167 ISSN 0126-7663
The Impact of Personalized Module to the Grade 10 Students in Learning Pre-Calculus:
A Case Study of a School in Cauayan City, Philippines
Janwin C. Magas
Saint Mary’s University, School of Graduate Studies Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed to develop an instructional material in learning pre-calculus that can be used by the Grade 10 students at a school in Cauayan City, Philippines to improve their competency in Mathematics, particularly in Pre-Calculus.
Method – The study employed a quasi-experimental research design consisting of two groups, the experimental and the control group. The students in the experimental group used the personalized module, while the control group used the existing material in Pre-Calculus published by the Department of Education.
Findings – The result of the study revealed that the personalized module is effective in studying Pre-Calculus. Furthermore, there is a significant effect size in using the personalized module in enhancing the performance of the students as evidenced by the computed effect size which is 1.82.
Significance – The personalized module in Pre-Calculus is helpful and can be used by the students as another reference in learning Pre-Calculus. Moreover, the personalized module is highly accepted because it meets the requirements / criteria namely:
objectives, contents, usefulness, clarity, suitability, assessment, organization and presentation, and instructional design and support.
Keywords: Instructional material, Pre-calculus, Quasi- experimental, Pre-test, and Post-test.
Introduction
Mathematics exists at its limit. It exists even if some if not all, people do not understand it. And in most cases, mathematics is necessary for survival. Although mathematics subject is not an easy discipline, teachers are challenged to think of different strategies to keep students motivated, encouraged, and appreciated. This is the most difficult task to do considering the nature of the discipline and feedback they heard from other people.
To mitigate these challenges, Mathematics teachers need to consider a variety of techniques such as providing appropriate teaching or learning materials to attract the attention of all learners.
But why is it important to consider teaching materials in the process of education and learning? Will it help students learn better? Or will it help the country improve Mathematics performance?
Instructional materials are integral parts of the teacher’s excellent tools in their teaching. They play a very important role in the performance achievements of the learners. Both the teachers and the learners will be benefited from it. Learners can repulse their fears of failing, of not keeping pace with the other learners. Teachers, too, find their teaching incredibly efficient and successful whenever they use appropriate instructional materials in teaching (Blas, 2014).
On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider the material regarding the difficulty level. Readability formulas tend to be simple measures, so they need to be easy to read so that students can really access them. Such formulas should be used with caution, if not all. In Mathematics, especially Pre-Calculus, the content must be appropriate for each learner’s level of understanding in order for each learner to understand the lesson and ultimately be good at math. Teachers need to provide different examples based on student comprehension (Magas, 2020).
According to Blas (2014), personalized material can be used as a reference in the teaching and learning process. It allows students to work at their own pace. However, it is only possible if there are sufficient examples that can help the students acquire in-depth knowledge about the topic.
As a mathematics teacher, the researcher observed that students are still in the developing level in Pre-Calculus, and he thought that one of the solutions to improve their competencies is to identify their strengths and weaknesses and make some necessary adjustments, such as making more examples based on their level of understanding.
169 ISSN 0126-7663
As described by Terrel (2011), “No matter what form of materials teachers make use of, whether they teach from textbooks, instructional material, or teacher-prepared materials, the materials represent plans for planning. The information collected can serve the following purposes: (1) to document effective ways of using materials;
(2) to provide feedback on how material works; (3) to keep a record of additions, deletions, and supplementary materials teachers may have used with the materials;
and (4) to assist other teachers in using the materials”.
As contrasted with other subjects, mathematics requires in-depth knowledge for the students to cope with the correct answer. These include a deeper understanding of the problem to establish the necessary solutions or steps. It is for this reason that mathematics needs a lot of quality reading and solving concepts among amateurs. As stated in the Philippines Education Act of 1982, “every teacher shall be accountable for the efficient and attainment of specified learning objectives in pursuance of the national development goals within the limits of available resources”. Thus, teachers continually strive to improve learning by creating learning materials that will be significantly useful to the students and themselves (Dizon, 2016).
Teaching materials are good sources of information for better understanding.
It plays a big role in the teaching and learning process. Thus, the Mathematics teachers should be knowledgeable enough in making materials to help improve the performance of the students in the discipline.
One factor influencing teaching at ground level is the content to be learned.
The choice of an appropriate teaching methodology becomes an important concern.
