1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

For so many years now, policy makers around the world have tried their best in revising

and improving the quality of science education by altering the curriculum based on the

perception that creating a new curriculum will influence teachers to shift from their traditional

routines in the classrooms and making students learn far better in science (Cuban, 2012). This is

true, since many places around the world are facing challenges in science education (ICSU,

2011). One clear example is the report from the American Management Association which states

that US students including Philippines have low scores in science and mathematics in TIMMS-R

as compared to other countries like Singapore, Taiwan, Hungary, and Japan who got the highest

scoring students (Global Math and Science Education Trends, 2015).

To cope with these global challenges in science education experienced by many countries

around the world especially Philippines, reforms in education is continually occurring.

Philippines implemented the K-12 curriculum which started in 2012 beginning with grade 1 and

grade 7 learners and the succeeding levels were introduced as these students get promoted to the

next grade levels in the ensuing school year. This is the Republic Act 10533 also known as the

“Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013” which enabled the implementation of the K-12 in the

country (The Official Gazette, 2013).

Spiral Progression approach in curriculum is derived from Bruner’s Spiral curriculum

model (Lucas, 2011). It says that, curriculum as it develops should revisit the basic idea

repeatedly, building upon them until the students have grasped the full formal apparatus that goes
 2

with them (Smith 2002). Bruner stressed that teaching should always lead boosting cognitive

development. Students will not understand the concept if teachers plan to teach it using only the

teacher’s level of understanding. Curriculum should be organized in spiral manner so that the

students continually build upon what they have already learned. In congruence to Clark (2010)

findings, Bruner saw the role of the teacher as that of translating information into a format

appropriate to each child’s current state of understanding. Davis (2007) added that Hilda Taba

also influenced the design of spiral curriculum that organized around concepts, skills, or values

in horizontal integration of learning. Based on the given arguments, the effectiveness of the

curriculum relies on the teacher’s knowledge about the curriculum, his/her teaching strategies

and mastery of the subject matter (Duze, 2012). The idea in spiral progression approach is to

expose the learners into a wide variety of concepts/topics and disciplines, until they mastered it

by studying it over and over again but with different deepening of complexity.

Prior to the implementation of K to 12 Curriculum, Science subject was taught by

discipline and by grade level where Grade 7 focused in Earth Science, Grade 8 in Biology, Grade

9 in Chemistry, and Grade 10 in Physics. Teachers have the comfort of teaching according to

their field of specialization and transfer their expertise. In the new Science Curriculum, things

are not longer the same. It utilizes the recently mandated Spiral Progression Approach in

instruction which is elaborately articulated in Republic Act No. 10533, otherwise known as the

Enhanced Basic Education law; teachers are ordered adherence to multi-disciplinary approach,

STS approach, inquiry-based approach, constructivism, and social cognition learning model to

ensure scientific and technological literacy. Consequently, the four disciplines: Earth Science,

Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are now taught in one whole year but of different degree of

difficulty. In other words, a teacher is forced to teach the four disciplines in Science Subjects
 3

which is not his major or field of specialization like for instance, a Biology major teacher is now

expected to teach Chemistry, Physics and Earth Science therefore in every region, Department of

Education conducted a series of mass trainings and seminars to address these problems created

by the implementation of the Spiral Approach in Science Instruction.

Like other public schools in the Philippines that implemented Spiral Approach in Science

Instruction, the province of Isabela are also one of those who have been affected greatly by the

implementation of the Spiral Approach in teaching Science. Hence, it is very timely to make an

evaluation based on the responses of selected Science teachers in selected schools in Department

of Education Division of Cauayan.

Statement of the problem

This study aims to determine the problems encountered on the use of spiral approach in

Science Instruction by the Science teachers in selected schools of Department of Education

Division of Cauayan.

More specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the teachers in terms of:

1.1. Age
1.2. Field of Specialization
1.3. Years in teaching
1.4. Highest educational attainment related to field of specialization
2. To what extent do participants experience specific problems on the use of spiral

approach with respect to:

2.1. Instructional facilities and materials
2.2. Curriculum
2.3. Student related problems
2.4. Teacher related problems
 4

3. Is there a significant difference on the extent of problems encountered by participants on

the use of spiral approach in selected schools of Department of Education- Division of

Cauayan when they are grouped according to profile variables?

4. What are the recommendations given by the participants to address the problems related

to the use of Spiral Approach in Science Instruction?

Significance of the study

The result of the study will be deemed beneficial to the following sectors/groups.

Department of Education – Division of Cauayan. This study will give an actual insights on the

problems encountered in the implementation of the Spiral approach in the Science curriculum. It

will also provide them the avenue to create certain adjustments based on the needs or problems

that will be identified.

Administrators. The results of this study shall serve as a tool for them to address the need to

improve and create programs for school advancement, enhance teaching personnel’s capability

and boost instructional techniques and innovations.

Curriculum planners. The result of this study will help curriculum planners or academic policy-

makers evaluate the existing programs to address student needs and abilities and create necessary

programs to meet these needs and abilities by the students.

Science teachers. The results of this study may serve as an eye-opener for them to develop and

innovate instructional materials and use a variety of pedagogical approaches in teaching Science

to cater to their students needs and abilities.

Students. This study will help students maximize their science literacy skills.
 5

Future researchers. The outputs of this study will provide future researchers helpful inputs so

that further contributions can be made to improve the use of Spiral Approach in teaching

Science.

HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant difference on the extent of problems encountered by Science teachers

on the use of Spiral approach in selected schools in Department of Education- Division of

Cauayan.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION:

This study entitled “Problems encountered on the use of Spiral Approach in Science

Instruction in selected schools of Department of Education- Division of Cauayan”. It likewise

looked into the profile of the participants in terms of age, field of specialization, years in

teaching and highest educational attainment related to the field of specialization and how these

variables are related to the problems encountered by the participants in the use of Spiral

Approach. Moreover, it investigated if there is a significant difference in the problems

encountered between and among the group of participants.

The participants of the study were thirty (30) Science teachers in the different School of

the Divisions of Cauayan City. Of the thirty (30) participants, sixteen (16) are from the Cluster 4,

Cluster 5 and Cluster 6, twelve (12) are from Cluster 7 and Cluster 8 (2) from Cluster 14.
 6

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Spiral Progression Revisited

In relation to secondary Science curriculum, Sanchez (2014) explained that, science is

composed of four areas, namely Integrated Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. In old
 7

curriculum, Integrated Science was taught in first year, second year was Biology, third year was

Chemistry and Fourth year was Physics. However, in new secondary science curriculum

implemented last 2012, the concept of those four major areas are being taught all at the same

time. Each year students are exposed to spiral progression approach, wherein the four areas are

being taught per grading period. Aside from that, integrated science was changed into Earth

Science. Many problems in life involve scientific explanations and processes. For this reason, an

understanding of science and scientific approach is essential in making intelligent decisions

(Realuyo, 2006). In relation to that, De Dios (2013), argue that Science subject diverge into

separate disciplines in secondary education. It required teachers with knowledge in all these

areas at a sufficient level.

Spiral Progression and Progressive Curriculum

Spiral progression approach follows progressive type of curriculum. Progressive

curriculum anchored to John Dewey is defined as the total learning experiences of the individual.

