Modular Approach in Teaching Science 10

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 4 Issue 3, April 2020 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD30318 | Volume – 4 | Issue – 3 | March-April 2020 Page 99
Modular Approach in Teaching Science 10
Marsha R. Valencia
Department of Education, Cebu, Philippines
ABSTRACT
Modular approach in teaching has beena buzzwordinour educational system.
This paper ascertained the effectiveness of Modular Teaching Approach in
teaching Grade 10 Science at Maximino Noel Memorial National High School.
Quasi-experimental and Purposive sampling was utilized.Data werecollected
through pre-test and post-test using the learning module in Science 10
prescribed by the Department of Education. Data obtain using frequency
count, percentage, mean and standard deviation and t-test for the significant
difference. Results revealed that the performance of the Grade 10 students
during the pre-test in the following competencies: describing the distribution
of active volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and major mountain belts;
distinguishing the different types of plate boundaries; and explaining the
different processes that occur along the plate boundaries, was described as
Beginning. However, after using theModularTeachingApproach,thepost-test
performance of the students on the aforementioned competencies increased
significantly and was described as Proficient. This indicated thattheapproach
evidently showed positive results and displayed a vital connection in
increasing students’ academic achievement. Thus, enhanced learning module
was proposed as instructional intervention in improving students’
performance in Science 10.
KEYWORDS: Learning module, Teaching Science, Modular Teaching Approach,
Quasi-Experimental Design, Science 10, Cebu, Philippines
How to cite this paper: Marsha R.
Valencia "Modular Approach in Teaching
Science 10"
Published in
International Journal
of Trend in Scientific
Research and
Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
6470, Volume-4 |
Issue-3, April 2020, pp.99-106, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30318.pdf
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and
International Journal ofTrendinScientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of
the Creative
Commons Attribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
/4.0)
INTRODUCTION
Education is the only mean through which a society adjusts
with its needs. Across the world, education is the primary
agent of transformationtowardssustainabledevelopment.It
is a fact that quality science education is a vehicle that plays
an important role in producing the best quality of graduates
who will become great leaders and manpower for the
country. As the world becomes increasingly scientific and
technological, the impact of science is fully recognized for
the economic advancement and nation’s prosperity. With
this, science education has always been the object of reform
so that an effective science culture will be established in the
society.
However, NSE (1996) pointed out that Science teaching is a
complex activity that lies at the heart of the vision of science
education. Callahan (2016) stated that, in the sense, a key
aspect of educational innovation is the change in teaching
methodology.
In addition, science educators in the early 21st century are
facing a myriad of issues. Indeed, students in the United
States still lag behind students in other nations in science
achievement, particularly European and Asian countries
(NCES, 2007).
Vidhyalaya (2013) emphasized that science is important
subject at upper primary level and understanding of basic
science concepts increases the content knowledge of the
teachers and students. But for some time teachers faced the
difficulties to understand the some science concepts. Also
they had occurred difficulties to teaching some science
concepts. If these concepts which are difficult to understand
for the teachers, It will be transferring towards students
incorrectly and it will create many alternative conceptions.
Dunlosky, et.al. (2013) stated thattherealizationofthegoals
of science education partly depends on the instructional
approaches teachers use in impartingtheconcepts and skills
which are fundamental in building students’ understanding
of science. Teaching methods practice by teachers have
crucial effect on enhancing the students’ capabilities and
potentialities for an effective, authentic and meaningful
learning. It is generally observed that the quality of
education students get,is largelydependentuponthequality
of instruction they are given. Undoubtely,teachersmustfind
ways to enhance learningdeliveryto makesurethatlearning
is indeed transferred to the students.
Barnett et al (2004) argued that the curriculum receives
scant regard in current debates about teaching and learning
in higher inculcation but suggeststhat this mayvicissitudein
the context of quality assurance mechanisms and
benchmarking. In teaching there are many methods which
are being used and Modular teaching is a new approach in
classroom settings, for experience taking in encounters in
instruction also it has been getting much consideration. The
system of taking in modules has turned into a piece of all
level of instructions. Teaching through module is a self -
taking in bundle managing oneparticulartopic/unit.Itcould
be utilized within any setting helpful to the learner and may
be finished at the learner's own particular pace.
