STRATEGIC INTERVENTION MATERIALS IN CHEMISTRY: DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS

Andy L. Soberano Muntinlupa Science High School <magmendykit@yahoo.com>
This study attempted to probe that strategic intervention materials will significantly address the least mastered skills in chemistry. A true experimental research was employed using the pretest-posttest comparison design and samples were determined using the purposive or deliberate sampling technique. Results of the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test were used to reveal the intelligence of the students and sixty six students with the same school ability index were matched and grouped as the experimental and control groups. The 65 items teacher made test was created and subjected to parallel pilot testing. The items in the test were analyzed and those which were not within the range of 0.20 to 0.80 difficulty index and 0.30 to 0.80 discrimination index were discarded and items fell within the prescribe limit were retained. The validated test was finalized and pilot pretests were administered to two groups of respondents. In addition, the SIM focusing on thirteen least mastered skills were also developed with the help of nine experts. The experimental group was given set of the validated SIM while the control group was exposed to conventional way of teaching. Performance from both groups was constantly monitored and showed that there was no significant difference in the pretests before the intervention and there existed significant difference in the posttests after the intervention. It registered t-value of 8.289 at tabular value 1.67 and degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. This suggested that the strategic intervention materials significantly contributed to the mastery of chemistry concepts.

Introduction The economic theory states that the progress of one nation lies on the quality of education, thus, with more and better educated people, a country would have a greater chance of economic development. According to Basic Education Curriculum Primer 2002, to become globally competitive, we have to educate our Filipino learners to filter information critically, seek credible sources of knowledge, and use data and facts creatively so that they can survive, overcome poverty, raise their personal and national self-esteem, and realize a gracious life in this risky new world. And to actualize a gracious life in our changing world, Filipino learners need an educational system that empowers them from lifelong learning or enables them to be competent in life. Lifelong learning ―meets the challenges posed by a rapidly changing world,‖ but it is nearly impossible today for anybody without functional literacy, which includes essential skills like language fluency and scientific-numerical competence. Thus, we should ask: Are our learners attaining functional literacy? The true measure for Filipino learners to display functional literacy will be sufficient self discipline, which can lead to sustainable accomplishments when combined with our people’s innate adaptability to change. With functional literacy, Filipino learners can do self-regulated learning and with enough motivation, they can seek sources of knowledge, read instructional materials, and conduct explorations on other subject matters that interest them. But with the problems persisting today in Philippine education system, our stand for functional literacy to empower learners is at stake. The scarcity of teachers, poor classrooms and dearth of instructional materials, low student achievement and increasing number of out-of-school children hamper our learners to be active makers of meaningful life. The Trends in Mathematics survey alone which was conducted five years ago revealed unsatisfactory results, the Philippines ranked 41st in Math and 42nd in Science out of 45 countries that were tested (Manila Times 2004). This proved that vast majority of Filipino students have performed way below par in all national achievement tests, and below the levels of most students from other countries in the international tests. These latest performance figures are consistent with performance figures from our recent past. And as more mediocre students progress through the cycle of Basic Education and eventually move on to become teachers in the future, the Philippine Education System would definitely experience further decline. Thus, there is a great need for reform to effect learning—and this reform should definitely start today. Thus, education managers must focus on reforming and delivering quality instruction so that the Basic Education Curriculum will not be overwhelmed by the crisis. Students must be provided with maximum opportunities to become functionally literate in science. They must be prevented from having any stigma of their weak performance brought about by professional

