1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

The 21st century was the century of progress in science. Science and science

education spread around the world. The important role played by science as one of the

pillars of development is now recognized by almost all nations. All nations whether in the

category of big and small, rich, and poor strive in the need of progress of their science

programs. Such scientific development enables all countries to provide good living

conditions for their citizens and to achieve international status and economic stability. In

relation to this, the Department of Education in the country built a research and

development project that aims to develop learners with exceptional performance in the

subjects of science and mathematics with the use of specialized curriculum in the said

subjects at the elementary level and this is called the Special Science Elementary Schools

(SSES) Project. Concerning with its establishment is the provision of appropriately

equipped laboratory rooms, science apparatuses and equipment for the implementing

schools together with ICT-based learning resources as well as Science, Math and English

textbooks and supplementary materials. As stated at Section 17 in Article II of the

Philippine Constitution mandates the State to prioritize the Education, Science and

Technology in order to promote the love for country and nation, total human development

and most of all the advancement of social programs in general. And it is strengthened by

Section 10, Article XIV further discusses that Science and Technology plays a vital role

for the achievement of nationalism, development, invention, innovation and utilization.

 2

The primary responsibility of the Department of Education (DepEd) is offering

opportunities that caters the growth of scientific attitudes, technological skills and higher

order thinking skills towards the learners together with the building of supportive and

nurtured environment. As an active response to the stated mandates, this Department

through the Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE) successfully established a total of

fifty-seven (57) public elementary schools in 2007 and expanded for additional forty-

three (43) in the next two years.

Amidst pandemic, it has been a huge challenge for SSES Project implementers

particularly for teachers to execute expected classroom pedagogical practices used to

implement in a classroom set-up. As often specified by the current curriculum in use,

science teachers are anticipated to carry out a particular content in a specific term, week,

and time of the year to the learners. However, how to put the required knowledge across

to learners might often be a problem to the teachers without physical interaction and

limited virtual communication. This kind of scenario occurred at times where the teacher

has to teach for a little time without the necessary teaching materials and no definite

strategies to incorporate into the delivery of the lesson. Moreover, it was observed that

the effectiveness of one strategy depends on how frequent it is used in a particular subject

or concept. (Barbosa, Jofili & Watta, 2004; Longjohn, 2009; Umoren & Ogong, 2007).

Hence, he successful incorporation of numerous innovative teaching strategies

appropriate for a certain lesson or subject matter is needed. Therefore, this study will seek

to find out the teachers’ pedagogical practices in the project of Special Science Class

particularly in science program in the purpose of making appropriate evaluation and

recommendations that could lead to improvement in the teaching delivery of the teachers
 3

and performance of students in science subjects.

Pedagogical Practices

Numerous possibilities about the truth of the universe have explained by science.

According to Adesoji & Olatunbosun (2008), the attainment of scientific and

technological superiority depends on the effective teaching of science. Therefore, the key

role of science teachers became crucial particularly the interpretation of science

competencies into application. One great benefit of science education is to prepare the

learners for effective citizenship, and this is going to be possible through the instruction

given by a competent and experienced science teachers who are updated with global

trends of science teaching with the inculcation of values in science and technology.

The teachers’ qualifications in terms of educational attainment is one key factor to

assure the quality instruction in the classroom. As an educator, it is necessary to be

engaged in various functional professional advancement in formal and informal

opportunities. Omosewo (1998) stressed out that the high academic background of the

teacher led to greater students’ performance in science. Educators with higher

professional qualificates were proven to be more knowledgeable with modern methods of

teaching compared with lower professional qualifications reported by Khurshid and

Zahur (2013).

Recent empirical studies have indicated that some of these innovative strategies

produced better result in terms of students’ learning. Example of this was the conducted

study of Lamidi, Oyelekan and Olorundare (2015) which focused on the identification of

the results of the use of instructional strategy on mastery learning of secondary school

students' achievement in mole concept, a topic that has been recorded to be difficult to
 4

understand by the students. Through that study, it was concluded that the use of

instructional strategy on mastery learning to students showed significant performance

rather than in its counterpart..

In the addition based on the study of Fullan (1995), the total challenge of the

implementation of standardized education system, collaborating with distinct people and

innovative form of student evaluation must be the target issues in the educational reform

of teachers' professional development.

The ones that connect the prospective and experienced educators now with the future

challenges in achieving higher standards of learning and development can be achieved

through professional development. Therefore, it shouldn't be neglected as it plays a vital

role to establish an effective educational reform. A solid foundation through extensive

training in theories and effective practices must be possessed by the educators.

As the old verbatim says, "life experience is the best teacher", so the length in

service of teaching is recognized to be important in the educative process. The attitudes,

skills or knowledge obtained by the teacher through active participation to any

instructional programs are considered to be essential experience. Experience is a great

asset of a teacher to effectively adjust to changes in educational system. On the other

hand, the length in service of a teacher reflects their characteristics and become apparent

for the academic performance of a student be attained. (Akinsolu, 2010). Anchor et al.

discovered that more experienced science teachers had higher mean utilization scores of

the advanced strategies of classroom instruction than the novice ones. Experienced

teachers were more aware and utilised the innovative strategies than the less practiced

ones which revealed on the study of Khurshid and Zahur (2013).

 5

In the Philippines, it is stated in the Republic Act No. 10533 that the Department

of Education (DepEd) shall work to draw out standardized curricula from basic to tertiary

for the Filipino graduates be globally competitive with Commission on Higher Education.

For the guaranteed and well-prepared college graduates which lessen the remedial and

duplication of subjects in elementary level, with this, it is strictly observed the adherence

of the DepEd to the standards and principles in crafting the enhanced basic education and

one of these standards and principles is “the use of pedagogical practices such as

constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative, and integrative are strengthened”

(Sec 5-e). The focus of pedagogical approaches is mostly from the transition of teacher-

centered to learner-centered pedagogy. The role of the teacher in a teacher-centered

learning process normally depends on methodologies and examples of these are group

lecture, routine memorization, and chorus answers (i.e., call-and-response). The downside

of this approach, most of the students got lower-order tasks and the terrifying feeling of

students towards the teachers, the reason why this approach is criticized. While the

pedagogy that centers on learners is considered as a pedagogical approach which is

connected to various principles but simply these are learning theories that motivates and

promotes the independence of learners towards their learning. Therefore, students

normally utilize prior learning together with new experiences that led to the creation of

newly formed knowledge. Hence, the teacher who acts as the facilitator forms and

constructs the learning conditions.

Constructivist approach centers on the idea that the construction of their own

understanding of their environment is based on the learner's experiences from their

everyday living. The learners select and transform their prior and present knowledge to
 6

form new personal concept of knowledge and understanding (Pritchard & Woollard,

2010). Another description to constructivist approach is it turns the learners to be active

rather than passive in receiving and constructing information to knowledge. This

approach provides learners with a learning environment that motivates them to make

connections with their learnings (RM No. 11 s. 2015). From the word constructivist,

construction is the primary goal for the students to establish and the teacher's roles are

more on building a creative and motivating environment, creating situations that develop

problem solving skills and most importantly the creation process of learning and not just

the learning product Olsen (1999).

Collaborative learning is a teaching approach that enables learners to work in

groups in the purpose of solving a problem, completing a particular task or creating an

output. Moreover, Laal & Laal 2012 emphasized various concepts for better

understanding of collaborative learning. Collaborative learning involves the intellectual

contributions of among students, or students and teachers together in activities wherein

students' exploration of the subject matter is the key goal. It is also considered as social

learning act since the students can discuss with their members and through that learning

is naturally arises.

As cited by by Peyser, Gerard, & Roegiers (2006), the primary goal of integrative

approach to educative process is to let the mastery of students' dealt on their professional

and private lives. This approach gives a learning environment that guides the learners to

make relative connections between their learning and curricula. Therefore, integrative

approach directs on connections rather than feeding limited facts (RM No. 11 s. 2015).

Inquiry-based approach simply means requires rather than answering questions or

 7

just coming up with right answers. It promotes the skills on investigation, exploration,

search, quest, research, pursuit, and study (Kuklthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2007).

Whitworth, Maeng & Bell (2013) stressed out the importance of inquiry pedagogical

approach in teaching science. One of the key reasons is its significant contribution on the

success of recent technical developments Pedaste, Et al., 2015). The teachers in this

approach has a great responsibility in building an environment where there is a showed

respect to the ideas of one another since ideas can be tested, redefined and improved

(Scardamalia, 2002).

Reflective Teaching Learning Approach refers to the assessment on the

performance of both teachers and learners inside the classroom, contemplating about the

reasons of the reaction to every action, and scrutinizing about its effectivity. And as stated

to Regional Memorandum No. 233, s. 2016, reflective approach is simply a process of

self-evaluation or self-observation.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to describe the pedagogical practices of teachers under new

normal specifically in the field of Special Science Elementary Schools (SSES) Project

teachers under new normal specifically in the field of science program of eight (8)

implementing schools in the City Schools Division of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.

Specifically, this study will seek answers to the following questions:

1. How may the profile of the respondents be described in terms of:

1.1. Educational Attainment

 8

1.2. Years in Service

1.3. Seminars and Training

1.4. Speakership

1.5. Research Conducted

2. How may the level of Science pedagogical practices by teachers be described in

terms of?

2.1. Constructivist;

2.2. Collaborative;

2.3. Reflective;

2.4. Integrative; and

2.5. Inquiry Based Approach?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their

level of science pedagogical practices?

4. What are the challenges encountered by the respondents as regards pedagogical

practices?

5. What instructional plan may be prepared based on the findings of the study?

Hypothesis

The given hypothesis will be statistically tested in this study:

1. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their

level of science pedagogical practices.

 9

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study derives, in part, from scholarly works

examining the teachers’ pedagogical practices in science program under new normal. As

the examination of one such program is the focus of this study, it is necessary to choose

an appropriate conceptual framework on which to base this study. Since the program

selected for study is still in a state of development, the researcher elected to utilize Daniel

Stufflebeam CIPP model which stands for Content, Input, Process, and Product Model

(CIPP) both to assess current program effects and to guide decision-making for future

steps. According to Stufflebeam (2002), change is ongoing, and programs and processes

employed to cope with change must constantly adapt to keep pace with ongoing

developments (p.14).

Stufflebeam describes the CIPP Evaluation Model as "a standardized structure

purposely drawn out for the purpose of guiding the evaluation institutions and systems at

large" (Stufflebeam, 2002, p.5). While the CIPP Evaluation Model was intially created to

provide information in a systematic, proactive way for decision-making, it is appealing

because it is tested to be beneficial in assisting educators after the fact to account for their

decisions and actions (Stufflebeam, 1971a, p.1). Use of the model of Stufflebeam allowed

the researcher to determine the degree to which the designated county's Aspiring Leaders

Program meets its originally stated objectives as well as in ascertaining its overall

effectiveness, sustainability, and perhaps, transportability.

