about Php 84.00. On the other hand projected sales of the product was about Ph 140.00. With the sales as against expenses, the project has a net profit of PhP 56.00, therefore it is good business venture.
Considering the quality of sold products in the market and the one produced from carrot jelly, they were comparable and acceptable as manifested by the high scores. As to cost, the available jelly in the market, it is sold to about PhP 20.00 per pack. The product price was made at PhP20.00/jar (with the production of 7 jars at Php 20 per bottle).

CONCLUSION
The production of jelly from carrot is a good business venture considering high returns of investment. This was liked very much and acceptable to untrained school pupil panelists with age 7-13 years old. The product as acceptable to grade school as shown by the general acceptability product score of 8.70 (like very much).
Cost analysis of the project points that a business venture in making jelly from carrot extract is feasible.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the findings of this study, it is recommended that other vegetables should also be made into a jelly for better palatability especially among children. Better packaging and storage test must also be conducted to ensure its longer shelf life and acceptance in the market.


















REFERENCES
Mendoza, Jose M., 1961. Philippine Food: Their Processing and Manufacturing. Mc. Colough Printing Company

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia,

Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Yearbook: Basic Cooking Method. Readesr’s Digest Printing Company. London










APPENDICES













Appendix A.
9-POINT HEDONIC RATING SCALE
INSTRUCTION. Please evaluate the samples as to color, texture/appearance, flavor/taste and general acceptability using the 9-Point Hedonic Scale.

A. COLOR Product Code
Like extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Neither likes nor
Dislikes ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

B. TEXTURE/APPEARANCE
Like extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Neither likes nor
Dislikes ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

C. FLAVOR/TASTE
Like extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Neither likes nor
Dislikes ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

D. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE
Like extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Like slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Neither likes nor
Dislikes ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike slightly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike moderately ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike very much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Dislike extremely ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

















Appendix B
Raw scores for sensory attributes of jelly candy as evaluated by non-trained evaluator-respondents (n=20).

Panelist
Number

Age
General
Acceptability

Color

Texture

Flavor
1
8
8
9
8
9
2
8
8
9
8
9
3
7
9
8
9
8
4
10
9
8
9
8
5
9
9
9
9
9
6
8
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
8
10
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
Sub-total
86
88
88
87
86
mean
8.6
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.6






11
12
9
9
9
9
12
13
9
9
9
9
13
11
8
8
8
8
14
13
9
9
9
9
15
12
8
8
8
9
16
11
9
9
9
9
17
11
8
9
8
9
18
12
9
9
9
9
19
12
8
9
8
9
20
12
9
9
9
9
Sub-total
119
86
88
86
89
mean
11.9
8.6
8.8
8.6
8.9






Grand Total
205
174
176
173
175
Grand Mean
10.25
8.7
8.80
8.65
8.75



Appendix C

Itemized expenses on the production of jelly using carrot extracts.

Quantity
Item
Amount (PhP)
4cups
Carrots
30.00
3 cups
Sugar
21.00
3 tablespoon
Calamansi juice
3.00

Labor
10.00

Fuel
20.00

TOTAL
84.00
















Appendix D
Computational procedure for the production of jelly using carrots extract.
Total Sales = PhP140.00 (=7 jars of carrot jelly x PhP20.00/jar)
Net profit margin = Total net income/ Total net sales x 100%
= (56/140) x 100%
= 40%
Return on Investment = Total net income/ Production Cost x 100%
= 56/84 x 100%
= 66.66%

All about Graphic Organizers

GRAPHIC ORGANIZER
BY:
MARICEL P. CARIDAOAN
MMSU-LES
Visual thinking can be expressed in many ways. Graphic organizers are one way for visual thinkers to arrange their ideas. There are unlimited ways to express these visual ideas. Graphic organizers have many names including visual maps, mind mapping, and visual organizers. Although many students plan with paper and pencil, technology tools can be very helpful because they allow easy editing. Graphic organizers can be used in all phases of learning from brainstorming ideas to presenting findings. They can be used individually or in large groups. For example, some teachers like to create a class concept map as a large group to review at the end of a unit or develop a character map while reading a book aloud to the class. These tools are particularly useful in activities that require critical thinking skills.
Advantages of Graphic Organizers
1. These organizers are a way to encourage students to think about information in new ways. With writing, it's easy for students to copy from one place to another. With graphic organizers, you remove the words and focus on the connections.
2. They are a great tool for activities that ask students to review concepts and demonstrate their understanding. They can easily make changes and take different perspectives. In other words, it helps students clarity their thinking.
3. It's easy to edit, revise, and quickly add to a visual map.
4. Graphic organizers can be used as a nice planning tool from information identification to product development. Finally, they are great for visual thinkers or those that need to practice their visual thinking.
Types of Graphic Organizers
Cause-Effect Chart
Classification Chart
Concept Web
KWL Chart
Matrix
Mind Map
SQ3R Chart
Sequence/Flow Chart
Spider Map
T-Chart
Thinking Tree
Time Line Chart
Two Story Map
Venn Diagram
In Classroom Instruction that Works: Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, by Robert J. Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane E. Pollack, it is suggested that all graphic organizers can be placed into six common patterns:
· Descriptive Patterns
· Time-Sequence Patterns
· Process/Cause-Effect Patterns
· Episode Patterns
· Generalization/Principle Patterns
· Concept Patterns
Marzano feels that graphic organizers are the "most common way to help students generate nonlinguistic representation" (Marzano 75). Marzano also cites Educational Technology Research and Development by Gerlic & Jausovec (1999), where the authors write that "engaging students in the creation of nonlinguistic representations stimulates and increases activity in th brain" (73). ""


Describing
Comparing Contrasting
Classifying
Sequencing
Causal
Decision Making
Webbing
Brainstorming WebMoney Web
Double Cell Diagram
Hierarchy DiagramResearch Cycle Cluster Diagram Desktop Folder System
Squirrels Web
Concept Mapping
Concept Map
Simile - School is..
Matrix
VennVenn ExpandedComparison Matrix
KWHL
Thinking grids
Flow Chart
Desktop Folder System
Linear StringExpanded Linear StringDominoe Effect
Brainstorming Web
Brainstorming is creative thinking by a group of people designed to generate a number of ideas to solve a given problem. Generate ideas and questions, access prior knowledge, assess interests and knowledge, develop probing questions and problems.
Critical Questions:
What is the topic or question to brainstormed?
Is the process clear for brainstorming?
Suggestions:
Relax. Play some creative music.
Spelling or style doesn't count.:>)
Don't worry about organization.
Think quantity.
Be positive, don't criticise.
Free-associate ideas. Keep them simple.
Write or sketch as quickly as you can.
Write or sketch in any order.
Develop all ideas.
Keep working.
Combine to improve each other's ideas Webbing Strategies:
Work from a central idea, concept, topic or question, gathering and linking thoughts in text and/or pictures. Expand thoughts from the center like branches on a web. Weave the web. When one branch stops or an idea doesn't fit create a new branch.
An alternative is to free associate a random list then sift, sort and develop relational links and design the web. Expand web branches and links. Explore any associations that strike your fancy.
Use paper and pencil, text or free sketch. Connect thoughts with relational links. Use sticky notes as an effective alternative. Free associate a different idea on each note, regroup the sticky notes into categories, then construct a web on butcher paper. Use different colored sticky notes to denote headings or categories that emerge from the brainstorm. Develop links on the paper -- text or sketches can be added at any time.
By far the most effective and efficient method is to use a commercial software program such as Inspirations.
Software programs have significant advantages over paper and pencil. They encourage building, creating and inventing -- yet keep the web legible. Webs become unwieldy as they grow. Software program manage growth. Select the look -- cluster, branching, right to left etc. Try different looks and nudge the cells to for style. An emerging new thought? Click on another cell or start a new branch. Change of mind? New insight? Revise, move, delete and paste. Save, print, or export the map into various formats. Some programs produce a nice neat linear text outline. Cool!
Group guidelines are a must when for maximum effectiveness. Use a strategy called 'Think, Pair, Share'. Work from individual association to sharing with a partner then collaborating as a group to develop the web.


