SIM CHAPTER 1-5

166

Chapter 1The problem and its Background

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. 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 gracious life in the risky new world (Basic Education Curriculum Primer 2002). 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 that includes essential skills like scientific-numerical competence and language fluency. 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.Recent emphasis on teaching-learning method is that learners are made to have active participation. Active participation of learners will increase motivation and also minimize abstraction associated with Mathematics learning, thus increasing learning experience. This can be facilitated by making use of instructional materials and resources which can minimize abstraction associated with Mathematics. Teaching can only be effective when adequate and relevant instructional materials are used (Afolabi, et. al, 2006).

Many educators and researchers have reported about the importance of instructional materials in teaching. Teaching and learning could not be effective without adequate and relevant use of instructional materials. Schramm referred to instructional materials as basic channel of communication (or ideas and concepts) in the classroom for the purpose of bringing about effective teaching and learning.Today it is vital that students understand the Mathematics that they are learning. Using computers on the job, making good consumer choices, evaluating information, and other life skills depend upon good Mathematics skills. Students struggling with Mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed at improving their Mathematical ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure. Helping all students succeed in Mathematics and develop their mathematical reasoning skills is an ultimate goal.

Educational interventions provide teachers with the tools to deliver meaningful learning activities that improve academic performance and modify behavior of students who have already failed and need credit recovery, and for borderline students who require immediate support to avoid failure.Intervention has become an important way for teachers to ensure that all students succeed in todays high stakes testing environment. Helping students who are struggling in Mathematics requires teachers to choose an appropriate time and strategy for the intervention. Without a systematic approach, this can be a challenge for teachers who have multiple students who are in need of help.

In line with this, for the mastery and retention of the students for the subject being taught, materials like workbooks, visual aids, pictures, graphs and modules greatly help the teacher in facilitating the learning process in producing and bringing students towards quality education.At present, changes in materials used as instruction can be observed, both in style and appearance. This emergence of colorful designs makes the materials more interesting and appealing as well to the perception of the students.One way of intervention is through the use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). A Strategic Intervention Material (SIM) refers to teaching aid introduced into the teaching methods to stimulate the activity of the students and thereby increasing their level of understanding. The SIMs has five basic parts. These are Guide Card, Activity Card, Assessment Card, Enrichment Card, and Reference Card. It is through this material that learning become interesting and enjoyable to the students.Performance of the students will be affected if they failed to master the lesson. It is for this reason that this research study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching relationship of pairs of angles in Geometry based on the Philippine Secondary School Learning Competencies (PSSLC).

Students struggling with Mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed at improving their Mathematics ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure.Statement of the ProblemThis study aimed to determine the effectiveness of using Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle among Third Year Students at Corazon C. Aquino High School during the school year 2012-2013.Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:1. How are the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) developed and validated?2. How did the students in the control and experimental groups perform in the pretest and posttest?3. What is the implication of the study in teaching Mathematics?

Hypotheses:

1. There is no significant difference between the pretest scores of the control and experimental groups.

2. There is no significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and experimental groups.3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and post-test scores of the control group.

4. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental groups.5. There is no significant difference between the mean gains of the control and experimental groups.

Significance of the Study The goal of the study is to facilitate learning and makes teaching meaningful. The results may help the students cope their lessons in the actual scene of instruction and help them master the competencies of the lessons. With the use of SIMs, students could improve their performance towards the subject and have a positive outlook of the lessons being taught.Furthermore, the study could serve as a guide for future researchers in developing activity materials, workbooks, and intervention materials for the effective and efficient teaching-learning process.Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study focused on the use of Strategic Intervention Material (SIMs) in teaching relationship between pairs of angle to enhance the mastery learning of the students.

The SIMs was developed based on the least learned/skills in Geometry. The topics covered were as follows: supplementary angles, complementary angles, adjacent angles, linear pair, and vertical angles. It was validated by the Mathematics teachers based on the following criteria: relevance of the Strategic Intervention materials, adequacy of the Strategic Intervention Materials, and appropriateness of the Strategic Intervention Materials.

Fifty (50) thrid year students from Corazon C. Aquino High School served as the subjects in testing the effectiveness of the developed SIMs. The class was divided into two groups - the control and experimental groups that composed of 25 students each group. The experimental group was the one who used the prepared SIMs.Definition of Terms

For clarity, the following terms used in this study are being defined:

Activity Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it defines the task that the learner should undertake in order to develop a skill.Assessment Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it helps the learner measure his/her level of mastery of the skill upon completion of the task(s).Control Group. It refers to the group of students that underwent the traditional teaching method with no intervention strategy administered to them.Effectiveness. It refers to the degree in which the utilization of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) can cause significant difference between the scores in the pretest and posttest of the experimental group and significant post test of the experimental group when compared with the control group.

Enrichment Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it extends learning by providing additional exercises for further application of knowledge or skill.Experimental Group. It refers to the group of students who are assigned to undergo learning process with Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs).Guide Card. It refers to the part of the SIM where it gives the overview of the lesson, presents the focus skills, engages the learners interest, and leads the learner towards the performance of the task(s).Mathematics Teachers. It refers to the Mathematics school leaders and teachers at Corazaon C. Aquino High School. Pairs of Angle. It refers to the relationship that exist between any two angles that can be made as a basis in classifying angles.Posttest. It refers to the test given after the lesson was presented to evaluate the achievement of the students in relation to the topic presented.Pretest. It refers to the test given before the lesson proper that is used to determine the stored knowledge about the lesson.

Reference Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs which provides additional content to the coverage of the textbook and lists the sources that the learner may refer to further learning.Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). It refers to teaching aid introduced to the students in the experimental group to stimulate the activity of the students thereby increasing their level of understanding.Traditional Instruction. It refers to an old method of lesson presentation that involves discussion and lecture.Validation. It refers to the process of justifying materials for instructional purposes. In this study, it is the process where SIMs was tested for its effectiveness to the students.Chapter 2REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies which served as a frame of references for this study.Related Literature

Mathematics is one of the core subjects in secondary school curriculum. Performance in the subject is crucial for students admission to scientific and technological professions.

While it is true that Mathematics serves as an important tool in our life, in general it is unfortunate to observe that students find difficulty in learning Mathematics subjects until to the point of disliking it.Adebanjo (2004) reported the view of Abimbade (1997) that instructional resources in teaching and learning make students to learn more and retain better what they have been taught and that it also promotes and sustains students interest. It also allows the learner to discover themselves and their abilities.

Research reports have shown that availability of instructional materials and ability of Mathematics teachers to use them are vital determinant of teaching methods to be used by the Mathematics teachers (Afolabi, 2008) and consequently, Mathematics achievement.

According to Oyeniran (2003) posited that pupils learn best if they are given the opportunity to see and to make observation of what they are taught. He said that a good instructional material might be a substitute for real life objects in the classroom as against the use of exploratory method.