The research design employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

The research design is based on Daniel Stufflebeam's conceptual model for program

evaluation. Stufflebeam supports a broad model of that studies the dimensions of

 10

program development and implementation which is categorized into four.

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Academic and Professional Pedagogical Practices in

Profile of the Respondents Teaching Science

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework using the Independent and Dependent Variable
Relationship

The other conceptual framework used in this study shows the interrelationship

between the variables of the study which are the respondents’ profile and the five major

pedagogical practices in teaching science. In this conceptual framework, the educational

attainment, years in service, seminars and training, speakership and research conducted

are the academic and professional description of the respondents and are the independent

variables and the pedagogical practices namely Constructivist, Collaborative, Reflective,

Integrative, and Inquiry-Based approaches under dependent variables.

Significance of the Study

The researcher would intend to provide useful insights regarding the teachers’

pedagogical practices in Special Science Elementary Schools (SSES) Project during the
 11

new normal.

The useful and relevant information acquired from the study would benefit the

following sectors:

Administrators. The result of the study could motivate and challenge school

authorities to device relevant seminars and training for science teachers in terms of

pedagogical practices and other innovative strategies in teaching the subject matter.

Parents. This study would inform parents with the numerous pedagogical

practices applied by teachers in teaching science program and build a strong supporting

system for its effective implementation.

Teachers. The findings of this study would brief teachers of the effective

strategies and pedagogies to mold their students into skilled and competent individuals.

Students. The results of this study would provide students with useful and

reflective insights with the importance of various pedagogical practices of teachers for

their better understanding of science lessons.

Researchers. This study would help future researchers consider tackling

pedagogical practices of teachers in teaching science program during new normal.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study is mainly focused on the eight (8) implementing schools of Special

Science Elementary Schools (SSES) Project in City Schools Division of San Jose del

Monte, Bulacan with the school principals and teachers as the main respondents from

Grades 1 to 2 during the third grading of new normal of education in the school year

2021-2022.
 12

Location of the Study

The study is conducted in the eight (8) implementing schools of Special Science

Elementary Schools (SSES) Project within the City Schools Division of San Jose del

Monte, Bulacan namely San Jose del Monte Central School, Towerville Elementary

School, Marangal Elementary School, Minuyan Elementary School, Francisco Homes

Elementary School, Sapang Palay Proper Elementary School, Bagong Buhay E

Elementary School and Muzon Pabahay Elementary School.

 13

Figure 2. The Educational Map of the Implementing Schools of Special Science

Elementary Schools (SSES) Project for the S.Y. 2021-2022

Definition of Terms
 14

For better understanding and interpretation of this study, the following terms are

operationally defined.

 Approach refers to a way of looking at teaching and learning. It gives rise to

methods that serve as the ways of teaching which used in classroom activities to

help the learners to learn the lesson efficiently and effectively.

 Collaborative Approach refers to a learning approach that involves learners

working together on activities or learning tasks in a group.

 Constructivist Approach refers to a learning approach that allows learners to

construct new meanings and understanding by integrating new information with

prior knowledge.

 Integrative Approach refers to a learning approach wherein the learners can

connect what they are learning in one subject area to a related content in another

subject area.

 Inquiry-Based Learning refers to a learning approach that emphasizes learners’

questions, ideas, and observations through teachers’ active encouragement.

 Instructional Plan refers to the well-planned outline of the science lesson

incorporating the five main pedagogical practices used in this study.

 Multi-Disciplinary Approach refers to an approach to curriculum integration

which concentrates primarily on the different disciplines and the diverse concept

formed are used to illustrate a certain topic.

 New Normal refers to the learning modalities applied during pandemic for the

continuous serving of quality education in both public and private schools from

elementary to graduate levels.

 15

 Pedagogical Practices refers to the methods of how teachers teach in both theory

and practice particularly in the field of science.

 Reflective Approach refers to a learning approach that engage learners to be

critical, exploratory, and attentive to own’s thoughts and actions especially in

independent learning.

 Respondent refers to the science teachers and school heads from the

implementing schools of Special Science Education Schools Project who are

involve in the study wherein the primary information has been gotten.

 Speakership refers to the opportunity to give a lecture in different platforms from

school or district to national level with an audience.

 Special Science Elementary Schools (SSES) Project refers to a research and

development project at the elementary level that caters learners who have

exemplar performance specially in science.

 16

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this study, which includes both quantitative and qualitative

procedures, is presented. A description of the population, the instrumentation, the

variables, and statistical analysis is discussed.

Research Design

This study used the descriptive survey method to determine the utilization of

pedagogical practices of teachers in eight (8) implementing schools of Special Science

Elementary Schools Project in the City Schools Division of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan

particularly in teaching science program during new normal. The gathered data from the

study through descriptive research is used to examine the relations (correlations) among

variables.

Descriptive research obtains facts about existing conditions in a phenomenon and

describes and interprets revealing conditions or relationships that exist or do not exist,

practices that prevail or do not, beliefs or points of view or attitudes that are held or not,

processing that are going on or otherwise effects that are being felt, or trends that are

developing (Calderon, 2012).

 17

Data Gathering Technique

Because both quantitative and qualitative methods were used for this

study, the data were analyzed using procedures for each method. The researcher designed

an interview schedule as one of the data collection instruments for this study. The school

principals from the implementing schools of SSES Project were interviewed. The

interview questions were aimed at eliciting relevant information concerning the

implementation of SSES Project. Questions relating to methodology and material for

science program, perceived problems of science and learning during new normal as well

as possible strategies that could be adopted to enhance science program in San Jose del

Monte, Bulacan were asked during the interview schedule.

A survey type of questionnaire designed by the researcher for the teachers was

also used in the study. The content of the instrument was based on the findings of the

interview conducted with the school principals and further study with the pedagogical

practices in teaching science subject

From the interviews and records reviewed, the researcher was able to recognize

elements referenced frequently. Significant patterns and clusters emerged from which to

draw conclusions.

Sampling Procedures

The respondents of this study composed of 8 school principals and 16 teachers

from eight implementing schools of SSES Project in the City Schools Division of San

Jose del Monte, Bulacan during the third quarter of the school year 2021-2022 under new

normal of education. Specifically, responses from respondents were taken within the
 18

period of February 2022 to April 2022 using modified questionnaires as instruments in

gathering information about the teachers’ pedagogical practices in teaching science

program during new normal.

There respondents are composed of: (8) school principals and (16) teachers from

Grade 1 and 2 learners of Special Science Program.

No. Name of School Number of School Head No. of Teachers

(Grades 1 & 2)
1 A 1 2

2 B 1 2

3 C 1 2

4 D 1 2

5 E 1 2

6 F 1 2

7 G 1 2

8 H 1 2

The researcher used the purposive sampling technique to include 8 school

principals and 16 teachers which play important role in the study.

Table 1. Data of the Schools that Implement Science Program

(SSES) as of school year 2021 – 2022

Data Analysis Scheme

The study was descriptive research of the survey type. The population was all the

Grade 1 and Grade 2 teachers of Special Science Program with the school principals of

eight (8) implementing schools in the City Schools Division of San Jose del Monte,

Bulacan were purposively selected. Eventually, 8 school principals and 16 teachers from

Grades 1 and 2 responded properly to the instrument used for the study.
 19

The instrument used for the study was a researcher-designed questionnaire known

as the Pedagogical Practices in Teaching Science Questionnaire (PPTSQ) and designed

interview questions. The questionnaire contained two sections, A and B. Section A

requested for the respondent’s education profile information like the educational

attainment, seminars/training, speakership, research conducted and years in service.

Section B of the questionnaire requested for information on teachers’ level of utilization

of the selected pedagogical practices. It had a 5-option rating scale of Always (A=5),

Often (O=4, Sometimes (SO=3), Seldom (SE=2) and Never (N=1) which are the levels of

utilization. The level of utilization of each strategy is represented by the mean utilization

value which ranges between 1 and 5. For the purpose of this study, the level of utilization

of the strategies in terms of the mean utilization value is rated as follows:

4.21 – 5.00: Always

3.41 – 4.20: Often

2.61 – 3.40: Sometimes

1.81 – 2.60: Seldom

1.0 – 1.80: Never

The mean utilization value for each of the items is calculated by multiplying the

weighted value of the response modes (5 for A, 4 for O, 3 for SO, 2 for SE, and 1 for N)

with the number of teachers that chose them for the item, added together and then divided

by the total number of teachers. The study took into consideration classroom activities

under six selected pedagogical practices out of one thousand two hundred and seventy-

one (1271) instructional strategies listed by Kelly (2010) and those listed by the United

States’ National Center on Educational Outcomes (2002). These were selected based on
 20

their innovative nature, student centeredness, relevance to the various science subjects.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of results of

the study on the Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices of Special Science Elementary Schools

Project under New Normal.

Profile of the Respondents

The profile of the respondents is categorized into academic and professional

which includes of educational attainment, years in service, seminars and training

attended, speakership and research conducted. The profile of the respondents as the

independent variables determined their relationship to the level of pedagogical practices

of science teachers in the study.

Educational Attainment

The respondents are described in terms of the highest level of education that each

of them has completed at present which categorized into doctoral/doctorate,

masters/doctoral units, master’s degree/master’s units, bachelor’s degree with

specialization and bachelor’s degree. Measures of education is incorporated to analyze

the wide variety of their relationship to the pedagogical practices applied by the science

teachers.
 21

Table 2 shows the respondent’s profile in terms of educational attainment from

bachelor’s degree as the lowest to doctoral or doctorate as the highest out of the 16 total

teacher respondents.

Table 2. Respondent’s Profile in Terms of Educational

Attainment

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage

Doctoral/Doctorate 0 0.0%
Masters/Doctoral Units 2 14.3%
Master’s Degree/Masters Unit 7 50.0%
Bachelor with Specialization 0 0.0%
Bachelor’s Degree 5 35.7%
Total 16 100%

As shown from the table, half of the respondents (50%) have taken masteral units.

This was closely followed by bachelor’s degree graduates, comprising 35.7% of the

respondents. While 14.3% (2) are pursuing doctorate degrees, none has earned the

degree yet.

DepEd wants its teachers to pursue further studies to continuously deliver quality

education to its students. Thus, at least 35.7% (5) of the teachers have not pursued

advanced studies nor availed of the government scholarship for teachers. It is also not

apparent if those who are pursuing master’s degrees have availed of the same scholarship.

The Department of Education, as part of its commitment to deliver quality basic

education, encourages high school science and mathematics teachers to apply for a

graduate scholarship, through the Part-Time Scholarship for Science and Mathematics

Teachers of the Department of Science and Technology-Science Education Institute

(DOST-SEI). The grant is open to High School Science and Mathematics (S&M) teachers
 22

who are currently employed with teaching load and have teaching experience of less than

seven years. Awardees shall have a P20,000 tuition grant per semester and a P60,000

thesis grant.

