20

improve their capacity to learn and arouse their interests towards science.

Furthermore, the developed module gave them the concepts that they need to

learn and better understanding about earthquake.

It was in the second week of January 2008 were the researchers finalized

the title of their study which is “Module in Earthquake” and was approved by their

adviser.

Production

After selecting and assuring, the researchers conducted library research

and internet surfing overnight about the subject and also studied the different

designs of the module.

The researcher organized the content of the module based on the outline

as arranged in order as listed below, to wit: (1.) Topic Selection (2.) Divisions of

Learning Units (3.) Introduction of each unit (4.) Formulation of Objectives (5.)

Drawing Illustrations (6.) Construction of the SAQ (7.) Answer of the SAQ (8.)

Revisions of the Module (9.) Finalization of the Module

In construction and development of the module, the researchers choose

appropriate topics and sub-topics to be included based upon the title of their

module. It was in the last week of January and the first week of February 2008

when the researchers divided the topics and sub-topics according to their

arrangement. The researchers of Module in Earthquake divided the topics into

four major units such as Unit I-The Shaking, Unit II- Effects of Earthquakes, Unit
 21

III- Measuring an Earthquake and Unit IV-Preparing and Predicting for an

Earthquake. Every unit of the instructional module has the following sections

such as Cover page, Introduction, Objectives, Input (main body of the module),

Self-Assessment Questions, Answer to the Self-Assessment Questions and

Bibliography and a Glossary of terms at the end of the module. It was in July

2008 when the researchers started making the draft of every units of the module.

In the third week of July, the researchers finished the Unit I and Unit II draft and

in the fourth week of the same month, they finished the Unit III and IV draft. In the

first week of August 2008, the researchers conducted a trip to interview some

experts of the PAGASA and PHILVOLCS Region X in Cagayan de Oro City. The

following two weeks of the same month, the researchers finished the entire

module.

It was in August 19, 2008, when the researchers submitted their first draft and

then followed the stages of development shown in Figure 1 in Chapter III. The

researchers, together with their adviser, had agreed on the content and learning

objectives in teaching Earthquake. Three days after, the researchers submitted

their second draft. Before the module was evaluated, the researchers had a

consultation with their adviser. The adviser had made comments and

suggestions on the basis of achieving the learning objectives and or the design,

content, topic and everything that is included in the making of the module.
 22

Validation

The Developed Module in Earthquake is a self-contained instructional

package and has four units. Each unit includes the cover page, objectives,

illustrations, self-evaluation, answer to the evaluation and bibliography.

Unit I is entitled “The Shaking”. This unit includes the brief definition of

earthquake and its causes, the different types of faults, and the volcanic and

tectonic earthquakes.

Unit II is entitled “Effects of Earthquake”. This unit contains the different

effects of earthquakes such as ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, seiches,

fires, scarps, water changes and tsunami.

Unit III is entitled “Measuring Earthquake”. This unit presents the

instrument used in measuring earthquake and other related topics such as types

of waves, epicentre, focus, magnitude and Richter scale.

Unit IV is entitled “Predicting and Preparing for an Earthquake”. This

unit contains the coping mechanisms such as the different preparations and

types of predictions.

The General Science Expert validated the developed module of the

researchers. In the Cover Page of the module, the General Science Expert

suggested that the illustrations on the cover page should fit on the title of the

module and must give an overview of what the topic is all about.
 23

Here are some changes in the cover page after it was being validated by a

General Science Expert:

First Draft Final Draft

Figure 2. Cover Page of the Entire Module

The following are the changes of the Cover Page in every Unit; the expert

suggested the proper contrast of the text and pictures and including the sources.

First Draft Final Draft

UNIT I

Figure 3. Unit I Cover Page – “The Shaking”

 24

First Draft Final Draft

Figure 4. Unit II Cover Page – “Effects of Earthquake”

First Draft Final Draft

UNIT III

Measurin
g
Earthquak
e

Figure 5. Unit III Cover Page – “Measuring Earthquake”

 25

First Draft Final Draft

UNIT IV
Predicting
and Preparing
for an
Earthquake

PANIC !
Figure 6. Unit IV Cover Page – “Predicting and preparing

for an Earthquake”

For the Objectives, the General Science Expert suggested that the

objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and

Time Bounded) and should be in a higher order thinking skills. Only few changes

are made under this section.