A concept map is a special form of a web diagram for exploring knowledge and gathering and sharing information. Concept mapping is the strategy employed to develop a concept map. A concept map consists of nodes or cells that contain a concept, item or question and links. The links are labeled and denote direction with an arrow symbol. The labeled links explain the relationship between the nodes. The arrow describes the direction of the relationship and reads like a sentence.
Descriptive Concept Map (133K)
Uses:
Develop an understanding of a body of knowledge. Explore new information and relationships. Access prior knowledge. Gather new knowledge and information. Share knowledge and information generated. Design structures or processes such as written documents, constructions, web sites, web search, multimedia presentations.
Problem solve options.
Critical Questions:
What is the central word, concept, research question or problem around which to build the map?
What are the concepts, items, descriptive words or telling questions that you can associate with the concept, topic, research question or problem?
Suggestions:
Use a top down approach, working from general to specific or use a free association approach by brainstorming nodes and then develop links and relationships. Use different colors and shapes for nodes & links to identify different types of information. Use different colored nodes to identify prior and new information. Use a cloud node to identify a question.
Gather information to a question in the question node
Double Cell Diagram
Description: Two items linked by characteristics or attributes.
Uses: Describe and compare attributes and characteristics of two items, things, people, places, events or ideas.
Critical Questions:
What items do you want to compare?
What characteristics do the items have in common? What are not in common?
How are the items similar and different?
Suggestions:
A Double Cell Diagram is an excellent substitute for a Venn Diagram for comparing likenesses and differences. Good for use with younger children. Use cells and links with younger children to help them create more complex webs and maps in the future. String, hula hoops, colored yarn, colored paper, colored pens all can be useful to make cells on the floor or wall for younger children. A good tool to launch writing about what is similar and what is not.
Double Cell Diagram
As a visual teaching technique, a double cell diagram is very effective. Along with comparison matrices and Venn diagrams, double cell diagrams are used as a powerful educational tool dedicated to developing the power of logical thinking amongst students. Since the characteristics of two objects are relative, they can only be fully explored if they are effectively compared. Thus, using a double cell diagram, students can get acquainted with new objects and concepts. This method not only allows students to explore a new topic and further their knowledge about it, but also imparts key concepts in learning how to properly analyze a given set of information.
With the help of specific questions, a double cell diagram induces students to recall prior knowledge and generate new ideas related to the compared items. Once the teacher decides to employ a double cell diagram as an educational method, he/she should take into account several important points. The degree of sophistication of the double cell diagram should depend on the age and mental agility of the students being taught. Several helpful questions serving to define the aspects being confronted should be brought up. If possible, colorful diagrams should be used to encourage students' associative thinking. Colors can also be used to specify different aspects of comparison. Experts conclude diagrams with colors are easier to perceive than black-and-white ones, a theory that is especially critical to working with children.
Venn Diagram Basic
Description: Two items linked by characteristics or attributes.
Uses: Describe and compare attributes and characteristics of items (things, people, places, events, ideas, etc.)
Critical Questions:
What items do you want to compare? What characteristics do the items have in common (intersecting portion)?
How are the items similar (the same) and different (non intersecting portion) based on the characteristics?
Suggestions: Venn diagrams are useful as a graphics organization tool when comparing two things (and particularly for use with younger children). Simple Venn diagrams are used, in which no more than two curves intersect at a common point. Shared characteristics are listed in the overlapping section allowing for easy identification of which characteristics are shared and which aren't. String or colored yarn can be used to make circles on the floor and manipulatives and pictures are strongly encouraged. Programs like SmartDraw and Microsoft Powerpoint allow for the drawing of Venn diagrams on PCs. And you can draw your own here.A useful tool to start children writing about what is similar and what is not. A better tool to use is the Double Cell Diagram. See also Venn Diagram Expanded for comparing three items. More on Venn diagrams.
A Venn diagram serves to organize students' thoughts, and is labeled according to the topic at hand and the aspects that need to be compared and contrasted. Due to their relatively simple structure and visually effective nature, Venn diagrams are considered to be an indispensable educational technique, equally useful for both children and adults. Most teachers prefer to use a Venn diagram as a pre-writing activity in order to help students categorize the knowledge they have already gained. Having classified all the similarities and differences, students are able to make an in-depth analysis of the topic and draw a well-grounded conclusion.
Venn diagrams can be successfully applied to a wide range of subjects. For instance, students can compare and contrast several cities and their climates during a Geography lesson, organize various animals or different cell structures in Biology and study the character traits of different protagonists in works of twentieth century Literature. The key point is to determine the objects that need to be compared beforehand. The more aspects that are included in a Venn diagram, the more comprehensive the analysis is. To optimize the process you can use various colors and shapes. Originally, Venn diagrams were made using simple circles; however, triangles and quadrangles can be also used, especially when constructing several diagrams at the same time. If used correctly, this graphic tool makes the teaching and learning process a lot more interesting and effective.
Comparison Matrix
Description: Linked by characteristics or attributes.
Uses: Describe and compare attributes and characteristics of items (things, people, places, events, ideas, etc.), brainstorming.
Critical Questions:
What items do you want to compare? What characteristics do you want to compare?
How are the items similar and different based on the characteristics?
Suggestions: Place a 'X' in the box to indicate if an item possesses that characteristic. Make sure the student is clear and agrees on the definition of the specific characteristic.
How are they alike? How are they different?
As an effective analytic tool, a comparison matrix serves to determine the basic characteristics of an object. Using the aggregation method, a comparison matrix outlines the most typical features of an item without drawing a conclusion directly, but by simplifying the process of analysis.
Used as tools for educational purposes, comparison matrices are effective visual aids, featuring a simple and exact structure. With the help of this high-end invention, students can make in-depth comparisons, confronting multiple objects and their aspects all at once. Consequently, the use of this visual teaching method contributes to the development of analytical skills among students.
While making a comparison matrix, the teacher should consider the following points. Firstly, it’s important to make sure that all compared items are known to the students; otherwise it will be difficult to outline the items' characteristics. If students haven't worked with comparison matrices before, the structure of the matrix should be as unsophisticated as possible. Remember, you can always add more characteristics for multifaceted comparison. If students' knowledge of the topic isn't deep yet, place only several objects to compare, but include various aspects. Such an approach allows students to gain extended information, even it is about a few items. Once students have gotten well acquainted with the items and attained basic knowledge about them, you can introduce another comparison matrix with more items. Also, if you assign the completion of a comparison matrix as a home task, ensure that it can be easily printed.
Hierarchy Diagram
Description: Topics and attributes are linked by subordinate relationships.
Uses: Group items (things, people, places, events, ideas, etc.) into categories.
Critical Questions:
What items do we want to put together or classify? Top tier. How can we put them into groups that are alike? Second tier. Develop a rule to describe the group as to why they are alike. Are there any items that do not belong? If so create another group. (third tier)
Repeat process until all items are classified.
Suggestions: Initially students can either free associate items then begin to group or start with one major item and add links. Using tiers or rows helps the student to visualize classifying and breaking items into categories.
Cluster Diagram - Research Cycle
Description:Research question is linked by criterion and telling questions.
Uses:Develop criterion and telling questions for investigations.
Critical Questions:
What is the research question or problem?
What are the criterion against which I will weigh the decision?
What are the telling questions that will focus the search for information?
How will I gather the information?
Suggestions: The Research Cycle, developed by Dr. Jamie Mckenzie, is a powerful tool for developing student investigations. His web site,From Now On [on line], an electronic journal, is an excellent resource for learning more about creating researchable questions, The Research Cycle and integrating technology in schools.
Expanded Linear String
Description: Events are linked by time.
Uses: Describe a sequence of events, stages, phases, life cycles, actions and outcomes.
Critical Questions:
What is the name of the event, procedure or human figure that will be described? What are the stages, steps, phases or events? How do the stages, steps, phases or events relate to one another?
What is the final outcome?
Remarks: A basic version of the Linear String Chart is linked.
Web - Project Work - Writing - Squirrels