Years in Service

Years of service is commonly used for recording work experience within an

employee’s profession. In this study, the respondents are described to the length of their

employment in a public school from being a newbie teacher up to two decades and one of

service as a teacher.

Table 3 presents the respondent’s profile in terms of years in service from 1 to 3

years as the shortest to 17 to 21 years as the longest out of the 16 total teacher-

respondents.

Table 3. Respondent’s Profile in Terms of Years in Service

Years in Service Frequency Percentage

17 – 21 years 4 25.00%
13 – 16 years 1 6.25%
10 – 12 years 3 18.75%
4 – 9 years 4 25.00%
1 – 3 years 4 25.00%
Total 16 100%

As can be gleaned from the table, 25% (4) of the respondents have been in the

teaching service for 17-21 years and another 25% (4) have been in the service from 1-3

years only. Based on this data, majority (75%) of the respondents are experienced

teachers, while 25% (4) are novice teachers.

 23

Thus, the 75% of the respondents will likely stay in service as the critical period

of one to five years in which many teachers leave the service is past already.

According to Oliver (2005), novice teacher is a term used to refer to teachers in

their first three years of teaching, regardless of whether they are in their first or second

careers. On the other hand, experienced teacher is a term used to refer to teachers who

have completed their third year of teaching or beyond regardless of whether they are in

their first or second career. According to several researchers, nearly 1 out of 10 new

teachers quit without finishing their first year (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999), 15% of new

teachers leave at the end of their first year (NCES, 2000), 2 out of 10 new teachers leave

within the first two years (NCES, 1999), 3 out of 10 new teachers leave within their first

three years (Darling-Hammond, 1997; NCTAF, 1996), and approximately 5 out of 10

new teachers leave within the first five years of teaching (Huling-Austin, 1992; Odell,

1990).

Seminars and Training Attended

In education, seminars and training plays a vital role for teachers in relation of

their professional development and advancement. The Department of Education draws

out various seminars and training to be accessible from school/district level to

international level wherein teachers can avail these professional advancements through

volunteering and hopeful waiting. Teacher development provides opportunities for

students to learn more because great teachers produce great students.

Table 4 reveals the respondents’ profile in terms of seminars and trainings

attended from school/district level as the lowest to international level as the highest out of
 24

16 total teacher-respondents.

Table 4. Respondent’s Profile in Terms of Seminars

and Training Attended

Seminars and Training No. of times attended Percentage

International Level 2 12.50%
National Level 6 37.5%
Regional Level 6 37.5%
Division Level 12 75.00%
School/District Level 11 68.75%
Total 37

As illustrated in the table, 75% (12) of the respondents have attended division

level seminars and trainings. It was also observed that the higher the level of the seminar,

the fewer the participants. Thus, only 12.5% (2) have attended international level

seminars and trainings.

Thus, most of the teachers’ attendance in seminars and training were quite high in

both school/district and division level since every school has adopted the school-based

function for professional development.

It should be noted that DepEd has been pushing for teachers to engage in

continuing professional development as a strategy to improve the teaching-learning

process. This the department does through various seminars and trainings, and recently

through the Learning Action Cells (LACs) as set forth in DO 35, s. 2016. The LAC is

school-based and functions as a professional learning community.

 25

Speakership

In connection with seminars and training, some teachers have had the opportunity

to be the resource speakers in professional advancement gathering whether at

school/district, division, regional, national, and international levels. Speakership is mostly

given to teachers who have extensive knowledge and expertise to a particular subject

matter in the purpose of informing, educating, and motivating.

Table 5 illustrates the respondent’s profile in terms of speakership from

school/district level as the lowest to international level as the highest out of 16 total

teacher-respondents.

Table 5. Respondent’s Profile in Terms of Speakership

Speakership No. of Speakership Percentage

International Level 0 0.0%
National Level 0 0.0%
Regional Level 0 0.0%
Division Level 2 12.50%
School/District Level 16 100.00%
Total 18

As indicated in the table, all respondents have had an opportunity to be a speaker

in the school/district level activity, while only 12.5% (2) respondents were invited to

speak at the division level.

Thus, similar to the level of seminars and trainings, the higher the level of the

speakership, the fewer and the more challenging it is to land on a speakership

opportunity. Hence, no respondent has yet been invited to speak at the regional, national,
 26

and international fora.

Teachers who served as trainers, resource speakers, or facilitators in an in-service

training or similar activity earn corresponding points that could be credited for master

teacher positions. The higher the level in which the teacher was invited as a speaker, the

higher the points. School-based speakership earns half a point while national speakership

is equivalent to 7 points (DepEd Guidelines, n.d.).

Research Conducted

Research plays an important role to education as a continuous learning process, to

enable significant progress to be made in curriculum development and reform, educating

learners with difficulties, understanding the individual differences and preferences in

adapting methods of instruction to the needs of individual learners.

Table 6 indicates the respondent’s profile in terms of research conducted from

school/district level as the lowest to international level as the highest out of 16 total

teacher-respondents.

Table 6. Respondent’s Profile in Terms of Research

Conducted

Research Conducted No. of Research Percentage

International Level 0 0.0%
National Level 0 0.0%
Regional Level 0 0.0%
Division Level 1 6.25%
School/District Level 16 100.00%
Total 17
 27

As demonstrated, all respondents have conducted research at a school or district

level, while only 6.25% (1) has conducted research at a division level. Not one

respondent had conducted research at the regional up to the international level.

Again, the higher the level, the fewer the takers because the more challenging and

stringent the rules are. Thus, not all can conduct research at the higher levels.

DepEd continues to promote and strengthen the culture of research in basic

education. It established the Research Management Guidelines (RMG) in 2017 to

provide guidance in managing research initiatives in the national, regional, school

division, and school levels. The Department has continuously encouraged teachers to

conduct education research to serve as bases for necessary reforms and development.

To capacitate teachers, DepEd provides funds to those who want to conduct research

as deemed eligible by DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017. While this may be the case, not

all teachers grab the opportunity to conduct research.

Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers

Pedagogical Practices

Pedagogical practice underlies with the educator’s strategies use to run the day

with the learners. The critical reflection impacts the pedagogical practice and makes it

easier to use effective teaching strategies to achieve the high-quality learning. Educators

should use their pedagogical practice to create an effective learning environment that

invite them to challenge their assumptions about curriculum and consider how their

decisions may affect the learners differently in the classroom. To be specific, in teaching
 28

science there are multiple pedagogical practices recommended to use to inculcate

scientific and technological values to learners and the most common of these are

constructivist, collaborative, integrative, reflective, and inquiry-based approaches.

Constructivist Approach

Constructivist approach enables learners to practice the things they learn for the

learning process to be meaningful. The learners are guided to construct their own

knowledge through interaction. The teacher’s role is mainly to provide help for the

learners to apply existing skills to acquire new concepts of knowledge.

Table 7 showcases the level of science pedagogical practices of teachers in terms

of constructivist principles with an overall mean of 3.86 which is verbally interpreted as

used “often”.
 29

Table 7. Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers

in Terms of Constructivist Approach

Item Statement
5 4 3 2 1 Mean VD
I use …….
1. advanced organizers
for the general
statements given 1 10 5 0 0
3.75 O
before instruction that (6.3%) (62.5%) (31.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
relate new information
to existing knowledge.
2. analogies to point out
similarities between 2 11 3 0 0
3.94 O
things that otherwise (12.5%) (68.8%) (18.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
are alike.
3. elaboration to process
the thinking about new
6 7 2 0 1
material in a way that 4.06 O
(37.5%) (43.8%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (6.3%)
helps to connect it with
existing knowledge.
4. films to provide visual
context and thus bring 2 11 3 0 0
3.94 O
another sense into the (12.5%) (68.8%) (18.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
learning experience.
5. experimentation where
students individually
1 10 4 0 1
perform an experiment 3.63 O
(6.3%) (62.5%) (25.0%) (0.0%) (6.3%)
and discuss it to the
class.
Overall Mean 3.86 O
Legend: Scale = Verbal Description:
1.0 – 1.80 = Never (N), 1.8 – 2.60 = Seldom (Se), 2.61 – 3.40 =
Sometimes (So), 3.41 – 4.20 = Often (O), 4.21 – 5.0 = Always (A)

As can be seen in the table, the overall mean for science teachers’ constructivist

practices posted a mean of 3.86 interpreted as often. This means that teachers often use

constructivist principles in their teaching. The constructivist approach allows learners to

 30

be active in the process of constructing meaning and knowledge rather than passively

receiving information. It fosters critical thinking and provides learners with a learning

environment that helps them make connections with their learnings (RM No. 11 s. 2015).

Out of five statements, Statement 3, “Elaboration to process the thinking about

new material in a way that helps to connect it with existing knowledge,” got the highest

mean of 4.06 interpreted as often. Connecting to prior knowledge is a constructivist

principle that helps students process new information. This concept is based on the

central notion that learners construct their own understanding of the world around them

based on experience as they live and grow. They select and transform information from

past and current knowledge and experience into new personal knowledge and

understanding (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010).

Meanwhile, the lowest mean of 3.63 interpreted as often was posted for Statement

5, “Experimentation where students individually perform an experiment and discuss it to

the class.” While the interpretation is that teachers do this “often,” it could be that even

during pandemic, teachers ask their students to conduct experiment at home. On the other

hand, this could have gained the lowest mean due to the lack of opportunities to conduct

experiments at home. Either way, the pandemic situation has reduced the capacity for

students to freely conduct experiments as freely as they do inside the classroom.

Constructivist classrooms focus on student questions and interests, they build on

what students already know, they focus on interactive learning and are student-centered,

teachers have a dialogue with students to help them construct their own knowledge, they

root in negotiation, and students work primarily in groups (WGU, 2020). These

descriptions of what a constructivist classroom looks like is exemplified in doing

 31

experiments in which students interact with each other, they negotiate, work primarily in

groups, and are actively engaging in peer to peer and peer to teacher dialogue.

Collaborative Approach

Collaborative learning is a highly educational approach that promotes

collaboration and cooperation among learners that are working commonly in groups. The

main purpose of this is to let the learners work together to solve a problem, complete a

specific task or a create a product output. The underlying premise of collaborative

approach is based upon consensus building through cooperation by group members

which is contrary to competition.

