1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem and Its Background

Effective teaching means being able to help all types of learners learn the

different learning goals in the curriculum. To achieve effective teaching, teachers must

see themselves as capable of achieving the dimensions of good teaching. However,

Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results over the years revealed that

the Philippines lag behind other Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, and

Singapore in terms of student performance in Science and Mathematics subjects. Two

thousand three (2003) results showed that the Philippines ranked 23 rd among the 25

participating countries for the grade 4 or 9-year old level in Mathematics, garnering an

average of 358 against the international standards. In Science for grade 4 or 9-year

old level, the country got 23 rd place among the 25 participants. In the same manner, the

overall performance of the country in National Achievement Test showed a continuous

decline.

Indeed, the DepEd Region XII Annual Report (2010) revealed that Kidapawan

City Division got a Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 48.03 percent only in the National

Achievement Test in SY 2009-2010. In the same school year, the net enrollment rate in

secondary level is only 67.24 percent, cohort survival rate is 77. 2 %. In Kidapawan City

Division, the foregoing findings are also besetting Gayola National High School,

Kidapawan City. In School Year 2006-2007 the National Achievement Test result was
 2

only 40.49%, in SY 2007-2008 it got 53.76%, in SY2008-2009 it scored 40.52%, and in

SY 2009-2010 it scored 42.10%. The NAT results showed that it is a far from the

standard score of 75%.

With this situation, the Gayola NHS administration made an analysis of the

problem in their local context. This is to find out how they can respond to the alarming

performance of their school. They conducted an initial self assessment survey on their

competency needs using the National Competency Based Teacher Standard-Teacher

Strengths and Needs Assessment (NCBTS-TSNA) tool. The survey revealed that

among the seven domains in the National Competency Based Teacher Standards

(NCBTS), the three domains found to be the priority needs of the teachers. These are

the domains of Curriculum (37.50%), Diversity of Learners (50%), and Planning,

Assessing, and Reporting (25%).

With these findings, how can Gayola NHS teachers systematically answer their

instructional competency needs? It is then in this milieu that this study was conducted

to go for deeper case analysis of the individual teacher’s instructional competency

needs. Consequently, this study will also validate the self assessment results by

conducting an actual classroom observation, interview and focus group discussion and

come up with an individual plan for professional development as bases for a Teacher

Enhancement Program focusing on the three NCBTS domains identified.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to design a Teacher Enhancement Program based on the

instructional competency needs of teachers.

 3

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the instructional competence of teachers in the following domains:

1.1 . Curriculum;

1.2 . Diversity of Learners; and

1.3 . Planning, Assessing, and Reporting?

2. Is there a significant difference in the ratings of the three domains?

3. What Teacher Enhancement Program may be developed?

Hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant difference in the ratings of the three domains.

Significance of the Study

DepEd Officials of Kidapawan City Division. The DepEd Officials of

Kidapawan City Division will benefit from this study. The NCBTS-TSNA results will

serve as their basis in developing and implementing a division-wide professional

development program that would cater to the enhancement of the professional

strengths of the teachers and the improvement of the professional

needs of teachers. It is a way of improving the performance of teachers in the teaching-

learning process in the City of Kidapawan that will eventually lead to the

improvement of the academic performance of the students.

School Heads/Principals. The school heads and principals will likewise benefit

from this study. The NCBTS-TSNA results can facilitate an easy way of helping

teachers improve themselves professionally and will also serve as basis for responding
 4

to the various needs of teachers in terms of in-service trainings, workshops, and

seminars. The teacher development program which will be the output of this study can

be used by school heads and principals in implementing and designing their own

teacher development program in the school level.

The Teachers. The teachers will benefit from this study. They will be able to

identify and assess their professional strengths and needs based on the NCBTS

competencies. The implementation of a teacher development

program which will be the output of this study will help them enhance their professional

strengths which can be emulated by their co-teachers and improve their professional

needs which will in turn improve their teaching competences that will likewise help them

become more effective in the learning environment for the students.

Students, Parents, and the Community. The students, parents and the

community will also benefit from this study. Whatever improvements to the

competence and effectiveness of the teachers in their profession will show a better

performance of their teaching in catering the educational needs of the

students which will then result to the improvement of the quality of life of their parents

and the community they belong.

Other Researchers. This study will provide information needed in studies

relating to professional needs of teachers. Other researchers may conduct further

studies involving other domains of the NCBTS which was not covered in this study.
 5

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study focused on designing a Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP) based

on the instructional competence of teachers. The respondents of the study were the

eight (8) secondary school teachers of Gayola National High School in the DepEd-

Kidapawan City Division. The study was conducted during the school years 2010-2013.

The initial self-assessment survey on the National Competency-Based Teacher

Standards-Teacher Strengths and Needs Assessment (NCBTS-TSNA) by the school

was the bases of the focus in this study to wit: Curriculum, Diversity of Learners, and

Planning, Assessing and Reporting.

