Chosen as the Best Thesis for Masters Degree batch 2012 Thesis on Effects of Strategic Intervention Material on the Academic Achievements in Chemistry of Public High School

1. EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION
MATERIALS (SIM) ON THE ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN CHEMISTRY OF
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS
ANGELYN P. GULTIANO
February 18, 2012
SPAMAST, Matti, Digos City Campus

2. MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE
The mean percentile score of the Science rating obtained by
students in the National Achievement Test of the School
Year 2009 – 2010 was noted and used for description. It
was categorized according to Mastery Descriptive
Equivalent into the following (NETRC,2010):
 Mastered (M) -96% - 100%
 Close to Approximating Mastery (CAM) -86% - 95%
 Moving Towards Mastery (MTM) -66% - 85%
 Average Mastery (AM) -35% - 65%
 Low Mastery (LM) -15% - 34%
 Very Low Mastery (VLM) -5%- 14%
 Absolutely No Mastery (ANM) -0% - 4%

3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the level of
performance based on
pretest and posttest scores of
the students using the
traditional methods of
teaching chemistry?

4. 2. What is the level of
performance based on
pretest and posttest scores
of the students using the
Strategic Intervention
Materials in teaching
chemistry?

5. 3. Is there a significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
the traditional methods
of teaching chemistry?

6. 4. Is there a significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest scores
of students using the
Strategic Intervention
Materials in teaching
chemistry?

7. 5. Is there a significant difference
between the pretest and posttest
scores of students in using the
traditional methods of teaching
and the Strategic Intervention
Materials in teaching chemistry?

8. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Strategic
Intervention Materials (SIM) on the Academic
Achievement in Chemistry of Public High School
Students.

9. HYPOTHESES 1
Ho1 There is no significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
additional methods of
teaching chemistry.

10. Ho2 There is no significant
difference between the
pretest and posttest
scores of students using
Strategic Intervention
Materials in teaching
chemistry.
HYPOTHESIS 2

11. Ho3 There is no significant
difference between pretest
and posttest scores of
students using the traditional
methods of teaching and the
Strategic Intervention Materials
and the traditional method of
teaching.
HYPOTHESIS 3

12. Ho4 There is no significant
difference between the
gain scores of students
using the traditional
methods of teaching and
the Strategic Intervention
Materials.
HYPOTHESIS 4

13. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TABLE 1. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the
Experimental Group Treated with Strategic
Intervention Materials.
Topics Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Gain Score ( %)
1. Elements and
their relations 67.61
(MTM)
76.20
(MTM)
8.59
2. Writing
Chemical
Formula
56.74
(AM)
85.33
(CAM)
28.59
3. Naming
chemical
formula
61.37
(AV)
75.53
(MTM)
14.16
4. Types of
chemical
reactions
49.28
(AV)
88.77
(CAM)
39.49

14. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 2 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain
scores of Experimental Group Treated with Strategic
Intervention Materials.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
Pretest
Posttest
Gain Score

15. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2. The Pretest, Posttest and Gain Scores of the Control Group
Treated with Traditional Methods of Teaching.
Topics Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Gain Score ( %)
1. Elements
and their
relations
52.67
(AV)
61.00
(AV)
8.33
2. Writing
Chemical
Formula
47.22
(AV)
70.89
(MTM)
23.67
3. Naming
chemical
formula
51.56
(AV)
64.00
(AV)
12.44
4. Types of
chemical
reactions
59.19
(AV)
73.63
(MTM)
14.44

16. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 3 . Graphical presentation of the Pretest, Posttest and Gain
scores of Control Group Treated with Strategic
Intervention Materials.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4
Pretest
Posttest
Gain Score

17. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Pretest
Results of Experimental and Control Groups.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 4
Experimental
Control

18. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 5 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Posttest
Results of Experimental and Control Groups.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
topic 1 topic 2 topic 3 topic 4
Experimental
Control

19. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 6 . Graphical presentation on the Comparison of the Mean
Percentage Score in Periodical Test Results of Experimental
and Control Groups.
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
periodical test
Experimental Control

20. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated t
at 0.05
Experimental 711 15.446 5.013 45
1.2461 1.9870
Control 628 13.950 5.954 44
TABLE 3. Table of Difference in the Pretest Results of the
Experimental and Control Groups

21. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 982 21.342 2.569 45
2.749 1.9870
Control 797 17.717 4.358 44
TABLE 4. Table of Difference in the POST TEST RESULTS of the
Experimental and Control Groups

22. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed t Tabulated t
at 0.05
Experimental 711
982
15.446
21.342
5.013
6.054
45
10.167
10.045
1.9870
Control 628
797
13.956
17.717
5.954
6.426
44
TABLE 5. Table of Difference in the Pretest and PosttestResults of the
Experimental and Control Groups

23. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 271 5.897 3.926 45
2.577 1.9870
Control 169 3.763 3.8958 44
TABLE 6. Mean Gain Scores in the Pre Tests and Post Tests of the
Experimental and Control Groups

24. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ∑X Mean SD df Computed
t
Tabulated
t at 0.05
Experimental 1853 40.28 5.068 45
0.8420 1.9870
Control 1656 36.80 7.1561 44
TABLE 7. Table of Difference in the Periodical Test Results
between the Experimental and Control Groups

25. SUMMARY
The strategic intervention
materials are effective in
mastering the competency
based – skills in chemistry
based on the mean gain
scores in the posttests of the
experimental and control
groups.

26. 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.

27. CONCLUSION
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.

28. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the outcomes and implications of the study, the
following are recommended:
 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.
 Seminars and in-service training should be conducted in the
division level regarding development and implementation of
the strategic intervention materials in the classroom.
 Chemistry teachers should develop more strategic
intervention materials for the remaining lessons which were
not included in researcher’s SIMS.
 Strategic intervention materials for other subjects should be
made to address the least mastered skills.
 A similar study may be conducted covering a bigger number
of respondents in another venue.