incompetence (as the case may be) of the teachers, principals, supervisors, superintendents and regional directors. Therefore, it is the duty of those who must know if students are learning what they ought to learn and whether those things they consider important enough to be learned actually make a difference. It is for these reasons that the researcher embarks on developing strategic intervention materials in chemistry that will enhance learning and remedy the least mastered skills of the students. Statement of the Purpose This study aimed to develop a strategic intervention materials in chemistry to carry out the focal goal of the Bureau of Secondary Education in sustaining the educational needs of every Filipino student and to equip educators with the most updated and innovative teaching method. Specifically, it attempted to answer the following questions: 1. How are the two groups of respondents matched in terms of Otis Lennon Test results? 2. What is the level of performance of the experimental and control groups in the pretest in each intervention material? 3. What significant difference that exists between the pretest results of the experimental and control group? 4. What is the level of performance of the experimental and control group in the posttests in each intervention material? 5. What significant difference that exists in the posttest scores of the two groups? 6. What significant difference that exists between the pretest and posttest results of each group in each intervention material? 7. How effective are the proposed SIMS in chemistry based from the gain scores? Samples and Sampling Technique Used The researcher determined the samples using the purposive or deliberate sampling technique (Sanchez, 1997). In this technique the respondents were chosen on the basis of researcher’s knowledge of the information desired or needed. It involved the deliberate selection of individuals by the researcher based on certain pre-defined criteria. The researcher used the results of the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test given by the guidance office of Muntinlupa Science High School to reveal the intelligence of the students, their ability to comprehend and follow instructions without much effort and ability to grasp ideas in his way of thinking. Based from the results of the test, the student’s school ability index and the percentile rank were taken. Their scores were statistically analyzed using SPSS No.16 and revealed a t-value of 0.665 at tabular value 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 level of significance. The computed value of 0.665 was greater than the tabular value of 1.67; therefore the researcher rejected the alternative hypothesis and accepted the null hypothesis which states that there was no significant difference between the intelligence of the students from the two sections. Thus, they were matched and paired up in terms of similarities on intellectual evaluation and were grouped into two as the control and experimental groups. Thirty three students served as the control and did not get the treatment, while the other thirty three from the other section served as the experimental group who were exposed to the SIM. Instrumentation The following were the research instruments used in this study. Strategic Intervention Materials They were intervention materials which designed to help teachers provide the students a needed support to make progress. They tried to increase and deepen their skills, knowledge and understanding from concrete science to what is more abstract. They gave the students the opportunity to explore their

understanding and make sense of these new scientific ideas. They helped the students talk what they know and understand from the teacher to formalize their thinking. Furthermore, they were instructional materials meant to re-teach the concept(s) and skill(s) to help the learners master a competency-based skill which they were not able to develop during classroom teaching. Each intervention material has five parts such as the guide card, activity card, assessment card, enrichment card and reference card. The guide card stimulated the students’ interest on the topic discussed and gave a preview of what they would learn. It presented the skill focus that mentioned the learning competency, the three subtasks or activities and the concrete outcome or product students are expected to demonstrate or produce. This cited the activities and challenged the learner in performing the tasks which were competency-oriented and can be done individually or per group. The activity card followed the guide card where it translated the focus skills in at least three activities. It provided activities that were organized based on the sequence of the focus skills written in the guide card and included examples to concretize the concepts, particularly those drawn from real life experience. The activities included in the activity allowed students to make discoveries and formulate ideas on their own, guide and challenge their thinking and learning and use local data and situations like interacting with people in the community. It also provided transition statements that reorganized students’ accomplishments. Likewise, the intervention materials provided questions that guided students to develop concepts and focus skills, elicited the message or meaning that a student can take away from an activity and established the relationship between the topic/lesson and what students already know or are familiar to them. The assessment card provided exercises, drills or activities that allowed students to assess their understanding of what they have learned correct errors when appropriate and monitor their learning and use feedback about their progress. This card was formulated in standard test formats to give students practice in test taking techniques. It therefore has a separate card that includes the answer key. The enrichment card provided activities that reinforced the content of the lesson and provided opportunities for students to apply what they have learned to other subject areas or in new contexts. It also encouraged students to work independently or in a group to explore answers to their own questions. The reference card provided reading to students. It related the content with the students’ life experiences. It included a carefully and well-researched list of resources that helped students reinforce concepts and skills that they learned. It also included additional useful content not found in the books. In a nutshell, the strategic intervention materials ensured alignment of activities with the tasks/objectives, kept the activities short and simple, provided a variety of activities to cater to the diverse learning styles; provided number of activities so that the learner can have enough practice in developing the skill and lastly focus on the least mastered skills, simple, easy to understand and reproduce.