Teachers vary in experiences regarding the effectiveness of a strategy. A particular content may be taught successfully at one time using the strategy which at another time, with a different class, would turn out ineffective. A suitable match between subject matter and varied strategies is a product of long applications and close observations of students’ learning in different classrooms. Interrelating content with strategies and student characteristics is a necessary component to achieve teaching effectiveness (Salandanan, 2013).
Teachers should devote extra time to creating teaching materials for the students and they should create instructional materials appropriate to the level of understanding of every student to facilitate effective teaching and better quality learning.
Teaching materials are an integral part of helping the learning process become more engaging and meaningful (Purwitaningrum and Prahmana, 2021). In math lessons, it is important to make teaching and learning at the same time exciting and meaningful. One way to do this is to develop compelling materials that meet the needs and demands of the students and ultimately improve their math skills.
One of the reasons students have poor math grades is the lack of good teaching materials. Students are motivated by being actively involved in the teaching and learning process, which minimizes the teaching of mathematics in abstraction (Abubakar, 2021).
Adebanjo (2007) found that by using classroom materials to teach and learn math, students learn more, retain what they have learned, and stimulate and maintain their interest. Learners can also discover themselves and their abilities.
Through the concept of mathematics, it is possible to formulate expressions for modeling and interpreting both physical and social phenomena. And certainly, it is a thread of connection and integration through science, facilitating the connection of ideas in an increasingly information- and knowledge-driven society (Ogena and Tan, 2016).
Mathematics is definitely a difficult subject, but Ogena and Tan (2016) clearly defined it as an essential subject. Therefore, teachers and students need to work together to realize the topic. When teaching math, teachers can offer various activities to improve the performance of the students on the subject.
According to Magas (2020), students have low competency in Pre-Calculus because they are not familiar with the topics included in Pre-Calculus. However, he suggested that by using personalized material, it is also possible to improve the competency of the students in the discipline, as long as the personalized material is properly designed based on the ability of the students to understand Mathematics, especially Pre-Calculus.
The Department of Education and its allied stakeholders are responding to the urgent and critical need to improve the quality of basic education in the Philippines through a major education reform known as K to 12, which means kindergarten, the six years of elementary, and the six years of secondary education. The reform includes decongesting and enhancing the basic education curriculum for the learner to master basic competencies, lengthening the cycle of basic education to cover kindergarten through year 12. On the other hand, a graduate who opts to go to tertiary education is deemed better prepared for college study. Pupils who do not have a solid foundation in math would give up entirely when they reach grade seven. Proper remedial help is needed. A mathematics teacher needs to incorporate remediation to address any deficiency in pupils’ learning to prevent them from falling behind in their education. If a pupil does not know how to multiply numbers, then that certain pupil will have difficulty solving mathematics in later units. Before the pupil reaches the
171 ISSN 0126-7663
point of failure, the teacher must identify the problem and help master the obstacles.
Because math concepts build upon each other, remediation holds the key to any successful math classroom (Sanchez, 2014).
High school is certainly beneficial in improving the abilities of each student.
Students enrolled in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) strand are particularly engaged in the fields of science and mathematics. However, as many STEM students recognize, Pre-Calculus is a difficult major. Therefore, math teachers are strongly advised to take the time to plan how to teach it in a way that the majority of students, if not all, can understand. They should also provide materials based on the learner’s strengths and weaknesses.
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of personalized modules on the Grade-10 students at a school in Cauayan City, Philippines in learning pre- calculus.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following problems:
1. What is the performance of the respondents in control and experimental groups before and after the treatment?
2. Is there a significant difference between the performance of the control and experimental groups before and after the treatment?
3. What is the effect size of using the personalized module on the achievement of the respondents?
4. What is the assessment of the Mathematics teachers of Our Lady of the Pillar College-Cauayan on the personalized module using the different criteria namely;
objectives, content, usefulness, clarity, suitability, organization and presentation, and instructional design and support.
Conceptual Framework
Mathematical Empowerment: Critical and Analytical Thinking as the Goal of Philippine Mathematics Education.
The goal of mathematics education is to develop mathematically empowered citizens. For Filipino students, the goal of mathematical empowerment focuses on the development of critical and analytic thinking skills of all Filipino students. Critical and analytic thinking also includes skills such as problem-solving, mathematical communication, reasoning, and making mathematical connections. Vision achieves focused goals by teaching solid math content, developing strong cognitive skills, and promoting desirable cognitive value for all Filipino students, regardless of background or situation. (Vistroyu et al., 2011).
