Strategic Intervention as a Predictor to Learners Level of ...

IJESC, May 2022 29531 http:// ijesc.org/

ISSN 2321 3361 © 2022 IJESC

Strategic Intervention as a Predictor to Learners Level of

Understanding Dioscora B. Patagan1, Monalisa O. Chagas2

Masters of Arts in Educational Management1, 2

University of Mindanao Tagum, Tagum City Davao del Norte, Philippines1, 2

Abstract:

This research aims to determine which indicators in Strategic Intervention Materials predicts the learner’s level of understanding of

Grade 6 pupils from the three identified elementary school of Trento Agusan del Sur. The respondent composes of 200 elementary

grade 6 pupils from the three significant schools of the Municipality of Trento Division of Agusan del Sur. The study uses

quantitative non-experimental method employing a causal effect technique to describe existing characteristics. The following are the

statistical tool used to prove the result of the study Regression analysis, Mean, Pearson r. The development of the research displayed

a very high level of Strategic Intervention Materials and the Learners’ level of understanding. Furthermore, the two variables

manifested high level result. It was found that there was a significant relationship between Strategic Intervention Materials as a

predictor to Learners’ Level of Understanding, Moreover, Content and Assessment got the highest mean from among the four

indicators in the Strategic Intervention Materials. This implies that learners were honed on the content in terms of understanding on

specific context or even on subject facts and concepts that significantly influences the learners’ Level of understanding.

Keywords: Maed, Strategic Intervention Materials, Learners level of understanding. Content, Assessment.

1. Introduction:

An extraordinary bargain of consideration has been given to

the way people learn or understand new information and their

favored strategies. As a result, it has ended up a pivotal point

for students to get them possess level of understanding,

empowering them with the best language learning instructions

based on their level of thinking. Once the learners recognize

and know their have level of knowledge in learning, they can

discover reasonable exercises that suit their learning

inclinations. A study presented by Benjamin Bloom “Bloom’s

Taxonomy; Levels of Understanding” offers a brief discussion

regarding the learner’s level of understanding of how student

remember information, broken into the language that can be

used together to understand and measure how critical thinking

skills develop in a student. The outcomes of this study

envisioned to assist the office of the Department of Education

in its endeavors on the way to the advancement of the

excellence of instruction in public and private schools and to

deliver suitable students’ intervention.

Strategic Intervention Material (SIM) is an educational

instruction intended to reteach models and themes that were

considered the least learned mastered skills of the pupils in a

particular subject area. The parts of making a Strategic

Intervention Materials are as follow: the first is Guide card, the

second is an Activity Card, the third part is Assessment Card,

the fourth part is Enrichment Card and lastly the fifth part is

Reference Card. A thesis study by Kristine Jean Barredo a

Public School Teacher II of Tunasan Elementary School

Muntinlupa City, entitled “Development of academic

performance Using Strategic Intervention Material” presents

students’ academic performance development after using

Strategic Intervention Materials.

One of the difficulties faced today by the Education department

structure is our view for functional literacy to the unfortunate

learners; aside from that is the insufficiency of teacher

educators, deprived and damage classrooms and absence of

instructional resources, decreasing results of students

achievement due to poor assessment and inappropriate

distribution of instructional materials and increasing records of

out-of-school children in the country impede our students to be

active makers. Thus, Philippine Education implementers must

emphasize restructuring and developing appropriate

instructional materials so that the Education System Core

implementers can quickly assess learners to become

functionally literate.

However, the author of this study did not come transversely to

this study entitled “Strategic intervention materials predicting

learner’s level of understanding” in the Department of

Education. It only shows that the present study shall make a

specific contribution that will supplement and give aid in the

improvement of knowledge and remediate to the least mastered

skills of the learners in the field of learning, thus attaining

development and increased on the learners’ educational

performance. The most profound way of getting learners’

attention is through instructional resources wherein learners

can discover, explore and create, thus making the learning

process more fun and enjoyable. The stated scenario strongly

motivated the researcher to conduct the study on strategic

intervention material as a predictor to learners’ level of

understanding. In this context, the researcher feels the urgency

to conduct the study.