Table 8 shows the level of science pedagogical practices by teachers in terms of

collaborative principles with an overall mean of 3.40 which is verbally interpreted as

used “sometimes”.
 32

Table 8. Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers

in Terms of Collaborative Approach

Item Statement
5 4 3 2 1 Mean VD
I use …….
1. think/write, pair and
share strategy for 1 11 3 0 1
3.69 O
cooperative learning (6.3%) (68.8%) (18.8%) (0.0%) (6.3%)
technique.
2. round table as a
collaborative learning
technique that allows
students to assess prior 0 8 6 1 1
3.31 So
knowledge, recall (0.0%) (50.0%) (37.5%) (6.3%) (6.3%)
information and
practice
communication skills.
3. jigsaw technique that
gives students practice
0 8 6 1 1
in the acquisition and 3.31 So
(0.0%) (50.0%) (37.5%) (6.3%) (6.3%)
presentation of new
material.
4. concept mapping
technique that allows
students working in a
group to illustrate the 2 8 5 0 1
3.63 O
connections the (12.5%) (50.0%) (31.3%) (0.0%) (6.3%)
existing between terms
or concepts in the
subject matter.
5. field trips that allows
students to put
concepts and ideas
discussed in class in a 1 6 5 1 3
3.06 So
real-world context and (6.3%) (37.5%) (31.3%) (6.3%) (18.8%)
it would often be
followed by class
discussions.
Overall Mean 3.40 So
Legend: Scale = Verbal Description:
1.0 – 1.80 = Never (N), 1.8 – 2.60 = Seldom (Se), 2.61 – 3.40 =
Sometimes (So), 3.41 – 4.20 = Often (O), 4.21 – 5.0 = Always (A)
 33

As can be gleaned from the table, overall mean for collaborative practices

registered a mean of 3.40 interpreted as sometimes. This means that collaborative

practices are only practiced by teachers sometimes. This accurately describes the

academic restrictions brought about by the pandemic. Because most DepEd schools is

into the modular form of learning, there is no peer-to-peer interaction among learners;

hence, less room or no room at all for collaboration.

Collaborative learning (CL) is an educational approach to teaching and learning

that involves groups of learners working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or

create a product (Laal & Laal, 2012). While this is possible in online learning, the

challenge is that not all students have access to technology. Thus, it is difficult to apply

this practice in online learning with students using the modular learning approach.

Out of five statements, Statement 1, “Think/write, pair and share strategy for

cooperative learning technique” got the highest mean of 3.69 interpreted as often. This

means that teachers use this collaborative strategy often. This practice, however, is

difficult to implement during pandemic since this strategy requires one to partner with a

seatmate or classmate and share something about a topic. This may be done, however, in

a very limited fashion if students have internet access in an online learning environment.

Think-pair-share (TPS) is a collaborative learning strategy where students work

together to solve a problem or answer a question about an assigned reading. This strategy

requires students to (1) think individually about a topic or answer to a question; and (2)

share ideas with classmates. Discussing with a partner maximizes participation, focuses

attention and engages students in comprehending the reading material (Gunter, Estes, &
 34

Schwab, 1999). Therefore, this practice is ideal in a face-to-face classroom setting.

Meanwhile, Statement 5, “Field trips that allows students to put concepts and

ideas discussed in class in a real-world context and it would often be followed by class

discussions” got the lowest mean of 3.06, interpreted as sometimes. This means that

teachers use field trip as a collaborative practice sometimes. This is understandable

because for more than two years, no one can go out, much more go to field trips. Thus,

for the duration of the pandemic, going to field trips has been suspended. This explains

the low mean for this item.

While this may be the case, the pandemic, however, has opened new forms of

field trips that students even in an online learning environment can visit. This is called

virtual field trips. For example, because students cannot visit a museum, they can instead

take a virtual 3D tour led by a professional guide (Chalk, 2022). They can ask questions

in real time, linger at exhibits that spark their interest and go back and visit at a later time.

In addition, if students want to tour a community or neighborhood, they might use

Google Earth to explore the community of choice. They can get closer to the action by

enlarging the photo of the target community. While the pandemic has placed restrictions

on one form of learning, they nevertheless opened several others.

Reflective Approach

Reflective approach is a method of dependent learning which requires the learner

to be aware of his/her learning. This teaching approach is proven to be helpful for both

teachers and learners to further improve the educative process in terms of critical thinking

skills.
 35

Table 9 presents the level of science pedagogical practices by teachers in terms of

reflective principles with an overall mean of 3.38 which is verbally interpreted as used

sometimes”.

Table 10. Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers

in Terms of Reflective Approach

Item Statement
5 4 3 2 1 Mean VD
I use …….
1. 3-2-1 is a tried-and-
true way to frame
anything from a pair-
share or journal entry
(e.g., ask students to
write 3 things they 0 5 8 1 3
3.00 So
think they know, 2 (0.0%) (31.3%) (50.0%) (6.3%) (18.8%)
things they know
they don’t know, and
one thing they’re
certain of about a
topic)
2. sketch-notes or
doodles that allows
students to draw
3 5 7 1 0
what they think they 3.63 O
(18.8%) (31.3%) (43.8%) (6.3%) (0.0%)
know and how they
believe their learning
has changed
3. exit slips or exit
tickets, asking
students to briefly 1 5 8 1 1
3.25 So
summarize some bit (6.3%) (31.3%) (50.0%) (6.3%) (6.3%)
of reflection of the
learning process.
4. journaling wherein
students will write 2 6 7 0 1
3.50 O
freely about their (12.5%) (37.5%) (43.8%) (0.0%) (6.3%)
learning experience.
5. brainwriting allows
students to write
2 5 8 1 0
down several ideas 3.50 O
(12.5%) (31.3%) (50.0%) (6.3%) (0.0%)
on a piece of paper
or index cards.
 36

Overall Mean 3.38 So

Legend: Scale = Verbal Description:
1.0 – 1.80 = Never (N), 1.8 – 2.60 = Seldom (Se), 2.61 – 3.40 =
Sometimes (So), 3.41 – 4.20 = Often (O), 4.21 – 5.0 = Always (A)
As shown, the overall mean for science teachers’ reflective practice was 3.38

interpreted as sometimes. This means that reflective principles are only practiced by

teachers sometimes. Reflective teaching-learning approach means looking at what the

teacher and learners do in classroom, thinking about why they do it, and analyzing if it

works. This is a process of self-evaluation cum self-observation (Regional Memorandum

No. 233, s. 2016).

Because reflective practices usually involve deep thinking and writing which are

considered lost art for the 21 st century learners as they are replaced by social media

surfing and all-things-gadget, teachers may find this practice challenging. As can be seen

in the result, they only practice this sometimes.

Out of the five statements, Statement 2 “Sketch-notes or doodles that allows

students to draw what they think they know and how they believe their learning has

changed,” posted the highest mean of 3.63 interpreted as often. This means that teachers

ask students to do this often. This may be the case before the pandemic. Post-pandemic, it

is difficult to have students do this at home unless this task is given as an assignment.

On the other hand, Statement 1, “3-2-1 is a tried-and-true way to frame anything

from a pair-share or journal entry (e.g., ask students to write 3 things they think they

know, 2 things they know they don’t know, and one thing they’re certain of about a topic)

got the lowest mean of 3.00 interpreted as sometimes.

This strategy provides a structure for students to record their own comprehension

and summarize their learning. It also gives teachers the opportunity to identify areas that
 37

need re-teaching, as well as areas of student interest. This, however, is ideal in a face-to-

face setting (Sandhu, 2022).

Thus, in modular learning, this is difficult to execute as the lesson is provided by

the module and that everything the student needs to do is already stated in the module.

While this can be done, this practice usually is given at the start of the lesson for students

to reflect on their prior knowledge about the topic, then compare their reflection at the

end of the topic.

Integrative Approach

The integrative teaching strategy is one in which an educator uses

interdisciplinary lessons that accentuate the connections between disciplines wherein it

promotes the use connecting skills and knowledge from multiple sources and experiences

in order to yield an interesting lecture delivery. Through this, the learners will tend to

develop the ability to use diverse learning activities and experiences.

Table 10 presents the level of science pedagogical practices by teachers in terms

of integrative practices with an overall mean of 4.08 which is verbally interpreted as used

“often”.
 38

Table 10. Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers in Terms

of Integrative Approach

Item Statement
5 4 3 2 1 Mean VD
I use …….
1. lecture discussion
which includes 5 9 2 0 0
4.19 O
careful organization (31.3%) (56.3%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
of the subject matter.
2. demonstration-
lecture method
wherein after
showing an actual
thing that represents
the subject matter, I 5 10 1 0 0
4.25 A
may now proceed to (31.3%) (62.5%) (6.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
my lecture for an in-
depth understanding
of the students in the
procedure or process
presented.
3. thematic teaching
that helps students
see the meaningful 3 11 2 0 0
4.06 O
connections across (18.8%) (68.8%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
disciplines or
learning areas.
4. inductive-deductive
technique that starts
the teaching from the
most specific to most
complex subject 4 10 2 0 0
4.13 O
matter and then let (25.0%) (62.5%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
the students derive
their own specific
understanding on the
topic.
5. directive-
transudative where it
is used in teaching
1 10 5 0 0
skills such as 3.75 O
(6.3%) (62.5%) (31.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
specific motor, word
association and
mapping.
Overall Mean 4.08 O
Legend: Scale = Verbal Description:
 39
1.0 – 1.80 = Never (N), 1.8 – 2.60 = Seldom (Se), 2.61 – 3.40 =
Sometimes (So), 3.41 – 4.20 = Often (O), 4.21 – 5.0 = Always
(A)

As can be seen from the table, science teachers’ integrative practices posted an

overall mean of 40.8 interpreted as often. This means that teachers often engage in

integrative practices in their teaching.

Integrative approach as cited by Peyser, Gerard, and Roegiers (2006) enables the

learner to master situations he/she will have to deal with in his/her professional and/or

private life. This approach provides learners with a learning environment that helps them

make connections of their learnings across curricula. It focuses on connections rather

than teaching isolated facts (RM No. 11 s. 2015).

Out of the five statements, Statement 2, “Demonstration-lecture method wherein

after showing an actual thing that represents the subject matter, I may now proceed to my

lecture for an in-depth understanding of the students in the procedure or process

presented” posted the highest mean of 4.25 interpreted as always. This means that

teachers always practice this integrative principle. This practice, however, is a teacher-

centered method as the teacher demonstrates the pictures, charts, models, experiments

and explains the principles, concepts involved in these demonstrated materials or

processes.

This is best captured both in online learning and modular learning in which

concepts are presented first using the module discussion or online discussion, then

students are asked to repeat the process. Demonstration permits the teaching of theory

along with practice. They show by example the practical application of knowledge.

The statement that got the lowest mean, on the other hand, is Statement 5,

“Directive-transudative where it is used in teaching skills such as specific motor, word

 40

association and mapping” with a mean of 3.75 interpreted as often. This means that

teachers often practice this direct method instruction. According to Howard (2015), direct

instruction is a teacher-directed method, meaning that the teacher stands in front of a

classroom and presents the information.