The development of good teaching materials is very useful for all subjects, not just math lessons, especially preliminary Calculations. The selection and design of teaching materials by researchers are based on the following questions from Allan C. Ornstein (1988), quoted by Costares (2014).
1. Do you need materials?
2. Do the materials support the goals of the lesson?
3. Do the materials make a meaningful contribution to the unit or lesson planning?
4. Is the material based on previous learning?
5. Are the materials related to the current study of other subjects?
6. Are the materials up-to-date, accurate, and defensive?
7. Is the material suitable for the student’s age, maturity, and experience?
8. Are the materials suitable for the reading level of the student?
9. Are there any prejudices, stereotypes, or sexism in the material?
10. Are your ideas, concepts, and perspectives well expressed?
11. Is the physical presentation of materials acceptable? Do you have the right margins, headings, summaries, review exercises, and questions?
12. Is the material presented at a pace that allows reflection and review?
13. Are the materials suitable for individual and small group lessons? Can the materials be used for direct or proficiency instruction?
14. Does the physical condition of the room help me to use the material?
15. Is the material worth the time, effort, and money?
16. Do you have the material for a while so that the initial cost is worth the investment?
The above question mentioned the appropriateness of education for the student’s level of knowledge. For teachers, this means that in every lesson the learner needs to be at the center of the discussion. Therefore, teachers need to teach based on the abilities of their students. Learning is always exciting, especially if the teacher is familiar with the class.
The development of teaching materials is undoubtedly a huge task, as it can be done by trial and error, apart from the time it takes for teachers to create them (Manuel, 2014).
173 ISSN 0126-7663
Margaret A. Dwyer (1978), quoted by Cabrera (2009), asked the following self- assessment question as a preliminary guideline for material development to reduce wasted time and effort.
1. Does exercise lead to the ultimate program or goal?
2. Is the purpose of the exercise clear and consistent?
3. Does it reflect the realistic use of the language?
4. Are the instructions clear and complete?
5. Is the article consistent?
6. Is the length appropriate?
7. Is there a pollutant element in the exercise?
8. Are these items unique?
9. Are different techniques used in the exercises?
10. Was it printed and used properly?
If the materials created by the teacher answer the above questions, it may help the teacher to promote meaningful and collaborative learning. In short, math teachers need to carefully plan how to make their lessons meaningful and interesting. And one of the best ways to make it meaningful is by collaborative learning.
The cooperative learning approach creates a supportive setting; it decreases competitiveness and individualism but increases opportunities to actively construct or transform the knowledge among students. By working in groups, students have more opportunities to speak and share ideas in order that they can see how their peers think and build new ideas. Moreover, discussing, creating, and thinking in a very group instead of in a very whole class context, can provide a less anxiety-producing context (Vijaya, 2015).
Some topics in the pre-calculus challenge students to think critically and logically, and unfortunately, students who have difficulties in addressing the discipline cannot easily come up with the strategies that they have to resolve the issues. Hence, other than creating materials that allow students to figure at their own pace, it is also beneficial to incorporate activities that will encourage students to figure cooperatively. In that way, students can share ideas and techniques.
Students will perform better in Mathematics provided they are allowed to interact or participate effectively in the teaching-learning process through the use of instructional materials (Abubakar, 2021).
This statement puts teachers in a higher category in terms of intellectual, moral, and spiritual upbringing to come up with an instructional material that caters needs of the students in Mathematics. It only means regardless of how hard the topic is, teachers are still ready to make it very clear, especially for the learners.
Teachers’ in-depth knowledge of the subject matter they professed to teach increases the ability to communicate it to the learners. Therefore, mastery of the subject matter and effective communication skills produced citizens who are problem solvers (Alderman, 2014 as cited by Capete and Lapinig, 2015).
Teachers’ behavior, as well as teaching principles and methods, make a difference in student outcomes. He suggested that supplementary material beyond workbooks and textbooks improve students’ achievements in mathematics. In hands-on activities, students are given time to experiment, draw conclusions from their observations, express their findings orally, and write those generalized ideas (Ornstein, 1988).