Do squirrels like people? Group of children brainstorm questions on the topic of squirrels for descriptive writing and exploration around future project work. This is an excellent way to begin and track project work.
KWHL chart
Description: Matrix for planning and gathering initial information.
Uses: Accessing prior information on a topic or theme, identifying primary and secondary resources to access, developing a plan for accessing resources, identifying attributes and characteristics to research.
Critical Questions:
What do we already know? What do we want to find out? How are we going to find out? What primary and secondary resources can we access?
What attributes or characteristic should we focus on?
Suggestions: Excellent tool to access prior information and to develop a plan for investigation. See AERO for details and options for types of primary and secondary resources tht could be accessed. Other graphic organizers can be linked as an extension of the KWHL Chart. A similar version can be used for active thinking during reading.
Spider Map
Used to describe a central idea: a thing (a geographic region), process (meiosis), concept (altruism), or proposition with support (experimental drugs should be available to AIDS victims). Key frame questions: What is the central idea? What are its attributes? What are its functions?
Series of Events Chain
Used to describe the stages of something (the life cycle of a primate); the steps in a linear procedure (how to neutralize an acid); a sequence of events (how feudalism led to the formation of nation states); or the goals, actions, and outcomes of a historical figure or character in a novel (the rise and fall of Napoleon). Key frame questions: What is the object, procedure, or initiating event? What are the stages or steps? How do they lead to one another? What is the final outcome?
Problem/Solution Outline
Used to represent a problem, attempted solutions, and results (the national debt). Key frame questions: What was the problem? Who had the problem? Why was it a problem? What attempts were made to solve the problem? Did those attempts succeed?
Network Tree
Used to show causal information (causes of poverty), a hierarchy (types of insects), or branching procedures (the circulatory system). Key frame questions: What is the superordinate category? What are the subordinate categories? How are they related? How many levels are there?
Human Interaction Outline
Used to show the nature of an interaction between persons or groups (Europeans settlers and American Indians). Key frame questions: Who are the persons or groups? What were their goals? Did they conflict or cooperate? What was the outcome for each person or group?
Fishbone Map
Used to show the causal interaction of a complex event (an election, a nuclear explosion) or complex phenomenon (juvenile delinquency, learning disabilities). Key frame questions: What are the factors that cause X ? How do they interrelate? Are the factors that cause X the same as those that cause X to persist?
Cycle
Used to show how a series of events interact to produce a set of results again and again (weather phenomena, cycles of achievement and failure, the life cycle). Key frame questions: What are the critical events in the cycle? How are they related? In what ways are they self-reinforcing?

A TEACHING RESOURCE PACKAGE FOR DEVELOPING
SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN THE
INTERMEDIATE GRADES



AN EXPANDED ABSTRACT




MARICEL P. CARIDAOAN




MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION
(Science Education)




March 2007



A TEACHING RESOURCE PACKAGE FOR DEVELOPING
SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN THE
INTERMEDIATE GRADES1


M.P. CARIDAOAN2 and N.E. LORENZO3


This study developed and validated a teaching resource package (TRP) for developing the science process skills of the intermediate grades. The TRP contained lessons based on the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC). Problem, hypothesis, materials, procedure, guide questions, generalization and assessment were contained in each lesson.
The study adapted the research and development methodology. A standardized process skill test was used as pretest to assess the extent to which the pupils have developed the basic and integrated science process skills prior to the study. Using the pretest results, a TRP was developed.
There were ten science teachers from the Division of Laoag City who content-validated the teaching resource package. Using a five-point scale checklist, the TRP was evaluated in terms of objectives, contents, activities, assessment and instructional characteristics.
The data gathered from the evaluation of the TRP and its effectiveness was analyzed using the weighted means for their validity and t-test for its effectiveness.
The validated TRP was tried out to 37 grade five pupils of Mariano Marcos State University-Laboratory Elementary School during the second and third grading periods of academic year 2006-2007. The experimental and control groups were matched in terms of their general average in grade four. The same standardized test was later given as a posttest to find out if there was a significant improvement in the science process skills of the pupils and whether there was a difference between the gains of both groups.
Results of the pretest showed that the pupils developed the science process skills at a low extent.
The results of the validation revealed that the materials met the basic requirements for developing instructional materials as manifested by the rating of very highly satisfactory. Hence, the TRP is valid in terms of objectives, contents, activities, assessment and instructional characteristics.
The results of the try-out showed a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the two groups. The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group in both basic and integrated science skills. This implies that the TRP was effective for developing the science process skills of the intermediate grades. However, there were some skills that are not significantly different in both group because it is not only the sole concern of science to develop such skills. It cuts across the other discipline like English and Filipino. This suggests, therefore that the TRP may still be improved to be able to develop further the skills of the concerned pupils.
It was then recommended that the teaching resource package be subjected for field-testing for further refinement, revision and completion to consider all lessons in the intermediate grades under the RBEC and reproduction of results for wider use of the pupils. Also, the problem and materials may be provided to the pupils for them to draw a procedure by themselves for hypothesis testing instead of just following the procedure stated in the activity sheet. Seminars and workshops should also be conducted to provide the teachers, especially those teaching science to equip them with the essential skills needed in the preparation and validation of the TRP and other similar instructional materials. Administrators should encourage every teacher to prepare and use teaching resource packages to develop the process skills of the pupils for better acquisition of concepts and principles in science; since it is not the sole responsibility of the science teacher to develop the skills but every teacher.





1 Master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate School, Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City, March 2007
2 Faculty, Mariano Marcos State University-Laboratory Elementary School, Laoag City
3.College Secretary, Mariano Marcos State University, Graduate School, Laoag City


Background of the Study


Filipino learners are confronted with a myriad of information from many disciplines in and out of the classroom setting. With the advent of information technology, a vast amount of ideas reach the contemporary learners easily. This knowledge is important not only to keep pace with the fast changing world but also to alleviate difficulties of adjustment posed by fast changing society.
To cope with rapid social evolution, Filipino learners are in dire need of an educational system that will empower them for lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is the process of striving to meet the incessant challenges of the new world (RBEC Primer, 2002). However, this will not take place without first attaining functional literacy, one of the ends of the present curriculum, the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC) of the Department of Education which emphasizes the development of basic scientific and numerical competency of the learners.
Studies and various educational assessments conducted in the past decades revealed the deteriorating quality of education of the Philippines. The 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) achievement test revealed the poor performance of Filipino learners. Out of 45 countries, the Philippines ranked 41st in science (Philippine Star, January 31, 2005). Likewise, the National Elementary Achievement Test conducted to sixth grade pupils showed a dismal performance of the Philippines in science which was from 54.12 % in 2005 to 46.77 % in 2006 (The Manila Times, October 2006). Moreover, the High School Readiness Test administered in May 2004 revealed that half of the estimated 1.4 million public elementary school graduates from all over the country equivalent to 700,000 failed to meet the cut-off score which was already lowered to 27 % (Philippine Star, June 17, 2004). The dismal scenario was further confirmed by another finding of the Department of Education that about 80% of the elementary school graduates flunked the Second High School Readiness Test given in August 2004 (PDI, September 14, 2004) which showed that most of the pupils in the sixth grade were not yet ready for the more complex learning tasks waiting for them in the high school level.
Furthermore, various studies which assessed pupils’ performance in the different learning areas, especially in science, revealed low proficiency. One reason for this, as cited by Ibe (1998), was the observation that teachers tell the pupils facts and principles instead of helping them get meanings themselves and facilitating the developmental use of science processes. She also noted that learners were not involved in the construction of learning. Similarly, Pascua (2003) inferred from the findings of his study that the desired goal of learning is not achieved because of the inability of the teachers to design and validate activities that enhance the development of science process skills.
The study of Roldan (1986), as cited by Pascua (2003), pointed out that the pupils’ learning abilities develop fast during the early grades and tend to plateau in the intermediate or approximately fourth grade level. Although this level is a bit higher than simple literacy, this is not yet functional literacy. The development of higher order thinking skills and integrated science process skills is seldom attained by Grade 5 pupils and there is a danger of reverting to illiteracy if the pupil drops out before the end of Grade 6. This alarming situation is prevalent in the educational system, signifying serious effects in society.
To help raise the quality of education, teaching-learning process should focus more on learning “how” rather than learning “what”. Science education, being one of the subjects that helps learners to keep pace with the rapidly changing world, should emphasize the development of the basic and integrated science process and skills. The teacher has the responsibility to provide learning situations that enhance the maximum acquisition of knowledge. Cruz (1976) explained that learning is more meaningful and permanent if the teacher gives such situations to the child who must be taught the process of acquiring learning rather than mere concepts.
It is, therefore the focus of this study to develop and validate a teaching resource package to develop the science process skills of the pupils based on a
survey of the extent to which the pupils have developed these skills.