1.1. Research Objectives:

The study aims to determine which domain in the Strategic

Intervention Materials significantly predicts Learners’ Level of

Understanding.

The study attempts to answer the following objectives:

Research Article Volume 12 Issue No.5


1. To assess the quality of strategic intervention materials in

terms of:

1.1 Content;

1.2 Instructional Design;

1.3 Organization and Presentation;

1.4 Assessment.

2. To determine the level of learners’ level of understanding in

terms of :

2.1 Explaining;

2.2 Interpreting;

2.3 Applying;

2.4 Perspective;

2.5 Empathizing;

2.6 Self- Knowledge.

3. To determine the significant relationship between the

Strategic Intervention

Materials and Learners’ level of Understanding.

4. To determine which domain in the Strategic Intervention

Materials significantly predicts Learners’ level of

Understanding.

1.2 Research Hypothesis:

The following hypotheses were tested at a 0.05 level of

significance:

1. There is no significant relationship between the

Strategic Intervention Materials and Learners’ level of

Understanding.

2. There is no domain in the Strategic Intervention

Materials that significantly predicts Learners’ level of

Understanding.

2. Review of Related Literature:

Various authors of this study’s theories, opinion, and concepts

were discussed to provide a valid reference for the variables

treated under the survey. Strategic Intervention Materials is the

first independent variable of the study. This variable is

scrutinized into different indicators: Content, Instructional

Design, Organization and Presentation, and Assessment

(Balacuit, 2001 & Barredo, 2014). The study’s dependent

variable of the study is the learner’s level of understanding

which is also scrutinized into six indicators: Explaining,

Interpreting, Applying, Perspective, Empathizing, and Self-

Knowledge. (Wiggins &Mctighe, 2005) the effectiveness of

the Strategic Intervention materials in terms of the Content and

Assessment showed a development in the learners’ level of

understanding of the academic performance of the pupils.

Thus, the use of appropriate instructional materials Like

Strategic Intervention Materials has a strong relationship that

aids the students learn better and faster (Dahar, 2011

&Togonon, 2015)

Strategic Intervention Materials:

Educational instructional material is widely known as Strategic

Intervention Material (SIM), approved by the Philippine

DepEd System that aids in improving students ‘performance as

to the content, instructional design, organization and

presentation, and assessment. To any subject areas it reassures

successful learning in the educational field of all learning areas

in both primary and secondary schools in the Philippines

(Barredo, 2014). Strategic Intervention Material allows the

pupils to expand and explore their knowledge of various ideas

and concepts that would develop their learning to the level of

their understanding of the diverse subject matters that hone

their proficiencies. Each teacher-made intervention materials

must contain five parts the first part. The first part will be the

Guide card; it excites the pupil’s concentration on the subject

conferred and gives them a thorough review of what they have

learned. The second one is the Activity card. It decodes the

attention skills of the learners with at least three manipulative

activities found in the materials. The third part is the

Assessment card which offers manipulative drills and exercises

that let the learners reevaluate their understanding of what they

have learned. The fourth part, of which is the enrichment card,

deals with exercises that strengthen the topic of the objective of

the lesson and to offers opportunities for the learners to relate

what have they gain on the critical concept. lastly, the fifth part

of the materials is the reference cards it provides further

readings and references to the pupils in a particular subject

matter (Atienza, 2010 & Rodrigo, 2015).

Furthermore, Strategic Intervention Material is an educational

intervention material used to reinstruct ideas and subjects,

which are measured as the least learned mastered skills of the

pupils. It is an intervention material that aims to simplify the

activities that make the learners easily understand the lesson. It

will also aid them in the improvement and mastery of the skills.

It has emphasized the fundamental part of the materials as to

the Content, Instructional Design and Students Assessment

(Balacuit, 2001). On the other hand, Strategic Intervention

Material was given to the learners to aid them in improving and

enhancing their competency skills, which they could not

improve during traditional instruction. It comprises learning

approaches for pupils and content enhancement for teachers.