Conceptual Framework

The teaching profession has been struggling to keep pace with the changes in

the society and the accompanying challenges of the technological world. The notion that

teacher education has been unable to bridge the growing gap between the needs

and expectations of learners, and the knowledge and skill levels of both new and

existing teachers, the Teacher Education Development Program (TEDP) was conceived

(Experiential Learning Courses Handbook, 2009).

TEDP seeks to conceptualize a teacher’s career path as a continuous process

that starts with entry to a teacher education program and concludes when a teacher

reaches retirement from formal services. This program will address each stage of this

continuum as an integrated part. One key element in this program is the establishment

of a set of National Competency – Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS) so that

teachers, pupils and parents are able to appreciate the complex set of behaviors,
 6

attitudes and skills that each teacher must possess to carry out satisfactory

performance of their roles and responsibilities.

As described in the NCBTS-TSNA Primer (2009), the NCBTS has defined

effective teaching underscoring the strategic and indispensable role of the teacher in the

learning process of students. Hence, it is imperative to determine each individual

teacher’s strengths and weaknesses to facilitate teacher development with the crucial

support and nurturance based on the National Competency Based Teacher Standard

(NCBTS).

The NCBTS is an integrated theoretical framework that defines the different

dimensions of effective teaching. It is the bedrock for teachers during pre-service and

in-service period which provides teachers with the fundamental direction on how to

hone them as significant element in the country’s educational system. Likewise, the

Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET), the criteria for recruitment, selection, and

promotion of teachers by the DepEd and Civil Service Commission, and the

performance appraisal for teachers should also be anchored on the fundamental

framework of the NCBTS.

The NCBTS seven domains are distinctive spheres of the teaching learning

process that will allow positive teacher practice. Each domain embraces a principle of

ideal teaching associated with student learning. Domain 3 – Diversity of Learners,

Domain 4 – Curriculum, and Domain 5 – Planning, Assessing, and Reporting are

closely related to each other. They describe the necessary good teaching practices.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) competencies are included as a

separate strand in the Curriculum domain. Domain 2 – the Learning Environment and
 7

Domain 6 – Community Linkages connect the teaching practices to appropriate

teaching-learning contexts: immediate physical, psychological, and social contexts to

larger sub-cultural, economic, political and historical contexts of the community. All five

domains earlier mentioned make up the full range of teacher practice that relate to

facilitating learning. Domain 1 – Social Regard for Learning, and Domain 7 – Personal

Growth and Professional Development are the driving forces that trigger the other five

domains. These two domains render the professional teacher as a credible role model,

and an effective facilitator of learning.

In order to assess teachers’ competencies, the Teacher Strengths and Needs

Assessment (TSNA) tool was designed in the context of the seven domains of the

NCBTS. It is anchored on the overarching concept of teacher professional development

being a formative tool that encourages teachers in taking professional advancement. In

the process, the teacher is able to promote student learning. The TSNA is essential in

providing quality professional development programs that are aligned with the needs of

the clientele. The TSNA determines the differences between the desired condition and

the actual condition in terms of teacher’s competencies with the NCBTS-TSNA.

The profile of the teacher’s current competencies is compared to the NCBTS

standards for effective teaching. The TSNA therefore identifies the difference between

the expected and the current teacher’s competencies in terms of Knowledge, Skills, and

attitudes that actually define the domains, strands, and competency indicators of the

NCBTS.

With the concepts mentioned, a framework was formed as the basis of this

study. The conceptual framework of the study is illustrated in Figure 1. It was based on
 8

the NCBTS. However, with the initial self-assessment survey conducted in the locale of

the study using the NCBTS-TSNA instrument, the researcher decided to focus on the

lowest instructional competencies under the three domains of: Curriculum; Diversity of

Learners; Planning, Assessing, and Reporting.

The three domains are related in such a way that if the teacher has the

knowledge of how diverse the learners are in terms of knowledge, experiences, social

and emotional background of the learners one will be able to implement the curriculum

effectively considering those mentioned characteristics of the learners and will also be

able to plan, assess, and report the performance of the learners. The aforementioned

elements are considered the key points as bases for analysis in this study, from which

the Teacher Enhancement Program will be based upon.

 9

Curriculum

Diversity of Teachers’ Instructional Planning,

Learners Assessing, and
Competency Needs
Reporting

Teacher Enhancement Program

Figure1. Schematic Diagram of the Study

Chapter II
 10

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Design

The researcher used the descriptive - case study research method of combined

qualitative and quantitative type of data analysis to determine and describe the

instructional competency needs of teachers as bases for designing a Teacher

Enhancement Program.

The in depth analysis of the individual teacher respondents’ in terms of their

instructional competence and whether there is a significant difference in their ratings in

the three domains formed part the quantitative analysis of data. The data gathering is

substantiated and validated through interview and focus group discussion. The collated

data through interview, focus group discussion and the development of the Individual

Plan for Professional Development (IPPD) based on the document analysis of the initial

self-assessment survey using the NCBTS-TSNA constitute the qualitative aspect of the

study. Considering all the data gathered, these served as the foundation in the

development of a Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP). Such TEP was subjected for

acceptability testing by the respondents prior to its implementation. The research

design being used in this study is illustrated in Figure 2.

