You are on page 1of 15

20

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 for First Year High School”

and was approved by their adviser.

Production

After selecting and assuring the topic to be developed, the researchers

conducted library research and internet surfing overnight about the subject and

studied the different designs of the module.

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

as arranged in order (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.

On the development of the module, the researchers undergone division of

the learning units where topics and sub-topics were carefully selected according

to its proper organization. It was on the last week of January and on the first

week of February 2008 when the researchers finalized the topics of the module

into four units such as Unit I-The Shaking, Unit II- Effects of Earthquakes, Unit III-

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

Earthquake.
21

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 on July

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

In the third week of the same month, the researchers finished Unit I and Unit

II draft and in the fourth week, they finished the entire Unit III and IV draft.

On the 6th of August, the researchers conducted an interview to an expert

during their educational trip at PHILVOLCS, Region X in Cagayan de Oro City.

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

module.

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

where the adviser approved the content and learning objectives in every unit of

the module. After the approval of the first draft, the researchers submitted the

second draft for further corrections regarding with the learning objectives,

designs, illustrations and content before it will undergo the third stage of the

development of the module which is the validation.

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.


22

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, particularly the used of seismograph

and other related topics such as types of waves (Primary waves and Surface

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 types of predictions

and preparations( before, during and after an earthquake).

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. Moreover, there

should only be maximum of three (3) colors in the cover Page to avoid

distractions.

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

General Science Expert:


23

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
25

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

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.

In terms of Introduction of every unit, the General Science Expert

emphasized that the introduction must be brief and concise, and it must give an

overview of what the unit is all about. The researchers corrected the misspelled

words of some information.

For the Learning content of the unit, it was suggested by the General

Science Expert suggested that there should be proper arrangement between the
26

reading text and illustrations all through out the module. Colors and some

illustrations were highly changed in this section.

On the Self–Assessment of each unit, the General Science Expert

suggested that the questions 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 consistent with the

choices given. If there is any essay type of question, the answer must be brief

and direct to the point.

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

that the references must be arranged alphabetically.

Finally the General Science Expert suggested of unlocking the difficult

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

The researchers validated their module on the 12th of September 2008, to

the three ICEHS schools in Iligan City, ICEHS – Kiwalan, Hinaplanon and

Santiago. 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, rate and give comments.

Weeks after, the researchers retrieved their modules with a corresponding

ratings, comments and suggestions. Finally, on 24th of September 2008, the


27

researchers validated their module into 18 General Science Pre-Service teachers

of the College of Education, MSU-IIT.

A. Ratings of the 3 General Science In-service Teachers on the Module


28

In-Service Teacher's Rating


Frequency (f) of the
Criteria Degree of Responses Mean Rating Remarks
5 4 3 2 1
I. COVER PAGE
A.
1 1 1 0 0 4.0 Very Good
Appropriateness
B.
1 2 0 0 0 4.33 Very Good
Attractiveness
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Motivation 1 2 0 0 0 4.33 Very Good
III. CONTENT
A. Objectives 2 1 0 0 0 4.67 Very Good
B. Emphasis 3 0 0 0 0 5.0 Excellent
C. Scope 2 1 0 0 0 4.67 Very Good
D. Accuracy 2 1 0 0 0 4.67 Very Good
E. Relevance 2 1 0 0 0 4.67 Very Good
IV. ORGANIZATION
A. Logical
0 3 0 0 0 4.0 Very Good
Coherence
B. Completeness 1 2 0 0 0 4.33 Very Good
V. PRESENTATION
A. Grammatical
1 2 0 0 0 4.33 Very Good
Structure
B. Vocabulary
0 3 0 0 0 4.0 Very Good
level
C. Use of pictures, 2 0 1 0 0 4.33 Very Good
illustrations and
diagrams
IV. SELF-ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS
A. Relevance 1 2 0 0 0 4.33 very Good
VII. RESOURCES BY
UNIT
A. Organization 1 2 0 0 0 4.33 Very Good
4.40 Very Good
Over-all Rating
29

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:


30

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)


31

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.

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


32

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 the18 General Science 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.


33

Moreover, on the Presentation of the module, the mean rating 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.
34

Pre-Service Teacher's Rating

Frequency (f) of the


Degree of Responses Mean Remark
Criteria
Rating s
5 4 3 2 1
I. COVER PAGE
Very
13 5 0 0 0 4.72
A. Appropriateness Good
Very
11 5 2 0 0 4.50
B. Attractiveness Good
II. INTRODUCTION
Very
9 9 0 0 0 4.50
A. Motivation Good
III. CONTENT
Very
16 1 1 0 0 4.83
A. Objectives Good
Excellen
11 7 0 0 0 4.61
B. Emphasis t
Very
7 10 1 0 0 4.33
C. Scope Good
Very
11 7 0 0 0 4.61
D. Accuracy Good
Very
12 5 1 0 0 4.61
E. Relevance Good
IV. ORGANIZATION
Very
8 9 1 0 0 4.33
A. Logical Coherence Good
Very
9 9 0 0 0 4.50
B. Completeness Good
V. PRESENTATION
A. Grammatical Very
9 8 1 0 0 4.44
Structure Good
Very
11 6 1 0 0 4.61
B. Vocabulary level Good
Very
C. Use of pictures, 16 2 0 0 0 4.89 Good
illustrations and diagrams
IV. SELF-ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS
very
13 4 1 0 0 4.72
A. Relevance Good
VII. RESOURCES BY UNIT
Very
12 6 0 0 0 4.61
A. Organization Good
Very
4.59
Over-all Rating Good