Being able to explain and apply knowledge of mathematical concepts should be consistent and expected feature of students mathematical ability. Many educators place significance on the use of SIMs to teach mathematical concepts due to the influence of behaviorist and cognitive theorists who argue that learning should begin with concrete experiences and move toward abstract symbolism. The focal point of instruction should be enhancing important mathematical concepts that increase the level of student understanding. Research consistently shows that the use of SIMs positively influences student learning and produces better initial understanding, greater retention, and an increased probability that the concepts will be applied in new situations.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) emphasizes the importance of using physical models in Mathematics instruction (NCTM, 1989, 1991, & 2000). The NCTM Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics document suggests that the teachers need, a rich, deep knowledge of the variety of ways mathematical concepts and procedures may be modeled.

Strategic teaching requires thoughtful choices. An effective teacher employs a toolkit of strategies which can dramatically modify student performance provided the choice of tool fits the situation and the individual student. The best teachers are great at sizing up a students learning and problem-solving patterns in order to figure out how to jump start improvement.

According to Mueller, the early Mathematics experiences of students should involve the use of various hands on materials. Mueller summarized that Mathematics is a verb for students, wherein they actively engaged in the process of doing Mathematics. Mueller is in favor of the use of sequential activities that utilize objects that are first concrete, then pictorial, and finally symbolic.

The NCTM (2000) in its publication Principles and Standards for School Mathematics notes that Geometry offers students a chance to develop reasoning and justification skills. It also points to the fact that through modeling and spatial visualization, students become better problem solvers. The document goes on to say that students can use geometric representations to make sense of other areas of Mathematics, and should therefore be integrated when possible.

According to Blalock (2011), SIM is an evidence-based academic support approach to help students to become independent and successful learners. SIMs consists of both learning strategies (for students) and content enhancement routines (for teachers) because research shows that teachers used traditional methods with increasingly less payoff (e.g., remedial, study skills) or increasing costs (e.g., tutorial, compensatory), thus poor (i.e., nonstrategic) learners were set up to fail. Related StudiesForeign

Achievement in Mathematics continues to be a crucial factor in the success of school system around the world. As a result, this area of the curriculum has been the subject of considerable international comparative research, mostly focused on student achievement but also examining teaching methods, curricula, and so on. In all this, the central role of teachers and how they structure their lessons, has emerged as a key factor in student learning. In the study of King (2002) entitled Assessing the Effect of an Instructional Intervention on the Geometric Understanding of Learners in a South African Primary School concluded that the intervention has had a noticable positive effect on the performance of the experimental group after the implementation of an instructional program that focuses on the students reaction to the instruction in a normal classroom setting. The study of King is related to the present study because both studies determined the effectiveness of using instructional intervention but with different respondents and time frame in implementing the intervention.

Erol, et.al., (2008) revealed that instruction of problem-solving startegies was effective for enhancing physics achievement, problem-solving performance and strategy use. Being effective of the strategy instruction on increasing the students achievement supports various research findings which determine that the strategy instruction increased the success in different education levels and in different subject matters.

Fede (2010) examined the effects of GO Solve Problem Mathematics intervention on problem-solving skills of struggling 5th grade students. She found out that there was statistically difference between the experimental and control groups after the test. The experimental groups performance after the intervention was improved than the control group who underwent the standard school-based Mathematics curriculum. The study of Fede is related to the present study because both studies used intervention in determining the effectiveness in teaaching Mathematics. The past study used a computer-based program designed to teach schema-based instruction strategies (SBIs) to solve Mathematics problems to identify the effects to her 5th grade students, while the present study use SIMs in presenting the lesson in Geometry in the third year high school students. Silkwood (2000) in his study entitled Traditional Lecture and Demonstration vs. Modular Self-Paced Instruction in Technology Education Middle School found out that modular technology instruction indisputably better than traditional training; however, traditional methods show no significant advantage either. He also added that the two methods of instruction appear presently to produce very similar test score outcomes regarless of how many times or at what academic level. The study of Silkwood is related to the present study because he used the traditional method of instruction and demonstration versus the modular self-paced instruction, wherein the present study used the traditional method of instruction versus the used of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching. Silkwood revealed in his study that there is no significant difference between the results of the test after implementing the methods of instruction to his students, while the present study found that there was a significant difference between the test results of the treated group who used the Strategic Intervention Material than those who went through the traditional teaching method. According to the study of David (2000) about Mastery Learning in Public Schools found out that a predetermined level of mastery on one unit must reach by the students before they are allowed to move on to the next lesson. Students are given specific feedback about their learning progress at regular intervals throughout the instructional period to assess what students have learned well and to what they have not learned well. Topics that were not learned well will be given enough time to achieve mastery. The study of David focused on the mastery learning. The present study is related to his study because both studies were after the mastery of the students to the lessons to be learned. And that is, a Strategic Intervention Material was introduced to the learners to enhance the mastery of the sudents for the lessons they have not mastered.According to the study of Adeyemi (2007) about Learning Social Studies through Mastery Approach in Nigeria concluded that teaching strategies effectiveness in instruction using mastery learning approach. Findings show that conventional method is no longer an effective approach to teaching and learning. Teachers should be creative enough to produce relevant instructional teaching strategy that can be used to enhance their instructional delivery so that objectives set for instructions can be achieved.Local According to Soberano (2009) from his study entitled Strategic Intervention Materials in Chemistry: Development and Effectiveness suggested that the SIMs significantly contributed to the mastery of Chemistry concepts. That the performance of control and experimental groups showed no significant difference in the pretests before the intervention and there existed significan difference in the posttests after the intervention. Tagaza (2007), concluded that the students performed better using SIMs as compared to the students who used traditional method. The SIMs could enhance performance of the students as revealed by the difference between means of posttests of control group and experimental group, and the difference between mean score of the control and experimental groups. The studies of Soberano and Tagaza were the most related studies dealing directly with Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). Both studies explored on the development and validation of the output. Their findings were also the same with the findings of the present study that the use SIMs significantly contributed to the mastery of learning concepts. Santos in her study conducted about the instructional modules in English VI, recommended that teachers should develop and validate other module not only on English language but also on other subjects in order to develop other desired learning competemcies. She also recommended that teachers should use the module as reinforcement and enrichment exercises.

Santos study was related to the present study because both studies used educational materials in order to improve the performance of the students but with different subject areas and respondents. The past study focused in English in elementary and the present study focused in Geometry in secondary.

In the study of Liangco (2006), she developed modules for the first year high school students of Teacher Education Laboratory School in Pampanga Agricultural College. She employed modular instruction in the experimental group and the traditional lecture method to the control group. She found out that students in the modular approach had a better mean performance than those who had it in traditional way. According to Viernes study (2005), he recommends the following: the developed modules should be reproduced and used by the students of other school and other target clientele; the developed modules should be tied up in other institutions to have a wide baseline data on its effectiveness or functionality; and teachers should be encouraged to prepare instructional materials in the respective field of specialiazation.