Martin (2008) defined progression as a thing that describes pupils’ personal journeys through

education and ways, in which they acquire, apply, develop their skills, knowledge and

understanding in increasingly challenging situations. On the other hand, Zulueta (2002) stated

that this approach refers to the choosing and defining of the content of a certain discipline to be

taught using prevalent ideas against the traditional practice of determining content by isolated

topics. Given these descriptions, spiral curriculum can be understood as a design, a written plan,

list of subjects and expected outcomes of the students in which one concept are presented

repeatedly throughout the curriculum, but with deepening layers of complexity. According to

Martin (2008), spiral curriculum is a design framework which will help science teachers

construct lessons, activities or projects that target the development of thinking skills and
 8

dispositions which do not stop at identification. It involves progression and continuity in learning

science. Progression describes pupils’ personal journeys through education and ways, in which

they acquire, apply and develop their skills, knowledge and understanding in increasingly

challenging situations. Continuity is concerned with ways in which the education system

structures experience and provides sufficient challenge and progress for learners in a

recognizable curricular landscape. Therefore, spiral progression approach is an approach or a

way on how to implement the spiral curriculum. After the mastery of the initial topic, the

student “spirals upwards” as the new knowledge is introduced in the next lesson, enabling

him/her to reinforce what is already learned. In the end, a rich breadth and depth of knowledge is

achieved. With this procedure, the previously learned concept is reviewed hence improving its

retention. And also the topic may be progressively elaborated when it is reintroduced leading to

a broadened understanding and transfer (Mantiza, 2013).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Spiral Curriculum

The following are advantages and disadvantages of spiral progression approach as cited

by Snider (2004). According to him, spiral progression approach avoids disjunctions between

stages of schooling, it allows learners to learn topics and skills appropriate to their

developmental/cognitive stages, and it strengthens retention & mastery of topics & skills as they

are revisited & consolidated. But, the problem with the spiral design is that the rate for

introducing new concepts is often either too fast or too slow. All concepts are allotted the same

amount of time whether they are easy or difficult to master. Units are approximately the same

length, and each topic within a unit is 1 day’s lesson. And some days there will not be enough

time to introduce. The fact that an entire class period must be devoted to a single concept makes
 9

it difficult to sequence instruction to ensure that students acquire necessary pre-skills before

introducing a difficult skill.

In a spiral curriculum, many topics are covered but only briefly. On the average, teachers

devote less than 30 min of instructional time across an entire year to 70% of the topics they cover

the result of teaching for exposure is that many students fail to master important concepts.

Another disadvantage of the spiral design is that it does not promote sufficient review once units

are completed. There may be some review of previously introduced topics within the chapter, but

once students move on to the next chapter previous concepts may not be seen again until they are

covered the following year.

Philosophies behind Spiral Progression

The main philosophies behind Spiral progression approach are Constructivism,

Progressivism and Behaviorism. Jerome Bruner was the main proponent of spiral curriculum

and was also the proponent of constructivism (Haeusler, 2013.) A major theme in the theory of

Bruner is that learning is an active and dynamic process in which learners construct new ideas or

concepts new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. A learner is a purposive

participant in the knowledge getting process that selects structures, retains, and transforms

information. The mental process such as perception, concept attainment, and reasoning depends

upon an imaginative process of construction (Lucas, 2011).

Spiral Curriculum in the Philippine Educational System

This study focuses on the dilemma of teaching science subject using spiral progression

approach in the Philippines. Review of related literature yields theoretical and philosophical

underpinnings of spiral progression but few empirical studies are made in the area of science.
 10

Study on this topic in the Philippines is in scarcity, if not existent, because this approach was just

fully implemented in 2012. It aims to determine how competent science teachers in teaching

science using the said approach. Curriculum is a dynamic process. Development means changes

which are systematic. A change for the better means any adjustment, revision or improvement of

existing condition. To produce positive changes, development should be purposeful, planned and

progressive. It will take years to evaluate if the curriculum is effective and attuned to the needs

of the learners and the society. One cannot really say that the spiral progression approach in