Research Locale
 11

The research locale of the study was in Gayola National High School, Barangay

Gayola, Kidapawan City. The school is located 3 kilometers away from the National

Highway going to the Municipality of Pres. Roxas, North Cotabato. It started in the

school year 2001-2002 and was created through Barangay Resolution No. 21, series of

2000. Today, there were 250 students enrolled with eight (8) permanent teachers in the

school. The feeder elementary schools are Gayola Elementary School, San Roque

Elementary School, Estado Elementary School, and San Isidro Elementary School.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were the eight (8) public school teachers of Gayola

National High School. Their instructional competency needs were based on the NCBTS

domains and their instructional competence was rated by their peers, principal and the

researcher using an adapted class observation evaluation tool- the CB-PAST. The total

enumeration method was used in selecting the respondents of the study.

Teachers’
Instructional
Competency
Needs in the
domains of:
-Curriculum;
Instructional
-Diversity of Competence of Teachers: Basis for Teacher Enhancement
Learners; and Program
-Assessing,
Planning and Research Design
Reporting
 12

Figure 2 Research Design

Research Instrumentation

The researcher used the following research instruments:

First, the researcher adapted a class observation tool based on the National

Competency – Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS) and Competency-Based

Performance Assessment System for Teachers (CB-PAST) to determine the teaching

performance of teachers.
 13

The CB-PAST Instructional Supervision Form 3B is the Teacher Observation

Guide for Instructional Competence in the domains of Curriculum, Diversity of Learners

and Planning, Assessing and Reporting.

This form is used as the main instrument to measure the instructional

competence of the teacher respondents. It has three parts. Part A of is focused on the

domain of Curriculum/Content & Pedagogy: A.1. Teacher’s Behavior in Actual Teaching

with nine items and A.2. Learner’s Behavior in the Classroom with eight items. Part B

dealt on the domain of the Diversity of Learners with five items. Part C contained

questions covering the domain of Planning, Assessing and Reporting. It has six items.

All items in each part contained verifiable indicators in each item. In interpreting the

data, the following observation rating scale is used:

1- Below Basic (BB)

2- Basic (B)

3 - Proficient (P)

4 - Highly Proficient (HP)

Second, the researcher used a structured interview guide to get vital information

from the key informants.

Third, the researcher developed a focus group discussion guide to facilitate the

generation of ideas in the process of discussion.

Fourth, the researcher-made acceptability tool which can test the acceptability of

the Teacher Enhancement Program. This instrument was subjected to validity test by
 14

the panel of experts. The test run was conducted to a group of graduate school

students enrolled at Notre Dame of Kidapawan College, then scaled for reliability

testing. The Cronbach Alpha result indicates that the instrument was reliable. In

interpreting the data, the scale below was used:

1- Least Extent

2- Less Extent

3- Moderate Extent

4- High Extent

5- Very High Extent

Research Procedure

First, the researcher organized a team of observer composed of the school head,

a peer and herself. The team conducted a classroom observation using the adapted

instructional supervision tool based on the National Competency –Based Teacher

Standards (NCBTS) and Competency-Based Performance Assessment System for

Teaches (CB-PAST) to determine the instructional competence of the teacher

respondents.

Second, the researcher used a structured interview guide to validate and to get

vital information from the key informant specifically the school head and the individual

teacher.

Third, the researcher conducted a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) using the FGD

Guide. This was done in order to substantiate the data in the abovementioned

procedures. In the same manner, it was carried out to facilitate the generation of ideas
 15

in the process of making the Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD) of the

teacher.

Fourth, using the outputs from the 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd procedures, the researcher met

the respondents to develop their Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD).

Weak points identified in the initial self-assessment survey using the NCBTS - TSNA

results the respondents finally come up with their IPPD.

Fifth, the researcher developed the Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP). It

was presented to the respondents in a plenary for comments for acceptability testing

before its implementation.

Statistical Treatment

The data for sub-problem 1 and sub problem 4 was presented using Descriptive

Statistics particularly the Mean.

For sub-problem number 2, the data was analyzed using the Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) to show the significant difference in the ratings of the three domains

as rated by the school head, peer and the researcher.

Chapter III

RESULTS, DISCUSSION, AND FINDINGS

The study determined the instructional competence of teachers as basis

for the development of a Teacher Enhancement Program. Specifically, it described the

instructional competence of teachers in the domains of Curriculum; Diversity of

 16

Learners; and Planning, Assessing and Reporting; determined whether there is a

significant difference in the ratings of the teachers in the three domains; developed a

Teacher Enhancement Program; and described its acceptability in terms of developing

the instructional competence of the teachers.

The study determined the instructional competence of teachers as basis for the

development of a Teacher Enhancement Program. Specifically, it described the

instructional competence of teachers in the domains of Curriculum; Diversity of

Learners; and Planning, Assessing and Reporting; determined whether there is a

significant difference in the ratings of the teachers in the three domains; developed a

Teacher Enhancement Program; and described its acceptability in terms of developing

the instructional competence of the teachers.