The present study is related to Liangco and Viernes studies because the three studies made use of educational materials but with different strategies. Liangco and Viernes used modular approach in instruction, while the present study used SIMs, and also they used different respondents. Though different instructional approaches were used, these studies were after the determining of the effectiveness of each instructional material to the students.Conceptual FrameworkThis study is anchored on the premise of using of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle. The developed Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was based on the least learned of the students during the first quarter period. This study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of SIMs as meaningful learning approach in teaching the relationship between pairs of angles in Geometry to the third year high school students. The experimental group was exposed to SIMs while the control group was taught in the traditional method of teaching Geometry. After the experimentation, the performance of the students was evaluated through the paper and pencil test.

Figure 1The Paradigm of the StudyChapter 3

METHODS OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

This chapter presents the method of research, the subject of the study, the method of gathering data, the research instruments or tools and the statistical treatment used in analyzing the gathered data.

Research Design

The experimental design was used in this study to test the effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle among third year students of Corazon C. Aquino High School.

The design used in this study was the experimental research to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the strategy and students performance. The pretest posttest design is as follows (TSU Research Journal, 2004).

Pretest Posttest Design

RG1 O1 X O2 RG2 O1

O2

Legend:

R=Random Selection

G1=Group

X=Treatment

O1=Pretest

O2=Posttest

Subjects of the Study

The subjects of the study were fifty (50) third year students of Corazon C. Aquino High School, Gerona, Tarlac during the school year 2012-2013. The subjects were exposed to the used of instructional materials and traditional instruction to determine the effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle in Geometry.

The experimental and control groups were selected prior to the conduct of the study. The criteria used for grouping were the grades of the students in their first grading period. Pairing was done in such a way that the grades of both groups are equal or of the same level (See Appendix H).

The control group and experimental group had twenty-five (25) members each after the pairing has been done. Before the experiment, students were oriented of the set up and what will be expected throughout the duration of the study.

Procedure in the Conduct of the Study

The subjects of the study were taught for 8 days (6 hours and 40 minutes contact hours) of instruction with the same concept of the lessons applied to both experimental group who taught Strategic Intervention Materials, and the control group who taught in the regular classroom setting using traditional method of instruction.

The experimental study involves the following activities: preparation and validation of pretest and posttest, gathering, preparation and validation of Strategic Intervention Materials, grouping of students into experimental and control group based from their first quarter grades in Mathematics III, administering the pretest, experimental proper, evaluation and analysis of the posttest, and interpretation of the results.

Teachings were done to the experimental group through regular discussions using SIMs as aids and students were asked to answer prepared exercises on the SIMs. For the control group, they were taught the same lessons as with the experimental group using traditional method of instruction. Pen and paper exercises were also given after the discussion of each of the topics included.

During the experimentation, the principal made her observation to the researcher in presenting the lessons with the two groups. The principal used STAR Observation Technique which is a supervisory tool use to collect information from the actual teaching learning activity in the classroom (See Appendix O).

After the experiment was done, posttest was administered to both the control and experimental groups using the items given in the pretest to assess the difference in their performances.

Methods of Gathering Data

A letter of request to conduct the study at Corazon C. Aquino High School was prepared to seek the permission of the principal (See Appendix A). Upon obtaining the approval, data collection proceeded immediately.

The teacher-made tests developed by the researcher were items covered in the five (5) topics under pairs of angles. These topics were based from the Philippine Secondary Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC). The table of specification was prepared to assure the content validity of the tests (See Appendix B).

The pretest was administered to determine the level of knowledge of students about the lessons. The same test was given as posttest after the traditional instruction and integration of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching were administered respectively to the control group and experimental group.

Validation of the Instruments

A fifty (50) item test on the study was developed by the researcher (See Appendix C). Copies of the test were submitted to the thesis adviser, Mathematics teachers of Corazon C. Aquino High School and Faculty of the Mathematics Department of Tarlac State University for comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions were considered in improving the test instrument.

To establish the difficulty indices, discrimination indices and the reliability of the test, a dry run of the tests was given to 50 selected fourth year students of Corazon C. Aquino High School (TSU Research Handbook, 2006) who were not included in the final conduct of the study.

The test was tried out and item analyzed to determine the difficulty and discrimination indices which determined the acceptability. The results provided the item analysis of the test, the difficulty indices and the reliability coefficients.

The procedures were as follows:

After the papers were corrected, the scores were arranged from highest to lowest. The upper 27% composed of the upper group and the lower 27%, the lower group. Thus 14 students composed each group. There were 28 students in all.

The results there after, were tabulated and interpreted. The purpose of this test is to know whether the items worked as expected. The results lead to the revisions of some items in the test.

To obtain the difficulty and discrimination indices, the following formulae were used:

For Difficulty Index:

Difficulty Index = RU + RL (100)

N

For Discrimination Index:

Discrimination Index = RU - RL

1/2 N

where:

RU = number of correct responses in the upper group

RL = number of correct responses in the lower group N = total number of students in the upper and lower groups

The relationship between the discrimination and difficulty indices of the item was referred to the cross-tabulation in the Item Difficulty by Discrimination Table (TSU Research Handbook, 2006) shown below, to determine their acceptability.

The table below used to determine good items and those items that should be revised or omitted. The adequate difficulty index is from 44.60 74.50 whereas the discrimination index is from 0.3 1.0. Those items that were found within the shaded region are acceptable but those that were outside were revised or rejected.Difficulty and Discrimination IndexDifficulty

IndexDiscrimination Index

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Very Hard 19.5 & below

Hard 19.6 44.4

Optimum 44.5 74.5

Easy 74.6 89.5

Very Easy 89.6 & above

For the computation of reliability, Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was used. The formula was as follows:

KR20 =

EMBED Equation.3

where:

k = number of items on the test s = variance of the test pq = p (number who got the items correctly) times q (1-p)

Teacher-made tests commonly have reliabilities somewhere between 0.60 and

0.85, for example, but these are useful for the types of instructional decisions typically made by teachers (Gronlund, 1995, p.109).

The achievement test in relationship of pairs of angle was found to have a reliability coefficient of 0.84 (See Appendix F). The computed values for the reliability coefficient of the tests signified high reliability index.Development of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

The development and validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) for third year students consisted of the following processes using the research and Development Cycle (R & D).Step 1 Pre-Planning the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

For the collection of the relevant data on the writing of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs), the researcher read widely books, journals, and other reference materials related to intervention. Formal interviews with principals and other SIM implementers were also done to give a clear picture and valid SIMs.