Pretest It was a 65 items teacher made test which was designed to measure the mastery level of the students on the thirteen lessons chosen by the researcher. Its validity and reliability was taken by subjecting it to parallel pilot testing to three chemistry classes at Muntinlupa Science High School. The items in the test were analyzed and the difficulty/discrimination indices were taken to discard or reject the item. Items which were not within the range of 0.20 to 0.80 difficulty index and 0.30 to 0.80 discrimination index were discarded and items fall within the prescribe limit were retained. Furthermore the validated test was finalized and a pilot pretest was administered to two groups of respondents before the experiments. The experimental group was exposed to the use of SIM while the control group used the conventional way of teaching. Likewise, a pretest was given to both groups before the introduction of each lesson and a posttest after the end of each lesson. Both pretests and posttests given to the experimental and control group were the same. In addition, the reliability was taken by the Pearson r and test/retest reliability method. The results showed that the administered test was valid and reliable although it registered low reliability value of -0.31 on the experimental group and 0.07 on the control group. This low reliability of test could be attributed to student’s

perception on the nature of the pretest than that of the posttest and not on the manner by which the items were constructed by the researcher. Procedure The researcher together with other chemistry teachers of Muntinlupa Science High School had identified the least mastered skills in chemistry and found out that mastery level was not achieved by the students in the previous years and current year. Thus, all the competencies given by the Department of Education which were not mastered by the students were the contents of the strategic intervention materials. The first drafts of the strategic intervention materials were made and their parts were reviewed and validated by nine educators with master’s degree and doctoral units in chemistry and education using the guidelines set by the Department of Education in reviewing intervention materials. However, some modifications on the guidelines were done to give ease in interpreting data raised by the critics and experts about the effectiveness of the intervention materials. Their comments and suggestions were noted and used in the revision of the intervention materials. A final draft of the proposed SIM was created and the experimental group was given a set of the validated SIM per topic. The lesson in each intervention was read and studied by the students and the researcher directed the students to learn in the context of their own personal experiences. On the one hand, the students were able to asked questions to the teacher to shed light on the difficult lessons. Their performance was constantly monitored by looking on the 50% correct answers of the total score which signified a satisfactory performance. Students who reached the set criteria were allowed to proceed to the next SIM while those students who did not meet the 50% correct answers were requested to review the material again before they were allowed to take the next SIM. Furthermore, the control group was given the same lesson, same number of contact time and rules with the experimental group. They were given the same pretests and posttest after the treatment. And their scores in every treatment were tallied and interpreted by the researcher to determine whether there were significant differences on their mean scores in the pretests and posttests. Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Table 1. Respondents Performance in Otis Lennon Test Groups Experimental Control N 33 33 Mean 6.8788 6.667 S.D 1.19262 1.29099 Df 32 32 1.67 0.665 Not Significant Accept Ho Tabular t at 0.05 Computed t Interpretation Decision

Table 1 shows the respondents performance in OLSAT. Two sections were selected and assigned as the experimental and control groups. Thirty three students from IV-Pasteur served as the experimental group and another thirty three respondents were taken from IV-Priestley as the control group. They were matched to determine whether the two groups differ in terms of mental ability. Results showed that the computed t-value was 0.665 which was less than the tabular value of 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 level of significance. This attested that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mental ability. On the other hand the parts of the intervention materials were thoroughly reviewed and assessed by nine educators with masters and doctorate degree in chemistry based on the guidelines set by the Department of Education. Results showed that the strategic materials which were used as an intervention to master the competency-based skills in chemistry were all very good with a total mean score of 3.88. Strategic intervention # 1 got the highest mean score of 4.05 which focused on mastering the lesson on empirical formula. The lowest mean recorded was in SIM # 3 on gas laws, having a mean score of 3.81. Although it was the lowest mean, still it was classified as very good by the reviewers.