Statement of the Problem

This study developed, validated and tried out a teaching resource package for developing the science process skills of the intermediate pupils of Mariano Marcos State University-Laboratory Elementary School (MMSU-LES).
Specifically, it answered the following questions:
1. To what extent have the pupils developed science process skills?
2. How content-valid is the teaching resource package in the development of the science process skills of the pupils in terms of:
a) objectives,
b) contents,
c) activities,
d) assessment, and;
e) instructional characteristics.
3. How effective is the teaching resource package for the development of the science process skills of the pupils?

Theoretical Framework


This research is anchored on Bruner’s theory of instruction (1966), Gagne’s Learning “how-to-learn skills” theory (1985) and Dewey’s “hands-on” learning (1971).
Jerome S. Bruner believes that the vital role of the teacher is to create situations in which the pupils can learn on their own, rather than being provided prepackaged information. They should be actively involved with concepts and principles. They should be encouraged to have concrete experiences and to conduct experiments themselves.
As stressed by Dewey, it is important to allow the child to attain experiential learning for the teacher’s primary task is to give him various experiences in order to learn. Activities must be provided to enhance the ability of the pupils to learn on their own. This will allow the pupil to gain mastery of the needed skills and concepts which are essential to future learning. It will motivate the pupil to organize his input, thereby making learning more relevant and meaningful. The teachers then must concretize learning for better assimilation and application of skills and concepts.
Likewise, there should be active involvement of the learners to develop their own learning capabilities as pointed out by Gagne (1985) in his learning “how-to-learn skills theory.” This concept emphasized that the teacher has the responsibility to devise activities relevant to the pupils. He must provide instructional materials, like teaching resource package, modules, workbooks and activities, to attain this objective and to meet the learner’s need. He should recognize the importance of learners’ entry capabilities in learning to suit any learning situation for them.
These theories provided the basis for this study since the activities which were developed were based on the initial assessment of the skills possessed by the pupils. These activities are intended to develop the science process skills of the pupils.

Conceptual Framework


Teaching should be adapted to the learners. The learners’ need should be the focus of instruction which should allow them to be actively involved in the educative process. Thus the teacher should be responsible for designing instruction that will best develop the skills of the pupils that will make concepts more relevant and permanent to them. Learners must be given an opportunity to learn on their own as emphasized by Gagne (1985) and Bruner (1966).
One way of allowing the learners to learn on their own is to creatively design and develop activities. Hence, this study focused on the development and validation of a teaching resource package containing activities based on the RBEC for developing the science process skills of the pupils.
The teaching resource package contains activities for the pupils and lesson guides for the teachers. Similar to the workbook developed and validated by Ancheta (2005), the pupils’ activities have the following components: problem, hypothesis, materials, procedure, guide questions, generalization and assessment. The teacher’s guide contains overview of the lesson, science process skills to be developed, concepts that can be taught through the activity, suggested teaching sequence and assessment.
The activities facilitate self-learning as they are given to the pupils in the course of the lesson in the form of activity sheets. As such, pupils are given opportunity to provide tentative answers to questions or to hypothesize; that they test their hypothesis by following the procedure until finally they arrive at a generalization. This would allow the learners to experience and find out for themselves if their answers to problems are correct or not. In this manner, their skills are developed as their involvement in the learning situation is maximized. There is a little supervision exercised by the teacher. With such classroom atmosphere, the pupils are given opportunities to discover and learn on their own. Hence allowing the pupils to develop the science process skills which the TRP aimed to provide.

METHODOLOGY
Research Design

This study focused on the development, validation and try out of a teaching resource package in the intermediate grades based on the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum. (RBEC) using research and development (R and D) methodology.
The research and development methodology is a process intended to develop and validate educational outputs so that these can be used and extended over a vast area. (Gallardo 2000).
The development, validation and try out of the teaching resource package followed three stages, namely: planning stage, development stage, and validation stage. The first stage involved a bibliographical survey and empirical survey on the science process skills of the pupils. The second was the development stage which included the writing activities. The third stage of the study was the content validation and preliminary revision of the activities try-out, content validation and final revision of the teaching resource package.

Locale of the Study

The study area was conducted at the Laboratory Elementary School of the Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU-LES) located in Laoag City. Two matched sections of grade five classes were involved in the study. One was the experimental class and the other, the control class.

Population and Sample

The subjects of this study were the grade five pupils of MMSU-LES for the school year 2006-2007. There were 23-paired pupils in all.
In order not to disturb the mental and environmental set of the pupils, the usual classroom setting was maintained. No regrouping of pupils was made. However, the pupils in both classes were matched based on their general average in grade four.

Instrumentation

Two different instruments were used in this study to gather data, namely:
the Perez test on process skills to test of the extent of the science process skills developed by the pupils and the checklist for the content-validation of the teaching resource package.
Perez test on process skills. This is a standardized test constructed by Carolina Perez (1980) which is a 50-item multiple-choice type test on process skills. It was used as pretest to determine the extent the pupils have developed the science process skills and as posttest to determine if the developed and validated activities enhanced the science process skills of the intermediate pupils.
Checklist for the validation of the teaching resource package. This is a 28- item scale which was used by the teacher-respondents in determining the content validity of the teaching resource package. Five items were on the objectives of the lesson, four on the content, eleven on the activities and eight on the instructional characteristics. The checklist that was used in this study with some modifications was patterned after the instrument used in the study of Gallardo (2000).
Responses to the content-validation items was indicated and interpreted
using the following five- point scale which was used by Ancheta (2005) in her research.

Data Gathering Procedure

A standardized process skill test was used as pretest to assess the extent to
which the pupils have developed the basic and integrated science process skills prior to the study. Using the pretest results, a teaching resource package was developed. It was content-validated by ten science teachers from the Division of Laoag City. Using a five-point scale checklist, the TRP was evaluated in terms of objectives, contents, activities, assessment and instructional characteristics. The validated TRP was tried out to 37 grade five pupils of Mariano Marcos State University-Laboratory Elementary School during the second and third grading periods of academic year 2006-2007. The experimental and control groups were matched in terms of their general average in grade four. The same standardized test was later given as a posttest to find out if there was a significant improvement in the science process skills of the pupils and whether there was a difference between the gains of both groups.
The data gathered from the evaluation of the TRP and its effectiveness was analyzed using the weighted means for their validity and t-test for its effectiveness.
The following are the stages followed by the researcher in the conduct of this study.

I. Planning Stage

Phase 1. Bibliographical survey. This phase involved a survey of possible literature on science process skills and prototype activities particularly on the guidelines on the format, technical details, management and techniques and modes of the presentation of such activities. A systematic planning on how to go about the development and validation of the teaching resource package followed. The researcher examined the concepts and skills included in the learning competencies for grade five based on the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC).
Phase 2. Empirical survey. The researcher conducted a pretest using the Perez process skill test to determine the extent to which the grade five pupils have developed the science process skills. The results of the test were analyzed and interpreted by the researcher.