Results and Discussion

The first research problem is focused on determining the instructional

competence of teachers in the three domains: Curriculum; Diversity of Learners; and

Planning, Assessing, and Reporting.

Table 1 shows the summary of findings related to the instructional competence of

teachers in terms of the Curriculum domain. The findings show that teachers are rated

proficient in aligning lesson objectives, teaching methods, learning activities, and

instructional materials (3.21); teaching accurate and updated content using appropriate

approaches and objectives (3.17); and in presenting lesson logically in a developing

manner (3.17). These are the three items which got the highest ratings respectively,

while the lowest item is on the utilization of technology resources in planning, designing,
 17

and delivery of lessons with a mean score of 2.42 described basic. This area got the

overall mean of 2.88 described as proficient.

Table 1

Summary Table of the Instructional Competence of Teachers in terms of the

Curriculum Domain

Items Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. Teaches accurate and updated content using appropriate 3.17 Proficient
approaches and objectives.
2. Aligns lesson objectives, teaching methods, learning activities, 3.21 Proficient
and instructional materials.
3. Encourages learners to use higher order thinking skills in asking 2.63 Proficient
questions.
4. Engages and sustains learners’ interest in the subject matter by 2.92 Proficient
making content meaningful and relevant.
5. Establishes routines and procedures to maximize use of time and 2.96 Proficient
instructional materials.
6. Integrates language, literacy, skills, and values in teaching. 2.79 Proficient
7. Presents lesson logically in a developing manner. 3.17 Proficient
8. Utilizes technology resources in planning, designing, and delivery 2.42 Basic
of lessons.
9. Creates situations that encourage learners to use higher order 2.63 Proficient
thinking skills.
Overall Mean 2.88 Proficient

Legend:
1.00-1.50 Below Basic
1.51-2.50 Basic
2.51-3.50 Proficient
3.51-4.00 Highly Proficient

The results indicate that the teachers are competent in the Curriculum domain as

evidenced in their proficiency ratings. The findings are related with the study of

Roberts, T. G.; et.al (2006) which states that successful agricultural science teachers

are competent in instructional knowledge, instructional skills, and instructional attributes.

The instructional knowledge competencies include content specialization and broad

knowledge of agriculture. The instructional skills competencies comprise

instructional/teaching skills; classroom management; ability to motivate and persuade

 18

others; and facilitation skills. The competencies in instructional attributes include

recognizing individual differences; multi-tasking skills; decisiveness/decision-making

skills; conflict resolutions; and mentoring skills.

Table 2 reveals the summary of findings of the instructional competence of

teachers in terms of the domain in the Diversity of Learners. In this area, the first

three highest competencies of teachers are on: utilizing of varied techniques and

strategies suited to different kinds of learners (3.29, Proficient); showing fairness in

dealing with the learners (3.21, Proficient); and pacing lesson appropriate to the needs

and difficulties of the learners (3.00, Proficient). The lowest competency though

described as proficient is on setting the lesson objectives within the experience and

capabilities of the learners (2.67).

Table 2

Summary Table of the Instructional Competence of Teachers in terms of the

Diversity of Learners Domain

Items Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. Sets lesson objectives within the experience and capabilities of 2.67 Proficient
the learners.
2. Utilizes varied techniques and strategies suited to different kinds 3.29 Proficient
of learners.
 19

3. Shows fairness in dealing with learners. 3.21 Proficient

4. Paces lessons appropriate to the needs and difficulties of 3.00 Proficient
learners.
5. Provides appropriate intervention activities for learners at risk. 2.75 Proficient
Overall Mean 2.99 Proficient
Legend:

1.00-1.50 Below Basic

1.51-2.50 Basic
2.51-3.50 Proficient
3.51-4.00 Highly Proficient

The findings imply the need for teachers to strengthen their instructional

competence in providing interventions for learners who need most of their help to

continue schooling.

Teachers in general and special education classrooms are continually faced with

instructional challenges as the diversity of students in classrooms widens. Researchers

and practitioners are interested in implementing best practices that improve educational

outcomes for all learners. One solution to overcoming these challenges is the

implementation of Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention (PMII). Peer-mediated

instruction is a widely applied and researched educational intervention in both general

and special education settings. Peer-mediated instructional situations are flexible and

may utilize many configurations. Several variations of empirically validated PMII

implementations are summarized below. Numerous positive effects have been found in

research conducted on varying forms of peer-mediated instruction. Four characteristics

are common across all forms of PMII, these include: (a) assignment and training of

students to roles in the PMII configuration, (b) students instruct one another, (c)

teachers monitor and facilitate all PMII groups in the classroom, and (d) structures are

designed to increase academic as well as social goals for all students (Hall,T. & Stegila,

A, 2009) .
 20

Table 3 discloses the domain in Planning, Assessing, and Reporting. The data

show that the instructional competence of teachers in terms of giving assignment as

reinforcement or enrichment of the lesson (3.00, Proficient); followed by providing

timely, appropriate reinforcement/feedback to the learners’ behavior (2.88, Proficient);

and providing opportunity for learners to demonstrate their learning (2.57, Proficient).