teaching science is really effective in the Philippines. Evaluation of this approach is a must to
Profileif of
determine, like the Analysis
in other countries, in which on was
this approach theabolished from their educational
Recommendations
participants extent of made by the
problems on the
system after a certain period of time (Ressureccion&Adanza, 2015) participants
 Age use of Spiral addressing the
Approach in problems
 The Philippine
Field of basic education curriculum is congested. Therefore, President Benigno
Science encountered on
specialization
Aquino signed the Republic Act. 2013 alsoInstruction in12 Program thatthe
known as the K to mandated
use private
of Spiral
 Years in selected schools Approach in
and public of Division
schools to implement spiral progression
teaching approachof
in their curriculum
Science
Cauayan. Instruction in
 Highest selected schools
educational of Division of
attainment Cauayan.
Conceptual Framework
related to
field of
INPUT specialization PROCESS OUTPUT
Participants’
OUTPUT
specific problems

 Instructional
facilities and
materials

 Curriculum

 Student related
problems

 Teacher related
problems
 11

FEEDBACK

FEEDBACK

The researchers considered the inpu1t-process-output framework with which the study

was anchored. The inputs are the profile of the respondents as to age, field of specialization,

years in teaching, highest educational attainment related to the field of specialization, problems

on the use of Spiral Approach as to instructional facilities and materials, curriculum, student

related problems and teacher related problems. Under the process phase, it shows the in-depth

analysis on the extent of problems on the use of Spiral Approach in Science Instruction in

selected schools of Division of Cauayan. The output of the study are the recommendations made
 12

by the participants addressing the problems encountered on the use of Spiral Approach in

Science Instruction in selected schools of Division of Cauayan.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant difference in the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction in selected schools of Division of Cauayan.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms are defined for a better understanding of the study.

Continuity. This is often described as the vertical integration of the curriculum design.

Continuity in a curriculum provides student with opportunities to revisit knowledge and skills in

more depth as they progress through the years. One classic example of a curriculum design

model that gives particular attention to Continuity is the “Spiral Curriculum”.

Curriculum. This refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a

specific course or program.

Progression. This describes pupils’ personal journeys through education and ways, in

which they acquire, apply and develop their skills, knowledge and understanding in increasingly

challenging situations.

Instruction. This is the act or the art of teaching or education

Spiral Approach. This is an approach to education that introduces key concepts to

students at a young age and covers these concepts repeatedly, with increasing degrees of

complexity. This approach is also known as also known as a "spaced" or "distributed" approach.
 13

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the research design selection and description of participants,

research instruments, data, collection procedure and statistical treatment to be used.

Research Design

In conducting the study, the researchers will use the Descriptive method. This method of

investigation involves the gathering of evidence relating to the current condition concerning the
 14

nature of a group of persons, the number of projects on a class or events. It involves further the

procedure of instruction, analysis, classification, enumeration or measurement.

This method is used to organize, analyze, interpret and report the present situation of

status or a group.

Furthermore, it is stated that descriptive research describes and interprets what is to be

investigated and analyzed.

Sample and Population

The study uses convenient sampling in determining the samples of the study. Thirty (30)

Science teachers in selected schools of Region II are the participants of the study. They are from

the Divisions of Cagayan, Isabela and Nueva Vizcaya.

Research Instrumentation

In constructing the questionnaire, the researchers read several resources like professional

books, journals and thesis which are similar to the present study. The questionnaire was written

based on the objectives of the study.

Data Collecting Procedure

The researchers requested permission to conduct the study from the Regional

Management Team of the Mass Training for Teachers. Copies of the questionnaire will be

distributed to the Science teacher participants in the Regional Mass Training for Teachers and

shall be personally retrieved by the researchers.

Data Analysis
 15

To give meaning to all of the data gathered, the following statistical procedures were

utilized. To draw the profile of the participants, descriptive statistics were: frequency counts,

percentage, mean and standard deviation.

The following arbitrary scale was used to determine the problems encountered on the use

of Spiral Approach in Science Instruction in selected schools of Region II.

