Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
Questioning
1. I can use
scientific
knowledge to 2.36 Sometimes Low 2.72 Usually High
form a
question.
2. I can ask a
question
that can be 2.45 Sometimes Low 2.75 Usually High
answered
by collecting
data.
sub mean 2.41 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Designing
3. I can design a
scientific
procedure to 1.76 Sometimes Low 2.36 Sometimes Low
answer a
question.
4. I can use data
to create a
graph 1.91 Sometimes Low 2.42 Sometimes Low
for
presentation to
others.
sub mean 1.84 Sometimes Low 2.39 Sometimes Low
Communicating
5. I can
communicate 2.33 Sometimes Low 3.00 Usually High
scientific
procedures to
others.
6. I can create a
display to 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.72 Usually High
communicate
my data and
observations.
sub mean 2.14 Sometimes Low 2.86 Usually High
Recording
7. I can record
data 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.667 Usually High
accurately
sub mean 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.67 Usually High
27
Table 1. continued…
Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
Analyzing
8. I can analyze
the results of 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
a scientific
investigation.
sub mean 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
Explaining
9. I can use
science terms 2.48 Sometimes Low 2.94 Usually High
to share my
results.
10. I can use
models to 2.45 Sometimes Low 2.82 Usually High
explain my
results.
sub mean 2.47 Sometimes Low 2.88 Usually High
Interpreting
11. I can use
the results of
my 2.58 Usually High 2.94 Usually High
investigation to
answer the
question that I
asked.
12. I can interpret
the results
after an 2.61 Usually High 2.97 Usually High
exploration of a
specific activity.
sub mean 2.6 Usually High 2.95 Usually High
Over-all Mean 2.24 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description
4 3.51-4.00 Always Very High Acquisition
3 2.51-3.00 Usually High Acquisition
2 1.51-2.50 Sometimes Low Acquisition
1 1.0-1.50 Never Very Low Acquisition
is one of the process skills known to show a “high” results when the students
were exposed to inquiry-based teaching strategy specifically on using concepts
maps and 5E learning cycle model in relation to science process skills.
The use of “analyzing” as a process skill was noted to have a mean score
of 2.64 which indicates "high acquisition”. This integrated science process skill
allows the students to analyze the results of a scientific investigation. Likewise,
organizing data, drawing conclusions and stating the indicated expected
outcomes from a science experiment (Dela Cruz, 2015). The results suggest
that students are proficient in terms of analyzing data, identifying experimental
errors, evaluating the hypothesis, and formulating conclusions and
recommendations.
The process skill on explaining had a mean score of 2.88 described as
“high acquisition”. This implies that the students possess such skill to explain a
phenomenon. More importantly, students are capable of hypothesizing
inferring, constructing models to help clarify ideas, and expound on evidences
behind a hypothetical statement (Harlen, 2006).
The data on interpreting as a skill showed a mean score of 2.95
described as “high”. With the two indicators, the students have the ability to
interpret and use the results of their investigation to answer the question that
they asked after the exploration of a specific activity. More so, interpretation of
data involves a rational explanation about an object, events, and patterns
derived from collected data (Shahali et al., 2012). It is an integrated science
process skill that has been most inculcated (Rauf et al., 2013). According to
Zeidan and Jayosi (2015), interpretation of data involved explanations of
inference or hypothesis from data that had been graphed or experimental data
placed in a table.
The study may suggest that teachers should provide an avenue for
science students to learn how to interpret data. Doing this, it would help the
students develop their critical thinking skills for better learning outcome.
Table 2 presents the summary of the science process skills of the
students as exposed to differentiated instruction using the mastery learning
strategy. As gleaned on the data table, an overall mean score of 2.74 was
30
obtained. The following are the process skills in their order of acquisition:
interpreting (2.95), explaining (2.88), communicating (2.86), questioning
(2.74), recording (2.67), analyzing (2.64) and designing (2.39).