According to Sejpal (2013) modular teaching is one of the
most widespread and recognizes teaching learning
techniques in United States, Australia and many other
IJTSRD30318

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Western countries includingAsianregion.Modularis usedin
almost all subjects like natural science, especially in biology
and medical education and even in social sciences as well as
in computers education. All kinds of subjects are being
taught through modules. It is a recent developmentbased on
programmed learning; a well established and universally
recognized phenomenon. It considering the individual
differences among the learners which necessitate the
planning for adoption of the most appropriate teaching
techniques in order to help the individual grow and develop
at her/his own pace. According to Albaracin & Suson (2019)
stated that Teachers have to provide activities which allow
students to work collaboratively. Thinking or designing
activities that would arouse students' interest in their topic
and that would also cater their strengths and weaknesses
are relevant. Updatingthemselves withthecurrenttrendson
aspects of diversity in relation to modern demands and
social changes that address the learners' uniqueness and
differences is very much helpful.
Modular Approach in Teaching
Modular teaching is a new teaching strategy in classroom
settings, for arranging learningexperiences ineducation and
it has been receiving much attention. The strategy of
learning modules has become a part of all level ofteaching.A
learning module is a self - learning package dealing with one
specific subject matter/ unit. It can be used in any setting
convenient to the learner and may be completed at the
learner’s own pace (Ali et al. 2010).
A module is a specific type of learning resource. Modules are
essentially self contained, self-instructional packages, with
learning paced by each student according to his/her
individual needs and ability. A module covers either a single
element of subject matter content or a group of content
elements forming a discrete unit of subject matter or area of
skill. A module has clearly defined, objectives; preferably in
behavioral form (Daries, 1981). Taneja (1989) defined
module as a unit of work in a course of instruction that is
virtually self-contained and a method of teaching that is
based on the concept of building up skills and knowledge in
discrete units. A module is a set of learning opportunities
organized around a well - defined topic which contains the
elements of instruction, specific objectives,teaching learning
activities, and evaluation using criterion-referenceded
measures (UNESCO, 1988) cited in Ali et al. (2010).
Use of self learning modules in teaching is another form of
individual used instructions. This is calledmodularapproach
of teaching and learning (k. Jaya sree,2004) if self learning
modules are available on some topics they can b given to the
students as assignments for self learning .scientific attitude
refers to an individual’s outlook towards life. Attitude is a
method condition / a stabilized method set which express
itself in a tendency to react to any member of the class of
stimuli in the same general way. Robert Ebel (1997) as cited
in (Sadiq et al. 2014).
Modular teaching is one of the most widespread and
recognizes teaching learning techniques in United States,
Australia and many other Western countries includingAsian
region. Modular is used in almost all subjects like natural
science, especially in biology and medical education and
even in social sciences as well as in computers education. All
kinds of subjects are being taught through modules. It is a
recent development based on programmed learning; a well
established and universally recognized phenomenon. It
considering the individual differences among the learners
which necessitate the planning for adoption of the most
appropriate teaching techniques in order to help the
individual grow and develop at her/his own pace.
Education in the Philippines today is facing greatchallenges.
One such challenge lies in the area of scienceinstruction.It is
perceived that a great number of students have hardly
developed their analytical skills in science. Hence, academic
institutions are now experiencing dilemma on the alarming
examination performance of students in science (Dela Cruz,
2012).
Undoubtedly, in the Division of Carcar City, a largeincidence
of very low academic performance in science is observed;
and is evident through the result of the National
Achievement Test (NAT) of School Year 2012-2013, 2013-
2014, 2014-2015 where the over-all Mean Percentage Score
(MPS) of Carcar City Division in Science is only 42.69%,
51.07%, 51.96% respectively. Likewise, among the sixteen
public high schools of the Division of Carcar City, Maximino
Noel Memorial National High School (MNMNHS) got only
50.29%, 57.74%, 57.91%inScienceforthree(3)consecutive
years. Based on these results, Science 10 has the lowest MPS
among the five (5) learning areas tested.