II. Development Stage

Phase 3. Writing the activities. Prototype activities were examined before developing the activities. The preliminary form included the following essential features: the specific objectives to be achieved by the pupils, a logical sequence of information for each topic, activities to enhance the development of basic and integrated science process skills and preparation of evaluative items based on the content of the lesson.

III. Validation Stage

Phase 4. Content validation of the activities. The set of developed activities was appraised as to content by the science teachers in the Division of Laoag City who are experts in their field with the use of an evaluation checklist.
Phase 5. Preliminary revision of the activities. The pooled assessment of the teacher evaluators and experts was the basis for the revision of the activities. Their suggestions were considered for the improvement of the activities.
Phase 6. Try-out of the activities. To find out the usefulness or effectiveness of the activities, these were tried out on one of the classes in grade five of MMSU-Laboratory Elementary School which served as the experimental class. Another class served as the control class. In order not to disturb the mental and environmental set up of the pupils the usual classroom setting was maintained however, subjects were matched on the basis of their average in grade four. Table 1 shows the result of the t-test of difference between the mean average of the experimental and control groups.





Table 1. t-test of difference between the mean general average of pupils in the experimental and control groups.

Mean General Mean t-value Prob.
Average Difference

Experimental Group 85.9217 0.261 0.646 0.525
Control Group 85.8957

Results reveal that the difference of 0.261 between the two means is not significant as indicated by the t-value of 0.646 which has a probability less than 0.01. Hence, it was concluded that there is no significant difference between the mean general average of the experimental and control groups. This implies that the two groups are equated in terms of ability, which in this case in the entry science process skills.
The following steps were followed by the researcher during the try-out phase: a) administering the lesson using the activities. The pupils were provided with the activities and experiences that made them enjoy learning. b) conducting the posttest. After exposing the pupils to the science process skills-enhanced activities, the posttest which is the same test used in the pretest, was administered to determine the gain made in the development of science process skills of the pupils.
Phase 7. Final revision of the activities. Revisions were made on the activities and the teacher’s guide on the basis of the result of the try-out of the teaching resource package. All corrections and reactions were incorporated in the final copy of the teaching science process skills enhanced-activities.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The following statistical tools were employed to analyze the data for this study:
The mean was used to determine the entry science process skills of the pupils. Individual scores of pupils were converted to percent scores in each science process skill.
Weighted mean was computed to determine the validity of the teaching resource package.
The t- tests for correlated samples were displayed to determine if there is a significant gain in the posttest scores of the pupils to find the effectiveness of the teaching resource package.

METHODOLOGY
Research Design

This study focused on the development, validation and try out of a teaching resource package in the intermediate grades based on the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum. (RBEC) using research and development (R and D) methodology.
The research and development methodology is a process intended to
develop and validate educational outputs so that these can be used and extended over a vast area. (Gallardo 2000).
The development, validation and try out of the teaching resource package followed three stages, namely: planning stage, development stage, and validation stage. The first stage involved a bibliographical survey and empirical survey on the science process skills of the pupils. The second was the development stage which included the writing activities. The third stage of the study was the content validation and preliminary revision of the activities try-out, content validation and final revision of the teaching resource package.

Locale of the Study

The study area was conducted at the Laboratory Elementary School of the Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU-LES) located in Laoag City. Two matched sections of grade five classes were involved in the study. One was the experimental class and the other, the control class.

Population and Sample

The subjects of this study were the grade five pupils of MMSU-LES for the school year 2006-2007. There were 23 paired pupils in all.
In order not to disturb the mental and environmental set of the pupils, the usual classroom setting was maintained. No regrouping of pupils was made. However, the pupils in both classes were matched based on their general average in grade four.

Instrumentation

Two different instruments were used in this study to gather data, namely: the Perez test on process skills to test of the extent of the science process skills developed by the pupils and the checklist for the content-validation of the teaching resource package.
Perez test on process skills. This is a standardized test constructed by Carolina Perez (1980) which is a 50-item multiple-choice type test on process skills. It was used as pretest to determine the extent the pupils have developed the science process skills and as posttest to determine if the developed and validated activities enhanced the science process skills of the intermediate pupils.
Checklist for the validation of the teaching resource package. This is a 28- item scale which was used by the teacher-respondents in determining the content validity of the teaching resource package. Five items were on the objectives of the lesson, four on the content, eleven on the activities and eight on the instructional characteristics. The checklist that was used in this study with some modifications was patterned after the instrument used in the study of Gallardo (2000). Responses to the content-validation items was indicated and interpreted using the five- point scale.

Data Gathering Procedure

A standardized process skill test was used as pretest to assess the extent to which the pupils have developed the basic and integrated science process skills prior to the study. Using the pretest results, a teaching resource package was developed. It was content-validated by ten science teachers from the Division of Laoag City. Using a five-point scale checklist, the TRP was evaluated in terms of objectives, contents, activities, assessment and instructional characteristics. The validated TRP was tried out to 37 grade five pupils of Mariano Marcos State University-Laboratory Elementary School during the second and third grading periods of academic year 2006-2007. The experimental and control groups were matched in terms of their general average in grade four. The same standardized test was later given as a posttest to find out if there was a significant improvement in the science process skills of the pupils and whether there was a difference between the gains of both groups.
The data gathered from the evaluation of the TRP and its effectiveness was analyzed using the weighted means for their validity and t-test for its effectiveness.
The following are the stages followed by the researcher in the conduct of this study.


I. Planning Stage

Phase 1. Bibliographical survey. This phase involved a survey of possible literature on science process skills and prototype activities particularly on the guidelines on the format, technical details, management and techniques and modes of the presentation of such activities. A systematic planning on how to go about the development and validation of the teaching resource package followed. The researcher examined the concepts and skills included in the learning competencies for grade five based on the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC).
Phase 2. Empirical survey. The researcher conducted a pretest using the Perez process skill test to determine the extent to which the grade five pupils have developed the science process skills. The results of the test were analyzed and interpreted by the researcher.

II. Development Stage

Phase 3. Writing the activities. Prototype activities were examined before developing the activities. The preliminary form included the following essential features: the specific objectives to be achieved by the pupils, a logical sequence of information for each topic, activities to enhance the development of basic and integrated science process skills and preparation of evaluative items based on the content of the lesson.
III. Validation Stage
Phase 4. Content validation of the activities. The set of developed activities was appraised as to content by the science teachers in the Division of Laoag City who are experts in their field with the use of an evaluation checklist.
Phase 5. Preliminary revision of the activities. The pooled assessment of the teacher evaluators and experts was the basis for the revision of the activities. Their sPuggestions were considered for the improvement of the activities
Phase 6. Try-out of the activities. To find out the usefulness or effectiveness of the activities, these were tried out on one of the classes in grade five of MMSU-Laboratory Elementary School which served as the experimental class. Another class served as the control class. In order not to disturb the mental and environmental set up of the pupils the usual classroom setting was maintained however, subjects were matched on the basis of their average in grade four. Table 1 shows the result of the t-test of difference between the mean average of the experimental and control groups.
Table 1. t-test of difference between the mean general average of pupils in the experimental and control groups.

Mean General Mean t-value Prob.
Average Difference

Experimental Group 85.9217 0.261 0.646 0.525
Control Group 85.8957

Results reveal that the difference of 0.261 between the two means is not significant as indicated by the t-value of 0.646 which has a probability less than 0.01. Hence, it was concluded that there is no significant difference between the mean general average of the experimental and control groups. This implies that the two groups are equated in terms of ability, which in this case in the entry science process skills.
The following steps were followed by the researcher during the try-out phase: a) administering the lesson using the activities. The pupils were provided with the activities and experiences that made them enjoy learning. b) conducting the posttest. After exposing the pupils to the science process skills-enhanced activities, the posttest which is the same test used in the pretest, was administered to determine the gain made in the development of science process skills of the pupils.
Phase 7. Final revision of the activities. Revisions were made on the activities and the teacher’s guide on the basis of the result of the try-out of the teaching resource package. All corrections and reactions were incorporated in the final copy of the teaching science process skills enhanced-activities. The methodological paradigm of the study is shown in Figure I:


PLANNING STAGE

Bibliographical
Survey

Empirical
Survey

DEVELOPMENT STAGE
Writing the Activities

Content Validation of the Activities

Preliminary Revision of the Activities

VALIDATION STAGE

Try-out of the Activities

Final Revision







Figure 1. Flowchart on the Steps of the Research.