SIM also define as a complex approach to support pupils to

become independent and successful learners. They further

compare SIM and modules. In comparison, modules, on the

other hand composed of different learning competencies

intended for regular classroom teaching and distance learning.

While SIM requires pre-test and post-tests that include fun and

manipulative exercises, SIM also is a self-manipulative

material the learners will enjoy playing while learning

(Bunagan, 2012). Moreover, Strategic Intervention Materials is

a teaching aid applied in the real-life scenario of teaching

instruction. this is to improve methods of the learning process

that stimulate the pupils’ understanding and thereby increase

their academic performance. It tends to reinstruct the lessons

which are vague to the pupils and aid them to develop mastery

of the skills with its goals are to improved pupils’ interest as to

how they learn theories and apply learned skills and concepts

to real-life situations a material that has proven to be effective

for teachers in carrying out objectives on least learned lessons

(Aguele, 2010).

Thus, poor performance of the learners is addressed after using

Strategic Intervention Materials compared to the traditional

way of teaching. The use of this material must be part of the

knowledge and skills that were validated before the regular

classroom teaching. Educators must consider the reproduction

of the materials that should be easily replicated. Strategic

Intervention Materials develop the mastery level and enhance

the pupils’ academic performance (Biton, 2011). Strategic

Intervention Materials supported with the DepEd

Memorandum 117, Series of 2005, stated that facilitator of

learning use intervention materials to support a successful

learning in the said subject area. The Strategic Intervention

Materials help the leaners to develop the competencies that


they did not master. On the other hand, SIM focuses only on

one particular competency intended for remediation (Brodin &

Lindstrand, 2014).

Learner’s Level of Understanding:

Learners’ level of understanding reflects upon the approach of

teacher’s approach in addressing the goal of the curriculum

implementers, which is to look for an effective strategy for our

pupils and make them easily understandable in teaching

instruction. It is processes in which teachers are encouraged to

think, formulate activities, make enhancement interventions

and see that students easily understand the lesson. Teachers in

this level should focus on the needs of the learners to guide the

pupils and make their academic performance improve (Dahar,

2011). It is important to comment that teachers are in charge of

developing the improvement of the curriculum. Educators must

emphasize on the forecasting in innovating the materials that

ensure all topics and lessons are covered during the activity

duration. The materials must adhere to such standards by the

government policies (Davila, 2017). The students’ performance

towards learning must be empowered by using different

instructional materials. Innovation in teaching other than the

traditional method should be applied and utilized. There is a

higher achievement rate among learners who use to the

Strategic Intervention Material than students in conventional

way of teaching (Atienza, 2017).

In Learners’ level of understanding, students must share

numerous opportunities to let them draw interpretations and

make generalizations. With the teacher’s support, learners can

apply what they have learned and adapted it in real-life

situation. This feedback it helps them improve their quality and

increases their understanding level. Thus, teacher as role

educator expands from solely a “Sage on the Stage” in making,

coaching and giving advice on using content effectively

(Wiggins & McTighe, 2015).

Moreover, learners’ level of understanding is covered

in the recent insights into how people learn, apply and act

during the teaching process. As teachers and educators of

learning, we must be educated by the most current

understandings of the learning process. Over the past twenty

years, a study in cognitive psychology and neuroscience has

expanded our knowledge of how people learn (Aguele, 2010).

On the other hand, learners’ understanding was stated in the

book of Wiggins and McTighe entitled “Understanding by

Design”, that the nature of learning is presented in six facet of

thinking that offer different types of evidence of learning. The

six multifaceted of experience are as follow: explaining,

interpreting, and applying, perspective, empathy, and self-

knowledge. this facet offers context for creating rich learning

activities that improve and develop students’ understanding.

They can also be used to improve assessments that determine

whether students understand a certain concepts and can apply

what they have learned to new situations (Bransford, 2001).

Furthermore, the fundamental goal of learning is to equip the

learners with the knowledge and skills that they need for them

to survive. Ultimately, we want our students to master and

transfer their learning when threatened with new information,

issues and problems (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock 2001).