4 - Very High

3 - High

2 - Low

1 - Very Low

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the t-test were used to find out if significant

differences exist in the assessments of the participants. The hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of

significance
 16

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

I. Profile of the Participants

Table #1:Frequency,Percentage Distributions and Mean of the Participants Grouped by Age

Age Range Frequency Percentage
21-25 10 33.3
26-30 15 50.0
31 and above 5 16.7
Total 30 100.0
Mean Age 28.49
Maximum Age 43
Minimum Age 21
 17

Table 1 indicates the frequency and percentage distribution of the participants according

to age. Half of the participants have ages falling within the age range of 26-30, 10 to 33% have

ages ranging from 21 to 25, and 5 or 16.6% have more than 30 years of age. Furthermore, the

data reveal that the maximum age is 43 and the minimum age is 21. The mean age of the

participants is 28.49.

The data in table 1 evidently show that majority of the participants are young.

Table #2: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of the participants according to field of specialization
Field of Specialization Frequency Percentage
Biology 11 36.7
General Science 8 26.7
Physical Science 7 23.3
Nursing 3 10.0
Civil Engineering 1 3.3
Total 30 100.0

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the participants according to

field of specialization. Biology majors landed 11 or 36.7%,General Science at 8 or 26.7%,

Physical Science 7 or 23.3%, Nursing at 3 or 10% and Civil engineering majors at 1 or 3.3 %.It
 18

can be noted further that all respondents met the basic educational requirements, hence are

educationally qualified and more prepared in teaching science.

Table #3: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of the participants by Province

Province Frequency Percentage
Cagayan 16 53.3
Isabela 12 40.0
Nueva Vizcaya 2 6.7
Total 30 100.0

As gleaned from table 3,16 or 53.3% are from Cagayan;12 or 40% are from Isabela and 2

r 6.7 % are from Nueva Vizcaya. Province of Cagayan has the greatest number of participants in

as much that they were given the biggest number of slot for academics especially in Science.

Table #4: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of the participants in terms of Years In Teaching
Years in Teaching Frequency Percentage
less than 1 year 12 40.0
1-5 years 12 40.0
more than 5 years 6 20.0
Total 30 100.0

Table 4 evidently shows that the same frequency and percentage of participants (12 or 40

%) have less than 1 year or have 1-5 years of teaching experience. Moreover, 6 or 20% of them

have been teaching for more than 5 years. It further explains that 80% of the participants are

neophyte in terms of teaching and have limited experience in science teaching especially on the

use of the spiral approach.

 19

Table # 5: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of the participants in terms of

educational attainment
Highest Educational Frequency Percentage
Attainment
College Graduate 21 70
Post Graduate Studies 9 30
Total 30 100

Table 5 shows that majority (21) or 70% of the participants are college graduates and 9 or

30% pursued their post-graduate studies.

II. Extent to Which Participants Experience Problems in the Use of Spiral Approach

in Science Instruction

Table #6: Extent to Which Participants Experience Problems on the Use of Spiral Approach in

Science Instruction Along Instructional Materials

Descriptive
Area Indicators Mean
Interpretation
Instructional Lack of available
Materials/ instructional 2.83 Great Extent
Facilities materials/facilities
Poor quality of
Instructional 2.93
Great Extent
Materials/ facilities
Instructional 3.00 Great Extent
materials/ facilities
 20

Inappropriate and
limited instructional
materials/ facilities 2.97 Great Extent
that aids to engage
students
The instructional
materials/ facilities
are irrelevant to meet 2.80 Great Extent
the goals of the
subject
Category Mean 2.91 Great Extent

Table 6 shows the participants’ extent of experience of the problems regarding the use of

spiral approach along instructional materials or facilities. The specific means indicate that the

problems on “Lack of available instructional materials” “Poor quality of instructional

materials/facilities”, “Insufficient instructional materials”, “Inappropriate and limited

instructional materials/facilities that aid to engage students”, and “the instructional

materials/facilities are irrelevant to meet the goals of the subject” were experienced by the

participants at a great extent.