Teaching Mathematics effectively requires effort and therefore the formulation of methods on a way to teach or learn it remarkably. Lessons will become meaningful for learners if teachers can engage them in numerous activities like making some experiments, drawing conclusions from their observations, and allowing them to precise their ideas orally or through writing. But in teaching Calculus, especially to senior high school students, one of the techniques to interact them in learning is to supply lots of examples that are supported their level of understanding and applications of the lesson in their existence in order that they will appreciate it.
If a child has poor intelligence, it is not surprising that he could find it difficult in mathematics which relies on relationships and arithmetical vocabulary is poor.
These defects give emphasis to all-around slowness and the other way around. A weak memory for numbers is outwardly because of an absence of interest, lack of confidence, and an innate deficiency in remembering number facts (Chesire, 1988 as cited by Pacag, 2018).
The majority of the students have difficulties in Pre-Calculus. Some say it is one among the toughest branches of Mathematics and, indeed, it is. Therefore, the role of Mathematics teachers is to encourage learners to study harder. Provide a range of examples that suit their needs and supply also a spread of teaching and learning materials that may cater to their needs and demands in handling the discipline. Hence, the study aimed to see the effectiveness of the personalized module in learning Pre- Calculus compared to the teaching guide from the Department of Education with the hopes that it will somehow help students enhance their competency in Pre-Calculus.
The conceptual framework of the study is presented in Figure 1.
175 ISSN 0126-7663
Figure 1
Presented the input, the process employed, and the output measured using both the personalized module (experimental) and the teaching guide (control) and the evaluation of the Mathematics teachers on the personalized module.
Figure 1 presented the input, the process employed, and the output measured using both the personalized module (experimental) and the teaching guide (control) and the evaluation of the
Mathematics teachers on the personalized module.
Research Methods
The study employed a quasi-experimental design since the population included two sections of Grade-10 students of Our Lady of the Pillar College-Cauayan. Furthermore, this study also employed a pre-assessment and post-assessment for both groups. In this design, both the control and experimental groups were given pre-assessment to determine their general knowledge of the conic sections. Thereafter, the experimental group used the personalized material while the control group used the existing material from the Department of Education. After the treatment, both groups were given post-assessment to determine if there is an improvement in their scores in conic sections. The 20-item researcher-made test on conic sections was used to determine the competency of the students before and after the treatment. Item analysis was done before conducting the assessment to make sure that each item is reliable enough to test the competency of the students. The material used for the assessment of the Mathematics teachers on the personalized material was adopted from the studies of Blas (2014) and Aquino (2008). However, the researcher of this study made some modifications to the evaluation tool to match the existing needs of the students in learning pre-calculus because the evaluation tools used by Blas (2014) and Aquino (2008) were for instructional materials in English and Sciences, respectively. Furthermore, the teachers’ evaluation was a 4-point scale and the scheme of scoring response categories involved differential weighting such that the response category. ‘Strongly Agree, was given a weight of 4, ‘Agree’, a weight of 3, ‘Disagree’, a weight of 2, and ‘Strongly Disagree’, a weight of 1. There were 82 students included in this study, 41 students in each group, and 9 Mathematics teachers were asked to evaluate the personalized material. The data gathered were analyzed using a weighted mean and t-test.
Result and Discussion
In the process of determining the impact of the personalized module on the students, the performance of the students was considered.
Table 1
The Performance of the Experimental and Control Groups in the Pretest
Scores Experimental Group Control Group Description
Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)
1 – 4 2 4.88 3 7.32 Developing
5 – 8 25 60.98 21 51.22 Beginning
9 – 12 14 34.14 16 39.02 Approaching proficiency
13 – 16 - - 1 2.44 Proficient
17 – 20 - - - - Advanced proficient
Total 41 100 41 100
The table shows the performance of the students in both experimental and control groups before the study was conducted. The table revealed that the majority of the students in both groups are at the “Beginning” level. It also suggests that students are not accustomed to the concept of conic sections.
Research Methods
The study employed a quasi-experimental design since the population included two sections of Grade-10 students of Our Lady of the Pillar College-Cauayan.
Furthermore, this study also employed a pre-assessment and post-assessment for both groups. In this design, both the control and experimental groups were given pre- assessment to determine their general knowledge of the conic sections. Thereafter, the experimental group used the personalized material while the control group used the existing material from the Department of Education. After the treatment, both groups were given post-assessment to determine if there is an improvement in their scores in conic sections. The 20-item researcher-made test on conic sections was used to determine the competency of the students before and after the treatment.