Moreover, learners’ understanding must guide and adapt to the

generalized principles in order to academic the level of rote

memory, which is rarely transferred. It is most likely occurs

when the learner knows and understands the fundamental

theories and principles that can be applied in the learning

process. Thus, learning with understanding is more effective in

transferring information than simply familiarizing with a text in

a lecture (Mullis, 2000).

In views on practical learning, educators should shift their

focus on the benefits of students’ level of understanding.

Educators use this strategy to generate circumstances in which

pupils will ask queries to improve approaches for problem-

solving to connect. On the other hand, learners are frequently

anticipated to explain their responses and talk about how they

attained at their conclusions. These educators usually measure

students’ mastery of knowledge through conferences, projects,

or tests that mandate explanation and extended writing. Aside

from the content mastery, evolving the answer is also viewed

as significant in assessing the quality of the students’ work

(Bransford, 2016).

2.1 Correlation between Measures:

In this part of the study, findings has been drawn and revealed

a substantial relationship between the Strategic Intervention

Materials to the Learner Level of Understanding. This entails

that the two indicators in strategic intervention materials, the

content and assessment, positively correlate with the variable

Learners’ Level of Understanding as to explaining, interpreting

and self-knowledge. This result is also in relation to the

proposition of Togonon (2015). That learners exposed on the

appropriate instructional materials help them learn faster and

better. It also supports and explains in the Study of Dahar, M

(2011) that the use of instructional materials appropriate to the

learners’ teaching-learning process gives a resilient relationship

to student’s academic performance. A joint research study by

Edwin I. Salviejo, Allen Espinosa and Science Department of

Makati High School published in the Learning, Teaching and

Education-International Journal showed the effect of the

instructional design of SIM as instructional material for

remediation enhances the teaching-learning process.

Moreover, the result coincides with the concepts of

sawyer 2016, that Instructional innovation materials made by

the teachers help the student expand their knowledge in

determining their level of understanding in the teaching-

learning process. Instructional materials like SIM are also

designed to encourage a deeper level of teaching among the

classroom teachers. The said support has been addressed

during the classroom instruction, which is tailored to the needs

of the students to help them achieves his/her learning goals.

Learners using intervention materials applying the casual style

of discourse greatly improved the retention level of the learners

that gave evidence and concepts in in problem-solving

activities. Learners understand after using the intervention

materials, they can easily share and apply what they have

learned directly and practically.

2.2 Theoretical Framework:

This research study is anchored by Kristine Jean DA.

(Barredo 2014) entitled “The Development of academic

performance in Science Using Strategic Intervention Material.

This research proves the effectiveness of using Strategic

Intervention Materials in the students’ academic performance

in improving a particular topic relating to the least mastered

skills of a specific subject area. This only means that using

SIM can be an effective tool during the teaching process. This

study is also based on the theory Dy, (2011), which stated that


using Strategic Intervention materials aids students in the

teaching methods to stimulate learners’ understanding of the

given activity. The use of SIM also increased and helped the

teachers record and assist student progress in the different

fields of learning. Thus Department of Education, specifically

the education managers must emphasized in restructuring and

organizing the delivery of the teacher-made innovative

instructional materials to improve the content and assessment.