However, there are three competencies in this area which are rated as

Basic, these include keeping accurate records of learners’ performance level (2.50);

using appropriate formative, summative test congruent to the lesson (2.13); and using

non-traditional authentic assessment techniques when needed (2.13). The overall

mean is rated proficient (2.57).

Table 3

Summary Table of the Instructional Competence of Teachers in terms of

Planning, Assessing, and Reporting Domain

Items Mean Descriptive

Equivalent
1. Provides timely, appropriate reinforcement/feedback to learners 2.88 Proficient
’behavior.
2. Uses appropriate formative, summative tests congruent to the 2.13 Basic
lesson.
3. Uses non-traditional authentic assessment techniques when 2.13 Basic
needed.
4. Keeps accurate records of learners’ performance level. 2.50 Basic
5. Gives assignment as reinforcement or enrichment of the lesson. 3.00 Proficient
 21

6. Provides opportunity for learners to demonstrate their learning. 2.57 Proficient

Overall Mean 2.57 Proficient
Legend:

1.00-1.50 Below Basic

1.51-2.50 Basic
2.51-3.50 Proficient
3.51-4.00 Highly Proficient

The data entail that teachers need to enhance their instructional skills in keeping

records, using appropriate test and assessments tools in evaluating students’

performance. Victoria (2011) said that assessing students learning is definitely

challenging for teachers. Therefore, for teachers, assessment should be considered as

an integral part of teaching and learning. Assessment of problem solving, in addition,

should encourage both learning and reflection on that learning.

The second research problem aimed to find out if there exists a significant difference in

the ratings of the three domains namely: Curriculum; Diversity of Learners; Planning,

Assessing, and Reporting as rated by the school head, peer and the researcher.

As shown in the table, Diversity of Learners and Curriculum has the P value of

0.912; Diversity of Learners and Planning, Assessing and Reporting has a P value of

0.975; Curriculum and Planning, Assessing and Reporting with the P value of 0.98,

all P values are higher than the 0.05 alpha value. Thus the data reveal that there is no

significant difference in the ratings the three domains of teachers’ instructional

competence.

Table 4

Significant Difference in the Ratings of the Three Domains

 22

Domains Mean SE Sig. Inference

Difference

Diversity of Learners and Curriculum 0.12 0.27825 0.912 Not Significant

Diversity of Learners and Planning, 0.06333 0.27825 0.975 Not Significant
Assessing,& Reporting
Curriculum and
Planning, Assessing & Reporting -0.5667 0.27825 0.98 Not Significant
Significant at 0.05

The findings point out that the instructional competencies of teachers are of the

same level of proficiency in the three domains. In this case the null hypothesis in this

study is accepted.

The third research problem is focused on the development of a Teacher

Enhancement Program (TEP) based on the following data as indicated in the table on

the next page.

Table 5

Data on the identified lowest competencies from various sources as bases for
the Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP)

SOURCES IDENTIFIED LOWEST COMPETENCIES IN THE THREE DOMAINS

OF DATA Curriculum Diversity of Learners Planning, Assessing,
Reporting
Classroom 1. Utilization of 1. Sets lesson objectives 1.Keeping accurate records
Observation technology resources within the experience and of learners’ performance level
in planning, capabilities of the
designing, and learners. 2. Using appropriate
delivery of lessons. formative, summative test
 23

congruent to the lesson.

3. Using non-traditional
authentic assessment
techniques when needed.
Interview & 1. Utilizes ICT to 1.Obtains information on 1.Interprets and uses
FGD enhance teaching the learning styles, assessment results to
and learning. multiple intelligences and improve teaching and
needs of learners learning
2. Creates situations
that encourage 2.Initiates other learning 2.Employs non traditional
learners to use high approaches for learners assessment techniques (such
order thinking skills. whose needs have not as portfolio, journals, rubrics,
been met by usual etc)
3. Selects, prepares, approaches
and utilizes
technology and other
instructional materials
appropriate to the
learners and learning
objectives.

4. Delivers accurate
and updated content
and knowledge using
appropriate
methodologies,
approaches and
strategies.
Teachers’ 1. Selects, prepares, 1. Obtains information on 1.Interprets and uses
Individual Plan and utilizes the learning styles, assessment results to
for technology and other multiple intelligences, and improve teaching and
Professional instructional materials needs of learners learning
Dev. (IPPD) appropriate to the
learners.

2. Delivers accurate
and updated content
and knowledge using
appropriate
methodologies,
approaches and
strategies.
Types of * ICT training * in-service training * in service training
Enhancement *seminar/workshops *benchmarking *benchmarking
as Suggested * mentoring * Focus Group *seminar/workshop
by the *benchmarking Discussion
Teachers

Table 5 shows the findings on the identified lowest competencies from various

sources of data as bases for the Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP). The first

source of data came from the team of evaluators who conducted the classroom
 24

observation. Only those items with the ratings of “Basic” in the Curriculum and PAR

domains and the lowest item in the Diversity of Learners domain were included in the

priority list for the Teacher Enhancement Program.