Statistical Treatment of Data

The following statistical tools were employed to analyze the data for this study:
The mean was used to determine the entry science process skills of the pupils. Individual scores of pupils were converted to percent scores in each science process skill. The following range interval of mean scores was used in interpreting the percent scores of pupils:
Range of the Mean Scores Descriptive Interpretation
80.00 - 100.00 Very High
60.00 - 79.99 High
40.00 - 59.99 Average
20.00 - 39.99 Low
0.00 - 19.99 Very Low
Weighted mean was computed to determine the validity of the teaching resource package. The following range interval of point scores was used in interpreting the percent scores of pupils:
Weighted Scale Range Interval Descriptive Interpretation
5 4.51 – 5.00 Very highly satisfactory
4 3.51 – 4.50 Very satisfactory
3 2.51 – 3.50 Satisfactory
2 1.51 – 2.50 Moderately satisfactory
1 1.00 – 1.50 Needs improvement
The t- tests for correlated samples were displayed to determine if there is a significant gain in the posttest scores of the pupils to find the effectiveness of the teaching resource package.

FINDINGS

Entry Science Process Skills of Pupils


The entry science process skills of pupils were determined using a standardized test. The percent mean scores of pupils and the descriptive interpretation of their performance in the basic and integrated science process skills are presented in Table 2.
The entry science process skills of pupils both in the experimental and control groups on the basic process skills of observing, classifying, measuring, inferring, using space/time relation, using number and communicating is average while the skill of predicting is low. Likewise, the pupils have developed the integrated process skill of defining operationally to an average level. The entry science process skills of pupils in interpreting data is low while it is very low on the integrated skills of formulating hypothesis, controlling variables and experimenting.


Table 2. Entry science process skills of pupils.

Experimental Group Control Group
Science Process Skills Mean Descriptive Mean Descriptive Score Interpretation Score Interpretation

A. Basic Process Skills
Observing 46.09 Average 47.83 Average
Classifying 40.43 Average 46.96 Average
Measuring 50.00 Average 52.17
Average
Inferring
45.65
Average
45.65
Average
Predicting
20.65
Low
16.30
Low
Using Space/Time Relation
49.30
Average
48.52
Average
Using Numbers
45.22
Average
42.61
Average
Communicating
47.83
Average
58.70
Average
B. Integrated Process Skills




Defining Operationally
52.17
Average
52.17
Average
Formulating Hypothesis
13.04
Very Low
16.30
Very Low
Interpreting Data
23.96
Low
26.70
Low
Controlling Variables
10.43
Very Low
11.30
Very Low
Experimenting
10.87
Very Low
10.87
Very Low
Overall Mean Scores 35.05 Low 36.62 Low

Legend: Range of the Mean Scores Descriptive Interpretation
80.0 - 100.00 Very High
60.00 - 99.99 High
40.00 - 59.99 Average
20.00 - 39.99 Low
0.00 - 19.99 Very Low


These findings concur with the study of Pascua (2003) who found out that the pupils have demonstrated an average or moderately satisfactory level of performance in the science process skills. The overall percent mean scores of 35.05 for the experimental group and 36.62 for the control groups are interpreted as low. It implies that the pupils have low mastery of the basic process skills; consequently, they also have low proficiency in the integrated process skill.

Validity of the Teaching Resource Package

The teaching resource package contained activities for the pupils and lesson guides for the teachers. Similar to the workbook developed and validated by Ancheta (2005), the pupils’ activities have the following components, namely: problem, hypothesis, materials, procedure, guide questions, generalization and assessment. The teacher’s guide contains the overview, science process skills to be developed, concepts that can be taught through the activity, suggested teaching sequence and assessment of the lesson. To determine the content validity of the teaching resource package in terms of objectives, content, activities, instructional characteristics and assessment, ten experts from the Division of Laoag City evaluated the materials along the five aspects. The results of the evaluation made by the experts on the materials are presented in Table 3.
Objectives. It can be noted from Table 3 that the experts responded positively to all the items regarding the objectives of the workbook.
The weighted means which range from 4.60 to 5.00 show that the objectives of the teaching resource package are very highly satisfactory. The composite mean of 4.74 indicates that on the whole, the objectives are valid since they were rated as attainable, specific, measurable and clearly stated.
Table 3. Results of the content validation of the teaching resource package by experts as to objectives, content, activities, assessment and instructional characteristics.
Criteria Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation

A. Objectives
The objectives are
1. attainable. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
2. measurable. 4.60 Very Highly Satisfactory
3. observable. 4.60 Very Highly Satisfactory
4. specific. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
5. testable. 4.70 Very Highly Satisfactory
Composite Mean 4.70 Very Highly Satisfactory

B. Content
The teaching resource package
1. develops concepts relevant to the
objectives of the subject. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
2. provides accurate, up-to-date and
relevant information. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
3. focuses on specific skills and
concepts. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
4. uses title that are appropriate to
the content. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
Composite Mean 4.85 Very Highly Satisfactory

C. Activities
The activities
1. are varied and challenging. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
2. are interesting and enjoyable. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
3. provide opportunities for the
pupils to be actively involved. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
4. is well organized and properly
sequenced. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
5. provide adequate examples and
exercises to facilitate mastery of
content and skills. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
6. provide the pupils a “hands-on”
experience. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
7. encourage pupils to be creative 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
8. develop and promote critical
thinking skills. 4.60 Very Highly Satisfactory
9. employ various teaching strategies. 4.60 Very Highly Satisfactory
10. can be done within a specific time
frame. 4.60 Very Highly Satisfactory
11. sustain the attention and interest of
the pupils. 4.70 Very Highly Satisfactory

Table 3. (Continued)

Criteria Weighted Mean Descriptive Interpretation

Composite Mean 4. 83 Very Highly Satisfactory

D. Assessment
The evaluative materials
1. related to the concepts, topics and
activities. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
2. measure mastery of the lesson. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
3. develop critical thinking. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
4. help the teachers assess whether
he/she has taught effectively or not. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
Composite Mean 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory

E. Instructional characteristics
The teaching resource package
1. uses clear and easy to understand
words, phrase and sentences. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
2. contains instruction that are
clearly and easily understood
by the pupils. 4.80 Very Highly Satisfactory
3. makes use of sentences that are
appropriate in length. 4.70 Very Highly Satisfactory
4. uses logically arranged directions. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
5. make use of format pupils and
teachers can easily follow. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
6. makes use of appropriate
situations. 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
7. encourages the use of low-cost
materials. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory
8. uses words which are within the
vocabulary of the pupils. 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory

Composite Mean 4.90 Very Highly Satisfactory

Overall Mean 4.84 Very Highly Satisfactory

Legend: Range of Weighted Mean Descriptive Rating
4.51 - 5.00 Very Highly Satisfactory
3.51 - 4.50 Very Satisfactory
2.50 - 3.50 Satisfactory
1.51 - 2.50 Moderately Satisfactory
1.00 - 1.50 Needs Improvement


Hence, the teaching resource package is valid in terms of objectives. This is supported by the comments of experts 2 and 6, who remarked:

“The objectives are well planned. They are clear and stated in a manner to elicit pupils’ reactions to situations similar to day-to-day experiences.”
Expert 2