It is now a great challenge to all public secondary schools of
Carcar City to meet the pressing and emerging needs in the
instructional delivery involved in the inculcation of Science
10 competencies. It is in this scenario that this research was
conducted to determine the effectiveness of Modular
Approach as an alternative instructional method in teaching
Science to the Grade 10 students of MNMNHS.
Background of the Study
This study is anchored on Carl Roger’s FacilitationTheory.It
is expanded by Jerome Bruner’s Constructivist Learning
Theory and supported by Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
The basic idea of Carl Rogers’ Facilitation Theory(as cited by
Dunn, 2002) perceives a teacher as the key role in the
process of learning, not as a walking textbook transmitting
its contents, but acts as the facilitator of learning. In his
theory, Rogers addresses a kind of learning that is
experiential in everyday life, which has meaning and
personal relevance.
Carl Rogers’theory involves the basic premise that the goal
of education must be the facilitation of change and learning.
Learning is facilitated when the student participates
responsibly in the learning process. When the learner
chooses his own directions, helps to discover his own
learning resources,formulateshis ownproblems,decideshis
own course of action, and lives with the consequences of
these choices, then significant learning is maximized. Thus,
the use of modular instruction allows the learners to
discover patterns, be responsible for their own learning, as
well as learn the new concepts presented to them. As a
result, much significant learning is acquired(Weibell,2011).
This study is further strengthened by Jerome Bruner’s
Constructivist Learning Theory that was founded on

observation and scientific study about how people learn.
According to Bruner’s Constructivist Learning Theory (as
cited by McLeod, 2008), learning is an active process in
which learners construct new ideas or concepts based on
current/past knowledge. He advocated that ifstudents were
allowed to pursue concepts of their own they would gain a
better understanding. Bruner’s works providea rationalefor
using discovery and hands-on-activities. He advocated that
whenever possible, teaching and learning should be
conducted in such a manner that children are given
opportunities to discover concepts for themselves.
Objective of the Study
This research ascertained the effectiveness of Modular
Teaching Approach in teaching Grade 10 Science at
Maximino Noel MemorialNationalHigh School inGuadalupe,
Carcar City, Cebu for School Year 2017-2018 as basis for
enhanced learning module. The findings of this study would
serve as basis for constructing instructional interventions to
enhance the teaching of science. This study was intended to
shed some light on the recurrent necessity of finding ways
and means in improvingtheteaching-learning process which
would lead to develop a quality education and a quality of
citizens to be produced by schools.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
PRE-TEST PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE 10 STUDENTS
ON THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED LEARNING
COMPETENCIES
This part presents the pre-test performance of the Grade 10
students on the following competencies: describing the
distribution of active volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and
major mountain belts; distinguishing the different types of
plate boundaries; and explainingthedifferentprocessesthat
occur along the plate boundaries.
Describing the Distribution of Active Volcanoes,
Earthquake Epicenters, and Major Mountain Belts
This learning competency in Science 10 is based on DepEd K
to 12 Basic Education Curriculum where learners are given
activities to describe and compare the distribution of
volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and mountain ranges in
the world using maps and illustrations. Table 1 presents the
pre-test performance of the Grade 10 students ondescribing
the distribution of active volcanoes, earthquake epicenters,
and major mountain belts.
Range of Scores
Pre-test
f % Verbal Description
8-11 6 15 AP
4-7 28 70 D
0-3 6 15 B
Total 40 100
Mean 5.075
sd 1.768
Table1.