Item analysis was done before conducting the assessment to make sure that each item is reliable enough to test the competency of the students. The material used for the assessment of the Mathematics teachers on the personalized material was adopted from the studies of Blas (2014) and Aquino (2008). However, the researcher of this study made some modifications to the evaluation tool to match the existing needs of the students in learning pre-calculus because the evaluation tools used by Blas (2014) and Aquino (2008) were for instructional materials in English and Sciences, respectively. Furthermore, the teachers’ evaluation was a 4-point scale and the scheme of scoring response categories involved differential weighting such that the response category. ‘Strongly Agree, was given a weight of 4, ‘Agree’, a weight
of 3, ‘Disagree’, a weight of 2, and ‘Strongly Disagree’, a weight of 1. There were 82 students included in this study, 41 students in each group, and 9 Mathematics teachers were asked to evaluate the personalized material. The data gathered were analyzed using a weighted mean and t-test.
Result and Discussion
In the process of determining the impact of the personalized module on the students, the performance of the students was considered.
Table 1
The Performance of the Experimental and Control Groups in the Pretest Scores Experimental Group Control Group
Description Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)
1 – 4 2 4.88 3 7.32 Developing
5 – 8 25 60.98 21 51.22 Beginning
9 – 12 14 34.14 16 39.02 Approaching
proficiency
13 – 16 - - 1 2.44 Proficient
17 – 20 - - - - Advanced proficient
Total 41 100 41 100
The table shows the performance of the students in both experimental and control groups before the study was conducted. The table revealed that the majority of the students in both groups are at the “Beginning” level. It also suggests that students are not accustomed to the concept of conic sections.
Below are some of the researcher’s observations of why students scored low in their pre-assessment:
1. The content of the conic section requires more diligence from the student.
2. The students do not have enough knowledge about the conic sections.
3. Students are still in the transition stage and are having a hard time.
4. Students are not proficient in other areas of Mathematics, such as algebra and geometry, which are prerequisites for studying Pre-Calculus. A topic such as completing the square under algebra is one of the requirements for studying the subject, especially with conic sections.
177 ISSN 0126-7663
Table 2
The Performance of the Experimental and Control Groups in the Posttest Scores Experimental Group Control Group
Description Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)
1 – 4 - - - - Developing
5 – 8 - - - - Beginning
9 – 12 16 39.02 22 53.66 Approaching
proficiency
13 – 16 25 60.98 19 46.34 Proficient
17 – 20 - - - - Advanced proficient
Total 41 100 41 100
Post-test performance in the experimental and control groups is shown in Table (2) above. As seen in the table, most of the students from the experimental group are at the proficient level while in the control group, there is a very small difference between the number of students who are at the approaching proficiency and proficient levels. Nonetheless, the result simply revealed that there is an improvement in the performances of the students in both groups after the treatment. Notice that at this level, the students, especially in the experimental group already attained the proficient level which implies that the treatment is effective, albeit no students got scores under the advanced proficient level.
The post-test student performance in this study is similar to the results of a study by Abubakar (2020) on the impact of teaching materials on the academic performance of secondary school mathematics students in Ekiti, Nigeria. According to their study, students taught using classroom materials performed significantly better than the control group. They also showed that using classroom materials to interact effectively and participate in the educational learning process can improve student performance.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the personalized module is effective and can be used as another resource in teaching and learning pre-calculus, particularly the conic sections.
Table 3
t-test Showing the Significant Difference Between the Pretest of the Control and Experimental Groups
Groups Mean Sd Df t-value p-value Description
Control 7.90 2.28
80 -0.20 0.84 Not significant Experimental 8.00 2.05
Table 3 shows the pre-test results for the experimental and control groups. As can be seen from the table, the control group got a mean score of 7.90 and a standard deviation of 2.28, and the experimental group got a mean score of 8.00 and a standard deviation of 2.05. The t value is -0.20 and the p-value is 0.84. This means that there is no significant difference between the results of the pre-test of the control group and the experimental group. This further suggests that the two groups are equivalent and that students can be used as survey respondents. In addition, the results simply showed that students had little knowledge or background of conic sections and needed to be improved.
