33

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

Service teachers of the CED, MSU-IIT students.

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

A. Ratings of In-service Teachers on the Module

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

In-Service Teacher's Rating

Criteria IT1 IT2 IT3 Mean Rating Remarks

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

Over-all Rating 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.40 Very Good

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

rubric in the Appendix E.

 34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rating for Organization which also means very good.

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

the module is rated very good.

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

Table 2. Ratings of the Developed Module by the Pre-Service Teachers

 35

Criteria Mean Rating REMARKS

I. Cover Page
A. Appropriateness 4.7 Very Good
B. Attractiveness 4.5 Very Good
II. Introduction
A. Motivation 4.5 Very Good
III. Content
A. Objectives 4.8 Very Good
B. Emphasis 4.6 Very Good
C. Scope 4.3 Very Good
D. Accuracy 4.6 Very Good
E. Relevance 4.6 Very Good
IV. Organization
A. Logical Coherence 4.3 Very Good
B. Completeness 4.5 Very Good
V. Presentation
A. Grammatical Structure 4.4 Very Good
B. Vocabulary level 4.6 Very Good
C. Use of pictures 4.8 Very Good
IV. Self-Assessment Questions
A. Relevance 4.7 Very Good
VII. Resources by Unit
A. Organization 4.6 Very Good
Over-all Rating 4.57 Very Good

REMARKS Very Good Very Good

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

Teachers. The table showed the average mean rating of the module from Unit I
 36

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

rubric in the Appendix E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

very good.

For the Self-Assessment Questions, (Relevance) obtained a mean

rating of 4.7 which means that it is very good. Finally, for the Resources by Unit,

4.6 is the mean rating for Organization which means very good.

The over-all average mean rating for the Pre-Service Teachers is 4.57

which in totality, the module is very good.

C. Summary Ratings of the In-Service and Pre-Service Teachers

Table 3. Summary Ratings of the Module

 37

Pre- Over-all
Criteria In-service Remarks
Service Rating

I. Cover Page 5 4.15 4.57 Very good

II. Introduction 5 4.3 4.65 Very good

III. Content 5 4.68 4.84 Very good

IV. Organization 5 4.15 4.58 Very good

V. Presentation 4.7 4.2 4.45 Very good

VI. Self-
Assessment
Questions 5 4.3 4.65 Very good
VII. Resources
by Unit 5 4.3 4.65 Very good

Over-all Rating 4.96 4.3 4.63 Very good

 38

Table 3 reveals the summary ratings of both Pre-service and In-Service

Teachers on the Module. The following main criteria are the Cover page,

Introduction, Content, Organization, Presentation, Self-assessment Question and

Resources by Unit. Both the Pre – Service and In – Service Teachers’ rated the

module as very good, meaning the developed module can be used as an

instructional material to teach the topic in earthquake.

IN – SERVICE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

The In – Service Teachers’ suggested that:

1. Cover page should be simple and clear.

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

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

2. Summary on every Unit should be included.

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

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

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

IN – SERVICE QUALITATIVE RATINGS

 39

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

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

affirmative because:

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

(Earthquake).

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

understand more about the Earthquake.” (IT1)

2. The module arouses the student interests.

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

students. The topics are simplified.” (IT2)

3. The module is for Fourth Year students.

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

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

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

1. Erroneous pagination found in the module.

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

2. The module lacks summary.

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

included yet, because every time the learners will answer
the test, they will look first the pages.” (IT2)
 40

3. Low level of questioning.

“Most of the questions are simple recall and knowledge

questions.” (IT3)

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

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

in agreement that:

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

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

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

Teachers are positive, but with corresponding conditions:

1. The module is not organized.

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

2. The module should developed simplicity.

“Yes, but it should be simple.” (IT3)

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

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

an instructional material?”, they strongly agreed that:

“The module should be recommended as an instructional

material for fast learning of the students.” (IT1)
 41

PRE-SERVICE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Pre-Service comments and suggestions of the module with regards to

the information, illustration, organization, assessment and recommendations:

On the Information, pre-service teachers commented that the:

1. Module in Earthquake is eye catching.

“It’s great module, very well done. It’s eye catching module. But
I have comments that it seems not for the development rather
for an enhancement.” (PT1)

2. Module in Earthquake is informative.

“The module is informative. It is attractive. I appreciate the

module very much because there is a glossary of terms.” (PT13)

3. Module in Earthquake is attractive.

“Your module is nice and it really gives information about the

subject matter. It is attractive and nice choose of color.” (PT14)

However, some of the Pre-Service Teachers suggested that:

1. The module should use simple words.

“Very good!!! Make the words simpler…use simple words!!!.” (PT1)

2. There must be additional information’s on the topic.

“Please add more information about earthquake. The pictures are

relevant to the topic.” (PT2)

On the Illustrations, Pre-Service Teachers commented that the:

1. Module arouses the interest of the students

“ Very well made..Nice pictures you have included in the module it

 42

can catch the interest of the students.” (PT3)

However, some of the Pre-Service Teachers commented in terms of:

1. The use of colours applied into the module.

“ The module is very nice, just make the colour of drawing lighter.” (PT4)
“ The colour used for headings are dry and not attractive but the
animation and pictures are good.” (PT5)
“ Use colour that really attracts. Light brown look dull colour on the
front page.” (PT9)

2. The Fonts, Graphics and Designs of the module.

“ The use of font, color, graphics and designs somehow needs an

improvement to make it more attractive/appealing to the readers.”
(PT17)
“Minimize the font size of the sources in every picture.” (PT18)

Regarding of the Organization, one of the pre-service teacher

commented that it is a “very organize module” (PT15). However, for the

Assessment, pre-service teacher suggested that “self-assessment should be in

multiple choice” (PT12).