For the Introduction of every unit, the General Science Expert suggested

that the introduction should be brief, concise, and must give an overview of what

the unit is all about. Only the spellings of some information’s were changed.

For the Learning content of the unit, the General Science Expert

suggested that the content should arranged accordingly. There should be proper

arrangement between the reading text and illustrations all through out the
 26

module. The pages should be in three colours only (from the text design, page

design and title strips) to avoid distractions. Colors and some illustrations were

highly changed in this section.

For the Self–assessment of the unit, the General Science Expert

suggested that it should be based in the objectives, the given directions must be

cleared, and apply the art of questioning. Some of the self-assessment questions

were changed because it doesn’t fit into the Unit’s objectives.

For the Answers of the Self – assessment of the unit, the General

Science Expert suggested that all of the answers must be correct. If there is any

essay type of question, the answer must be brief and direct to the point.

The Bibliography of the unit, the General Science Expert suggested that

the references must be arranged alphabetically. In this module, the

arrangements of the authors were changed alphabetically.

Finally the General Science Expert suggested unlocking the difficult

words, that’s why at the end of the module you can find the Glossary of Terms.

In the 12th day of September 2008, the researchers validated their module

to three ICEHS schools in Iligan City, ICEHS – Kiwalan, Santiago and

Hinaplanon. The researchers left the module, rubrics and qualitative ratings to

the In-Service teachers of the said schools, so that the in-service teachers could

be able to read, study the module, react, rate and give comments.

Two weeks after, the researchers went back into the three schools and got

their modules with ratings, comments and suggestions. In September 24th of

 27

2008, the researchers validated their module into 18 General Science Pre-

Service teachers of the CED, MSU-IIT students.

A. Ratings of In-service Teachers on the Module

Table 1. Ratings of the Developed Module by the In-Service Teachers

In-Service Teacher's Rating

Criteria IT1 IT2 IT3 Mean Rating Remarks

I. COVER PAGE
A. Appropriateness 4 5 3 4.00 Very Good
B. Attractiveness 4 5 4 4.33 Very Good
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Motivation 5 4 4 4.33 Very Good
III. CONTENT
A. Objectives 5 4 5 4.67 Very Good
B. Emphasis 5 5 5 5.00 Excellent
C. Scope 4 5 5 4.67 Very Good
D. Accuracy 5 5 4 4.67 Very Good
E. Relevance 4 5 5 4.67 Very Good
IV. ORGANIZATION
A. Logical Coherence 4 4 4 4.00 Very Good
B. Completeness 5 4 4 4.33 Very Good
V. PRESENTATION
A. Grammatical Structure 5 4 4 4.33 Very Good
B. Vocabulary level 4 4 4 4.00 Very Good
C. Use of pictures,
5 5 3 4.33 Very Good
illustrations and diagrams
IV. SELF_ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS
A. Relevance 5 4 4 4.33 Very Good
VII. RESOURCES BY UNIT
A. Organization 5 4 4 4.33 Very Good

Over-all Rating 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.40 Very Good

Very Very Very
Very Good Very Good
REMARKS Good Good Good
 28

Table 1 presents the ratings of the developed module by the In-Service

Teachers. The criteria found in the table were arranged according to the provided

rubric in the Appendix E.