Step 2 Planning the Strategic Intervention Design (SIMs)

After reviewing related literature and pertinent information, the planning stage in the research and development cycle came next. The researcher started with specific objectives as a focal point of the end-users on the Strategic Intervention Materials to provide guidance on the direction of the SIMs. And the researcher also included the time frame, place and topics for the development of the SIMs.Step 3 Developing the Initial Form of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

After the completion of the initial planning, the construction of the form of the SIMs was the next step. The initial SIMs was first presented to the researchers adviser and critics for comments, suggestions, and reactions.Step 4 Validation of the Strategic intervention Materials (SIMs)

The validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) constituted the first phase of the validation aspect of the study. The purpose was to obtain initial evaluation results on the proposed SIMs.

In this aspect the researcher asked her adviser and critic to pass judgment on the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) for third year students based on the criteria set for the purpose.

They gave their evaluation, comments, suggestions, and reactions on the proposed Strategic Intervention Materials. After which, evaluations, comments, suggestions, and reactions were incorporated in Strategic Intervention Materials.

On the basis of the evaluation, suggestions, and reactions from the adviser, revision and improvement of the Strategic Intervention materials (SIMs) were finalized. This constituted the main revision of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). The suggestions and comments were incorporated for further improvement of the Strategic Intervention Materials.

Step 5 Validation by Mathematics Teachers, Advisers and Faculty of Mathematics

Department

In order to perform this step, the researcher subjected the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) to the evaluation of the Mathematics teachers at Corazon C. Aquino High School. The Mathematics teachers, adviser and faculty of Mathematics Department evaluated the materials based on criteria namely; relevance, adequacy, and appropriateness.

Step 6 Gathering of Data to Test the Effectiveness to Users

To show the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) to users, the materials were pilot tested using the pretest-posttest experimental design. Fifty (50) students were selected according to their first quarter grades in Geometry; half of these were assigned as experimental group and the other half as the control group. The experimental group was given the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) while the control group received traditional methods of instruction. The two groups were compared to show the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials.

If all the results would agree to the validity of the materials, they would be in their final stage. Otherwise, if the results were found inadequate or insignificant, they would again review for revalidation.

Validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

In establishing the validity of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching angle pairs in Geometry, the researcher selected ten Mathematics teachers who have teaching experiences of more five years at Corazon C. Aquino High School including her adviser who have great experiences and knowledge in the concerned field of study.

The group of teachers reviewed the Strategic intervention Materials (SIMs) by giving their suggestions and comments that were incorporated for the improvement of the SIMs. The teachers evaluated the SIMs based on the criteria on its relevance, adequacy, and appropriateness.

For the relevance of the SIMs it was evaluated through the relevance content on each topic, clearness of each topic, and logical presentation of the lesson to the students. The adequacy of the SIMs includes the clarity of directions, adequacy of the activities, and suitability of the activity. The appropriateness of the SIMs was also evaluated by the simplicity of language used and proper sequences of the topics included.Statistical Treatment

The following were used in the analysis and interpretation of data gathered:

Tables were used in the presentation of data to facilitate understanding of results.

After administering the pretests and posttests to the subjects, t-test of the difference between means of independent data were employed to determine a groups mean over that of the other group. Test for independent groups was employed to test the difference between means of the experimental and control groups in the pretest and posttest. The formula is as follows:

t =

x1-x2_____________

(x1 x1) + (x2 x2) 1 + 1

n1n2 2 n1 n2

where:

x1/x2 = score

x1 = mean of sample 1

x2 = mean of sample 2

n1 = number of cases in sample 1

n2 = number of cases in sample 2

T-test difference between means of correlated groups was also employed to test the difference between the pretest and posttest results of the control and experimental groups. The formula is as follows:

t = d_______

_n( d) ( d)

n - 1

where:

d = difference of the paired scores

The data were encoded into the computer using Microsoft Excel and were subjected to MS Excel Data Analysis Tool Pack.

For the interpretation of the performances of the students the following categories were used:

Scores

Description

41 50

Outstanding

31 40

Above Average

21 30

Average

11 20

Below Average

1 10

Poor

Chapter 4PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from the results of the pretest and posttest of the respondents.1. Validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

The Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was evaluated by Mathematics teachers who have teaching experiences of more than five years and knowledge on the topics included in the SIMs. The SIMs had an average weighted mean of 4.60 and it was evaluated as Excellent based on its relevance, adequacy, and appropriateness for the students to learn.Table 1

Results on the Relevance of Content of the SIMs

Relevance of the SIMsAverage Weighted MeanDescription

1. Relevance content on each topic4.8Excellent

2. Clearness of each learning topic4.6Excellent

3. Logical presentation of the test items4.3Very Satisfactory

Average4.6Excellent

Table 1 shows the validation of SIMs in terms of its relevance evaluated by the Mathematics Teachers. The results show that the topics included in the SIMs became more significant as marked by its weighted mean of 4.80 excellent. The clearness of the topics included in the SIMs was evaluated by its average mean of 4.6. Moreover, the logical presentation of the test items/activity in the SIMs was presented in a logical manner with an average mean of 4.3 very satisfactory.

In sum, the average weighted mean of 4.6 disclosed that the relevance of the SIMs was evaluated as Excellent.

Table 2

Results on the Adequacy of Scope of the SIMs

Adequacy of the SIMsAverage Weighted MeanDescription

1. Clarity of directions4.8Excellent

2. Adequacy of test items4.5Excellent

3. Suitability of the test4.5Excellent

Average4.6Excellent

Table 2 shows the average weighted mean of 4.60 for the adequacy of the evaluated SIMs. The clarity of direction described as excellent - 4.8, it means that the content of the SIMs was clearly to be understood by the students. For the adequacy of the SIMs was marked as excellent 4.5, that the SIMs was sufficient in quantity and quality to meet the needs of the students. The suitability of the SIMs described as excellent 4.5, this means that the SIMs was served as the right type or quality for enhancing the ability of the students to improve their performance in Geometry. Table 3

Results on the Appropriateness of the SIMs

Appropriateness of the SIMsAverage Weighted MeanDescription

1. Simplicity of directions4.7Excellent

2. Proper sequence of topics4.5Excellent

Average4.6Excellent

Table 3 shows the description of the SIMs in terms of its appropriateness. Simplicity of directions was described as excellent 4.7. Directions used in the SIMs were easy to follow by the students. The proper sequence of the topics included in the SIMs was also described as excellent 4.5. The orderliness of the topics made the students understand fully the relevance of each topic. As sum, the appropriateness of the SIMs described as excellent 4.62. Effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) Based on the Students Performance

To determine the effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs), the following results were presented and analyzed:2.1 Performance of the Control and Experimental Groups in the Pretest

To determine whether there was no bias in the random assigning of subjects into control and experimental groups, the result of the pretest were analyzed and tested using t-test of independent data.