Moreover, Pre-service teacher’s Recommendations are as follows:

1. The module is a good instructional material.

“You have a very good output! Topic selected, hope that you will
use this as one of your instructional material when you will become
a teacher in the future.” ( PT7)
“ I think the module can be recommended as an instructional
material.” (PT8)

In totality, PT6 commented that it is “Very good and nice module”.

PRE-SERVICE QUALITATIVE RATINGS

 43

The responses of the pre-service teachers to the question “ Can you

consider the module in Earthquake for high school students?” is all

affirmative:

1. Module is suitable for first year high school students.

“ Yes, it suits for first year high school, it will be included in first year
of course.” (PT1)
“ Yes, because it has information suitable for first year level.” (PT9)
“ Yes, the content of true module covers the entire topic for high
school students.” (PT16)
“ Yes, because the content of the module included topics about
Earthquake for first year high school and all information found in
this module is accurate.” (PT17)
“ Yes, because the font, pictures and the style of the over-all
module is suitable for high school students.” (PT18)

2. Module is attractive because of the colourful pictures.

“ Yes, because it is attractive to the students because of the colorful

pictures.” (PT2)
“ Yes because it is attractive.” (PT12)

3. Module is a great help for teachers.

“ Yes , because it is a great help for teachers to let the students

know what is earthquake.” (PT4)

4. Module is informative for it contains many ideas and concepts.

“ Yes, because the module is very good it contains many ideas and
concept.” (PT5)

5. Module is accurate and emphasized.

“ Yes, because the information given is accurate and emphasized.”

(PT7)

6. Module is clear and sufficient.

“ Yes, the content of the module are clear and sufficient.” (PT8)
 44

7. Module is a good source material.

“Yes, because it is relevant and a good source material.” (PT1)

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

that you have found on the module?”, the deficiencies and errors are the

following:

1. The module used difficult words.

“The difficult words make it simple.” (PT1)

“Words that are not easily understood. Just unlock the difficult
words.” (PT9)
“There are some words that are hard to understand especially if we
consider the capability of the first year high school students.”
(PT17)

2. The colours used in headings are not attractive.

“The colours used in headings are dry and it is not attractive,

maybe use lighter colour.” (PT5)

3. There are wrong spellings found in the module.

“ Mis spelling and construction of the self-assessment questions.”

(PT12)

4. The module is lack of information.

“ Lack of information.” (PT2)

5. The module is lack of pictures.

“ Lack of pictures on earthquake.” (PT1)

However, some of the Pre-Service Teachers couldn’t find any errors on the

developed module.
 45

The Pre-Service answers to the question “Are the content of the

module sufficient for the objective to be achieved?” are in consensus that “

the content of the module is sufficient” (PT17)

On the question “ Are the illustrations/drawings used on the

module relevant to the concept presented?”, the pre-service teachers agreed

that the module is “relevant to the concept” (PT7) and “ unique” (PT16).

The Pre-Service responses on the question “If you were to assess

the quality of the module, would you recommend it to be used as an

instructional material?” are in strong agreement that they will “ recommend it

to be used as an instructional material” (PT1) “because it is very easy to handle

and affordable” (PT4).

In addition, using this module “ the cognitive and affective domain of the

learners will be developed” (PT10), “ it gives lot of information and the students

will be motivated to read for the topics are well discussed” (PT14) and finally, “it

would be an effective instructional material in teaching Earthquake for first year

high school students” (PT17).

Readability of the Module

 46

For the readability of the developed module, the researchers used the

McLaughlin ‘SMOG’ formula in determining the comprehension level of the

students. Teachers need to know the reading abilities of their students and

monitor the types and the difficulty of the texts.

average no. of words with 3 or more

Year Reading
Unit syllables
Level Age
(N)
(√N+3) (√N+8)

2nd yr. high

I 52 13
school

II 60 3rd yr. 14

III 54 2nd yr. 13

IV 51 2nd yr. 13

Total 54.25 2nd yr. 13

Average

The table showed that the average number of words with three (3) or more

syllables, year level and the reading age. The average number of words with

three (3) or more syllables as shown in the table is 54.25. In order to find the year

level of the students, we get the square root of the average number of words and

then added by three (3). The result would be 10.37, and since we are here in the

Philippines and we are using the Fry Graph for estimating reading ages which is

based on the US educational year level, we indeed have decided to subtract it

 47

by two (2). The result would become 8.37 which is equivalent to the

comprehension level of a second year high school.