Research Article

Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Learners’ Academic Achievement in Science

Michael B. Bibon 1 *
More Detail
1 Research Teacher, Cawayan National High School, Bacacay, Albay- Department of Education (Albay Division), Albay, the PHILIPPINES* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), January 2022, ep22007, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/11816
Submitted: 18 October 2021, Published: 27 February 2022
OPEN ACCESS   4747 Views   6056 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The implementation of Philippine K-12 curriculum brings hope to its educational system on lifting up the poor academic standing of Filipino learners in national and international assessments. With its implementation in 2012, rectification in the instructional practices of science teachers was expected to boost the academic performance of learners. This study aimed to document the instructional practices of teachers and its correlation to the academic achievement of learners in science. A total of 96 teachers and 240 grade 10 learners were randomly selected from 6 schools in provincial and city areas of Albay, Philippines. This was employed through paper survey to the identified respondents with focus in the quantitative aspect of the study. Results revealed instructional practices emphasizing the use of differentiation for planning, spiraling and inquiry in the delivery, and product-focused and differentiation in assessment. Negligence in the use of technology is attributed to effort and preparation issues, age, and computer anxiety. Academic achievement of learners across all curricular programs in science was below the expected standards of the national policy indicating that learning is not at par with the prospects of Philippine K-12 curriculum. Correlational test revealed high relationship between academic achievement and instructional delivery, while moderate relationship to planning and assessment of instruction. It was concluded that teachers were not proficient enough in applying K-12 curriculum instructional practices to enhance the academic achievement of learners. The need to participate in ICT-based seminars in science, and paralleling instructional planning, delivery, and assessment practices were suggested.
Keywords: teaching practices, academic achievement, science learning, K-12 curriculum

CITATION (APA)

Bibon, M. B. (2022). Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Learners’ Academic Achievement in Science. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), ep22007. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/11816