The second source of data is generated from the Interview and Focus Group

Discussion (FGD) of the teachers. The results in the interview validated the findings of

the results of the classroom observation. The lowest competencies in the Curriculum

domain that surfaced during the interview and FGD are: 1. Utilizing ICT to enhance

teaching and learning; 2. creating situations that encourage learners to use high order

thinking skills; 3. selecting, preparing, and utilizing technology and other instructional

materials appropriate to the learners and learning objectives; 4.delivering accurate and

updated content and knowledge using appropriate methodologies, approaches and

strategies; and In the Diversity of Learners domain, the common lowest competencies

are: 1. obtaining information on the learning styles, multiple intelligences and the needs

of learners; and 2. initiating other learning approaches for learners whose needs have

not been met by usual approaches. In the domain of Planning, Assessing and Reporting

the competencies on : 1.interpreting and using assessment results to improve teaching

and learning; and 2.employing non traditional assessment techniques (such as

portfolio, journals, rubrics, etc) are found to be the common weakest competencies of

the teacher respondents.

Based on the findings of the initial self-assessment conducted using the NCBTS-

TSNA, an Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD) of the teachers were

developed. From the IPPD, the researcher summarized the priority needs for teacher

professional development. Among the priority competency needs under the Curriculum
 25

domain are focused on: 1. delivering accurate updated content knowledge using

appropriate methodologies, approaches, & strategies; and 2. selecting, preparing, and

utilizing technology and other instructional materials appropriate to the learners & the

learning objectives. In the Diversity of Learners, the following competencies are needed

to be enhanced: obtaining information on the learning styles, multiple intelligences, and

needs of learners whilst in the domain of Planning, Assessing, and Reporting it

purposefully anchored on enhancing the competency of teachers in interpreting and

using assessment results to improve teaching and learning.

The Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD) is a tool that serves as

a guide for the teacher’s continuous learning and development. It identifies the

professional development goals, the objectives, the methods and strategies, resources,

time frame, and success indicators. The IPPD is based on the NCBTS-TSNA result of

the teacher and is also based on the NCBTS framework. As indicated in the NBCTS-

TSNA Primer (2009), the IPPD commits

the teacher to individual accountability for professional growth and shared responsibility

for the learners’ improved learning outcomes and the school’s development. The IPPDs

of the teachers will be consolidated to form part of the school’s plan for professional

development and the training and development needs of teachers.

In the same interview and Focus Group Discussion, the teachers also suggested the

following activities for their professional enhancement: ICT training seminar /workshops;

mentoring; skills training for TLE teachers; engage in scholarship program; and

benchmarking to enhance their instructional competency needs in the Curriculum

 26

domain. They further suggested for in-service training; benchmarking; Focus Group

Discussion to enhance their competencies in the three domains.

Findings

The study found out the following:

1. In the Curriculum domain, the teachers are proficient in aligning lesson

objectives, teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials (3.21);

teaching accurate and updated content using appropriate approaches and objectives

(3.17); and presenting lesson logically in a developing manner (3.17), while their

lowest competency is on utilizing technology resources in planning, designing, and

delivery of lessons (2.42, Basic).

2. The highest teachers’ instructional competence in the Domain of Diversity of

Learners is on utilizing varied techniques and strategies suited to different kinds of

learners (3.29, Proficient), whereas the lowest rating is on setting the lesson objectives

within the experience and capabilities of the learners (2.67).

3. There are three components in the teachers’ instructional competence in the

Domain of Planning, Assessing, and Reporting that were rated as Basic. These

include keeping accurate records of learners’ performance level (2.50); using

appropriate formative, summative test congruent to the lesson (2.13); and using

nontraditional authentic assessment techniques when needed (2.13).

4. The data reveal that there is no significant difference in the ratings the three

domains of teachers’ instructional competence. The hypothesis in this study is

accepted.
 27

5. On the acceptability of the TEP, all items are accepted to a high extent

except for the three items rated as moderate extent. The time frame as indicated in the

Teacher Enhancement Program (TEP) got the lowest rating of 3.14. It is followed by

the articulation of TEP objectives for which they are intended (3.43); and the allocation

of feasible amount for all the activities (3.43).The highest rating is on the activity that

suit to the instructional competency of teachers in the domain of Curriculum specifically

the Seminar-Workshop on the Utilization of Technology Resources in Planning,

Designing and Delivery of Lessons (3.86) described as High Extent.

Chapter IV

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

On the basis of the foregoing findings the following conclusions were drawn:
 28

1. The teachers’ instructional competence in the three domains: Curriculum;

Diversity of Learners; and Planning, Assessing, and Reporting is generally proficient.

However, there are still competencies in these domains that need for an enhancement

specifically on: 1. utilizing technology resources in planning, designing and delivery of

lessons; 2.setting lesson objectives within the learners capabilities and experiences;

3.keeping accurate records of learners’ performance level; 4. using appropriate

formative, summative test congruent to the lesson; and 5. using non-traditional

authentic assessment techniques.