Inquiry Based Approach

Inquiry based learning can be incorporated into all academic subjects throughout

the curriculum, but Science could possibly be the most effective subject to incorporate

inquiry wherein the teachers serve as the facilitator of learning. The goal of this approach

is to introduce a new way of learning where learners can learn about the world around

them through active engagement in real-life examples.

Table 11 demonstrates the level of science pedagogical practices by teachers in terms

of inquiry-based practices which has an overall mean of 3.63 which is verbally

interpreted as used “often”.

 41

Table 11. Level of Science Pedagogical Practices by Teachers

in Terms of Inquiry Based Approach

Item Statement Mea

5 4 3 2 1 VD
I use ……. n
1. engagement by scientifically
oriented questions that provide
1 11 4 0 0
opportunities for students to (6.3%) (68.8%) (25.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 3.81 O
observe and explore their
surroundings.
2. the giving priority to evidence
that give students opportunities
to identify variables, develop 2 9 5 0 0
(12.5%) (56.3%) (31.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 3.81 O
procedures, and devise strategies
for collecting and presenting
data.
3. the formulation of explanations
from evidence to encourage the
1 7 7 0 1
students to construct (6.3%) (43.8%) (43.8%) (0.0%) (6.3%) 3.44 O
explanations based on the
experimental evidence.
4. the evaluation of explanation to
introduce information from the
text and engage students in
1 8 7 0 0
comparing their own (6.3%) (50.0%) (43.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 3.63 O
explanations with those
provided in the text or offered
by their peers.
5. the communication and
justification of proposed 0 7 9 0 0
(0.0%) (43.8%) (56.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 3.44 O
explanations that involve
students in debates.
Overall Mean 3.63 O
Legend: Scale = Verbal Description:
1.0 – 1.80 = Never (N), 1.8 – 2.60 = Seldom (Se), 2.61 – 3.40 =
Sometimes (So), 3.41 – 4.20 = Often (O), 4.21 – 5.0 = Always (A)

As illustrated, inquiry-based practices posted an overall mean of 3.63 interpreted

as often. This means that teachers engage often in inquiry-based practices. This is a
 42

student-centered approach that requires more than simply answering questions or getting

the right answer. It espouses investigation, exploration, search, quest, research, pursuit,

and study (Kuklthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2007).

Out of the five items, Statement 1, “engagement by scientifically oriented

questions that provide opportunities for students to observe and explore their

surrounding” and Statement 2, “the giving priority to evidence that give students

opportunities to identify variables, develop procedures, and devise strategies for

collecting and presenting data” equally got the highest mean of 3.81 interpreted as often.

This means that teachers engage students with questions and allow them opportunities to

observe, collect data, analyze them, and draw their own conclusions.

The statement that got the lowest mean, on the other hand, was posted for

Statement 3, “The formulation of explanations from evidence to encourage the students

to construct explanations based on the experimental evidence” and Statement 5, “The

communication and justification of proposed explanations that involve students in

debates” with an equal mean of 3.44 interpreted as often. For statement 3, the conduct of

experiments exemplifies this practice.

For statement 3, while debates may be conducted online, the modular form of

learning of students in which they currently are does not permit them to engage in this

activity. It should be noted that DepEd provided the modular form of learning because

majority of the students do not have gadgets or access to the internet. If this is practiced,

others who do not have access may not be able to join. Teachers could not afford to do

this because DepEd is all for inclusive education. This could be the reason why these two

statements garnered the lowest mean.

 43

Thus, demonstration-lecture method under integrative approach got the highest mean

because it can easily be executed in various modes of learning and can also be

exemplified using synchronous form of learning or video-recorded teaching compared to

others which are best used for face-to-face discussion.

Thus, inquiry-based approach can be easily executed using modular of

asynchronous mode of learning by simply providing students a task that would require

them to undergo the scientific steps to find answers to the questions.

Relationship Between Respondent’s Profile and Level of Science Pedagogical

Practices

Table 12 showcases the relationship between respondent’s profile and level of

science pedagogical practices.

Table 12. Relationship between Respondent’s Profile

and Level of Science Pedagogical Practices

Level of Science Pedagogical Practices

Profile Inquiry-
Constructivist Collaborative Reflective Integrative
Based
Educational 0.37 ns 0.53* 0.51* 0.34 ns 0.58*
Attainment (0.17) (0.04) (0.04) (0.20) (0.02)
0.087 ns -0.16 ns -0.05 ns 0.21 ns 0.13 ns
Years in Service
(0.767) (0.53) (0.85) (0.43) (0.64)
Seminars/ 0.02 ns 0.11 ns 0.12 ns -0.02 ns 0.23 ns
Training (0.97) (0.68) (0.66) (0.93) (0.39)
0.11 ns 0.25 ns 0.18 ns 0.21 ns 0.21 ns
Speakership
(0.70) (0.35) (0.49) (0.44) (0.44)
Research 0.31 ns 0.42 ns 0.42 ns 0.37ns 0.43 ns
Conducted (0.24) (0.10) (0.10) (0.16) (0.10)
Legend: ns - no significant relationship (p > 0.05); * significant relation (p ≤ 0.05)
numbers in the upper entry are r-values;
numbers enclosed in parentheses are p-values

Results show that teachers’ educational attainment is positively and strongly

 44

correlated with collaborative practices (r = .53, p = .04). This indicates that the higher the

teachers’ educational attainment, the more they are inclined to engage in collaborative

practices in the classroom.

Likewise, teachers’ educational attainment is positively and strongly correlated

with reflective practices (r = .51, p = .04). This means that the higher the teachers’

educational attainment, the more they are inclined to use reflective practices in the

classroom.

Moreover, teachers’ educational attainment is also positively and strongly

correlated with inquiry-based practices (r = .58, p = .02). This indicates that the higher

the teachers’ educational attainment, the more they use inquiry-based practices in the

classroom.

Teachers’ educational attainment, however, is not correlated with the

constructivist practices in the classroom (r = .37, p = .17).

This study shows that the higher the educational attainment of the teacher, the

more she is inclined to practice student-centered science pedagogical practices. Several

studies stress the importance of the knowledge teachers hold, highlighting that in addition

to having advanced educational degrees, teachers also need to incorporate knowledge

derived from experiential and practical experiences in the classroom. Research also

shows that teachers who graduate from the top schools account for differences in student

achievement. Moreover, teachers from countries that are top performers in PISA and

TIMSS tend to have more opportunities to learn content, pedagogical content and general

pedagogy (Guerriero, n.d.).

While teacher knowledge is certainly a component of teacher professionalism,

 45

professional competence involves more than just knowledge. Skills, attitudes, and

motivational variables also contribute to the mastery of teaching and learning. According

to Blömeke and Delaney (2012) cognitive abilities and affective-motivational

characteristics are the two main components of teachers’ professional competence. While

advanced education plays a part, it is not solely the main ingredient for teachers’

competence.

In this study, however, only teachers’ educational attainment showed relationship

with teachers’ pedagogical practices. Other teacher factors such as years of service,

seminars and trainings attended, speakership, and research conducted, the very factors

pushed by DepEd for teachers to pursue, were found to be not correlated with teachers’

pedagogical practices. The goal of DepEd in having teachers engage in professional

development is to improve teachers’ competence and quality of teaching instruction.

However, this study shows that these factors do not at all relate to teachers’ pedagogical

practices that could lead to greater student outcomes.

Teacher quality is an important factor in determining gains in student

achievement, even after accounting for prior student learning and family background

characteristics. Predictors of teacher quality have typically included factors such as class

size, certification, type of qualification, degrees earned, or years of experience. Another

less studied indicator of teacher quality is the pedagogical knowledge of teachers.

Pedagogical knowledge refers to the specialized knowledge of teachers for creating

effective teaching and learning environments for all students (Guerriero, n.d.).

This pedagogical knowledge which is one of the variables of this study was

considered as the most fundamental element of teachers’ knowledge and has been studied
 46

widely since. In contrast, general pedagogical knowledge has not been the object of many

research studies even though several studies indicate that it is essential for developing

quality teachers.

This study shows that teachers applying science pedagogical practices to their

students, as the literature suggests, could improve student outcomes. While additional

studies should be conducted to prove this, the relationship of teachers’ educational

attainment and their science pedagogical practices is a good indicator that teachers who

pursue advanced degrees increase their pedagogical knowledge. This in turn, will

translate to a more positive student outcomes as having pedagogical knowledge is

essential to developing quality teachers.

In response to the fourth research question, the qualitative part of the study

generated three themes: challenges encountered in the implementation of special science

class, teachers’ pedagogical practices in teaching special science class, and

recommendations and suggestions for effective teachers’ pedagogical practices in

teaching science in special science class.

Out of the targeted eight principals to participate in the written interview, only

four interview forms returned and were completed by the participants. This is considered

a limitation of the study. However, the responses provided by the four participants were

sufficient enough to shed light on the themes generated in this study. Table 4 presents the

themes and subthemes of the interview responses.

 47

Table 13. Challenges Encountered in the Implementation

of Special Science Class

Main Theme Subtheme Significant Statements

Theme 1. Challenges Teachers adjust with “I made full adjustment in terms of

in terms of applying planning and preparing planning and preparing my lessons
pedagogical practices lessons because they since it’s my first year to handle
in teaching science have to develop their SSC.
using modular own learning materials.
learning. “The adjustment we made is
actually to change the whole
action plan of science program.
We change every activity
appropriate this pandemic.”

“There were numerous challenges

like, for example, the lack of self-
learning modules for science class.
The teachers were urged to make
their own materials while the
school was ongoing, and quality
assured by the division office.”

Respondents cited the “There was also

lack of instructional insufficient/unavailability of
materials. learning materials. Thus, I created
my own teacher-developed
materials and activity sheets.”

“The lack of SLMs was a

challenge as there are only few
implementing schools; therefore,
the resources are limited.
However, this doesn't hinder the
goal of SSES that is why teacher-
made activity sheets and other
learning materials were provided
for the SSC learners.”
 48

Respondents also saw “Giving out tasks and activities to

the lack of students’ the pupils is a challenge. Students
motivation as a find it difficult to meet the
challenge. deadlines and due dates of
submission due to conflicting
schedules of the parents.”
Theme 2. Varied Explicit teaching “We use explicit teaching. As
teachers’ pedagogical much as possible we give them
practices in teaching hands on activities that they can do
special science class themselves and let them explore
alternative resources on their
activities.”
Hands-on learning “In terms of the teachers'
pedagogical practices, we do not
have any proposed to be used, but
we encourage the teachers to make
it possible to still incorporate
hands-on learning.”
Constructivist approach “Since it is modular distance
learning, what we used is
constructivist approach such as
advance organizer.”

Theme 3. Teachers’ Advanced preparation “Hopefully next year, materials

Suggestions on how to of modules will be available so that the
address the challenges preparation of teaching and
in teaching special learning materials will not be that
science class hard.”