The overall mean of 2.91 indicates that the problems on instructional materials or facilities

were experienced at a great extent.

 21

Table 7: Extent to Which Participants Experience Problems in the Use of Spiral Approach in
Science Instruction on curriculum
Area Indicators Mean Descriptive
Interpretation
Curriculum The Spiral
approach is 2.13 Low Extent
not relevant
The transition
of topic is not 2.53 Great Extent
clear
There is no
continuity of 2.40 Low Extent
instruction
The 2.30 Low Extent
curriculum
does not
directly
address the
learners needs
 22

There is
difficulty in
understanding
2.50 Great Extent
the
progression of
skills or talents
Too many
2.90 Great Extent
topics covered
Content is too
difficult to the
2.77 Great Extent
level of
students
Category
2.50 Great Extent
Mean

The table shows that the indicators, such as the transition of the topic is vague, there is a

difficulty in understanding the progression of skills or talents, too many topics covered, content

is too difficult to the level of students interprets Great Extent which implies that these areas are

the major problems encountered by the respondents on the use of Spiral Approach in Science

instruction. However, the indicators such as The Spiral approach is not relevant, there is no

continuity of instruction, the curriculum does not directly addresses the learners needs interprets

Low Extent which are the least problems encountered.

Table 8: Extent to which Participants Experience Problems in the use of Spiral Approach in

Science Instruction on Student Related Problems

Area Indicators Mean Descriptive

Interpretation
Student Related Difficulty on the 2.73 Great Extent
Problems segmentation of the
topics
 23

There is gap from one

topic/competency to 2.87 Great Extent
the next
Limited understanding
2.77 Great Extent
on Spiral Approach

Category Mean 2.79 Great Extent

The table reveals that the indicators under the area of Student-related Problems have a

descriptive interpretation of Great Extent which means that this area greatly affected the

respondents in terms of the problem they have encountered.

Table 9: Extent to Which Participants Experience Problems in the Use of Spiral Approach in

Science Instruction on Teachers Related Problems

Area Indicators Mean Descriptive

Interpretation
Teacher Related Poor mastery of Great Extent
3.03
problems concepts
Poor retention of
3.13 Great Extent
topics discussed
Limited time for the
3.07 Great Extent
subject

Category Mean 3.08 Great Extent

 24

The table reveals that the indicators under the area of Teacher-related Problems have a

descriptive interpretation of Great Extent which means that this area greatly affects the

respondents’ in terms of the problem they encountered on the use of Spiral Approach.

II. Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the

implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to profile

variables

Table 10: Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the

implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to age range

Areas Age Mean SD Computed F Probability Interpretation

Range Value Value
Instructional 21-25 2.94 0.68
Materials
26-30 2.85 0.76 Not significant
.097 .907
31 and 3.00 0.57
above
Curriculum 21-25 2.56 .42
26-30 2.40 .58 Not significant
.696 .507
31 and 2.71 .65
above
Student 21-25 2.80 .32
Related
Problems 26-30 2.76 .64 Not significant
.074 .928
31 and 2.87 .73
above
21-25 3.07 .64 .053 .949 Not significant
 25

Teacher 26-30 3.11 .69

Related
Problems 31 and 3.08 .65
above

The table reveals that the indicators under the area of Teacher-related Problems have a

descriptive interpretation of Great Extent which means that this area greatly affects the

respondents in terms of the problem they encountered according to age..