From Table 1 on the level of performance in the pre-test
scores in Science 10 revealed that out of the 40 students
nobody was in Advanced and Proficient rating. On the other
hand, there were six (6) or 15 percent of the students who
obtained an Approaching Proficiency performance;28or 70
percent of the students got a performance interpreted as
Developing; and six (6) students or 15 percent belonged to
Beginning in the pre-test. As presented inthetable,themean
score of students during the pretest was 5.075 with a
standard deviation of 1.768. This low performance in the
pre-test means that the students lack mastery of this
particular competency and showed little understanding of
the science concepts in the previous years. The results
correspond with the study of Sadiq (2014) which showed
that the pretest average was low before the implementation
of modular design. It could be construed that they were not
fully equipped with the knowledge and skills to answer the
questions given to them.
This pre-test performance results further coincide with the
study of Samson (2014) revealed that the students did not
have any idea on the subject matter yet. In addition, the
students may have not encountered such competency yet in
any discussion or reference material.
Distinguishing the Different Types of Plate Boundaries
tasks to identify and differentiate the different types ofplate
boundaries. Illustrations or pictures of the three types of
plate boundaries are employed in every activity so that
learners can gain a better understanding ofthetopic.Table2
presents the pre-test performance of the Grade 10 students
on distinguishing the different types of plate boundaries
Range of Scores
Pre-test
4-7 22 55 D
0-3 18 45 B
Total 40 100
Mean 3.475
sd 1.867
Table2.
Table 2 shows that the students’ level of performance as
shown in the pre-test scores in Science 10 revealed that out
of the 40 students nobody was in Advanced mark as well as
in the Proficient level. Also, none obtained an Approaching
Proficiency performance in the pre-test. On the other hand,
22 or 55 percent of the students obtained a performance
interpreted as Developing and 18 or 45 percent belonged to
standard deviation of 1.867. The results are supported by
the study of Curaraton (2009) indicating that the
respondents performed low during pre-test or before the
approach was introduced because the students were not
able to carry out the particular science concepts or skills in
their preceding years. This further confirmed with thestudy
of Carmelotes (2012) whose findings revealed below-
average performanceofthestudents becauseofnon-mastery
of the basic concepts suggestingthatmajorityofthestudents
need to learn more and understand better on this
competency.
Explaining the Different Processes that Occur Along the
Plate Boundaries
to 12 Basic Education Curriculum where learners
demonstrate understanding of the geologic events or
processes that occur in every type of plate boundary. Hence,

students are tasked to discuss or explain the processes that
occur along the plate boundaries. Table 3 presents the pre-
test performance of the Grade 10 students on explaining the
different processes that occur along the plate boundaries.
Range of Scores
Pre-test
4-7 22 55 D
0-3 18 45 B
Total 40 100
Mean 3.475
sd 1.867
Table3.
19 or 47.5 percent of the students obtained a performance
interpreted as Developing and 21 or 52.5 percent belonged
to Beginning in the pre-test. As shown in the table, the mean
standard deviation of 1.808. This pre-test performance
result affirmed the pre-test achievement of below average
conducted by Samson (2014) and Carmelotes (2012)
indicating that the students’ prior knowledge about the
subject matter was still very minimal and the skills were not
yet fully mastered.
Summary of the pre-test means of the Grade10students
on the identified learning competencies.
Figure1.
Figure 1 shows that the mean of the students in the pre-test
on the identifiedcompetencies:describingthedistributionof
active volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and major
mountain belts (5.075) with a standard deviation of 1.768
and verbal rating of Developing. Likewise, in the next
competency: distinguishing the different types of plate
boundaries has a mean of 3.475 and a standard deviation of
1.867 with a verbal description as Beginning. Also, on the
competency on explaining the different processes thatoccur
along the plate boundaries, students’ pre-test results
obtained a mean of 3.225 and a standard deviation of 1.808
which belonged to the Beginning level.
From the Table, it can be noted that the pre-test
performance of the students acquired a grandmeanof3.925
with a verbal description interpreted as Beginning.Thispre-
test performance results confirmed with the pre-test
achievement results of below averageorlowperformanceof
the students conducted by Curaraton (2009), Rivera (2006)
and Samson’s study (2014), showing that the students had
not grasped the ideas fully or masteredthebasic andgeneral
concepts presented to them since most of the concepts were
not yet introduced to them in their previous sciences.