Results of the pretest revealed that majority of the respondents had low scores which mean that they have low level of knowledge on angle pairs.Table 4Pretest Results of the Control and Experimental GroupControl (f)Experimental (f)

Outstanding00

Above Average00

Average65

Below Average1515

Poor45

2525

Table 4 shows the performance of the students before the start of the experiment was conducted. As seen on the table, majority of the students in both control and experimental group had scores of below average. However, some students registered average scores.

To determine the similarity or differences between the two groups, the pretest of the students were evaluated using the t-test between means of independent group.

Table 5

Comparison between the Pretest of the Two Groups

GroupMeanTest ValueDFCritical ValueSignificance

Control16.680.24482.01Not

Significant

Experimental16.32

Table 5 shows the t-test of difference between means of independent data. Results revealed that the means of the two groups are not equal. The control group registered a mean of 16.68 and 16.32 for the experimental group. The computed t-value was 0.24 at 0.05 level of significance and 48 degree of freedom. The result of the test showed that the t-value was lower than the critical value which meant that the null hypothesis assuming no difference between the means of the students from the two groups was confirmed. Thus, it was concluded that the students in the two groups were of the same level of performance with respect to their knowledge before the experiment.2.2 Performance of the Control and Experimental Groups in the Posttest

After the pretest, experimentation was conducted by using Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle. The experimental group was exposed to Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) while the control group was taught using the traditional method of instruction entirely done inside the classroom with chalk and chalkboard as the main materials in teaching.

Table 3 shows the performance of the students after the experimentation was conducted.Table 6Posttest Results of the Control and Experimental GroupControlExperimental

Outstanding13

Above Average48

Average1211

Below Average83

Poor00

2525

As shown in Table 6, it can be gleaned that the students in both control and experimental groups scored higher than their pretest scores. Majority of the students in both groups had average scores.

Based from the data, it can be noted that both groups showed improvements in their performance after the use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs), and traditional method of instruction were employed in teaching the lessons.

To determine the effectiveness of SIMs in teaching on angle pairs after the posttest was administered, the t-value of the test results were computed. The computed mean were compared.Table 7Comparison between the Posttest Results of the Two Groups

GroupMeanTest ValueDFCritical ValueSignificance

Control24.362.71482.01Significant

Experimental29.92

Table 7 shows that the experimental group had higher posttest mean score of 29.92 against 24.36 of the control group. The means score were subjected to t-test of independent sample to find out whether the observed difference among the two means were significant. At level of significance of 0.05 and 48 degree of freedom, the computed t-value of 2.71 was found to be statistically significant as the computed value of t was higher than the critical value of 2.01. This showed that there was a significant difference between the performance level of students in experimental and control group in favor of the experimental group.2.3 Performance of the Control Group in the Pretest and Posttest

To test the effectiveness of traditional method of instruction in teaching relationship between pairs of angle, the pretest and posttest results of the control group were compared.Table 8Pretest and Posttest Performances of the Control Group

PretestPosttest

Outstanding01

Above Average04

Average612

Below Average158

Poor40

2525

It can be seen (refer to table 8) that the control group performed better in the posttest compare to their performance in the pretest. The highest score in the posttest was 41 while the lowest score was 13 as compared to 29 and 9 highest and lowest score respectively in the pretest.

T-test results were compared to show whether the traditional method was effective in teaching relationship between pairs of angle.Table 9Comparison between the Performances of the Control Group in Pretest and Posttest

ControlGroupMeanTest

ValueDFCritical

ValueSignificance

Pretest16.689.16242.06Significant

Posttest24.36

Table 9 shows how the control group performed in the pretest and posttest. The students performed better in the posttest registering mean scores of 24.36 against 16.68 in the pretest. Using t-test of difference between means of independent samples at 24 degree of freedom, the t-value was 9.16. The computed t-value was greater than the critical vale of 2.06, which means that the null hypothesis was rejected. This means that there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the control group in favor of the posttest. After the students in the control group were taught using traditional method of instruction, they registered higher scores in the posttest.2.4 Performance of the Experimental Group in the Pretest and Posttest

To test the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching relationship between pairs of angle is by comparing the pretest and posttest of the experimental group.

Table 10Pretest and Posttest Performances of the Experimental Group

PretestPosttest

Outstanding03

Above Average08

Average511

Below Average153

Poor50

2525

Table 10 shows the experimental group students performance in the pretest and posttest. The table shows the distribution of the students performances in the pretest and posttest. The performance of the experimental group greatly improved in the posttest with the pretest result as reference. The students registered below average to outstanding performance with 43 as the highest score and 18 as the lowest score. The motivational factor of intervention material was the main reason for the high retention of concepts. Students were participative with the Strategic Intervention Materials used.

Table 11

Comparison between the Performances of the Experimental Group

In Pretest and Posttest

Experimental

GroupMeanTest

ValueDFCritical

ValueSignificance

Pretest16.3217.91242.06Significant

Posttest29.92

Table 11 shows the performance of the experimental group between the pretest and posttest. Posttest mean score registered at 29.92 against the pretest mean score of 16.32. The t-value computed was 17.91 and it is higher than the critical value of 2.06 which means that the null hypothesis was rejected. The results show that there was a significant difference between performance of the experimental group in the pretest and posttest in favor of the posttest. The performance of the experimental group greatly improved after using the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) and an indication of its effectiveness in teaching angle pairs in Geometry. 2.5 Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

After the experiment was conducted, the mean gain scores of the control and experimental group were computed and compared.it could be noted that both the control and experimental group performed better in the posttest after using the traditional method of instruction and intervention materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle and therefore, both methods were effective in teaching the same topic, as observed in the previous discussion.Table 12Mean Gain Scores of the Two GroupsGroupPretestPosttestMean of Gain

Scores

Control16.6824.367.68

Experimental16.3229.9213.6

Table 12 shows the mean gain scores of the control and experimental group. The control group registered a mean score of 7.68 which was lower than the mean of the score of 13.6 of the experimental group. This means that the experimental group performed better than the control group.

Table 13Comparison between the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

GroupMean of Gain ScoresTest

ValueDFCritical

ValueSignificance

Control7.685.23482.01Significant

Experimental13.68

Using the t-test difference between means of independent data, table 13 shows that the computed t-value was 5.23, which was higher than the critical value. This means that there was a significant difference between the mean gain scores of the control and experimental group in favor of the experimental group. The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching relationship between pairs of angle is more effective than the traditional method of instruction.

Implication of the Study in Teaching Mathematics

The study provides some evidences of the effects of using Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) on students achievement. In comparison, explicit instruction using SIMs was more effective in developing students understanding on the concepts of the lesson than traditional instruction.

The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching relationship between pairs of angle in Geometry influenced greatly the performances of the students. Findings show that group of students taught with SIMs gained higher mean score than the group of students taught with traditional method of instruction. This gives the conclusion that the SIMs is an effective tool in teaching Mathematics.