“The objectives are attainable and specific.”
Expert 6

Contents. The experts favorably rated the contents of the TRP as shown by the composite mean of 4.85 is interpreted as very highly satisfactory. This means that the skills to be developed, as well as the concepts to be learned, are relevant, organized, and systematic and are suited to the level of the largest population. Thus, the teaching resource package is valid in terms of content. One of the experts commented that the content of the TRP “is suited to the needs and different abilities of the pupils and they are within the scope of the requirements of the course of study.”
Activities. Table 3 also shows that the activities included in the TRP are very satisfactory as shown by the weighted means which range from 4.60 to 5.00 and a composite mean of 4.83. This indicates that the activities are relevant and appropriate for the objectives and contents of the teaching resource package; hence, the activities are valid. This was supported by the following comments of some experts:
“The activities are well planned. They encourage total involvement of the pupils.”
Expert 2

“The activities provide the pupils with hands-on experiences that suit to their level of thinking and skills.”
Expert 4

“Activities are creatively done. They also develop the process skills of the learners.”
Expert 6

Assessment. The assessment part of the teaching resource package obtained weighted means which range from 4.80 to 5.00 and composite mean of 4.90 which are interpreted as very highly satisfactory. These ratings show that the assessment activities are relevant to the objectives, particularly to the development of critical thinking. As the respondents commented:

“The assessment activities are interesting and enjoyable.”
Expert 5

“The assessment part is relevant to the objectives and contents of the teaching resource package.”
Expert 10


Instructional characteristics. The teaching resource package was evaluated in terms of its instructional characteristics. The weighted means which range from 4.70 to 5.00 and the composite mean of 4.90 are interpreted as very highly satisfactory. It shows that the teaching resource package utilizes a format that is easy to follow and language that is clear and easy to understand. Thus, the TRP is valid in terms of instructional characteristics. These findings were supported by the remarks of the expert:
“The teaching resource package facilitates learning process.”
Expert 3

“The teaching resource package provides suitable learning tasks which are focused on the learners. It also gives the pupils hands-on experiences which develop their skills.”
Expert 7

Effectiveness of the Teaching Resource Package


To determine the effectiveness of the TRP, the pretest and posttest mean scores of each of the experimental and control classes were described and statistically compared.
Table 4 discloses the differences between the percent mean scores of the pupils in the experimental and control groups of each of the basic and integrated science process skills.
Results of the t-tests reveal that only the integrated science process skill of formulating hypothesis is significantly different as evidenced by the t-values with probabilities greater than 0.01. This implies that, it can still be inferred that the pupils in both groups have more or less the same entry knowledge about the process skills presented as shown by their overall percent mean scores which is not significantly different.
Table 4. Results of the t-test of difference between the pretest mean scores of the experimental and control groups.

Science Process Pretest Mean Score Difference t- value Prob.
Skills Experimental Control

A. Basic Process Skills





Observing
Average
Average
1.74
0.810
0.426
Classifying
Average
Average
6.53
1.648
0.114
Measuring
Average
Average
2.17
0.295
0.770
Inferring
Average
Average
0.00
0.000
1.000
Predicting
Low
Very Low
4.35
1.000
0.328
Using Space/Time Relation
Average
Average
0.78
0.202
0.842
Using Numbers
Average
Average
3.06
0.826
0.418
Communicating
Average
Average
10.87
1.226
0.233
B. Integrated Process Skills





Defining Operationally
Average
Average
0.00
0.000
1.000
Formulating Hypothesis
Very Low
Very Low
3.26
5.624**
0.000
Interpreting Data
Low
Low
2.74
1.045
0.307
Controlling Variables
Very Low
Very Low
0.87
0.327
0.747
Experimenting
Very Low
Very Low
0.00
0.000
1.000
Overall Mean Score Low Low 1.57 1.120 0.275

** - Significant at the 0.01 probability level

Table 5 shows the results of the t-test of difference between the posttest and pretest mean scores of the experimental groups.
It can be gleaned from Table 5 that the mean scores of the pupils in the experimental group in the basic and integrated process skills are very much higher than their pretest mean scores as indicated by their respective t-values ranging from 2.472 to 15.461 of the mean differences with probabilities less than 0.01. The t-value of the percent mean difference (26.66) of the overall mean pretest and posttest scores is significant. This means that by using the teaching resource

Table 5. Results of the t-test of difference between the posttest and pretest mean scores of the experimental group.

Science Process Mean Score Mean Score t- value Prob.
Skills Posttest Pretest Difference
A. Basic Process Skills





Observing
High
Average
15.65
7.240**
0.000
Classifying
High
Average
21.31
11.759**
0.000
Measuring
High
Average
15.22
3.102**
0.005
Inferring
High
Average
17.39
3.425**
0.002
Predicting
High
Low
40.22
15.461**
0.000
Using Space/Time Relation
High
Average
12.96
5.565**
0.000
Using Numbers
Average
Average
13.48
6.916**
0.000
Communicating
High
Average
17.39
3.425**
0.002
B. Integrated Process Skills





Defining Operationally
High
Average
10.87
2.472*
0.022
Formulating Hypothesis
Average
Very Low
33.70
11.285**
0.000
Interpreting Data
High
Low
36.21
12.485**
0.000
Controlling Variables
Average
Very Low
47.05
11.613**
0.000
Experimenting
High
Very Low
52.17
13.651**
0.000
Overall Mean Scores High Low 26.66 22.153** 0.000

** - Significant at the 0.01 probability level
* - Significant at the 0.05 probability level

package (TRP) as an instructional material, the pupils were able to develop to a greater extent the science process skills.
The results of the t-test of difference between the posttest and pretest mean scores of the pupils in the control group in the basic and integrated science process skills are shown in Table 6.
Results reveal that the mean scores of pupils along the basic process skills of observing, measuring and inferring are not significantly different while the mean scores in the basic skills of classifying, predicting, using space/time relation, using numbers and communicating are significantly different. It also shows that the integrated skills of formulating hypothesis, interpreting data, controlling variables and experimenting are significantly different while the mean scores in the skill of defining operationally is not significantly different. The t-value (7.940) of the difference (12.73) of overall mean score of the posttest and pretest scores of the control group is also significant.

Table 6. Results of the t-test of difference between the posttest and pretest mean scores of the control group.

Science Process Mean Score Mean t- value Prob. Skills Posttest Pretest Difference

A. Basic Process Skills





Observing
Average
Average
4.34
2.011
0.057
Classifying
Average
Average
3.47
2.152*
0.043
Measuring
Average
Average
2.18
0.569
0.575
Inferring
Average
Average
6.52
1.817
0.083
Predicting
Average
Very Low
33.70
6.038**
0.000
Using Space/Time Relation
Average
Average
6.65
3.761**
0.001
Using Numbers
Average
Average
6.96
3.425**
0.002
Communicating
Average
Average
0.00
0.000
1.000
B. Integrated Process Skills





Defining Operationally
Average
Average
4.35
1.447
0.162
Formulating Hypothesis
Low
Very Low
21.74
7.609**
0.000
Interpreting Data
Average
Low
21.17
9.668**
0.000
Controlling Variables
Low
Very Low
26.09
7.609**
0.000
Experimenting
Low
Very Low
28.26
5.348**
0.000
Overall Mean Score Average Low 12.73 7.940** 0.000

** - Significant at the 0.01 probability level
* - Significant at the 0.05 probability level


This finding implies that the basic process skills were also developed by the pupils in the control group but to a low extent. The development of other skills was significant since the pupils were also given learning activities to develop these skills through the use of charts, pictures and other instructional materials such as pictures of animals, real plants or seeing the plants in their natural environment traditionally used in the classroom. These improvements however, are mere outcome of the learning experiences provided by the teacher. Table 7 shows difference in the posttest means scores of the experimental and control groups.