The first independent variable, Strategic Intervention Material,

is based on the study of Balacuit, 2001 & Barredo 2014 this

variable is scrutinized into different indicators: Content,

Instructional Design, Organization and Presentation,

Assessment they validate the Effectiveness of the Materials

based on the traditional method versus on the usage of

Strategic Intervention Materials. According to their study, there

is a significant effect on the student’s level of understanding

and academic performance after using the Strategic

Intervention Materials in support to this theory. According to

Caseville (2019) and Casinillo et al. (2020), some factors affect

how a student could learn. Some of their learning experiences

lead to low academic performance. In the study of

Govindaraju and Venkatesan (2010), poor teaching strategy,

difficulties in learning and low-performance results in school

drop-outs. Hence, the strategic intervention must be

implemented to develop students’ interest and progress their

level of achievement. In addition to the anchored theory, Dahar

(2011) & Togonon (2015) stated that the use of appropriate

instructional materials, Like Strategic Intervention Materials,

has a strong relationship that helps the learners better

understand the lesson. Lastly, the dependent variable of the

study is the learner’s level of understanding which is anchored

on the theory of Wiggins & Mctighe 20 05 prove that learners

have six aspects of knowledge which must be determined by

mounting a diverse view of the concept that when a pupil

understands, they must need to improve the level of the human

minds which, instead of taking place one may occur

simultaneously. Those facets are: explaining, interpreting,

applying, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge (Wiggin &

Mctighe, 2005).

2.3 Conceptual Framework:

Presented in figure 1 is the Conceptual Framework and

schematic diagram of the study, which investigated the

relationship between the Strategic Intervention Materials as a

Predictor to Learner’s Level of Understanding. The

Independent variables of this study has four indicators, namely

the Content, Instructional Design, Organization and

Presentation, Assessment (Balacuit 2001 &Barredo 2014). The

first indicator in Strategic Intervention Materials is the content

refers to the information conveyed within a course of a specific

subject in the instructional materials. Instructional Design

refers to the systematic progress of instructional theory to

ensure the quality of content in every instruction. Organization

and Presentation are patterns to create an overarching structure

or organize content within a subtopic. Assessment refers to

collecting and using empirical data in understanding the skills,

attitudes, and beliefs to improve programs and enhance pupils’

academic performance in learning. While the dependent

variable is the Learners’ Level of Understanding with six

indicators namely: Explaining, Interpreting, Applying, having

perspective, empathizing, Self- Knowledge. Explaining

(Wiggins & Mctighe 2005) refers to learners’ concepts,

principles and processes of learners as to how they justify their

answers and show their reasoning. Interpreting refers to the

learners understanding of inferring the information of a text

and experience using images, analogies, models and stories.

Applying refers to how learners understand information and

put it into action. While the indicators Perspective refers to

recognizing different points of view by seeing the big picture

of a specific subject, Empathizing refers to an internal

understanding of a person. Self-Knowledge refers to

attentiveness and reflection on the importance of the learning

and experiencing.

INDEPENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

2.4 Significance of the Study:

The importance of this research is that, it may help DepEd

officials use the results of this study in dealing with the

problems on the learners’ performance through Strategic

Intervention Materials as an instructional material. This may

serve them as a point of reference in determining what factors

affect the learners’ performances in the field of instruction. For

the school administrators, the result shall be the springboard in

making enhancement programs to adopt measures for the

teachers who may make intervention materials (Salviejo,

2017). Moreover, it is hoped that the value of the study may

help teachers evaluate their teaching- learning approaches. It

would serve as a reflection that could furnish them with

innovative ideas and concepts to be more competent and skilful

enough in achieving learners’ performance development. It

would also give a hint to parents on what are the things that

they need to do to support the learning process of their child

(Das, 2017).

Lastly, the new knowledge developed as a the result of this

study advances in the DepEd authorities serves as a premise in

acquainting and knowing as a guide for future researches on

decision making and commitment of educators in the academe.

Thus, to achieve the highest level of learners’ performance at

school, teachers must think of the best content and proper

assessment method and thoroughly implement remediation and

instructional materials. This would help the learners easily

understand such a lesson but also helps the teachers how they

guide and assess pupils in terms of difficulty in understanding

(Llewellyn, 2005).

3. Method:

This chapter features the methods used to gather all the

necessary data that presented in this study. This also includes

the research design, research subject, including the research

instrument, respondents, the data gathering procedure, and the


statistical treatment of the data gathered and used by the author

throughout her study.

3.1 Research design:

This research is a Quantitative, non-experimental

design utilizing causal- effect technique with regression

analysis. A quantitative method was used in this study to

collect, gather and analyze numerical data - a tool use to find

patterns and averages and make predictions. Casual test

relationships generalize results to broader populations

(Bhandari 2020). Non- experimental studies, on the other hand,

are purely descriptive (Thompson &Panacek, 2007). This kind

of research design applies to studies where the independent

variables were unchanged. Purposively, Regression Analysis

was used in this study (Gallo, 2015).