POST-TEST PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE 10
STUDENTS ON THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED LEARNING
COMPETENCIES
This part presents the post-test performance of
the Grade 10 students on the following competencies:
describing the distribution of active volcanoes, earthquake
epicenters, and major mountain belts; distinguishing the
different types of plate boundaries; and explaining the
activities to describe and compare the distribution of
volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and mountain ranges in
the world using maps and illustrations.
Table 4 presents the pre-test performance of the Grade 10
students on describing the distribution of active volcanoes,
earthquake epicenters, and major mountain belts.
Range of Scores
Pre-test
8-11 6 15 AP
4-7 28 70 D
0-3 6 15 B
Total 40 100
Mean 5.075
sd 1.768
Table4.
From Table 4 on the level of performance in the pre-test
scores in Science 10 revealed that out of the 40 students
nobody was in Advanced and Proficient rating. On the other
hand, there were six (6) or 15 percent of the students who
obtained an Approaching Proficiency performance;28or 70
percent of the students got a performance interpreted as
Developing; and six (6) students or 15 percent belonged to
standard deviation of 1.768.
This low performance in the pre-test means that the
students lack mastery of this particular competency and
showed little understanding of the science concepts in the
previous years. The results correspond with the study of
Sadiq (2014) which showedthatthepretestaveragewas low
before the implementation of modular design. It could be
construed that they were not fully equipped with the
knowledge and skills to answer the questions given to them.
This pre-test performance results further coincide with the
study of Samson (2014) revealed that the students did not
have any idea on the subject matter yet. In addition, the
students may have not encountered such competency yet in
any discussion or reference material.

tasks to identify and differentiate the different types ofplate
boundaries. Illustrations or pictures of the three types of
plate boundaries are employed in every activity so that
learners can gain a better understanding of the topic.
Table 5 presents the pre-test performance of the Grade 10
students on distinguishing the different types of plate
boundaries.
Range of Scores
Pre-test
4-7 22 55 D
0-3 18 45 B
Total 40 100
Mean 3.475
sd 1.867
Table5.
22 or 55 percent of the students obtained a performance
interpreted as Developing and 18 or 45 percent belonged to
standard deviation of 1.867.
The results are supported by the study of Curaraton (2009)
indicating that the respondents performed low during pre-
test or before the approach was introduced because the
students were not able to carry out the particular science
concepts or skills in their preceding years. This further
confirmed with the study of Carmelotes (2012) whose
findings revealed below average performance of the
students because of non-mastery of the basic concepts
suggesting that majority of the students need to learn more
and understand better on this competency.
Explaining the Different Processes that Occur Along the
Plate Boundaries
to 12 Basic Education Curriculum where learners
demonstrate understanding of the geologic events or
processes that occur in every type of plate boundary. Hence,
students are tasked to discuss or explain the processes that
occur along the plate boundaries. Table 6 presents the pre-
test performance of the Grade 10 students on explaining the
Range of Scores
Pre-test
4-7 22 55 D
0-3 18 45 B
Total 40 100
Mean 3.475
sd 1.867
Table6.
19 or 47.5 percent of the students obtained a performance
interpreted as Developing and 21 or 52.5 percent belonged
to Beginning in the pre-test. As shown in the table, the mean
standard deviation of 1.808. This pre-test performance
result affirmed the pre-test achievement of below average
conducted by Samson (2014) and Carmelotes (2012)
indicating that the students’ prior knowledge about the
subject matter was still very minimal and the skills were not
yet fully mastered.
Summary of the Post-test Mean of the Students in
Science 10
Figure2.
Figure 2 shows that the mean of the students in the post-test
on the identifiedcompetencies:describingthedistributionof
active volcanoes, earthquake epicenters, and major
mountain belts (13.475) with a standard deviation of 2.572
and verbal rating of Proficient. Likewise, in the next
competency: distinguishing the different types of plate
boundaries has a mean of 13.450 anda standarddeviation of
2.385 with a verbal description as Proficient. Also, on the
competency on explaining the different processes thatoccur
along the plate boundaries, students’ post-test results
obtained a mean of 10.900 and a standard deviationof2.205
which belonged to the Approaching Proficiency level.
understanding of the ideas and concepts presented in the
modules. The result relates to the study conducted by Guido
(2014) that student assessment in the module significantly
stressed out that the use of the module as a teaching tool
claim to be more adequate than the traditional or
conventional teaching with respect to the quality oflearning
as it helped them improve their understanding ofthesubject
matter.