Table 4
t-test Showing the Significant Difference Between the Posttest of the Control and Experimental Groups
Groups Mean Sd Df t-value p-value Description
Control 12.39 1.79
80 -1.92 0.0584 Not significant Experimental 13.12 1.66
Table 4 shows the significant difference in scores between the experimental group and the control group after receiving treatment. The control group had a mean rating of 12.39 and a standard deviation of 1.79, while the experimental group had a mean rating of 13.12 and a standard deviation of 1.66. The t-value is -1.92 and the p-value is 0.0584. This means that there is no significant difference in the results of both groups of post-tests. As a result, it was found that the students’ scores improved after conducting the study.
Note that the average scores of the students in the posttest are significantly higher compared to the average scores in the pretest. This means that the treatment used by the experimental group, which is the personalized module, and the material used by the control group, which is the existing material published by the Department of
179 ISSN 0126-7663
Education, improved the learning ability of the students in learning conic sections.
In addition, the result can be used to claim that the treatment is effective and can be used by both teachers and students when dealing with Pre-Calculus, especially the conic sections. However, the personalized module should not be considered a replacement for existing material and will serve as an additional reference in Pre- Calculus to further enhance the performance of the students in this area.
According to Holmes (2015), instructional materials, irrespective of how carefully designed, offers only affordances: potential opportunities for students to have interaction in cognitively demanding tasks and potential opportunities for teachers to be told from enactment and reflection. What matters is how individual teachers perceive these affordances within the context of their teaching among the competing messages about what constitutes good teaching and learning.
Table 5
The Effect Size of the Personalized Module on the Achievement of the Respondents in the Experimental Group
Experimental Group Mean Sd Effect size Description
Pretest 8.00
2.81 1.82 Very large
difference effect
Posttest 13.12
Table 5 shows the effect size of the personalized module on the performance level of the respondents in the experimental group. The purpose of determining effect size is to explain student performance and determine the effect of treatment on respondent performance. As shown in Table 5, the experimental group’s mean score of 13.12 is significantly higher than the pre-test score of 8.00, with a standard deviation of 2.81. The calculated effect size is 1.82, which means there is a very large difference effect. To interpret the numerical values of the results, the researcher used the guidelines developed by Cohen as follows:
<0.1=trivial effect, 0.1-0.3=small effect, 0.3-0.5=moderate effect, and
>0.5=large difference effect.
In this study, the researcher focused on explaining the effect size of the experimental group, further explaining the effect of treatment on student performance.
As explained in Table 4, both the control group and the experimental group acquired knowledge of the conic section through the materials used in the control group and the treatment applied in the experimental group. There is no significant
difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in both groups, but the post-test scores were significantly higher than before the test, which is sufficient to suggest improved student performance. In addition, it can be concluded that the treatment is effective and can be used as another resource in studying Pre-Calculus. It should also be noted that this treatment should not be considered as a replacement for the existing material in Pre-Calculus. Rather, the researcher has prepared it as a separate reference book, hoping that it will somehow help students deal with the discipline.
Table 6
Summary Table of Teachers’ Evaluation of the Personalized Module
Criteria Mean Interpretation
1. Objectives 4.00 Strongly agree
2. Contents 4.00 Strongly agree
3. Usefulness 4.00 Strongly agree
4. Clarity 4.00 Strongly agree
5. Suitability 4.00 Strongly agree
6. Assessment 4.00 Strongly agree
7. Organization and presentation 4.00 Strongly agree 8. Instructional design and support 4.00 Strongly agree
Grand Mean 4.00 Strongly agree
The data in the Table 6 reveals that the teachers of Our Lady of the Pillar College- Cauayan strongly agreed that the objectives, contents, usefulness, clarity, suitability, assessment, organization and presentation, and instructional design and support are acceptable to a great extent since they rated the personalized module with the highest possible weight of 4. The criteria were chosen as suggested by Magas (2020) in his study that revealed that good instructional material should meet those eight criteria so that it can help students improve their performance, especially in Pre-Calculus.
Furthermore, the results of the evaluation show that:
1. The objectives of the proposed enhancement material in teaching pre-calculus are relevant to the course objectives.
2. The contents are properly planned, arranged in proper sequence, based on the subject matter, and based on the course outline.