3.2 Research Locale:

The study was conducted in the Province of Agusan del Sur

which was divided into 13 municipalities. One of those is the

Municipality of Trento. The Municipality of Trento is

subdivided into 4 District Schools with 7 Public National High

School, 1 Private School , 1 Tesda Accredited school, 1 State

College, and 32 Public Elementary School. The study will be

conducted on one of the 32 elementary school of municipality

of Trento. The School is just within the reach of the school

children in the locality. It has access to any transportation

where parents can drop their children in front of the school or

can be reached by school children

Illustrated in Figure 2 is the map of Agusan del Sur Province

highlighting the location of Trento Municipality.

3.3 Population and Sample:

The respondents of this study covered the 351 grade

six pupils currently enrolled in three public elementary schools

in the Municipality of Trento for the school year- 2019-2020.

The grade six pupils were given modified questionnaires taken

from the various authors. The respondents were chosen using

random sampling techniques. The total number of respondents

is 351. The respondents have the right to discontinue

participating if they are not comfortable doing the study.

Moreover, this study used Slovin’s formula described by

Tejada and Punzalan (2012) to determine an appropriate

sample size from the given population. As an inclusion criteria

use to determine the subject of this study, the researcher

considers three big schools from the 37 public elementary

schools in Trento. Pupils from the lower section fell under the

exclusion criteria and were not included in this study. Further,

the inclusion of specimen hazards was deemed unnecessary

and not included in the manuscript. The respondents have the

right to discontinue participating if they are not comfortable

doing the study.

3.4 Data Collection:

In gearing relevant data for this study, the researcher followed

the steps in the conduct of the study.

The author prepared a questionnaire already authorized by the

three internal and four external validators. The researcher gave

a letter of permission to conduct pilot testing from the three

public elementary schools of the Municipality of Trento,

Division of Agusan del Sur. After the approval of the school

division superintendent, a similar letter of permission from the

school principal was also prepared and given to the three

chosen schools of the Division of Agusan del Sur. The

questionnaire were pilot tested on 142 pupils, and the data from

pilot testing was sent to the statistician for Cronbach Alpha,

which measured the validity and reliability of the

questionnaires. When the test questionnaire measured the

validity of its reliability, the statistician gave the researcher a

signal to conduct and used the questionnaire on her study.

The researcher then submitted a letter to conduct her study.

The researcher then submitted a letter to conduct her study to

the Schools Division Superintendent of Agusan del sur-, Mr.

Lorenzo Macasocol. She was using the questionnaire that was

already proven and measured it reliability. After the

permission of the school’s division superintendent, a similar

letter was given to the three schools principals of the chosen

schools in the municipality of Trento. Upon the approval of the

school’s principal, the researcher went to the three chosen

schools of Municipality of Trento and personally distributed

the research instruments to the respondents. With the helped of

the school head, 100% of the schools’ questionnaires were

distributed correctly and retrieved. Lastly, the research

instruments were personally retrieved and tabulated. The

statistical results were interpreted and analyzed. Conclusions

were drawn from the data collected, and recommendations

were formulated based on the study’s findings.

4. Result:

Results, analysis, and intervention drawn out from the conduct

of the study are introduced in this part. The data presented were

both in tabular and textual forms. All inferential results were

analyzed and interpreted at a 0.05 level of significance.

Chronologically, tables and their interpretation were arranged

in the subsequent subheadings: level of Strategic intervention

materials, level of learner’s level of understanding, the

significant relationship between Strategic Intervention Material

to Learner’s level of understanding and regression analysis on

the influence of Strategic Intervention Materials to the learner’s

level of understanding.