The findings imply that the students find the module used in
the study exciting and fun to collaborate with their
classmates as they were actively involved withtheactivities.
This is further accompanied by the study of Macarandang
(2009) that the uses of self-instructional materials are
particularly useful as a strategy in introducing basic
concepts to an entire class.

THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OF PRE-TEST AND
POST-TEST PERFORMANCES OF THE GRADE 10
STUDENTS ON THE SCIENCE 10 LEARNING
COMPETENCIES
This part of the chapter presents the significantdifferenceof
pre-test and post-testperformances oftheGrade10students
in the three (3) learning competencies. This is shown in
Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9.
The Significant Difference of the Pre-test and Post-test
Performances of the Grade 10 Students on Describing the
Distribution of ActiveVolcanoes,EarthquakeEpicenters, and
Major Mountain Belts
Statistics Mean Difference n df Sd
value
Decision Interpretation
t p
Pre-test 5.075
8.400 40 39 2.610 -20.36 0.000* Reject Ho Highly Significant
Post-test 13.475
Table7.
From the Table, it can be noted that during the pretest, the students obtained a mean of 5.075 whereas the mean post-test is
13.475 with a mean difference of 8.400 and a standard deviation of 2.610. It further shows that the t-value is -20.36 and the p-
value is 0. 0000. Test of significance obtained a p-value of less than 0.01 which is highly significant. This indicates that the null
hypothesis was rejected and therefore concludes that thereis a significantdifferencebetweenthepre-testandpost-testresults
of the students.
Table 7 further indicates that there is an increase in the mean scores of the students between their pre-test and post-test
performances. It denotes that the performance of the students is enhanced greatly in this particular competency after their
exposure to Modular Teaching Approach. This may be attributed tothesimplified yetinterestingactivities inthemodulewhich
help the students in understanding the concepts and mastering the competency.
The above-results had been supported by the study of Garillos (2012) that there was a significant increase in the pre-test and
post-test results of the students when the Modular Approach was introduced in the class. The results were further reinforced
by the study of Labis (2016) that the interesting and concrete illustrations andsimplified explanations ofthetopics ina module
effectively aid the students in understanding the concepts taught. Thus, students find it easier to accomplish the activities or
tasks as set in the modules.
The Significant Difference of the Pre-test and Post-test Performances of the Grade 10 Students on Distinguishing the Different
Types of Plate Boundaries
value
t p
Pre-test 3.475
Post-test 13.450
Table8.
As reflected in table 8, it shows that during the pretest, the students obtained a mean of 3.475 whereas the mean post-test is
13.450 with a mean difference of 9.975 and a standard deviation of 3.254. It further shows that the t-value is -19.39 and the p-
value is 0. 0000. Test of significance obtained a p-value of less than 0.01 which is highly significant, thus, rejected the
hypothesis. This implies that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the students in this
particular competency. Table 8 indicates that there is an increase in themeanscoresof thestudents betweentheirpre-test and
post-test performances. The findings imply that the students got better results after their exposure to the Modular Teaching
Approach. This further showed that they had an improved performance considering that they learn the concepts
independently.
The results above can be associated with the study of Torrefranca (2017).Thefindingsofherstudy broughtaboutimplications
for both theory and practice regarding the usefulness of modules in classroom instruction and the teacher devising the
modules. Modular instruction is effective in individualizing learning by allowing a student to achieve mastery of one unit of
content before moving on to another.
The results further correspond to the study of Samson (2014) where the use of Modular Approach in Science was remarkably
beneficial even with less supervision of the teacher. It surpassed the performance of the students subjected to a conventional
classroom that required the teacher’s presence all the time.