181 ISSN 0126-7663
3. The degree of usefulness of the proposed enhancement material in teaching pre-calculus is rated as strongly agree.
4. The clarity of activities and topics in the proposed enhancement material is clear, descriptive, and concise to facilitate understanding and retention of information.
5. The proposed enhancement material is suited for the level of understanding of the students.
6. The assessment methods are appropriate and suited to the learning objectives.
7. The material is interactive and provides high-quality sensory experiences for all students.
8. Technical specifications and limitations are adequately described and noted.
Therefore, the personalized module in teaching / learning pre-calculus is highly accepted.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the study, the Grade 10 students of Our Lady of the Pillar College-Cauayan are in the “developing level” in Pre-Calculus. Therefore, the personalized module was prepared in the hopes of improving students’ performances, especially in Pre-Calculus. This is because it serves as a learning aid for students to acquire in-depth knowledge and ultimately become more proficient in Mathematics, especially in Pre-Calculus. Finally, the material is acceptable and can be used as a further reference in studying the discipline as it has the necessary characteristics of teaching materials based on the evaluation of the Mathematics teachers and students gained knowledge as stipulated in the result of the posttest.
References
Abubakar, M.B. (2020). Impact of instructional materials on students’ academic performance in Physics, in Sokoto-Nigeria. IOP conference series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 476(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/476/1/012071
Adebanjo AA (2007). Effect of Instructional Media on the Learning of Computer in JSS. Afr. J. Educ. Res.1(2):71-75.
Aquino, Jonathan Lord R.(2008). “Proposed General Science I Laboratory Manual in Teaching General Science I at Our Lady of the Pillar College-Cauayan, Cauayan City, Isabela”. Master’s thesis. May 2008.
Blas, Jonathan Lord R. 2014, “A Proposed Worktext in Teaching Communication Arts and Skills to College Freshmen at ISU- Cauayan”, Doctor’s Dissertation, March 2014.
Cabrera, Freddie R 2009, “The Predictors of Mathematics Performance of the Freshmen Students of the Institute of Information and Communication Technology of Isabela State University, Cauayan for the S.Y 2008-2009”.
Master’s thesis. March 2009.
Capete and Lapinig (2015), Assessing the Mathematics Performance of Grade Students as Basis for Enhancing Instruction and Aligning with k-12 Curriculum. Page 6. Paragraph 3. Retrieved may 6, 2019 from http://
www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsu research congress/2015/proceedings/
LLI/020LLI capete RN. Pdf.
Costales, Romel R. 2011, “Proposed Worktext in Teaching / Learning Communication Arts for Freshman Students of ISU-Ilagan, Isabela S.Y. 2010-2011”, Master’s thesis, olpc-c. March 2011.
Dizon, Joy V. (2016). “Comparison of Mathematics Performance of Grade 10 Students With and Without Differentiated Instruction”. Master’s thesis.
March 2016.
Magas (2020), “Proposed Enhancement Material in Teaching / Learning Pre- Calculus”, master’s thesis. Olpc-c.March 2020.
Manuel, Cristy G. (2014), “Proposed Worktext in Mathematics for Grade 7 Students of Del Pilar Integrated School, Del Pilar, San Mariano, Isabela for S.Y.
2013-2014”, master’s thesis, olpc-c. March 2014.
183 ISSN 0126-7663
Pacag, Elmer G. 2018, “Analysis of Achievements Test Scores of Mathematics Grade 8 Under the Spiral Progression Approach: Basis for Remediation of RMVIS”, master’s thesis, olpc-c. March 2018.
Purwitaningrum, R., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2021). Developing instructional materials on mathematics logical thinking through the Indonesian realistic mathematics education approach. International Journal of Education and Learning, 3(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.31763/ijele.v3i1.178
Salandanan (2013), “Teaching and the Teacher”, Lorimar publishing inc.
Terrel, jr., R. (2011). “How Does Differentiated Instruction Help Struggling Students with Mathematical Concept?” master’s thesis. March 2011.
Vistro-yu et al., 2011. Mathematics Framework for Philippine Basic Education.
Page 5 . para. 2 Retrieved april 12 from http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/images/
downloads/publ/sei_mathbasic.pdf.
Author:
Janwin C. Magas
Saint Mary’s University, School of Graduate Studies, Bayombong Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines
Email: [email protected]