REFERENCES

  1. Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on learners’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37-41. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
  2. Abell, S., & Siegel, M. (2011). Assessing literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 205-221). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3927-9_12
  3. Abundo, L. (2019). Teaching in K-12 classroom: Accounts from the practices of teachers [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  4. Alkhateeb, M. (2018). The effect of using performance-based assessment strategies to tenth-grade students’ achievement and self-efficacy in Jordan. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(4), 489-500. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v13i4.2815
  5. Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamora, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and students performance in middle and high school english. American Educational Research Jounal, 40 (3), 685-730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
  6. Baldez, L. (2018). Individual differences and learning syles: Its integration in the island schools of Albay [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Republic Colleges.
  7. Barcenas, J., & Bibon, M. (2021). Coping mechanism of Island school students on the problems encountered in modular distance learning. International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Studies, 7(12), 1-6. https://www.isroset.org/journal/IJSRMS/full_paper_view.php?paper_id=2652
  8. Barrett, K. (2018). The evidence is clear: More money for schools means better learner outcomes. neaToday. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/evidence-clear-more-money-schools-means-better-learner-outcomes
  9. Benosa, E. (2018). Observation of teachers’ common teaching practices in K-12 curriculum science [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  10. Bernardo, J. (2020). PH ranks last among 58 countries in grade 4 math, science: Study. ABS-CBN News. https://news.abs-cbn.com/amp/news/12/09/20/ph-ranks-last-among-58-countries-in-grade-4-math-science-study
  11. Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2010). The effectiveness: The conditions that matter most and a look to the future. Center for Teaching Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509720.pdf
  12. Bibon, M. (2021). Indigenous medicinal plants and practices in Cagraray Island: Resources for culture-based lessons in biology. Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420988703
  13. Blazar, D. (2016). Teacher and teaching effects on learners’ academic performance, attitudes, and behaviors [Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education]. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/27112692
  14. Bochniak, J. (2014). The effectiveness of computer-aided instruction on math fact fluency. Walden University Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/
  15. Bondie, R., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336-362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130
  16. Borja, J. (2019). Science management in schools offering non-science related curricula [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bicol University.
  17. Bornilla, K. (2019). Brain-based approach for teaching biology [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bicol University.
  18. Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the Internet. Handbook for the Economics of Education, 5, 239-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00005-1
  19. Canales, Y. (2020). The relationship between instructional delivery and learner engagement in selected classroom: A cross case analysis. W&M ScholarWorks. https://doi.org/10.25774/w4-z43v-zg57
  20. Capps, D., Crawdorf, B., & Contas, M. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a crtique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
  21. Capuk, S. (2015). ICT integration models into middle and high school curriculum in the USA. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(2015), 1218-1224. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.409
  22. Chanco, B. (2021). The problem with DepEd. PhilStar. https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/07/12/2111777/problem-deped
  23. Department of Education. (2020). Programs and projects beneficiaries. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DepEd-Report-on-Beneficiaries_2020.pdf
  24. DepEd Memorandum (DM) No. 160. (2012). Maximizing utilization of the National Achievement Test (NAT) results to raise the achievement levels in low performing schools. www.deped.gov.ph/2012/
  25. DepEd Order (DO) No. 42. (2016). Policy guidelines on daily lesson preparation for the K to 12 basic education program. www.deped.gov.ph
  26. DepEd Order No. 21. (2019). Policy guidelines on the K to 12 education program. Department of Education, Philippines. www.deped.gov.ph
  27. Fernandez-Batanero, J. M., Roman-Gravan, P., Reyes-Rebollo, M. M., & Montenegro-Rueda, M. (2021). Impact of educational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548
  28. Galindo, J. H. (n. d.). Revealing and dealing with misconceptions. Harvard University. https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/revealing-and-dealing-misconceptions
  29. Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 3. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2022v36n6.5
  30. Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.23596
  31. Glasel, A. (2018). 6 reasons why teachers do not use technology in the classroom- What can EdTech companies learn? The EdTech World. https://medium.com/the-edtech-world/resistance-tech-classrooms-981b86d862fc
  32. Haider, T. (n. d.). The efficiency of planned lessons on academic achievement of students at elementary level. https://www.academia.edu/41689939/THE_EFFICIENCY_OF_PLANNED_LESSON_ON_ACADEMIC_ACHIEVEMENT_OF_STUDENTS_AT_ELEMENTARY_LEVEL
  33. Han, F. (2021). The relationships between teaching strategies, learners’ engagement in learning, and teachers’ self-concept. Sustainability, 13(9), 5020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095020
  34. Hoge, D. (2016). The relationship between teachers’ instructional practices and, professional development, and student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nebraska.
  35. Hyndman, B. (2018). Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ten-reasons-teachers-can-struggle-to-use-technology-in-the-classroom-101114
  36. IEA. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and IEA. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/
  37. Iglesias, I. (2016). K-12 should be implemented-Briones. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/06/06/news/top-stories/k-to-12-should-be-implemented-briones/266356
  38. Jensen, B. (1966). Team teaching in secondary school science: Techniques in large and small group Instruction and the use of para-professionals. Utah State University. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/890
  39. Johnson, A. (2017). The relationship between teacher practice and learner performance. Seton Hall University Dissertation and Theses. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertation/2235
  40. Johnson, P. (1962). The goals of science education. Theory into Practice, 1(5), 239-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405846209541817
  41. K-12 Curriculum Guide. (2016). Science. http://lrmds.deped.gov.ph
  42. Kannapel, P., Clements, S., Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-poverty schools. Technical report. Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. http://www.prichardcommittee.org/library/inside-the-black-box-high-performing-high-poverty-schools/
  43. Kibret, T. (2016). Lesson planning and students’ performance feedback data use [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau. https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/opus45-kola/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1309/file/diss_kibret.pdf
  44. KMK. (2006). Standige konferenz der Kultusminister der lander in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Gesamtstrategie der kultusministerkonferenz zum Bildungsmonitoring [Standing conference of the Ministers of Education of the Federal States in the Federal Republic of Germany. Overall strategy of the conference of Ministers of Education for educational monitoring]. Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH. https://www.kmk.org/kmk/information-in-english/standing-conference.html
  45. Laksana, D., Dasna, W., & Degeng, N. (2019). The effects of inquiry-based learning and learning styles on primary school learners’ conceptual understanding in multimedia learning environment. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.51
  46. Laosinguan, L. (n. d.). Product-based assessment. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/30918888/PRODUCT_ORIENTED_ASSESSMENT