Adopting a specific “Explicit teaching is still the best

teaching strategy method to easily understand the
lesson, less written activities and
more hands-on activities. Learning
by doing task is an enjoyable task
for learners.”

Trainings and technical “I suggest for a monthly technical

assistance for teachers assistance for the teachers to
prepare them to overcome their
deficiency in handling science
class learners.”

“I highly suggest designing more

training and workshop
opportunities for the teachers that
emphasize strategic ways for
 49

effective teaching to the special

science class learners.”

Theme 1. Challenges Encountered in the Implementation of Special Science Class

Adjustment in planning and preparing lessons. The respondents encountered

challenges in implementing the special science class during pandemic. “Participant 1, a

female with Principal 3 position, and who has been in the service for 24 years, said: “I

made full adjustment in terms of planning and preparing my lessons since it’s my first

year to handle SSC.” Traditional lessons are planned and prepared differently than

modular lessons. The challenge in the former is in the checking of outputs and making

sure that students meet the desired competencies despite the lack of interaction and face

to face discussions.

Moreover, according to Participant 5, Principal II: “The adjustment we made is

actually to change the whole action plan of science program. We change every activity

appropriate this pandemic.”

This finding is in line with the study of Dangle and Sumaoang (2020) who

said that the main challenge of teachers in modular learning was the lack of school

funding in the production and delivery of modules. This lack of funds resulted in

teachers’ planning and preparing the lesson themselves to make available learning

materials that the department could not provide.

Lack of instructional materials. In this first theme, the principals talked about the

challenges they encountered in implementing the special science class during pandemic.

Participant 1, a female with Principal 3 position, and who has been in the service for 24
 50

years, said: “There was also insufficient/unavailability of learning materials. Thus, I

created my own teacher-developed materials and activity sheets.”

Participant 2, female, with Principal 3 position and who has been in the service

for 32 years concurred with the experience of Participant 1 when she said: “The lack of

SLMs was a challenge as there are only few implementing schools; therefore, the

resources are limited. However, this doesn't hinder the goal of SSES that is why teacher-

made activity sheets and other learning materials were provided for the SSC learners.”

Meanwhile, Participant 4, a Principal 4 female, with 34 years of experience also

had the same challenge: “There were numerous challenges like, for example, the lack of

self-learning modules for science class. The teachers were urged to make their own

materials while the school was ongoing and quality assured by the division office.”

Likewise, Participant 5, female, who has been in the service for 28 years, and who

has a Principal 2 position stated: “One of the challenges we encountered is the delivery of

quality education especially by the science class. In this new normal, what we did is we

gathered necessary data from the learners and from those data we created learning

modality appropriate for them we made sure all the learning activities, written and

performance activities are evaluated and assured correctly.”

The sudden shift from face to face to modular learning caught the DepEd

unprepared to produce learning modules that are in an online learning format. While there

are available lessons in the LRMDS portal, these are not customized for online classes

nor are they for special science classes.

Lack of students’ motivation. Respondents also encountered challenges in terms

of student motivation especially in completing tasks and activities. Participants 3,

 51

Principal III with 28 years of service said: “Giving out tasks and activities to the pupils is

a challenge. Students find it difficult to meet the deadlines and due dates of submission

due to conflicting schedules of the parents. I also found the first two weeks of the class a

challenge because I need to guide the pupils what to do in the GClassroom, as well as the

setup of the activities and deadlines.

According to Wisanti et al. (2021), one challenge faced by teachers is students’

lack of motivation and discipline in doing tasks and activities and the limited ability to

explain a concept and implement an activity. Because modular forms of learning do not

use internet technology, there is limited interaction and students simply depend on

learning modules. However, the participants mentioned that the lack of learning modules

is one major problem. Thus, there is not enough time to develop modules of high quality

because everything was done in haste as there should be modules that students can use.

According to Participant 4, Principal 4, however, these modules were quality-assured by

the division office.

Theme 2. Varied Teachers’ Pedagogical practices in Teaching Special Science Class

The participants presented various pedagogical practices they use online such as

explicit teaching, hand-on learning, and constructivism. Participant 3, a female Principal

3 with 28 years of experience said: “We use explicit teaching. As much as possible we

give them hands on activities that they can do themselves and let them explore alternative

resources on their activities.”

If Participant 3 uses explicit teaching, Participants 4 with 34 years of experience

said they incorporate hands-on learning.” She stated: “In terms of the teachers'
 52

pedagogical practices, we do not have any proposed to be used, but we encourage the

teachers to make it possible to still incorporate hands-on learning.

Meanwhile, Participant 5 who holds a Principal 2 position said: “Since it is

modular distance learning, what we used is constructivist approach such as advance

organizer.”

The constructivist approach allows learners to be active in the process of

constructing meaning and knowledge rather than passively receiving information. It

fosters critical thinking and provides learners with a learning environment that helps them

make connections with their learnings (RM No. 11 s. 2015). This pedagogical practice as

pushed forth by Participant 5 is essential in teaching science. In the same way, Participant

4 who also promotes hands-on learning which exemplifies the science pedagogical

practice of constructivism.

In terms of explicit teaching, this finding supports the quantitative result that says

teachers often practice this direct method instruction. According to Howard (2015), direct

instruction is a teacher-directed method, meaning that the teacher stands in front of a

classroom and presents the information. This type of instruction can also be exemplified

using synchronous form of learning or video-recorded teaching. Because most students

use modular learning, lessons are presented explicitly using the modules.

According to Vallespin (2021), independent learning is a pedagogical practice that

students receive in a modular distance learning. Students are encouraged to learn on their

own time by using modules. Thus, they develop greater self-study. They also take an

active part in learning the subject's fundamentals by gaining a sense of accountability in

accomplishing the module's tasks on their own, with little or no assistance from others.
 53

Participants 1, 2, 3, and 4 employed blended learning approach in their schools

while only Participant 5 uses purely modular learning. Vallesin (2021) revealed that

MDLs are the most common type of distance learning in the country. After a DepEd poll

indicated that 8.8 million parents supported MDL, it is now utilized in all public schools.

This works to the advantage of t hose in the rural areas with poor internet connectivity

and no access to online learning. The self-learning modules (SLM) are made available to

students which serve as their instructors.

Each SLM includes the learning competencies that learners should acquire. It also

includes a test to assess the pupils' prior understanding of the topic, practice or study to

help learners connect the dots between current and previous sessions, and information on

the new lesson. It also includes a session report and independent practice tasks as well as

exercises to assist learners in determining their proficiency in reaching the learning

competencies. While the use of modular learning is dominant in DepEd, it is nevertheless

without any challenges. For one, there is lack of interaction between students and

teachers. Moreover, not all students prefer independent study which usually demotivate

them.

However, participant 4, a Principal 4, said: “I believe this pedagogical practice is

effective because during my class observation on their online classes, I saw how active

and engaged the learners were and also they easily grasped the lesson/subject matter

because of the teacher's chosen teaching style and approach.

Participant 5 whose school uses modular learning also concurred with this

response when she said: “Yes, they were effective because they make their learners

productive in written and other performance output.”

 54

Theme 3. Teachers’ Suggestions on How to Address the Challenges in Teaching

Special Science Class

Advanced preparation of modules. Because teachers experienced the lack

of instructional materials and the challenge of developing one as they simultaneously

teach their students, they saw advanced preparation as a way to meet this challenge.

Participant 1 said: “Hopefully next year, materials will be available so that the

preparation of teaching and learning materials will not be that hard.”

Adopting a specific teaching strategy. Participant 2, Principal 3, whose school

uses a blended learning approach believed that adopting a particular teaching strategy can

help engage learners to have more meaningful learning experience. She stated: “Explicit

teaching is still the best method to easily understand the lesson, less written activities and

more hands-on activities. Learning by doing task is an enjoyable task for learners.”

Participant 5, on the other hand, recommended trainings “to assist teachers in handling

special science class learners.”

Conducting trainings and technical assistance for teachers. The respondents saw

the need to train teachers in handling special science classes. Participant 5, Principal II

expressed: “I suggest for a monthly technical assistance for the teachers to prepare them

to overcome their deficiency in handling science class learners.”

Moreover, Participant 2, Principal III with 38 years of service commented: “I

highly suggest designing more training and workshop opportunities for the teachers that

emphasize strategic ways for effective teaching to the special science class learners.”

It is evident that teachers need help on how to handle the needs of special science

learners as well as in developing learning modules. According to the partial findings of

 55

the Learner Enrollment and Survey Forms (LESFs) sent during the enrollment period, 7.2

million learners chose modular distant learning, TV and radio-based education, and other

modalities for school year 2020-2021, while only two million prefer online.

According to Anthony (2020), modular distance learning is a form of

individualized instruction that allows learners to utilize self-learning modules with

limited contact to the teachers and parents or guardians take place as their learners’

model. Because of this preference for modular learning and the concomitant lack of

learning materials, developing an instructional plan that exemplifies science pedagogical

practices would assist teachers in creating modules that are anchored on scientific

principles that would encourage peer interaction even during distance learning. There

have been a lot of changes lately in the way DepEd teachers have to plan their lessons

daily. In the past, there was the lesson plan (detailed and semi-detailed). Then there was

the lesson log (for teachers with at least three years of teaching experience).

Suggested Instructional Plan that Incorporates Pedagogical Practices in Teaching

Science Lesson

In 2016, DepEd teachers were required to use the DLL or the Daily Lesson Log.

But based on the study, the researcher is highly to suggest to the teachers the use of the

iPlan or the Instruction Plan. Thus, this paper aims to develop an instructional plan

exemplar that incorporates the science pedagogical practices that reflect constructivist,

collaborative, reflective, integrative, and inquiry-based principles.

Table 14. Instructional Plan that Incorporates Pedagogical

Practices in Teaching Science Lesson
 56

Name of Darlene Ocampo Grade/Year 2

Teacher Level
Learning Area: Science Quarter: 1st
Module No.:
Competency: Describe the characteristics of liquids and explain why they take the
shape of the container.
Lesson Duration 45
No. 2 (minutes/hours) mins.
Key Different characteristics of liquids and
Unde how liquids take the shape of the
rstan container
dings
to be
devel
oped
Lear Kno Differentiate the characteristics
ning wled of liquid from solid.
Obje ge
ctive Skills Classify liquids according to
s taste, smell, and color
Attitu Appreciate how liquids move
des
Reso Pictures of liquid, glass with water,
urces food coloring, one roll of bathroom
Need tissue
ed Reference: Science and Health Today
2.
Apolinario, Nenita A. 1997.
Elements Methodo
of the logy
Plan
Prepara Motivati
tions on/ Teacher:” Good
- Before Introduc morning class! “
starting tory Students: “Good
the Activity morning Ma’am….”
lesson, Opening
prepare Prayers Teacher: “Let’s pray
the - first….”
students Checking (A student will lead the
by of opening prayer.)
giving Attendan
them a ce (The teacher will check
review the attendance and the
of the students will tell who’s
previous absent for the day.)
 57

lesson on
solids. Teacher: “So how was
This will Constru your day today? What
help the ctivist. did you drink today
students Using before going to school?
to be construct Students: Milk,
motivate ivist ma’am….” “Water,
d and be principle mam’am…
ready for s,
the teachers Teacher: “That’s good
lesson of can guide to know. So let’s have a
the day. pupils to short review about our
Then connect previous lesson. Can
introduc to prior you give examples of
e the knowled solid?
new ge by Students: Table, ma’am.
lesson. reviewin Teacher: How would
g the you describe the table?
previous Student: Hard, ma’am.
lesson Teacher: Okay. Very
which is good. For today, we are
connecte going to have a new
d to topic which is liquid.
today’s Are you ready to learn
lesson. about liquid?”
Students: “Yes, we
are….”