2. The instructional competencies of teachers in the three domains are of the

same proficiency level.

3. The Teacher Enhancement Program in terms of developing the instructional

competence of teachers the three domains: Curriculum; Diversity of Learners; and

Planning, Assessing, and Reporting is highly accepted for implementation.

Recommendations

In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are

recommended:

1. DepEd school officials should continue their extensive monitoring and

evaluation on the instructional competency needs of teachers so that appropriate

Teacher Enhancement Programs will be developed and implemented. Priority must be

given to the following competencies: 1. utilizing technology resources in planning,

designing and delivery of lessons; 2.setting lesson objectives within the learners’
 29

capabilities and experiences; 3.keeping accurate records of learners’ performance level;

4. using appropriate formative, summative test congruent to the lesson; and 5. using

non-traditional authentic assessment techniques.

2. The areas in the Teacher Enhancement Program particularly the time frame;

allocation of feasible budget for all activities; and setting of objectives for which they are

intended should be reviewed and be given consideration prior to its implementation.

3. Future researchers may replicate similar study considering other variables on

the professional strengths and needs of teachers based on the National Competency-

Based Teacher Standards (NCBTS).

REFERENCES

A. BOOKS

Salandanan, G. G. (2005). Teaching and the teacher, Manila,

Philippines: Lorimar Publishing Co., Inc., pp 56-65.

Salandanan, G. G. (2007). Elements of good teaching, Manila,

Philippines: Lorimar Publishing Co., Inc., pp 83-94.

 30

Bondoc, V. P., et al (2014). Action Research Made Easy, Quezon City, Metro

Manila, Philippines: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.

B. JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS

A primer on the NCBTS-TSNA. pp.12-16.

Department of Education (2009). The NCBTS framework and structure.

A primer on the NCBTS-TSNA. pp.6-11.

Department of Education (2009). The NCBTS-TSNA system framework.

C. UNPUBLISHED THESIS/DISSERTATIONS

Lorca, A.C. (2003). A teacher development program for the Arakan public school

teachers. Thesis:NDU-NDKC Consortium

D. INTERNET RESOURCES

Nagel, D. (2008, November 11). Can technology drive change in professional

development? Retrieved May 06, 2010, from

http://www.thejournal.com/2008/11/07/can-technology-drive-change-

professional-development?htm./

Speck, M. & Knipe, C.(2005). Why can’t we get it right? Designing high-quality

professional development for standards-based schools. (2nd.ed.) Thousand Oaks:Cowin

Press. Retrieved May 06, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Professional

development.htm/

Fullan (1991) & Grant (n.d.). Professional Development. Retrieved on May 06,

2010,from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd2f.htm/
 31

TEACHER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (TEP) FOR THE

GAYOLA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher Enhancement Program for the Gayola National High School Teachers is a
one year package of activities designed to meet the competency needs of teachers based on
following NCBTS Domains: Curriculum; Diversity of Learners; and Planning, Assessing, and
Reporting.

The activities which will be implemented in the school year 2013-2014 are arranged from
the most needed teaching competencies to the moderately needed teaching competencies. All
activities are scheduled during the second Friday of the month, the time given to public schools
to conduct in-service trainings for teachers, as mandated in the DepEd Regional Memorandum
in 2010. Only one activity will be done per session to maximize the time given to schools to
conduct in-service trainings for teachers.
 32

The enhancement program also allows minimal expenses and promotes resource
sharing and linkages provided that it will be included in the School Improvement Plan/Annual
Improvement Plan of the school.

PROGRAM GOAL
The program aims to enhance teachers’ teaching competencies so that they can effect
quality education and consequently raise the standard of the teaching profession.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
General:
To provide teachers with in-service trainings and activities which may help them
enhance their teaching competencies based on their competency needs.

Specific:
At the end of the program, the teacher participants are expected to:
1. Enhance their teaching competencies in the following NCBTS domains:
1.1 Curriculum;
1.2 Diversity of Learners ;
1.3 Planning, Assessing, and Reporting;
2. Develop positive attitude and acquire knowledge and skills on modern teaching.

PROGRAM CONTENT

Target Domain: Curriculum

Objectives
To enhance teachers’ teaching competencies in:
a. utilization of technology (e.g. ICT) and other resources in
planning, designing, and delivery of lessons to enhance teaching
and learning;
b. delivery of accurate and updated content and knowledge using
appropriate methodologies, approaches and strategies in teaching;
and;
c. encouraging learners and creating situations for the learners to
use higher order thinking skills (HOTS).
Time Frame: June 2013 to February 2014
Venue: To be agreed between the Mentor and the Mentee
Strategies: Activity 1: Mentoring
Activity 2: Class Observation
Activity 2: Benchmarking
Resources:
1. Human Resource
Resource Persons
School Head
Teachers chosen as Mentors
2. Financial Resources: Solicitations and MOOE
Budget: (Weekly Meeting of Mentor and Mentee)
Teaching and Learning Materials Php 2, 000.00
Snacks Php 1, 000.00
Certificates Php 200.00
Contingency Php 500.00
Total Php 3, 700.00
 33