The study implied that an instructional tool in teaching and learning process in Mathematics is very important. Teachers should be creative and find ways to use available resources for designing a strategy in delivering the lessons. The success of delivering the lessons well to the students lies on the subject-content expertise and careful planning of the teacher. The appropriateness of the materials used by the teacher in the different learning styles of the students will ensure the students better performance.

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.Summary of Findings1. The development of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was based on the least mastered skills in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle. The SIMs relevance had an average weighted mean of 4.6 described as excellent. The adequacy of the SIMs was described as excellent having an average weighted mean of 4.6 that the SIMs served as an instrument to improve the students performance in Geometry. The appropriateness of the SIMs was marked as excellent as the average weighted mean of 4.6. Generally, the SIMs was evaluated as Excellent by the pool of validators namely: the Mathematics teachers, adviser and faculty in Mathematics Department of Tarlac State University with an average weighted mean of 4.60 (See Appendix E).2.1 In the pretest, the control group registered a mean of 16.68 while 16.32 for the experimental group. Although the means are not equal, the computed t-value was 0.24 which was lower than the critical value (2.01). This means that there is no significant difference between the performance of the control and experimental group. The lowest score for the control group was 9 and the highest score was 29, while the lowest and highest score were 7 and 27 respectively for the experimental group.2.2 In the posttest, the control group had a mean of 24.36 which was lower than the experimental group having a mean of 29.92. Employing the t-test of difference between means of independent data, the t-value was 2.71 which was higher than the critical value (2.01) that significantly differentiated the two groups; leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The lowest score for the control group was 17 and the highest score was 41, while the lowest and highest score were 18 and 43 respectively for the experimental group.2.3 Comparison of the pretest and posttest of the control group would indicate that the mean scores were significantly different. From the computed t-value of 9.16 using the t-test of difference of correlated data, the t-value was higher than the critical value (2.06). This means that there was a significant difference between the performance of the control group in the pretest and posttest in favor of the posttest.

The lowest score in the pretest was 9, the highest score was 29 and the mean was 16.68, while in the posttest the lowest score was 17, the highest score was 41 and the mean was 24.36.2.4 Between the pretest and the posttest of the experimental group, comparisons of the mean scores were significantly different. The mean in the pretest was 16.32 while 29.92 in the posttest. Using the t-test of difference between the correlated data, the computed t-value (17.91) was higher than the critical value (2.06). The null hypothesis was rejected and therefore there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest performance of the experimental group in favor of the posttest. In the pretest, the lowest score was 7, the highest score was 27 and the mean was 16.32 while in the posttest the lowest score was 18, he highest score was 43 and the mean was 29.92.

2.5 The experimental group had a mean score of 13.68 which was higher than 7.68 mean of the control group. Applying the t-test of difference between means of independent data, the computed t-value was higher than the critical value and therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. Although the methods were effective in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle, the experimental group performed better than the control group. Thus, using Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was more effective than the traditional method of instruction.Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the researcher was able to draw the following conclusions:

1. The developed Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) were evaluated as Excellent by the validators.

2. The result of the pretest of the control and experimental group did not differ significantly.

3. The result of the posttest was significantly higher than the result of the pretest of the control and experimental groups. This means that the use of traditional method of instruction and Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) were effective in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle.

4. The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle was more effective than the traditional method of instruction since the result of the posttest of the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group. Recommendations

In the light of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations were drawn:1. Mathematics teachers can use the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) made by the researcher in re-teaching the concepts and skills in angle pairs to help the students master the competencies of the lessons.

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. Teachers handling other subjects are also encouraged to make use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) to address the least mastered skills.

4. The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching motivates and stimulates the interest of the students to learn and therefore, it could be used as supplementary aid in the traditional method of instruction.5. Teachers should be encouraged to look for other tools in teaching to enhance the mastery of the students for the lesson being taught.6. Further research similar to this study is hereby recommended.BibliographyDavid, Christian F. (2009). Strategic Intervention Materials in Mathematics II. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State UniversityDilao, Soledad Jose, (2009). Geometry Textbook for Third Year High School Mathematics IIIDomingo, Edgard C., et al. (2004). 21st Century Soaring Mathematics Exploring GeometryDowker, Ann. (2004). The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes. University of OxfordKing, Lonnie C.C. (2002). Assessing the Effect of an Instructional Intervention on the Geometric Understanding of Learners in a South African Primary School. SMEC, Curtin UniversityLabena, Vicente C., et al. (2006). Scoring High in Math Activity Workbook in GeometryLiangco, Minnie P. (2005). Development and Validation of Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) Based Modules in Elementary Algebra. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State UniversityMalaborbor, Pastor B., et al. (2002). Geometry for the Basic Education CurriculumMcGuire, C.L. & Ritter, S. (2006, September). Guide to Mathematics Intervention: A Roadmap for Student Success. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning. Retrieved from www.carnegielearning.com/web_docs/guide_to_intervention.pdfOrines, Fernando B., et al. (2003). Next Century Mathematics Geometry Third Year High School

Pascual, Ferdinand C., et al. (2002). Worktext in Geometry Simplified Concepts and Structures

Priest, Deborah Jean. (2009). A Problem-Posing Intervention in the Development of Problem-Solving Competence of Underachieving, Middle-year Students. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of TechnologySantos, Sarah L. Development and Validation of Instructional Modules in English VI. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State UniversitySilkwood, Michael N. (2000). Traditional Lecture and Demonstration vs. Modular Self-paced Instruction in Technology Education Middle School. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA

Soberano, Andy L. (2009). Strategic Intervention Materials in Chemistry: Development and Effectiveness

Sumaoang, Dolores P. (2012). The Effectiveness of Frayer Model in the Mathematics Vocabulary development Among Second Year High School Students. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State UniversitySunday, Afolabi S., et al. (2010). Assessment of Resources and Instructional Materials Status in the Teaching of Mathematics in Southwestern Nigeria. Emmanuel Alayande College of Education Lanlate Campus. Lanlate, Oyo State, NigeriaTagaza, Marites S. (2007). Development and Validation of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) for Enhancing Mastery in Araling Panlipunan I. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State University

Viernes, Freddie D. (2005). Development and Validation of Modules on Linear Inequalities in Two Variables. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State University

http://www.frewencollege.co.ukhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_strategic_intervention_materials#ixzz27ewxen8Zhttp://hdl.handle.net/2097/202http://hdl.handle.net/10394/48http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d242282725v37265&size=largesthttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/236http://hdl.handle.net/10344/450http://www.whatworks.ed.govhttp://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_All.pdfhttp://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/C_full.pdfhttp://www.pen.k12.va.us/Appendix A

Letter to the PrincipalRepublic of the Philippines

University of St. La Salle

ECF-Project Free

Bacolod City

September 24, 2012

TEOFISTA A. DANTES

Principal II

Corazon C. Aquino High School

Pob. 3, Gerona, Tarlac

Madam:

The undersigned is presently conducting a research study entitled DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION MATERIALS IN MATHEMATICS III. It is expected that the result of this study will be of great help in improving the teaching of Geometry in High School.