  47. Lister, C. (2015). Constructivism: The foundation of inquiry learning. Unlearn to learn. https://christopherlister.ca/tiegrad-2/constructivism-the-foundation-of-inquiry-learning/
  48. Magayon, V., & Tan, E. (2016). Learning mathematics and differentiated instruction in the Philippines: A phenomenographical study on struggles and successes of grade 7 learners. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17278/ijesim.2016.03.003
  49. Majo, S. (2016). Factors influencing poor performance in science subjects in seconday schools in Shinyanga Municipality, Munich. GRIN Verlag. https://www.grin.com/document/383487
  50. Maligalig, D., & Albert, J. R. (2008). Measures for assessing basic education in Philippines. ECONSTOR. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/126741
  51. Maribe, P., & Darko, M. (2015. ICT curriculum integration in modern-day classroom. Journal of Business and Management Dynamics, 5(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4102/jbmd.v5i1.5
  52. Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, E., & Tal, R. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1063-1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20039
  53. Mazariegos, L. G. R. (2020). The professionalization of teachers: Competencies for the 21st century. Observatory/Institute for the Future Education. https://observatory.tec.mx/
  54. McCarthy, J. (2018). Srudent-centered planning: Planning instruction around students’ readiness, interests, and learning preferences empowers them to drive their own learning. Teaching Strategies. https://www.edutopia.org/article/student-cetered-planning
  55. McLeod, S. (2019). Bruner-learning theory in education. SimplyPsychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html
  56. Mendoza, A. (2013). NAT correlates to the academic achievement of learners in science [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  57. Mirapa, L. (2019). Teachers’ lesson planning technique and its effect to students’ attitude for learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  58. Mohamed, R., & Lebar, O. (2017). Authentic assessment in assessing higher order thinking skills. International Journal of Academic research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(2), 466-476. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i2/2021
  59. Montebon, D. R. T. (2011). K12 science program in the Philippines: Student perception on its implementation. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(12), 153-164. https://ijern.com/journal/2014/December-2014/15.pdf
  60. Nunaki, J., Damopolii, I., Kandowangko, N., & Nusantari, E. (2019). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning to train the learners’ metacognitive skills based on gender differences. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 505-516. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12232a
  61. Ocfemia, A. (2016). The use of powerquest for teaching genetics [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  62. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 results: What learners know and can do. Learners performance in reading, mathematics, and science, Vol. 1. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf
  63. OECD. (2016). Who and where are the low performing learners? https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264250246-4-en.pdf?expires=1645081143&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BDE252095991A4B58C74CEF6BAB002CD
  64. Olusegum, B. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research and Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05616670
  65. Owusu-Acheaw, M. (2014). Reading habits among learners and its effect on academic performance: A study of learners of Koforidua Polytechnic. Library Philosophy and Practice. http://digitalcommmons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1130
  66. Palomares-Ruiz, A., Cebrian, A., & Lopez-Parra, E. (2020). ICT integration into science education and its relationship to the digital gender gap. Sustainability, 12, 5826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135286
  67. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2007). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagocial content knowledge (PCK): PCK as conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  68. Peterson, P., Marx, R., & Clark, C. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312015003417
  69. Pham, H. (2011). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6710
  70. Philippine Basic Education. (2013). The National Achievement Test in the Philippines. https://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2013/07/the-national-achievement-test-in.html?m=1
  71. Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007005
  72. Ramesh, N. (2011). Use of technology to enhance teaching and learning in mathematics and statistics. MSOR Connections. https://doi.org/10.11120/MSOR.2011.11010034
  73. Robinson, K. (2020). The benefits of differentiation in professional development. Professional Learning. https://www.edutopia.org/article/benefits-differentiation-professional-development
  74. Romualdo, P. (2017). Catering differentiated instruction in elementary classrooms. Child Education Gazeteer (in-print).
  75. Rull, V. (2014). The most important application of science. EMBO Reports, 15(9), 919-922. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201438848
  76. Salazar, F. (2018). Revisiting the science curriculum standards in accordance to the new era [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Republic Colleges.
  77. Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed currriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 428-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.007
  78. SEAMEO INNOTECH. (n. d.). K to 12 toolkit. https://www.seameo-innotech.org/portfolio_page/k-to-12-toolkit/
  79. Sergio, J. P. (2018). Correlating teachers’ instruction between mainland and island schools in Albay: A K-12 perspective [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bicol University.
  80. Smale-Jacobse, A., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, Educational Psychology, 10, 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
  81. Smerdon, B., Burkam, D., & Lee, V. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced? Teacher College Record, 101(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00027
  82. Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newmann, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Reports. Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470298
  83. Smith, R., Ralston, N., Naegle, Z., & Waggoner, J. (2020). Team teaching and learning: A model of effective professional development for teachers. Professional Educator, 43(1), 80-90. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1276114
  84. Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M., (2014). Abstraction as a bridging concept between computer science and physics. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 16-19). https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670777
  85. The Open University. (2018). Changes in science education: Contemporary issues in science learning. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/educational-technology-and-practice/changes-science-education/content-section-0
  86. Tomaro, Q. P. V. (2018). ICT integration in the educational system of Philippines. Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 5(3), 259-282. https://doi.org/10.18196/jgpp.5399
  87. University of Texas, Permian Basin. (2021). Prioritizing differentiated instruction in the classroom. https://www.online.utpb.edu/about--us/articles/education/prioritizing-differentiated-instruction-in-the-classroom/
  88. Veloo, A., Perumal, S., & Vikneswary, R. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction, learners’ attitudes and teachers’ support towards science achievement in rural primary schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 93, 65-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.153
  89. Visscher, A. (2008). On the utilization of a new class of school information systems: School performance feedback systems. In A. Tatnall, A. Finegan, & C. O’Mahony (Eds.), Evolution of information technology in educational management (pp.57-67). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93847-9_6
  90. Wenglingsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v10n12.2002
  91. Wisdom, J., & Creswell, J. (2013). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/ncepcr/tools/PCMH/mixed-methods.pdf
  92. Zarina, I., Circenis, K., & Erts, R. (2017). Technophobia among middle-aged and older adults in Latvia: A pilot study. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 183-189. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v4i2.2746