Explaining the Different Processes that Occur Along the Plate Boundaries
The Significant Difference of the Pre-test and Post-test Performances of the Grade 9 Students on Explaining the Different
Processes that Occur Along the Plate Boundaries

value
t p
Pre-test 3.225
Post-test 10.900
Table9.
As shown in Table 9, the students obtained a mean of 3.225 in the pre-test whereas the mean post-test is 10.900, with a mean
difference of 7.675 and a standard deviation of 2.546. It further shows that the t-value is -19.07 and the p-valueis0.0000.Test
of significance obtained a p-value of less than 0.01 which is highly significant. Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected. The
results further indicate a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results of the students. Table 11 indicates
that there is an apparent increment in the mean scores of the students between their pre-test and post-test performances.
This finding affirmed the study conducted by Torrefranca (2017) implying that since the mean post-test score is greater than
the mean pre-test score, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the exposure to the instructional module generally
brought about improvement in the knowledge of the students. The students were able to improve their performance with the
teaching innovation being introduced.
The significant differences between the mean pre-test and post-test scores are in the affirmative, showing the effectiveness of
the instructional module used in the study. This is consistent with earlier findings that show how instructional materials can
assist the teachers in presenting their lessons logically and sequentially to the learners (Garillos, 2012) and as supported by
Abdu-Raheem (2014) who showed how instructional materials aid explanations and make learning of subject matter
comprehensible to students during the teaching-learning process.
These data imply that Modular Teaching Approach significantly improves the performance of the students in learning science
concepts based from the competencies measured. In this study, it is evident that the use of modules inteachingSciencegreatly
affects students’ learning because it enabled the learners to achieve an improved performance in Science 10. Students find it
stimulating and challenging as they were motivated, driven and involved actively in the various activities presented in the
module.
These results signify the idea of B. Skinner (as cited by Guido, 2014) emphasizing that one way of maintaining the interest of
the learners is to provide them with activities which they can perform individually, after being given the proper guidance,
direction, instruction and encouragement by the teacher. This is the use of module as an instructional tool.Themoduleused in
the study claim to make students learning experience interesting and well stimulated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, it is concluded that Modular Approach as an alternative instructional method in teaching
Science 10 significantly enhances the performance of the students. This shows that the approachused appearedtobeeffective
and exhibited a vital connection in improving students’ academic achievementinScience10as supportedand validatedbyCarl
Roger’s Facilitation Theory, Jerome Bruner’s Constructivist Learning Theory, and Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution
REFERENCES
[1] Ali et al. 2010. Effectiveness of Modular Teaching in
Biology at Secondary Level. Asian Social Science, Vol.
6. ww.ccsenet.org/ass
[2] Albaracin, G., & Suson, R. L. (2019). Prototype
Learning Activities for Grade 9 Science.
[3] Barnett, R., G. Parry, and K. Coate (2004).
Conceptualising Curriculum Change. In M. Tight(Ed.),
The Routledge Falmer Reader in Higher Education.
Routledge Falmer
[4] Callahan, B.E., Dopico, E. Science teaching in science
education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 11, 411–418 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9703-7
[5] Daries, I. (1981). Instructional TechnologyandMedia.
McGraw Hill Book Company New York, USA. p. 72.
[6] Daries, I. (1981). Instructional TechnologyandMedia.
McGraw Hill Book Company New York, USA. p. 72.
[7] NSE. 2016. 3 Science teaching standards. Retrieved
from: https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/5
[8] National Center for Education Statistics (2007).
Trends in international mathematics and science
study. Washington, DC: IES [available at
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_science07.asp].
[9] Vidhyalaya,2013. Difficulties Encountered By Science
Teachers During Teaching Concepts Of Science.