On the Cover Page, Appropriateness obtained a mean rating of 4.0 while

4.3 for the Attractiveness of the module in which both of the ratings are very

good. The Introduction, (Motivation of the module) got a rating of 4.3 which

means that it is very good. On the Objectives (4.6), Scope (4.6), Accuracy (4.6),

and Relevance (4.6) of the Content of the module are very good, while the

Emphasis of the Content is excellent. For the Organization of the module,

Logical Coherence obtained a rating of 4.5 and 4.3 for the Completeness of the

developed module; both of the ratings are described as very good. In the

Presentation of the module, the Grammatical Structure and the Use of pictures,

illustrations and diagrams have a mean rating of 4.3, meaning very good while

the Vocabulary Level of the module (4.0) was also very good. Moreover, the

Self-Assessment Questions, (Relevance) obtained a mean rating of 4.3 which

means that it is very good. Finally on the Resources by Unit, 4.3 is the mean

rating for Organization which also means very good.

The over-all average In-Service Teacher’s rating is 4.4 which in totality,

the module is rated very good.

IN – SERVICE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

The In – Service Teachers’ suggested that:

 29

1. Cover page should be simple and clear.

“It’s better that the module should be easy to understand for

high school students especially for the freshmen.” (IT1)

2. Summary on every Unit should be included.

“There must be a Unit Summary on every Unit and the

answers of Self–Assessment Questions must not be
included.” (IT2)
3. Module should be easy to understand.

“Cover page/Unit should be simple and clear.” (IT3)

IN – SERVICE QUALITATIVE RATINGS

The responses of the In – Service Teachers’ to the question, “Can

you consider the Module in Earthquake for high school students?”, is all

affirmative because:

1. The module provides more/better understanding of the topic

(Earthquake).

“Yes, because a module is needed so that the students will

understand more about the Earthquake.” (IT1)

2. The module arouses the student interests.

“Yes, it has illustrations that could arouse the interest of the

students. The topics are simplified.” (IT2)

3. The module is for Fourth Year students.

“Yes, but for higher (4th year) students.” (IT3)

 30

On the question, “What are the deficiencies and errors in the

content that you have found in the Module?”, the deficiencies they found are:

1. Erroneous pagination found in the module.

“Check the pages for the Unit IV title page 36 and the
Introduction page 37.” (IT1)

2. The module lacks summary.

“There must be summary. Answers to the test must not be

included yet, because every time the learners will answer
the test, they will look first the pages.” (IT2)

3. Low level of questioning.

“Most of the questions are simple recall and knowledge

questions.” (IT3)

The answers of the In – Service Teachers’ to the question, “Are the

content of the Module sufficient for the objectives to be achieved?, are

in agreement that:

“The Module is sufficient for the objectives to be achieved.” (IT1)

For the question, “Are the illustrations/drawings used in the

module relevant to the concept presented?”, the answers of the In Service

Teachers are positive, but with corresponding conditions:

1. The module is not organized.

 31

“The pictures are relevant but organize it well.” (IT1)

2. The module should developed simplicity.

“Yes, but it should be simple.” (IT3)

The In – Service Teachers’ responses to the question, “If you were to

assess the quality of the Module, would you recommend it to be used as

an instructional material?”, they strongly agreed that:

“The module should be recommended as an instructional

material for fast learning of the students.” (IT1)

B. Ratings of the Pre-service Teachers on the Module

Table 2 shows the ratings of the developed module by the Pre-Service

Teachers. The table showed the average mean rating of the module from Unit I

to IV, based on the criteria given which were arranged according to the provided

rubric in the Appendix E.

For the Cover Page, Appropriateness obtained a mean rating of 4.7

which means very good while 4.5 for the Attractiveness which also means very

good. On the Introduction, (Motivation of the module) got a rating of 4.5 which

means that it is very good. On the Emphasis (4.6), Accuracy (4.6) and Relevance

(4.6) of the Content of the module are very good, while the Objectives of the

Content has a mean rating of 4.8 and the Scope is 4.3, which all mean very

good. For the Organization of the module, Logical Coherence obtained a rating

of 4.3 and 4.5 for the Completeness of the developed module; both of the ratings

mean very good. Moreover, on the Presentation of the module, the mean rating
 32

for the Grammatical Structure is 4.4, 4.6 for the Vocabulary Level and 4.8 for the

Use of pictures, illustrations and diagrams which mean that, all the ratings are

very good.