Presenta Teacher: “Okay. Good.

tion Construc So first, we are going to
- Present tivist have an activity.
the Teacher: I have
lesson by 1. The different photos here.
engaging teache Can you identify them?
them r will
Students: Yes, ma’am!!!
first in presen
an t the (The teacher will call
activity photos five volunteers to
of one by answer)
naming one:
the vinega
pictures r,
that will milk,
be water,
shown orange
juice,
 58

them to soy
give sauce.
them a The
preview studen
of the ts have
day’s to
topic. identif
- Present y the
the names
lesson by of
showing liquids
photos of .
liquid
that
would
catch
their
attention
so that 1. The Teacher: Very good
they will teacher class! Everyone got the
be will ask correct answer. What do
intereste the you think is common in
d with students all of them?
the some
lesson ( Students will give
questions their answer)
and keep :
their Teacher: How would
- What
focus on you describe each one?
is
what is Let us start with the
common
begin vinegar. What is its
among
taught. color? What is its
these shape? How does it
things? taste? How does it
What do smell? How about
we call milk….
them?
-How (Students will state
would their answers for each
you liquid)
describe
each
one?
Teacher: Okay class, I
want tyou to complete
Reflectiv the KWL chart up to k
e and W only. We will fill
out the L later.
 59

- Write Students: Yes, ma’am.

down
what you
discovere
d about
the
character
istics of
liquid in
your
notebook
using the
KWL
(know,
want to
know,
learn).
chart.

Teacher: “You have

just described the
characteristics of liquid.
So in summary, what
are liquids and how
would you describe
them?

Students: (a student
will volunteer to
answer)

Teacher:(Thank
you)/We could also say
that liquid is a state of
Integrati matter that takes the
ve shape of the container.
Ask
students Teacher: Liquids can
to also be classified
provide according to their color,
their own smell, and taste. Did
example you get it?
of liquid Students: “Yes
that they Ma’am….”
usually
 60

see at
home or Teacher: Now that you
in their know what liquids are
communi and their
ty (This characteristics, I want
is you to give your own
contextu examples of liquids that
alization you can find at home or
of the in your community, the
lesson. ones that you usually
Example use.
s are
taken (Students give
from examples: alcohol,
pupil’s cooking oil, soy sauce,
home or cow’s milk, coconut
communi juice, etc)
ty)
Teacher: Writes down
Collabor examples given by
ative pupils.
With the
examples
the
students Teacher: Now that I
gave, have grouped you
group according to your rows,
them I want you to talk
accordin among yourselves and
g to answer the Liquid
rows, classification chart.
and have Group the liquids
them according to smell,
classify color, and taste.
the
liquids Liquid Smell
accordin Color Taste
g to Container’s
smell,
color, shape
and taste) Cow’s milk
Coconut juice
Soysauce
alcohol
Teacher: Now class,
Applicati get a ¼ sheet of paper. I
 61

on want you to name the

(10-item following liquid and
quiz) group them according
On a one to their common color,
whole smell, and taste.
sheet of Students: Yes
paper, Ma’am!!!
provide a (The teacher will then
list of 10 discuss the answers to
liquids the class)
that have
common Sample answers:
smell, Smell (good or bad)
color,
and taste Taste Color
and ask Smell
the Vinegar
students pineapple juice
to group Perfume
them Orange juice
accordin yellow paint
gly. lemon juice
Sinigang soup
Mountain dew
alcologne
Sinampalukan soup

Inquiry- Teacher: We are going

Based to perform an
experiment. This
Experim experiment will help us
ent: Ask understand how liquids
pupils to move or flow.
do an
experime Materials
nt on 1. Kitchen napkin
how 2. Three clear and same
liquids size glasses
move. 3. Blue food coloring at
yellow food coloring.
4. Spoon for stirring

Procedure
1. Cut two pieces of
kitchen napkin and
fold lengthwise twice
 62

until its width is 1.5

inch.
2. Arrange glasses in a
row. Put a half glass
of water to the first
and third glass. Don’t
put water in the
middle glass
3. Place blue food
cloring in the first
glass and yellow
food coloring in the
third glass. Stir until
the color blends with
the water.
4. Place the end of the
tissue in the first
glass and the the
other end in the
second glass. Repeat
the procedure for the
tissue in the third
glass.

5. Leave for an hour.

After an hour,
observe what
happened to the
tissue.
6. Take a picture.
7. Based on the
experiment, how do
liquids flow?
8. Write down your
observation in your
notebook.
9. Then, complete the
KWL chart,
particularly the L
 63

part.
Ass Assessment Matrix
ess-
Levels of What How How
me
Assessment will I will I will I
nt
assess assess score?
? ?
(Re
Knowledge Assess Asses Give a
fer
(refers to the s point
to
the studen based for each
De
substantive ts’ on correct
pE
content of knowl their item
D
the edge abilit that the
Ord
curriculum, the y to students
er
facts and charac identi will get.
No.
information teristic fy the
73,
that the s of differ
s.
student liquids ent
201
acquires) chara
2
What do we cterist
for
want ics
the
students to
exa
know?
mpl
(relevance
es)
and
adequacy)
How do we
want
students to
express or
provide
evidence of
what they
know
Process or Assess Asses Give a
Skills if the s point
(refers to studen based for each
skills or ts can on the correct
cognitive classif correc item
operations y tness that the
that the liquids of the students
student accord way will get.
performs on ing to they
facts and their group
information similar liquid
for the charac s
purpose of teristic accor
 64

constructing s. ding
meanings or to
understandi their
ngs.) comm
Skills as on
evidenced chara
by student’s cterist
ability to ic:
process and smell,
make sense taste,
of color.
information, (This
and may be is
assessed in also
the integr
following ative
criteria: with
understandi math
ng of subje
content and ct)
critical
thinking
Understand The experiment is a kind
ing(s) of inquiry-based approach
that arouses the curiosity
of students and allow
them to use their higher-
order thinking skills.
Inquiry-based science
adopts an investigative
approach to teaching and
learning where students
are provided with
opportunities to
investigate a problem,
search for possible
solutions, make
observations, ask
questions, test out ideas,
and think creatively and
use their intuition.

Instead of teaching pupils

how liquids flow, the
pupils themselves
discover through working
 65

on the experiment,
observing what’s
happening, asking
questions, collaborating
with classmates, and
writing down their
observations. Thus, this
activity integrates all
science pedagogical
principles such as
constructivist,
collaborative, reflective,
integrative, and inquiry-
based.

Products/ Students can post a

performanc picture of what the
es experiment looked like
(Transfer of after the liquid traveled
Understand and write down their
ing) understanding of how
liquids travel below the
picture.
Ass Reinforcing Give five examples each
ign the day’s of liquids that are used
- lesson daily at home.
me Enriching Take a nutritious liquid
nt the day’s snack at home or during
lesson recess.
 66

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and

recommendations of the study. the first subheading summarizes the findings of the study.

Findings

Respondents’ profile. After the data have been treated and interpreted, as to the

profile of the respondents in terms of educational attainment, half of the respondents have

taken masteral units. This indicates that half of the respondents have increased their

expertise and credibility through specialized knowledge in the field of teaching. Second,

on the profile in terms of years in service, there is a domain of respondents belong to 4

years to 21 years in teaching which is based on data are considered as experienced

teachers.

Third, on profile in terms of attendance to seminars and trainings, majority of the

respondents have attended division level seminars and trainings. This indicates that most

of the professional advancement opportunity were school-based and division-based. In

terms of speakership, all respondents have had an opportunity to be a speaker in the

school/district level activity, while only few respondents were invited to speak at the

division level. Moreover, all respondents have conducted research at a school or district
 67

level. This indicates that, the higher the level, the fewer the takers because the more

challenging and stringent the rules are. Thus, not all can conduct research at the higher

levels.

Level of science pedagogical practices of teachers. This part describes the level

of science pedagogical practices by teachers in terms of constructivist, collaborative,

reflective, integrative, and inquiry-based practices. Of the five pedagogical practice,

integrative got the highest overall mean of 4.08 interpreted as often. This means that

science teachers often provide learners with a learning environment that help them make

connections of their learnings across curricula. Each practice is described in the

succeeding discussions.

Constructivist. The overall mean for science teachers’ constructivist practices

posted a mean of 3.86 interpreted as often. This means that teachers often use

constructivist principles in their teaching. The constructivist approach allows learners to

be active in the process of constructing meaning and knowledge rather than passively

receiving information. It fosters critical thinking and provides learners with a learning

environment that helps them make connections with their learnings (RM No. 11 s. 2015).

Collaborative. The overall mean for collaborative practices registered a mean of

3.40 interpreted as sometimes. This means that collaborative practices are only practiced

by teachers sometimes. This accurately describes the academic restrictions brought about

by the pandemic. Because most DepEd schools is into the modular form of learning, there

is no peer-to-peer interaction among learners; hence, less room or no room at all for

collaboration.

Reflective. The overall mean for science teachers’ reflective practice was 3.38
 68

interpreted as sometimes. This means that reflective principles are only practiced by

teachers sometimes. Reflective teaching-learning approach means looking at what the

teacher and learners do in classroom, thinking about why they do it, and analyzing if it

works. This is a process of self-evaluation cum self-observation (Regional Memorandum

No. 233, s. 2016).

Integrative. Science teachers’ integrative practices posted an overall mean of 4.08

interpreted as often. This means that teachers often engage in integrative practices in their

teaching. Integrative approach as cited by Peyser, Gerard, and Roegiers (2006) enables

the learner to master situations he/she will have to deal with in his/her professional and/or

private life. This approach provides learners with a learning environment that helps them

make connections of their learnings across curricula. It focuses on connections rather

than teaching isolated facts (RM No. 11 s. 2015).

Inquiry-based approach. Inquiry-based practices posted an overall mean of 3.63

interpreted as often. This means that teachers engage often in inquiry-based practices.

This is a student-centered approach that requires more than simply answering questions

or getting the right answer. It espouses investigation, exploration, search, quest, research,

pursuit, and study (Kuklthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2007).