In a nutshell, the criteria cited with regard to the five parts of all the intervention materials, were assessed and reviewed as very good by the chemistry educators and further affirmed that the proposed strategic intervention materials were of good quality and within the standard set by the DepEd in addressing the least mastered skills and ready for testing with the experimental and control groups. Table 2. Test of Difference in the Pretest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups Tabular Computed Groups N Mean S.D Df Interpretation Decision t at 0.05 t Experimental 33 23.7879 6.8999 32 Not Accept 1.67 0.476 33 24.7576 9.0589 32 Control Significant Ho Table 2 presents the difference between the pretest scores of the experimental and control groups. The mean score of the experimental group was 23.7879 with a standard deviation of 6.89999 while the control group mean score was 24.7576 with a standard deviation of 9.05894. The control group had higher mean score than the experimental group. However, the minimal difference of 0.9697 in the mean score of the two groups was not significant based on the computed t-value of 0.476 which was less than the tabular value of 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 level of significance. Since the computed t- value 0.476 was less than the tabular value of 1.67, the researcher accepted the null hypothesis which stated that there was no significant difference between the groups mastery level of chemistry concepts. In other words, the experimental and control groups which were given a pretests before they were exposed to the intervention and conventional methods performed satisfactorily based on their given scores. In addition, results of pretests in the experimental and control groups before using the strategic intervention materials (SIM) revealed that there were six cases that showed no significant differences and seven cases revealed that there existed significant differences between them. The pretests allotted for empirical formula, the periodic table, gas laws, percent composition and concentration, stoichiometry and molecular formula revealed a t-values of 1.359, 0.894, 0.894, 0.786, 0.473 and 0.845 at tabular value of 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. Since the computed values were less than the tabular value of 1.67, they suggested that the two groups had the same mastery level of the topics. Also, there were significant differences in the mean scores of the experimental and control groups after the pre-tests were given. It revealed a t -values of 3.352, 2.280, 2.324, 3.130, 8.333, 2.042 and 5.566 at tabular value of 1.67 and 0.05 significance level. These were topics on chemical bonding, molality and normality, balancing chemical equations, properties of matter, ionization energy, molecular formula and writing chemical formulas. The experimental group registered high mean scores of 7.0303, 6.6061, 6.7576, 7.0303, 6.6364, and 6.3636 against the mean scores of the control group of 6.1818, 5.9091, 6.1212, 4.7576, 5.9394 and 4.8485. In other words, the respondents from the experimental group performed better on the topics on polar and nonpolar bonds, molarity and normality, balancing chemical equations, properties of matter, ionization energy, and writing chemical formulas. While the control group performed better than the experimental group on ionic and covalent bonding with a mean score of 6.3939 against the mean score of the experimental group of 5.3939. In addition, results in the SIMs pre-tests were gathered and revealed that 23 students had performed outstanding which comprised 69.70 % of the test takers and 10 students had performed very satisfactory covering the 30.30 % of those who took the tests from the experimental group. Furthermore, the experimental group registered a mean score of 83.2424 and standard deviation of 5.35041. Meanwhile, 7 students or 21.21 % from the control group performed outstanding and 26 or 78.79 % had performed very satisfactorily in all the given pre-tests with a mean of 77.2121 and standard deviation of 4.39287.

There was a difference of 6.0303 on the mean scores of the two groups which was significant in favour of the experimental group. These findings attested that although the experimental and control groups have the same intelligence prior to the experiment, it is not an assurance that both groups would perform the same in the pre-tests. There were cases that the control group did well in the pre-tests than the experimental group. And likewise the experimental group performed better than the control group. In other words, the experimental and control groups may or may not perform well in the pretests even they have the same level of mental ability prior to the experiments. On the contrary, the mean scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups after using the thirteen strategic intervention materials showed significant differences in favor of the experimental group. Although the control group showed an increase in the mean score of the posttests compared with the mean scores in the pretests, they were not significant with the way the experimental group had shown. A t-test was done in each posttest result to compare the performance of the experimental and control groups and showed t values of 2.454, 6.051,12.135, 9.940, 14.221, 17.940, 10.580, 13.244, 10.604, 12.656, 4.379, 3.768 and 6.060 at tabular value of 1,67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. Since the computed values were greater than the tabular values of 1.67, the null hypotheses were rejected and the alternative hypotheses were accepted which stated that there were significant differences in the mean scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups. These findings affirmed that the respondents from the experimental group had performed par well than that of the respondents from the control group after they were exposed to the intervention using the SIMS. These were very evident with the differences in their mean scores before and after they were exposed to treatments and proved that the intervention materials were effective in mastering the competency-based skills in chemistry. In addition, 33 students or 100 % from the experimental group had performed outstanding and 33 respondents from the control group performed very satisfactory in the posttests. These data revealed that both groups had shown an increase in tests performance after they were exposed to different treatments. The experimental group was exposed to the use of SIMS and the control group was exposed to conventional teaching method. The experimental group which was exposed to the use of SIM as intervention materials performed better in the posttests than the control group which was exposed to the use of conventional teaching method. Table 3 Test of Difference between Pretest and Posttest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups
Groups N Mean S.D Df Tabular t at 0.05 Computed t Interpretation Decision