In this regard, I have the honor to request permission from your good office to administer test to Third Year students in your school in order to gather pertinent data needed for the study.

Your kind consideration and approval is highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

(sgd) DAISY MAY B. TANKE

Researcher

Noted:

(sgd) GLENDA P. BLANCO, Ph. D.

Thesis Adviser

(sgd) TEOFISTA A. DANTES

Principal II

Appendix B

Table of SpecificationRelationship between Pairs of AnglesContent

No. of Days Taught No. of ItemsPercentage

Complementary Angles21325%

Supplementary Angles21325%

Adjacent Angles1612%

Linear Pair1613%

Vertical Angles21225%

Total850100%

Appendix C

Pretest/Posttest on Relationship between Pairs of AnglesCORAZON C. AQUINO HIGH SCHOOL

Pob. 3, Gerona, TarlacName: _______________________________

Score: ______________TEST I.Directions:Write the letter of your answer on the space before each

number.

_____1. If (A and (B are complementary, what is the sum of their measures?

a.90(

b. 45(

c. 180(

d. 30(_____2. If the measure of an angle is equal to the measure of its complement, then the measure of the angle is _______.

a.45(

b. 30(

c. 90(

d. 180(_____3. What is the measure of the complement of 36(?

a.144(

b. 54(

c. 64(

d. 74(_____4. Which of the pair of angles are adjacent angles?

A E D C B

a.(ABD & (CBE

c. (ABD & (ABE

b.(DBC & (EBC

d. (ABE & (EBD

_____5. (a and (b are __________. A D a b C B

a.Adjacent angle

c. Supplementary angles

b.Linear pair

d. Complementary angles For items 6-8, refer to the figure below.

E D A B C_____6. What angle is supplement to (ABD?

a.(ABE

b. (EBD

c. (DBCd. (EBC

_____7. If m (ABD = 160(, what is m (CBD?

a.20(

b. 30(

c. 40(

d. 50(_____8. If the measure of (ABD is twice the measure of (CBD, what is the measure of (CBD?

a.45(

b. 60(

c. 90(

d. 75(For items 9-10, refer to the figure below.

D A B 70( C_____9. Find the measure of (ABD, if the measure of (CBD is 70(?

a.60(

b. 20(

c. 10(

d. 110(____10. Find the measure of (CBD, if the measure of (ABD is 115?

a.65(

b. 75(

c. 85(

d. 95(____11. If m (1 = 138.5(, the m (2 = _________.

1 2 3 4

a.21.5(

b. 31.5(

c. 41.5( d. 51.5(____12. What angle forms a linear pair with (AEF? F D A 20( B E C

a.(FEB

b. (DEB

c. (AEC

d. (CEF____13. Which angle forms a linear pair with (4?

3 2 1 4 5

a.(1

b. (5

c. (3

d. (2____14. Angle D and angle E form a linear pair and (E is three times as (D. Find the measure of (E.

a.45(

b. 90(

c. 135(

d. 180(____15. Angle 1 and angle 2 form a linear pair and (1 is twice as (2. Find the measure of (1.

a.45(

b. 25(

c. 60(

d. 30(For items 16-17, refer to the figure below. H B T E L____16. If m (HET = 45(, what is m (LET?

a.145(

b. 135(

c. 105(

d. 140(____17. If m (BEH = 125(, what is m (LET?

a.55(

b. 125(

c. 65(

d. 75(For items 18-20, refer to the figure below.

E D A 30( 45( B G C F____18. Find m (AGC.

a.75(

b. 105(

c. 30(

d. 45(____19. Find m (BGF.

a.75(

b. 105(

c. 30(

d. 45(____20. Find m (AGD.

a.75(

b. 135(

c. 30(

d. 45(____21.Find m (EGD.

a.75(

b. 105(

c. 30(

d. 45(____22. Find m (EGB.

a.75(

b. 150(

c. 30(

d. 45(____23. Find m (DGF.

a.75(

b. 150(

c. 30(

d. 45(____24. Find m (CGE.

a.75(

b. 150(

c. 30(

d. 45(____25. Find m (CGF.

a.75(

b. 105(

c. 30(

d. 45(____26. What is the vertex of (QRS?

a.Q

b. R

c. S

d. cannot be determined

_____27. In the figure below, m (ABC = 90(. Find x. A x 60( C B

a. 60(

b. 30(

c. 45(

d. 15(_____28. What is the supplement of an angle whose measure is 112.5(?

a.67.5(

b. 68.5(

c. 69.5( d. 72.5(_____29. Two angles which have a common vertex and a common side but have no interior points in common are ____.

a.Linear pair

b. Adjacent angles

c. Complementary angle

d. Supplementary angles

TEST II. Directions:Identify the angle pairs in the following figure. Write

the letter of your answer on the space after each

number.a. Complementary angle

b. Supplementary angle A B Cc. Adjacent angle 20(d. Vertical angle 45( 45( 70( H 70( X 45( D 30. (BXC and (CXD____ 45( 31. (AXD and (AXH____ 20( 32. (AXB and (EXF____ G F E 33. (BXC and (GXF____ 34. (HXG and (GXF____ 35. (FXE and (EXD____ 36. (HXG and (CXD____ 37. (GXF and (CXD____ 38. (DXE and (EXF____ 39. (GXF and (BXC____TEST III. Directions:Write a if the statement is true and b if the statement is

false on the space provided.

____40. The supplement of an acute angle is an obtuse angle.

____41. If two angles are both congruent and supplementary, then each is a right angle.

____42. The supplement of a right angle is a right angle.

____43. Adjacent angles have a common vertex.

____44. Vertical angles are adjacent.

____45. If two angles are supplementary, then they are both acute.

____46. If one of two angles in a linear pair measures 90(, then the other angle has a measure greater than 90(.

____47. Two angles are said to be complementary if the sum of their measures is 90(.

____48. Two angles form a linear pair if and only if they are adjacent and their non-common sides are opposite rays.

____49. Linear pair angles are complementary.

____50. Two adjacent right angles are supplementary.Appendix D

Evaluation Scale

EVALUATION SHEET FOR MATHEMATICS TEACHERName:_________________________________________________________

School:________________________________________________________

DIRECTION:

A set of criteria is formulated to evaluate the Strategic Intervention

Materials (SIMs) in teaching Mathematics III. Please evaluate the SIMs

based on the criteria outlined below by checking the appropriate space in

the questionnaire.

Be guided of the following scale in evaluating the content and

scope of the SIMs.