Table 7. Results of the t-test of difference between the posttest percent mean scores of the experimental and control groups

Science Process % Mean Posttest Score % Mean t- value Prob.
Skills Experimental Control Difference

A. Basic Process Skills





Observing
High
Average
9.57
3.140**
0.005
Classifying
High
Average
11.31
3.441**
0.002
Measuring
High
Average
10.87
1.417
0.171
Inferring
High
Average
10.87
1.553
0.135
Predicting
High
Average
10.87
1.311
0.203
Using Space/Time Relation
High
Average
7.09
1.698
0.104
Using Numbers

Average
9.13
2.910**
0.008
Communicating
High
Average
6.52
0.901
0.377
B. Integrated Process Skills





Defining Operationally
High
Average
6.52
1.000
0.328
Formulating Hypothesis
Average
Low
8.70
2.152*
0.043
Interpreting Data
High
Average
12.30
3.101**
0.005
Controlling Variables
Average
Low
20.09
4.630**
0.000
Experimenting
High
Low
23.91
3.867**
0.001
Overall Percent Mean Score High Average !1.40 7.201** 0.000

** - Significant at the 0.01 probability level
* - Significant at the 0.05 probability level


It can be gleaned from Table 7 that the difference in the posttest percent mean scores of the two groups in the basic skills of observing, classifying and using numbers are significant at the 0.01 probability level but not significantly different along the skills of measuring, inferring, predicting, using space/time relation and communicating. It implies that the pupils have developed the basic skills of observing, classifying and using numbers. It is along these skills that they were given adequate activities.
Results of the t-test also reveal that the posttest percent mean scores of the two groups in the integrated skills of defining operationally are not significantly different while the integrated skills of formulating hypothesis, interpreting data, controlling variables and experimenting are significantly different. This means that pupils in both groups are hard up in making operational definitions. This result is attributed to the fact that they tend to give conceptual definitions based on what they read in the textbooks which they usually do. This implies that communication skills help in the development of other skills like operationalizing definitions. This further implies that the development of some process skills is not only the concern of science but also in other subjects like English and Filipino. This suggests, therefore that the TRP may still be improved to be able to develop further the skills of the concerned pupils. Nevertheless, the result of the study still conforms with those of Martinez (1990), Pacis (1995) and Pichay (2001) that learners have low performance in the basic and integrated process skills. Hence, the need to develop these skills using the teaching resource package.
However, the development of the other four integrated skills in the experimental class was significant. This shows that the TRP is effective in developing these skills. The t-value of the difference (11.40) of the overall mean scores in the posttest which is 7.201 between the two groups is significant at 0.01 level of probability. This means that the pupils in the experimental group have higher posttest percent mean scores than the control group. It shows that the TRP is an effective instructional material. In other words, pupils developed the basic and integrated process skills to a greater extent than the control group by using the teaching resource package.
The general findings confirm the conclusions of Guarino (2003), Gallardo (2000), Paguyo (1995), Mina (1995), Quirino (1995), Ancheta (1997) and Ancheta (2005) that using an instructional material develop skills and concepts among learners. This is further strengthened by the study of Quintana (1979) who developed and validated learning activities. The result of his study pointed out that learning is more meaningful and the development of skills is more effective with the provisions of instructional materials like the teaching resource package. These studies revealed that instructional materials developed and validated based on the abilities of the learners help improve their process skills.
This research therefore, supports the conclusion that a teaching source package is effective in developing the basic and integrated science process skills of the intermediate pupils.

Conclusion


Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
A validated teaching resource package is effective for developing the basic and integrated process skills of the intermediate grades as shown by the significant difference of the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and the control groups. In other words, pupils found to have low entry level in process skills developed their basic and integrated process skills by using the teaching resource package. However, there were some skills like communicating and defining operationally that are not significantly different in both group because it is not only the sole concern of science to develop such skills. It cuts across the other discipline like English and Filipino. This suggests, therefore that the TRP may still be improved to be able to develop further the skills of the concerned pupils.
The result of this study affirmed the theories of Bruner, Gagne and Dewey that learners should be provided with activities to enhance their ability to learn on their own. These instructional materials promote hands-on learning which is very significant in the development of the basic and integrated science process skills of the pupils. With the use of activities, pupils are given opportunities to be actively involved in the learning process which develops their skills.

Recommendations

In the light of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are offered:
The teaching resource package is recommended for field-testing for further refinement, revision and completion to consider all lessons in the intermediate grades under the RBEC. Also, the problem and materials may be provided to the pupils for them to draw a procedure by themselves for hypothesis testing instead of just following the procedure stated in the activity sheet. Seminars and workshops should also be conducted to provide the teachers, especially those teaching science to equip them with the essential skills needed in the preparation and validation of the TRP and other similar instructional materials.
Administrators should encourage every teacher to prepare and use teaching resource packages to develop the process skills of the pupils for better acquisition of concepts and principles in science; since it is not the sole responsibility of the science teacher to develop the skills but every teacher.










LITERATURE CITED


Ancheta, G.V. (1997) Construction and validation of a workbook in general chemistry II. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Ancheta, M.U. (2005) Curriculum-based workbook and teacher’s guide in science and technology I. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos Sate University. Laoag City

Cain S.E. (1990). Sciencing: an involvement approach to elementary science methods. Mervill Publishing Company, New York.

Carin, et. al. (1975.) Teaching science through discovery. Charles E. Mervill Publishing Company. Columbus, Ohio.

De Leon S. (1989). Fundamentals of statistics. National Bookstore, Manila

Gabriel. M.M. (2001). Teaching resource package integrating mathematical concepts and skills with direct current circuit. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City

Galindo, J. M. (1988) Relative effectiveness of instructional games in the development of science concepts, processes and attitudes. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Guarino, M. A. (2002). Development and validation of a teaching resource package o selected topics in general chemistry. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City

Luis, E. B. (1995) Development and validation of workbook in geography for grade IV. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Kuslan and Stone (1989). Teaching children science: an inquiry approach. Wadsworth Publishing Company Incorporated, Belmont, California.

Paguyo, C.G. (1995). Design and validation of a resourcebook for the teaching of asian civilization. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.
Neat Result. Philippine Star. January 31, 2005

Pasis, C.Y. (1995). Correlates of integrated science process skills of the engineering freshmen of Mariano Marcos State University. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City

Pascua, U. C. (2003). Teachers summative tests and pupils cognitive and process skills development. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Pichay, M.M. (2001). Methods and techniques of high school chemistry teachers in developing science process. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mariano marcos State University, Laoag City.

80% of High School Freshmen Flunk Test. Philippine Daily Inquirer August 14, 2004.

Primer on the basic education curriculum. Philippine elementary learning continuum. 2002

Quirino, A.R. (1995). Development and validation of learning activity package on map and globe skills for high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Quitola, J.S. (1989). Relationship of science interest to the development of science processes and achievement pattern. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City.

Religiosa. T.F. (1995). Science and progress; sourcebook for science teachers. Phoenix Publishing House, Quezon City.

Science Education in the Philippines: Challenges for development (A Technical Paper). 1998

Students flunk key tests; public elementary, high-school youths get dismal scores in national exam. The Manila Times. October 13, 2006

Victor, Edward (1989). Science for the elementary school. McMillan Publishing Company. New York


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH















DR. NATIVIDAD E. LORENZO is the college secretary and concurrently the program adviser of the MAEd science education students of the MMSU-Graduate School. She also teaches educational research in the undergraduate level and science courses in the graduate level.
She was hailed The Most Outstanding Teacher by the Metrobank Foundation and the MMSU during its foundation anniversary. She has been a faculty member of the MMSU-Laboratory Elementary School at the same time the BSE Student Teaching supervisor at the MMSU-College of teacher Education.
To date, she incessantly trains science and non-science teachers for teaching competency and research.











MARICEL P. CARIDAOAN has been a faculty member of MMSU-Laboratory Elementary School since 2002. She completed her elementary education at Union Elementary School (First Honors) in 1994, her secondary education at Claveria School of Arts and Trades (Valedictorian) in 1998 and her bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education with specialization in science at MMSU-College of Education (Magna Cum Laude) in 2002. With her great enthusiasm in the quest for knowledge and professional development, she pursued Master of Arts in Education, Major in Science Education at the MMSU-Graduate School.
She has been a coach and adviser of a number of science quizzers, sci-dama players and science investigatory project presentors who won in the division, regional and national competitions.
Currently, she is the main adviser of the Science Club of MMSU-LES and the Peace Officer of the Region I Organization of Science Club Advisers.