Table 11: Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the
implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to field of specialization
Field of
specialization Computed F Probability
Area mean Sd interpretation
value value

Curriculum Biology 2.87 .76

Instructional
Materials Gen. Sci 3.00 .44
Phy. Sci 2.69 .85 Not
.848 .508
Significant
Nursing 2.93 .50
Civil Engin. 4.00

Curriculum Biology 2.56 .65

Gen. Sci 2.54 .47 .369
Not
Phy. Sci 2.39 .59 .828
Significant
Nursing 2.76 .22
Civil Engin. 2.00
Biology 2.64 .62 .784 .546
 26

Student Related Gen. Sci 3.04 .65

Problems
Phy. Sci 2.81 .26 Not
Nursing 2.56 .51 Significant

Civil Engin. 3.00

Teacher Related Biology 3.12 .73
Problems
Gen. Sci 3.13 .35
Not
Phy. Sci 3.04 .80 1.005 .424
Significant
Nursing 2.56 .51
Civil Engin. 4.00

The table reveals that the indicators under the area of Teacher-related Problems have a

descriptive interpretation of Great Extent which means that this area greatly affects the

respondents’ in terms of the problem they encountered according to the field of specialization.

Table 12: Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the

implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to provinces

Province Computed Probability

Area mean sd interpretation
F value value

Instructional Cagayan 3.05 .65

Materials
Isabela 2.75 .76
.743 .485 Not Significant
Nueva 2.70 .42
Viscaya

Curriculum Cagayan 2.61 .53 .875

Isabela 2.35 .57

Nueva 2.64 .30 .428 Not Significant

Viscaya
 27

Cagayan 2.79 .53

Student Related Isabela 2.83 .59

.300 .743 Not Significant
Problems
Nueva 2.50 .71
Viscaya

Teacher Related Cagayan 3.19 .72

Problems
Isabela 3.06 .53
1.594 .222 Not Significant
Nueva 2.33 .47
Viscaya

The table shows that the Instructional materials, curriculum and student related problems
are not significant. This implies that there is no significant difference on the extent of problems
encountered by Science teachers on the use of spiral approach in selected schools of Region II
when they are grouped according to provinces.

Table 13: Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the
implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to years of teaching

Area Province mean sd Computed Probability Interpretation

F value value

Instructional less than 1 3.02 .75

Materials year
1-5 years 2.72 .64 .769 .473 Not Significant
more than 54
3.07 .68
years
Curriculum less than 1 2.58 .40
year
1-5 years 2.29 .42 1.795 .185 Not Significant
more than 54
2.76 .86
years
less than 1 2.67 .49 1.392 .266 Not Significant
year
1-5 years 2.75 .29
 28

Student more than 54

Related years 3.11 .93
Problems
Teacher less than 1 3.03 .64
Related year
Problems 1-5 years 3.00 .60 .562 .577 Not Significant
more than 54
3.33 .84
years

This table reveals that the Instructional materials, curriculum, student related problems
and teacher related problems are not significant. This implies that there is no significant
difference on the extent of problems encountered by Science teachers on the use of spiral
approach in selected schools of Region II when they are grouped according to the years of
teaching.

Table 14: Comparative analysis on the extent to which participants experiences problems in the
implementation of the spiral approach when they are grouped according to educational
attainment

Area educational Mean sd Computed Probability interpretation

attainment F value value

Instructional College
Materials 2.90 .66
Graduate
.025 .876 Not Significant
Masters
2.94 .81
Graduate
College
2.42 .45
Graduate
Curriculum 2.843 .103 Not Significant
Masters
2.80 .74
Graduate
Student Related College 2.78 .45 .012 .912 Not Significant
Problems Graduate
 29

Masters
2.81 .86
Graduate
Teacher Related College
3.01 .62
Problems Graduate
.923 .345 Not Significant
Masters 3.29 .76
Graduate

This table implies that the Instructional materials, curriculum, student related problems

and teacher related problems are not significant. This implies that there is no significant

difference on the extent of problems encountered by Science teachers on the use of spiral

approach in selected schools of Region II when they are grouped according to the educational

attainment.