Relationship between the profile of the respondents and their level of science

pedagogical practices. Teachers’ educational attainment is positively and strongly

correlated with collaborative practices (r = .53, p = .04). This indicates that the higher the

teachers’ educational attainment, the more they are inclined to engage in collaborative

practices in the classroom. Moreover, teachers’ educational attainment is positively and

strongly correlated with reflective practices (r = .51, p = .04). This means that the higher
 69

the teachers’ educational attainment, the more they are inclined to use reflective practices

in the classroom.

In this study, only teachers’ educational attainment showed relationship with

teachers’ pedagogical practices. Other teacher factors such as years of service, seminars

and trainings attended, speakership, and research conducted, the very factors pushed by

DepEd for teachers to pursue, were found to be not correlated with teachers’ pedagogical

practices. The goal of DepEd in having teachers engage in professional development is to

improve teachers’ competence and quality of teaching instruction. However, this study

shows that these factors do not at all relate to teachers’ pedagogical practices that could

lead to greater student outcomes.

Challenges encountered by the respondents as regards pedagogical practices.

This qualitative description generated three themes. The first theme was the lack of

instructional materials. The second was teachers’ pedagogical teaching practices, and the

third theme was recommendations and suggestions for effective teachers’ pedagogical

practices in teaching science in special science class.

Lack of instructional materials. Among the challenges encountered by

participants were lack of instructional materials, the limited number of self-learning

module itself, the time to develop teacher-developed materials and activity sheets, and

delivery of quality education. The lack of time for teachers to develop instructional

materials and developing them concomitant to teaching is a challenge that teachers faced

since the activity adds to their already many administrative and teaching duties.

The sudden shift from face to face to modular learning caught the DepEd

unprepared to produce learning modules that are in an online learning format. While there
 70

are available lessons in the LRMDS portal, these are not customized for online classes

nor are they for special science classes.

Teachers’ pedagogical practices in teaching special science class. The

participants used various pedagogical practices such as explicit teaching, hand-on

learning, and constructivism. Not everyone, however, uses all science pedagogical

approaches as described in the preceding tables. The differences in the approaches used

may be considered by the participants as a challenged for lack of standard or approach

that teachers follow. There have been effective approaches used in teaching science such

as the ones discussed here so as to develop students’ scientific literacy, critical thinking

and other scientific attitudes. However, this was not observed by all teachers.

Recommendations and suggestions for effective practices in teaching science in

special science class. For effective teachers’ pedagogical practices in teaching special

science class, the respondents recommended that DepEd should first address the issue of

the lack of instructional materials. Another is to use the blended learning approach and

applying learning by doing, explicit teaching, with less written activities and more hands-

on activities. Participants also suggested for DepEd to design more training and

workshop opportunities for teachers that emphasize strategic ways for effective teaching

to the special science class learners.

Proposed science instructional plan based on science pedagogical practices.

There have been a lot of changes lately in the way DepEd teachers have to plan their

lessons daily. In the past, there was the lesson plan (detailed and semi-detailed). Then

there was the lesson log (for teachers with at least three years of teaching experience).
 71

In 2016, DepEd teachers were required to use the DLL or the Daily Lesson Log.

But just recently, teachers are to use the iPlan or the Instruction Plan. Some teachers have

already implemented this while others still don't have any idea about this. Thus, this

paper developed an instructional plan exemplar that incorporates the science pedagogical

practices that reflect constructivist, collaborative, reflective, integrative, and inquiry-

based principles. This plan can be used as a guide in designing science lesson to ensure

that the science pedagogical approach is used. The plan is specified in the results section.

Conclusions

This study concludes that teachers’ profile as regarded by DepEd may not

necessarily be the same profile that are needed to effect change in a teacher’s pedagogical

practice. Profile such as level of educational attainment, attendance to seminars and

trainings, and trainings conducted are important activities that teachers should engage in.

These are also areas that DepEd wants its teachers to embark on to further their

professional training as educators. DepEd deems these activities significant; however,

these do not necessarily translate to teachers’ effectiveness at applying certain

pedagogical practices in the science classroom.

This study likewise concludes that of the five science pedagogical practices,

constructivist, collaborative, integrative, reflective, and inquiry-based, integrative

practices are the most often science practice applied by science teachers in the classroom.

This practice provides learners with a learning environment that help them make

connections of their learnings across curricula.

In DepEd teachers’ lesson plans, this practice is evident in the motivation part of
 72

the lesson where teachers connect the new lesson to what the students already know.

Aside from constructivist and inquiry-based approach are other practices engaged in by

teachers. Collaborative and reflective practices are only sometimes used. The implication

of this finding is that in teaching science in the new normal, not all science pedagogical

practices can be readily applied especially if students are using the modular form of

learning.

These are considered limitations afforded by the pandemic. While the other

practices can be applied by teachers, it is worthy to note that in the new normal, the

dominant form of teaching is through the use of self-learning modules. Thus, students

play an active role in learning as there is not much teacher-student interaction, if none at

all.

Further, only teachers’ educational attainment showed relationship with teachers’

pedagogical practices. Other teacher factors such as years of service, seminars and

trainings attended, speakership, and research conducted, the very factors pushed by

DepEd for teachers to pursue, were found not correlated with teachers’ pedagogical

practices. Thus, science teachers should further advanced degrees to be equipped with

innovative science pedagogical practices that they can apply in the classroom.

Teachers experienced a number of challenges in teaching science in the modular

for of learning. These are lack of instructional materials and teachers’ pedagogical

teaching practices that are not aligned with science pedagogical practices or the lack of

strategies that they use or that are contained in the module. These challenges should be

addressed first in order to bring about effective science teaching in the new normal.
 73

The researcher-developed instructional plan that exemplifies the science

pedagogical practices can address the lack of instructional materials in DepEd. This guide

is designed as a prototype that may be used by science teachers who want to align their

teaching on science pedagogical principles of constructivist, collaborative, integrative,

reflective, and inquiry-based, integrative practices. Each principle is highlighted along

with sample activities that best highlight the practice. This exemplar can also be used to

transform already existing science lesson plans into plans that exemplify these

pedagogical strategies.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. This study recommends that science teachers consider taking advanced studies as

their pedagogical knowledge can be further improved if they pursue higher degrees.

Teachers should avail of the scholarship grants provided by DepEd to help them

complete advanced degrees.

2. Teachers should be trained on how to create lessons in which the science pedagogical

practices are used particularly in collaborative and reflective practices. While

constructivist, integrative, and inquiry-based practices are often used, these still need

to be strengthened in terms of how to use it effectively. Trainings should focus on

each practice can be applied in the classroom and the activities that may be used to

exemplify the practice in the science classroom.

3. Teachers can overcome the challenges of lack of instructional materials by developing

their own. They can ensure that the instructional materials are of good quality by
 74

having it undergo DepEd’s quality assurance process. It is therefore recommended

that teachers be trained on how to develop instructional materials that are based on

science pedagogical practices.

4. This study developed a lesson exemplar that exemplifies science pedagogical

practices in its activities. It is therefore recommended that this instructional plan be

used by the science teachers to align their classroom teaching with the science

pedagogical practices, thereby developing students into scientifically literate

individuals.

5. Future researchers may use this study and test the effectiveness of this design based

on the criteria set forth by DepEd in developing instructional materials. The

developed materials may then be used as an intervention to determine whether it is

effective or not in developing science pedagogical practices among teachers in

designing their lessons, and if students will be able to acquire the benefits of these

pedagogical practices.
 75

REFERENCES

Blömeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2014). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: A
review of the state of research. International perspectives on teacher knowledge,
beliefs and opportunities to learn, 541-585.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.

New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of
building a profession for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, &
E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 67-
101). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

DepEd (2016). Implementation of the pedagogical approaches mandated by RA 10533.

https://depeddasma.edu.ph/um-implementation-of-the-pedagogical-approaches-
mandated-by-r-a-10533/

DepEd (2021). HS Science, Math teachers encouraged to take up graduate education

through gov’t scholarship. www.deped.gov.ph/2021/04/17/hs-science-math-
teachers-encouraged-to-take-up-graduate-education-through-govt-scholarship

DepEd Order 16 s. 2017. Deped research management guidelines.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/72161797/research-specialtopicdocx/

Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction
practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
 76

Gurriero, S. (n.d.). Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge and the Teaching Profession.

https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Background_document_to_Symposium_ITE
L-FINAL.pdf

Hernando-Malipot, M. (2021). DepEd to HS Science, Math teachers: ‘Take up graduate

education through gov’t scholarship.’ https://mb.com.ph/2021/04/17/deped-to-hs-
science-math-teachers-take-up-graduate-education-through-govt-scholarship/

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher

induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 173-180.

Ihwana, Andi (2016). The Comparison between novice and experienced teachers toward
teacher’s competence. A descriptive study.
https://digilibadmin.unismuh.ac.id/upload/6302-Full_Text.pdf

Laal, M. & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: What is it?

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31,
491 – 495

NCES. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public
school teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
NCES. (2000). Teacher supply in the United States: Sources of newly hired
teachers in public and private schools, 1987-88 to 1993-94: Statistical analysis
report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
NCTAF. (1996). Doing what matters most: Teaching for America's future. New
York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Odell, S. J.
(1990). Mentor teacher programs. Washington, DC: National Education
Association.

Oliver, J. (2005). A Comparison of the Perceptions between Novice and Veteran Teachers
about the Teaching Profession in Elementary and Middle Schools in Sevier
County, Tennessee. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1059.
https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1059

Peyser, A., Gerard, F. M., & Roegiers, X. (2006). Implementing a Pedagogy of

Integration: Some Thoughts Based on a Textbook Elaboration Experience in
Vietnam. Planning and changing, 37, 37-55.

Pritchard, Alan & Woollard, John. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: constructivism
and social learning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313214018_Psychology_for_the_classro
om_constructivism_and_social_learning/citation/download

Relleve, C. (n.d.). Values education pedagogy for Z learners.

https://www.dlsud.edu.ph/coed/ncvre/docs/2019/DrChesterRelleve-
PEDAGOGYGENZ.pdf
 77

Rosenthal, Dorothy B. A Reflective approach to science methods courses for preservice

elementary teachers.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155896
Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE)

Schwab, J. H., Gunter, M. A., & Estes, T. H. (1999). Instruction: A Models Approach (3rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Teachthought University (n.d.). Teacher Reflection Strategies.

www.teachthought.com/learning/15-reflection-strategies-help-students-retain-just-
taught/

Vallespin, C. (2021). Effectiveness of modular learning approach in teaching elementary

grade learners: A literature review.
https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/EFFECTIVENESS_OF_
MODULAR_LEARNING_APPROACH_IN_TEACHING_ELEMENTARY_GR
ADE_LEARNERS.pdf