4.50 - 5.00Excellent

3.50 4.49Very Satisfactory

2.50 3.49Satisfactory

1.50 2.49Fair

0 1.49Needs Improvement

ITEMS

54321

Relevance of Content

1. Relevance of content on each topic

2. Clearness of each topic

3. Logical presentation of topics

Adequacy of Scope

1. Clarity of directions

2. Adequacy of activities

3. Suitability of the activities

Appropriateness of the SIMs

1. Simplicity of language used

2. Proper sequences of topics

Comments/Suggestions:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Evaluator

Appendix ESummary of the Evaluation Scale for the Strategic Intervention MaterialsItemsAverage Weighted MeanDescription

Relevance of Content4.6Excellent

Relevance of content on each topic4.8Excellent

Clearness of each learning topic4.6Excellent

Logical presentation of topics4.3Very Satisfactory

Adequacy of Scope4.6Excellent

Clarity of Directions4.8Excellent

Adequacy of activities4.5Excellent

Suitability of the activities4.5Excellent

Appropriateness of the SIMs4.6Excellent

Simplicity of language used4.7Excellent

Proper sequences of topics4.5Excellent

Average Total4.6Excellent

Appendix FTest Validation

Item No.Upper/Lower GroupABCDIndex of DifficultyIndex of DiscriminationRemarks

1Upper130.680.50Accepted

Lower6


Lower5


Lower4


Lower8


Lower3


Lower3


Lower4


Lower5


Lower8


Lower8


Lower8


Lower5


Lower3


Lower5


Lower6


Lower9


Lower3


Lower4


Lower2


Lower4


Lower7


Lower1


Lower7


Lower1


Lower8


Lower8


Lower8


Lower8


Lower9


Lower10


Lower8


Lower7


Lower7


Lower9


Lower7


Lower8


Lower8


Lower8


Lower7


Lower6


Lower10


Lower4


Lower10


Lower8


Lower7


Lower5


Lower8


Lower3


Lower5


Lower8

Appendix GComputation of Reliability of the Test

Item No.Correct ResponseWrong ResponsePQpqRespondentsScores

11310.680.320.22145

68238

2950.500.500.25337

59437

3950.460.540.25536

410636

41220.710.290.20735

86835

51040.460.540.25935

3111034

6950.610.390.241133

861232

71310.610.390.241332

4101430

8860.460.540.251522

591622

91130.680.320.221722

861822

101130.680.320.221922

862021

111310.790.210.172121

952221

12950.500.500.252320

592420

131040.460.540.252519

3112619

14860.460.540.252718

592817

15950.540.460.25S8.08

68s65.21

161130.710.290.20

95KR20 = 0.84

17950.610.390.24

86

181310.610.390.24

410

191220.500.500.25

212

20950.460.540.25

410

211220.680.320.22

77

221130.680.320.22

86

231130.640.360.23

77

241220.460.540.25

113

251130.680.320.22

86

261130.680.320.22

86

271130.680.320.22

86

281220.710.290.20

86

291130.710.290.20

95

301130.710.290.20

95

311220.710.290.20

86

321040.610.390.24

77

331040.610.390.24

77

341130.710.290.20

95

351130.640.360.23

77

361130.680.320.22

86

371220.710.290.20

86

381130.680.320.22

86

391220.680.320.22

77

401130.610.390.24

68

411130.710.290.20

95

421220.570.430.24

410

431220.710.290.20

86

441130.680.320.22

86

451220.680.320.22

77

461040.540.460.25

59

471130.680.320.22

86

481130.500.500.25

311

49860.460.540.25

59

501140.680.320.22

86

Appendix HGroupings of the Respondents Based on Mathematics III Grades(First Quarter Grading Period)

No.Control GroupGradeExperimental GroupGrade

1Aguinaldo, Ramona76Abuyan, Mark Joseph76

2Aquino, Mary Jane77Alvarez, Andria75

3Arciaga, Darwin80Ancheta, Allen83

4Baliola, Luis Joseph83Bautista, Winslet75

5Bugayong, Joy85Carbonell, Jonmar75

6Cecilio, Ralph Prex Recto75Cortes, Jeamuel79

7Corpuz Jr., Leo75Daileg, Lester81

8Daileg, Rachelle Ann80De Vera, Warren76

9Eglipa, Rafael Jeffrey76Duldulao, Eunice80

10Gamurot, Joy75Fabros, Devon82

11Iglesia, William79Fernandez, Christian79

12Labasan, Aljon77Fontanos, Marisol79

13Mercado, Denice Angelou75Gazmin, Neil Russel81

14Montemayor, Ria75Macasling, Jeric83

15Pagatpatan, Daniel82Magaoay, Christine Joyce78

16Pajarillo, Aeron76Paduit, Kristine Jane79

17Pascua, Marinel78Paduit, Reeco James75

18Resoso, Resty81Peralta, Angelito75

19Robillos, Joy-Joy83Quibal, Denmark78

20Rojo, Anthony83Saptang, Dennis85

21Sta. Marina, Princess Zyra79Sapungay, Janice75

22Tejada,Rei Christmore91Soriano, Wendy77

23Tulabot, Gabrielle Joy79Sumaoang, Renzo75

24Vicente, Raymond83Tadena, Arianne75

25Wilson, John Mark75Toralde Jr., Melchor75

Average79.12Average78.04

Appendix IPretests Results of the Control and Experimental Group

Student No.ExperimentalControl

12729

22624

32623

42222

52122

61921

71920

81820

91819

101818

111718

121718

131617

141616

151515

161514

171513

181513

191313

201212

211011

22910

23910

24810

2579

Appendix J Posttests Results of the Control and Experimental Group

Student No.ExperimentalControl

14341

24332

34334

43927

53923

63427

73232

83025

93028

102523

113625

123232

133423

143429

152321

162314

172220

182919

192913

202317

212725

221817

232018

242220

251824

Appendix KMean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

EXPERIMENTALCONTROL

Student No. PRETESTPOSTTESTGAINPRETESTPOSTTESTGAIN

1274316294112

226431724328

3264317233411

422391722275

521391822231

619341521276

7193213203212

818301220255

918301219289

101825718235

1117361918257

12173215183214

1316341817236

14163418162913

151523815216

161523814140

171522713207

1815291413196

1913291613130

2012231112175

21102717112514

22918910177

239201110188

2482214102010

257181192415

Appendix Lt-Test of Difference Between Means Using MS Excel Data Analysis Tool Pack

t-Test of Difference Between Pretests of the Control and Experimental Group

ExperimentalControl

Mean16.3216.68

Variance29.9766666727.14333333

Observations2525

Pooled Variance28.56

Hypothesized Mean Difference0

DF48

t Stat-0.238165256

P(T

SIM CHAPTER 1-5

Documents

Transcript of SIM CHAPTER 1-5