Table 15: Recommendations given by the participants to address the problem related to the use of
spiral approach in science instruction
Recommendations Frequency Percentage
Improve instructional material and facilities 9 30
One to two years of teachers teaching experiences must have 1 3.33
understanding of spiral approach
Teachers should teach subjects related to their field of 2 6.67
specialization
Provide relevant trainings specially on pedagogies about 10 33.33
spiral approach
Sufficient time for each subject 2 6.67
Transition of topics in science should be observed 2 6.67
Remedial activities should be given to students 1 3.33
 30

Use differentiated instructions and activities 1 3.33

Practice resourcefulness 2 6.67

Total 30 100

This table shows that 10 of the respondents or 33.33 percent recommend to provide

relevant trainings specially on pedagogies about spiral approach, 9 of the respondents or 30

percent recommend to improve instructional material and facilities, 2 of the respondents or 6.67

percent recommend that teachers should teach subjects related to their field of specialization, 2

out of the respondents s or 6.67 percent recommend that the teachers should have sufficient time

for each subject, 2 of the respondents or 6.67 percent recommend that transition of topic in

science should be observed, 2 of the respondents or 6.67 percent should practice

resourcefulness, 1 of the respondents or 3.33 percent recommend that the teachers who have one

to two years of experience in teaching must have understanding about Spiral Approach, 1 of the

participants or 3.33 percent recommend that remedial activities should be given to students, and

1 of the respondents or 3.33 percent recommend that teachers should use differentiated

instructions and activities.

 31

Chapter V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of

the study.

Summary of Findings

Based on the results of the data gathered, the following were derived:

1. Profile of the Participants

1.1. Age
Majority of the participants are in the age bracket of 26-30 years old.
1.2. Field of Specialization

Majority of the participants have specialization in Biology.

1.3. Province
Majority of the participants are from the Province of Cagayan.
1.4. Years in Teaching

Majority of the participants are relatively new in the teaching profession with

most of them having a teaching experience of 1 year and below.

1.5. Highest Educational Attainment related to field of specialization.

Majority of the participants are Bachelors degree holder major in Biology.
 32

2. Participants specific problems on the use of Spiral Approach in Science Instruction with

respect to:
2.1. Instructional facilities and materials
In terms of instructional facilities and materials, these have a Great Extent with an

overall mean of 2.91.

2.2. Curriculum
The curriculum is assessed as having a Great Extent with an overall mean of 2.50.
2.3. Student related problems
The student related problems have a Great Extent with an overall mean of 2.79.
2.4. Teacher related problems
The teacher related problems have a Great Extent with an overall mean of 3.08.
3. Significant difference on the extent of problems encountered by Science teachers on the

use of Spiral Approach in selected schools of Region II when they are grouped according

to profile variables.

3.1. Age
There is a significant difference on the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction when grouped according to age.

3.2. Field of Specialization
There is a significant difference on the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction when grouped according to field of specialization.

3.3. Province
There is a significant difference on the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction when grouped according to age.

3.4. Years in Teaching
There is a significant difference on the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction when grouped according to years in teaching.

3.5. Highest Educational Attainment related to Field of Specialization
There is a significant difference on the problems encountered on the use of Spiral

Approach in Science Instruction when grouped according to the Highest Educational

Attainment related to the Field of Specialization.

Conclusions
The following are the conclusions derived from the results of the study:
 33

The use of Spiral Approach in Science Instruction is generally good, however there are

certain factors that needs to be considered to ensure the proper utilization of the Spiral Approach

in Science Instruction.

Recommendations

Based on the research data gathered, the following recommendations are made.

1. The Department of Education should emphasize the availability of the equipment and

provide teachers and students the necessary needs to fully attain the goals and objectives

in teaching Science.
2. Science teachers must be given the chance and the opportunity to attend seminars,

training, workshops and symposium to make them more efficient and effective in their

teaching career.
3. The Science teacher may employ strategies and Differentiated Instruction (DI).
4. A similar study should be conducted by future Science researchers in order to improve

the quality of teaching-learning process in the Science Program of Region II.