Experimental

33

23.7879 58.1212

6.89999 1.91634

32 1.67

26.615 15.182

Significant Significant

Accept Ha Accept Ha

Control

33

24.7576 51.0303

9.05894 4.42638

32

Table 3 shows that the control group yielded a pretest mean of 24.7576 and a posttest mean of 51.0303. The mean score of the posttest was significantly higher than that of the pretest mean at 0.05 significance level, tabular value 1.67 and degrees of freedom 64. Since the computed t -value of 15.182 was greater than the tabular value, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest of the control group. This indicated that the control group had performed well in the posttest than that in the pretest. On the other hand the experimental group showed a mean score of 23.7879 and standard deviation of 6.89999 in the pretest and mean score of 58.1212 with standard deviation of 1.91634 in the posttest. Furthermore, data showed that the computed t -value was 26.615 at tabular value 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. It suggested that there was a significant difference in the mean results of the pretest and posttest of the experimental group. In a nutshell, there was a positive transfer of learning in the two groups. However, higher mean was observed from the experimental group after the presentation of the intervention materials. The findings supported the claim of Eduardo De La Cruz (1990) in his doctoral dissertation on Development of the Work-Text in Algebra, that there was significant increase in the posttest mean scores than in the pretest mean scores of the control group. These further proved the pedagogical principle of Dunn and Dunn Teaching and Learning style that every child is unique and learn differently. And thus, students’ differences must be taken into account to ensure the best possible learning experience. What will prevail is a one-size fits all formula where students are expected to take in new and difficult information. Table 4 Test of Difference between Posttest Results of the Experimental and Control Groups
Groups Experimental N 33 Mean 58.1212 S.D 1.91634 Df 32 1.67 Control 33 51.0303 4.42638 32 8.289 Significant Accept Ha Tabular t at 0.05 Computed t Interpretation Decision

Based on the results of the administered posttests to the control and experimental groups, the experimental group registered a mean score of 58.1212 and a standard deviation of 1.91634 while the control group showed a mean score of 51.0303 and a standard deviation of 4.42638. A difference of 7.0909 was observed in the mean scores of the two groups. In addition, the computed t-value was 8.289 and was greater than the tabular value of 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 level of significance. This suggested that there was significant difference in the mean scores of the two groups of respondents. The experimental group performed well after it was exposed to the SIMS and further claimed that the intervention materials were effective in addressing the least mastered skills in chemistry of the students. On the other hand, the gain scores of the experimental and control groups in the pretests and posttests showed that the experimental group registered a mean of 34.0606 and standard deviation of 7.54958. And the control group had a mean of 26.2727 and a standard deviation of 9.94131. There was a difference of 2.39173 in the standard deviation which signified that there existed significant difference in the mean gain scores of the experimental and control groups in the pretests and posttests. On the other hand, higher percentage gain scores were observed from the experimental group than the percent gain scores of the control group. This attested that the intervention materials used by the experimental group were effective in addressing the least mastered skills in chemistry than that of the control group which used the conventional method of teaching. Table 5. Mean Gain Scores in the Pretests and Posttests of the Experimental and Control Groups

Groups Experimental Control

N 33 33

Mean 34.0606 26.2727

S.D 7.54958

Df 32

Tabular t at 0.05

Computed t

Interpretation

Decision

1.67 9.94131 32

3.648

Significant

Accept Ha

Table 5 shows the mean gain scores in the pretests and posttest of the experimental and control groups. Their gain scores in the pretests and posttests were statistically analyzed to find out whether the intervention materials in chemistry were effective or not in mastering the concepts. Data showed that the experimental group had a mean gain of 34.0606 and a standard deviation of 7.54958 and the control group had a mean gain of 26.2727 and standard deviation of 9.94131. The difference of 7.7879 on the gain scores of the experimental and control groups was very significant. Since the computed t-value was 3.648 and greater than the tabular value of 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis and accepted the alternative hypothesis that there was significant difference on the gain scores in the pretests and posttests of the two groups. Thus, the strategic intervention materials were effective in re-teaching the least mastered skills in chemistry. The researcher’s findings agreed with the findings of Hogan (2000) and Woodward (2004), who found out that intervention materials contributed to better learning of the concepts among students. Posttests and maintenance tests indicated that students who were taught with material employing the causal style of discourse had significantly better retention of facts and concepts and were superior in applying this knowledge in problem-solving exercises. Furthermore, the study