[10] Sejpal, K. 2013. Modularmethod ofteaching.retrieved
from:
https://raijmronlineresearch.files.wordpress.com/20
17/07/29_169-171-dr-kandarp-sejpal.pdf
[11] Taneja, R. (1989). Dictionary of Education. Anmol
Publication Murare New Dehli, India. p. 155.(2)(PDF)
Difficulties Encountered By Science Teachers During
Teaching Concepts Of Science. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3126234
83_Difficulties_Encountered_By_Science_Teachers_Du
ring_Teaching_Concepts_Of_Science[accessed Mar02
2020].
[12] Loughran, J. and A. Berry (2000). Improving Teacher
Education Practice through Self Study. New York:
Routledge Pubishing Company.

[13] Salandanan, G. (2006). Methods of Teaching. Quezon
City: Lorimar Publishing Co., Inc.
[14] Zulueta, F. and E. Maglaya (2004). Foundations of
Education.Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.
[15] Abdu-Raheem, B. O. (2014). “Improvisation of
Instructional Materials for Teaching and Learning in
Secondary Schools as Predictor of High Academic
Standard.”. Nigerian Journal of Social Studies, 17(1),
131-143.
[16] Bhattacharjee J. (2015). “Constructivist Approach to
Learning–An Effective Approach of Teaching
Learning”. International Research Journal of
Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary Studies (IRJIMS)
ISSN: 2394-7969 Volume-I, Issue VI.
[17] Dunlosky, J. et. al. (2013). “Improving Students’
Learning With Effective Learning Techniques:
Promising Directions From CognitiveandEducational
Psychology.” Association For Psychological Science,
doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.
[18] Garillos, M. N. T. (2012). “DevelopmentandValidation
of Instructional Module in Biology for Second Year
High School”. TVC-Sta. Teresa National High
School.
[19] Goldschmid, B. (2005).“ModularInstructioninHigher
Education: A Review.“ Journal on Higher
Education.Vol. 2 no. 1.
[20] Guido, R.M. (2014)“Evaluation of a ModularTeaching
Approach in Materials Science and Engineering.”
American Journal of Educational Research, Vol.2,no.
11 (2014): 1126-1130. doi: 10.12691/education-2-
11-20.
[21] Hughes, J. L. (2012). “Programmed Instructions for
Schools and Industry.” Literary Licensing, LLC.
[22] Macarandang, M. A. (2009). “Evaluationofa Proposed
Set of Modules in Principles and Method of
Teaching.” E-International ScientificResearchJournal,
1, 1-24.
[23] Nepomuceno, F. “Modular Approach to Instruction.”
(Handout)
[24] Reiser, B. J., et al. (2003). “Design Strategies for
Developing Science Instructional Materials.”National
Association for Research in Science Teaching.
[25] Sadiq. S. (2014). “Effectiveness of Modular Approach
in Teaching at University Level”. Journal of Education
and Practice Vol.5, No.17.
[26] Salandanan, G. (2001). “Teacher Education Journal.
Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
[27] Sejpal, K. (2013). “Modular Method of Teaching”.
International JournalforResearchinEducation.Vol.2,
Issue:2.
[28] Torralba, C. (2000). The Modern Teacher.Vol. 49.
[29] Torrefranca, E. (2017). “Development and Validation
of Instructional Modules on Rational Expressions and
Variations’. Volume11, No. 1.
[30] Carmelotes, (2012). “Modular Approach in Teaching
Trigonometry.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis,
University of the Philippines, Cebu City.
[31] Curaraton, Ethel (2009). “Self-Learning Experience
(SLE) Approach in the Performance of Science
Students.”Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Cebu Normal
University, Cebu City.
[32] Labis, Olivia (2016). “Teaching Chemistry
through Learning Models.” Unpublished Master’s
Thesis. Cebu Technological University, Cebu City.
[33] Rivera, Maria Lourlyn (2006).“Self-Activity Kits
(SAKS) for Elementary Science
Instruction.”Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Cebu
Normal University, Cebu City.
[34] Samson, Roberto Jr. (2014). “Modular Approach in
Teaching Grade VIII Science.” Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, University of the Philippines, Cebu City.

Modular Approach in Teaching Science 10

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Modular Approach in Teaching Science 10 (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Modular Approach in Teaching Science 10