Pretest Posttest
Process Skills Descriptive Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative
Mean Mean
Rating Description Rating Description
1. Interpreting 2.6 Usually High 2.95 Usually High
2. Explaining 2.47 Sometimes Low 2.88 Usually High
3. Communicating 2.14 Sometimes Low 2.86 Usually High
4. Questioning 2.41 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
5. Recording 1.94 Sometimes Low 2.67 Usually High
6. Analyzing 2.3 Sometimes Low 2.64 Usually High
7. Designing 1.84 Sometimes Low 2.39 Sometimes Low
Over-all Mean 2.24 Sometimes Low 2.74 Usually High
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description
4 3.51-4.00 Always Very High Acquisition
3 2.51-3.00 Usually High Acquisition
2 1.51-2.50 Sometimes Low Acquisition
1 1.0-1.50 Never Very Low Acquisition
Of these skills, only four (4) were found similar results with the study of
Jack (2018). The identified skills were on designing, communicating, recording,
and interpreting. He reported that “designing” was found difficult and
“interpreting” was noted simple. The current research is congruent with the
skills presented that designing as a skill which includes identifying/controlling
variables was difficult to develop. This result is supported by Akpokorie (2000)
and Jeenthong (2014) that the variations in difficulty level of science process
skills could be attributed to the type of exposure to varied scientific activities.
In the study of Hinampas et al., (2018) they explained that designing as
a skill was not considered by the students for they find it difficult to design their
own way of doing experiments. It can be further inferred that the students have
not totally mastered the science process skills, such as designing an
experiment and be deemed difficult for the students to design methods in the
laboratory. Both in science classes and laboratory, students encountered
31
complex and difficult tasks thus may lead to a low level of skill acquisition due
to the lack of experience specifically under inquiry based-activities (Lati et al.,
2012).
On interpreting, a similar result was achieved by Rabacal (2016). As a
practical skill, Karamustafaoglu (2011) claimed that interpreting was found to
be developed effectively as a practical skill and represent as evidence based
on assessing and evaluating data results by the students.
On the whole, whenever students are always exposed to practical
inquiry-based lessons in Biology class, this becomes a reflection on the quality
of teachers’ disposition and good instructional approaches employed and would
significantly find fewer skills difficult. Using science process skills, therefore, is
important in addressing problem-solving activities and is very essential for the
proper understanding of science concepts.
90-100 0 0 0 0 Outstanding
80-89 0 0 0 0 Very Satisfactory
70-79 13 39.39% 29 87.88% Satisfactory
60-69 20 60.61% 4 12.12% Fairly Satisfactory
Did not meet
Below 59 0 0 0 0
expectation
Legend:
Percent Equivalent Qualitative Interpretation
90-100 Outstanding
80-89 Very Satisfactory
70-79 Satisfactory
60-69 Fairly Satisfactory
Below 59 Did not meet expectation
teachers and other students. Additionally, the researcher noted that at the time
the students were exposed to mastery learning strategy, they were preoccupied
with their requirements from other subjects during that semester.
Wambugu (2007) implemented a study on the Mastery Learning in a
physics class. His study showed that students with minimal prior knowledge of
material had higher achievement when taught using the strategy as evident in
their posttest score. He added that students who received feedback in mastery
learning strategy with high achievement scores for both immediate
achievement and long-term retention. Similarly, Adeyemo and Babadije (2014)
acquired similar results where the students’ posttest score is relatively improved
over their posttest score after exposure to mastery learning strategy.
Concurring with the results of Wachanga and Gamba (2004) and Ngesa
(2002) Mastery learning approach resulted in high student achievement. This
was due to the fact that in mastery learning, students achieve higher learning
which concentrated on the skills and processes that results in a great difference
in their achievement scores.
The current research result was found consistent with that of Chebii
(2011) whereby students had enhanced the acquisition of science process skills
as compared to those exposed with the conventional teaching method. This
further explains that placing the learners under differentiated instruction using
the mastery learning strategy would enable the learners to master scientific
concepts and skills is likely to improve laboratory performance. Further, the
current results are in accordance with the study of Feyzioglu (2009) where after
employing formative activities and efficient laboratory works would improve the
specific skills on the part of the learner and be applied to new situations. In the
study of Lati et al., (2012), they investigated how science inquiry affects student
progression of higher-order thinking skills. Their results was in congruence with
that of (Zhao & Wardeska, 2011; Green et al., 2004), that both learning
achievement and skills along with post test scores are statistically higher than
the pre-test, which they further concluded that direct participation in the inquiry
process could enhance student’s understanding in science classes and process
skills.
test and posttest scores but still counts as highly significant at 0.01 level. These
findings reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the
academic achievement of students before and after exposure to differentiated
instruction using mastery learning strategy.
Table 5. The t-test of the students' academic achievement before and after
exposure to differentiated learning using mastery learning strategy