supports the findings of Johnson (1994), Cooperative learning helps students achieve in the areas of long-term retention of material, intrinsic motivation, higher-level reasoning, academic and social support for all students, social development, and self-esteem and Anthony et.al (1998) who stated that students learn best when they can build on past experience, relate what they are learning to things that are relevant to them, have direct "Hands-on" experience, construct their own knowledge in collaboration with other students and faculty, and communicate their results effectively.
Findings The study came up with the following findings: 1. The two groups of respondents had the same intelligence before they were exposed to treatments based from the results of Otis Lennon Test. This was shown by the computed t-value of 0.665 at tabular value 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. 2. There was no significant difference on the performance of the experimental group and control group in the pretests. They were of the same level of intelligence and mastery before they were exposed to experiment. Although there was slight difference on their mean score, it was not that significant based on the computed t-value of 0.476 at tabular value 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. This attested that both groups of respondents had the same level of mastery before an intervention was introduced to the experimental group and conventional method to the control group. 3. There was significant difference on the performance of the experimental group in the pretest and posttest. The difference in the mean scores of posttest and pretest of 34.3333 was indeed significant. There was a positive transfer of learning in the two groups. However, higher mean was observed from the experimental group after the presentation of the intervention materials. 4. The posttest result of the control group was likewise significant. The difference of 26.2727 between the posttest and pretest of the control group was significant at 0.05 level of significance. 5. The computed t-value between the posttests of the experimental and control groups was 8.289 at tabular value 1.67, degrees of freedom 64 and 0.05 significance level. This suggested that there was significant difference on their mean scores in the posttests in favor of the experimental group.

6. The strategic intervention materials were effective in mastering the competency based –skills in chemistry based on the mean gain scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups. Conclusions In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn: The two groups of respondents had the same level of Mental Ability before the treatments. The experimental and control groups performed at the same level before the experiment. The experimental group performed better in the posttest than the control group. The strategic Intervention materials were effective in teaching competency-based skills. There was significant difference between the mean scores in the posttests of the experimental and control groups. Recommendations Based on the outcomes and implications of the study, the following are recommended: 1. Chemistry teachers can use the strategic intervention materials made by the researcher to re-teach the concepts and skills and help the students master the competency-based skill 2. Seminars and in-service training should be conducted in the division level regarding development and implementation of the strategic intervention materials in the classroom. 3. Chemistry teachers should develop more strategic intervention materials for the remaining lessons which were not included in researcher’s SIMS. 4. Strategic intervention materials for other subjects should be made to address the least mastered skills. 5. A similar study may be conducted covering a bigger number of respondents in another venue.

1. 2. 3. 4.

References Anthony, S., Mernitz, H., Spencer, B., Gutwill, J., Kegley, S., Molinaro, M.(1998, March) "The ChemLinks and ModularChem Consortia: Using Active and Context-Based Learning to Teach Students How Chemistry is Actually Done.", Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 75 No. 3 Das, R C.( 2004) Science Teaching in Schools. Sterling Publishers Private Limited De La Cruz, Eduardo. (1990, March). Development of the Work-Text in Algebra, PCU March 1990 Ediger, Marlow.(2005) Teaching Science Successfully, Discovery Publishing House Garcia, Maan V.( 2003, September). Educator, Magazine for Teachers,Manila Philippines Manila Times, Tuesday, July 6, 2004. The Sorry State of RP Public Education Manila Bulletin. (2003, September). Educators Speak. Manila Philippines Panorama. (2004, May). Giving Quality Education to our children, Manila Philippines

Copyright © 2009 <Andy L. Soberano>. The author grants a non-exclusive license to the organisers of the 3rd CosMED International Conference 2009, SEAMEO RECSAM to publish this document in the Conference Book. Any other usage is prohibited without the consent or permission of the author(s).