Budget: (Benchmarking)
Rent of Van for Hire Php4, 500.00
Meals and Snacks Php2, 500.00
Contingency Php1, 000.00
Total Php8, 000.00

Target Domain: Diversity of Learners

Objectives
To enhance teachers’ teaching competencies in:
a. setting lesson objectives within the experience of the capabilities
of the learners; and
b. obtaining information on the learning styles, multiple
intelligences and the needs of learners; and initiating other
learning approaches for learners whose needs have not been
met by usual approaches.
Time Frame: June 2013 to March 2014
Venue: To be agreed between the teachers
Strategies: Activity 1: Study Group Sessions
Activity 2: Peer Coaching
Resources:
1. Resource Persons
School Head
Senior Teachers
2. Financial Resources: Solicitations and MOOE
Budget: (Monthly Meeting for Study Groups)
Teaching and Learning Materials Php 2, 000.00
Snacks Php 1, 000.00
Certificates Php 200.00
Contingency Php 500.00
Total Php 3, 700.00
Budget: (Twice a Month Meeting for Peer Coaching Sessions)
Teaching and Learning Materials Php 2, 000.00
Snacks Php 1, 000.00
Certificates Php 300.00
Contingency Php 200.00

Target Domain: Planning, Assessing, and Reporting

Objectives
To enhance teachers’ instructional competencies on the following areas:

a. keeping accurate records of learners’ performance level;

b. using appropriate formative, summative test congruent to the

lesson; and

c. using non-traditional authentic assessment techniques when

needed.
 34

Time Frame: June 2013 to March 2014

Venue: To be agreed between the School Head and the teachers
Strategies: Activity 1: Group Critiquing and Meetings
Activity 2: Conferencing
Resources:
1. Resource Person
School Head
2. Financial Resources: Solicitations and MOOE
Budget: (Monthly Meeting of Group Critiquing)
Teaching and Learning Materials Php 2, 000.00
Snacks Php 1, 000.00
Certificates Php 200.00
Contingency Php 500.00
Total Php 3, 700.00

Time Table of the Teacher Enhancement Program for the Gayola National High
School Teachers for School Year 2013-2014

DOMAINS JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

I.CURRICULUM
Activity 1: Every Every Every Every Every Every Every Every Every Every
Me Friday Friday Friday Friday Friday Friday Frida Friday Friday Friday
nto y
rin
g

Activity 2: 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd
Class Observation and and and and and and and and and and
th th th th th th th th th
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4th
week week week week week week week week week week
Activity 3:
Benchmarking 23rd
II. DIVERSITY OF
LEARNERS
Activity 1: Study 7th 12th 9th 13th 11th 15th 6th 17th 7th 8th
Group Sessions
Activity 2:
Peer Coaching 19th 24th 22nd 18th 16th 20th 10th 15th 16th 14th

III.PLANNING,
ASSESSING AND
REPORTING
 35

Activity1:Group 21st 26th 23rd 27th 25th 29th 13th 24th 14th 15th
Critiquing and
Meetings
Activity 2:
Conferencing 17th 22nd 20th 16th 14th 18th 14th 13th 12th 11th

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Name: FebyDemellites-Atay
Profession: Professional Teacher
Address: Block 3 BartolabaSubd.,Brgy. Lanao, Kidapawan City
Mobile No: 09195062992
Birthdate: February 09, 1975
Birthplace: Brgy. Nuangan, Kidapawan City
 36

Civil Status: Married

Spouse: RolanTumangob Atay
Profession: OFW – Seafarer (2nd/3rd Officer)

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
Graduate: Doctor of Philosophy (ongoing)
Major: Education
NDKC – NDUU Consortium
Kidapawan City

Master of Arts in Education

Major: Educational Management
NDKC-NDDU Consortium
NDKC.Kidapawan City

College: Bachelor of Science in Education

Major: Mathematics
MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology
Iligan City

High School: North Cotabato College of Arts and Trades

Kidapawan, North Cotabato
Class Salutatorian

Elementary: Notre Dame of Kidapawan College Training Department

Elementary Department
Kidapawan, North Cotabato

WORK EXPERIENCE

December 2010 to Present
December 2006 to November 2010
October 2001 to November 2006
October 1997 to September 2001
GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS PASSED
Licensure Examination for Teachers
August 25-26, 1996
Registration Number: 0026441
Civil Service Professional Examination
April 21, 1996
Civil Service Subprofessional Examination
October 1993
37
Saniel Cruz National High School
Saniel-Cruz Ave.,
Kidapawan City
Teacher I (deployed)
Gayola National High School
Brgy.Gayola, Kidapawan City
Teacher I
Kapatagan National High School
Kapatagan, Lanaodel Norte
Teacher II
Kapatagan National High School
Kapatagan, Lanaodel Norte
Teacher I