The standard deviation was used to determine the error on

unknown samples. It cannot be noted that the standard

deviation ranges from 0.68-0.84 which is lesser than 1.0 as the

typical standard deviation for the 5-point Likert scale (Wittink

& Bayer, 1994). This means that the ratings in the

accomplished questionnaires are closed to the mean, indicating

the

Level of Strategic Intervention Materials

Presented in Table 1 are the data on the level of

Strategic Intervention Materials in terms of content,

instructional design, organization and presentation, assessment.

The overall mean is 4.23 with a Standard Deviation (SD) of

0.400 described as very high consistency of responses among

the respondents.

Table 1. Level of Strategic Intervention Materials

Indicator Mean SD Descriptive

Equivalent

Content 4.41 0.59 Very High

Instructional 4.32 0.56 Very High

Organization

and Presentation

4.28 0.62 Very High

Assessment 4.41 0.52 Very High

Overall 4.35 0.40 Very High


Moreover, the four strategic Intervention Materials Indicators

obtained means equivalent to a very high level: Content and

assessment got the highest mean of 4. 41. The Content

indicator got a standard deviation of 0.59, while indicator

Assessment got 0. 52 SD, for the Instructional Design got the

second highest mean of 4. 32 and an SD of 0.56; Organization

and Presentation got a mean of 4.22 and an SD of 0.52.

Specific mean scores and corresponding SDs of the five item

under the Strategic Intervention Materials in terms of content

are reflected on the appendix F-Table 1.1 are as follows:

Providing activities and information that is adequate to learning

needs got the highest mean of 4. 46 and SD of 0.70; two of the

items got the second highest means first question is

appropriateness of my learning needs got the mean score of

4.42 with the standard deviation of 0.67. The second question

was about appropriateness to the level of understanding with

the mean score of 4. 42 and SD of 0.70; specific objectives in

every activity got the mean of 4. 37 and SD of 0.74 and

providing brief discussion for the specific lesson got the mean

of 4.37 and SD of 0.65. these particular means and the overall

mean of 4. 41 with an SD of 0.59 are Very High.

In terms of level of Instructional Design in Appendix

F- Table 1.2, the mean scores and SDs of the five items under

the strategic Intervention materials indicators are as follow:

providing easy and clear instructions and directions for every

assessment activity got the highest mean of 4.40 and SD of 0.

64; Explaining the topics incomprehensible languages got the

second-highest mean of 4. 35 and SD of 0.70; while the item

reached the third-highest mean First providing activities which

are relevant and parallel with the material objectives with the

mean of 4.30 and SD of 0.76 and providing content and

direction that are clear and understandable with standard of 4.

30 and SD of 0.77; while the last item that got the lowest

provides effective tool for learning with the mean of 4.26 and a

SD of 0.77. These entire specific weighted mean had the

overall mean result of 4.32 and SD of 0. 56 are described as

Very High.

Specific weighted means and the corresponding SDs

of the five items under the strategic intervention materials

under the Organization and Presentation as shown in

Appendix-F-Table 1.3 are as follows: colorful and attractive

got the highest mean of 4. 33 and SD of 0.71; providing

activities that are arranged according to the degree of difficulty

got the second-highest mean of 4.30 and SD of 0. 89; provides

activities that are organized logically got the third highest mean

of 4.49 and SD of 0. 84; providing activities that are relevant

and parallel with material objectives has the mean result of

4.24 and SD of 0.73 ; while the last item that got the lowest is

Providing manipulative and interactive activities with the mean

of 4.24 and SD of 0.73. These specific weighted means had the

overall mean result of 4.28 and SD of 0.62 are described as

Very High. Specific mean scores of the five item under the

Strategic Intervention Materials in terms of Assessment are

reflected in Appendix F- Table 1.4. As shown, the following

items got the corresponding mean scores: providing reviews

and practice questions in every activity got the highest mean of

4. 45 with the SD of 0.68; Is appropriate and suits with the

learning objectives got the second mean score of 4. 43 and the

SD of 0.70 while providing assessment tool activities also got

the mean score of 4. 43 with the SD of 0.67; providing

materials in every assessment activities got the third mean

score of 4. 48 and SD of 0.68 while giving questions that is

appropriate to my level of understanding got the last mean

score of 4.37 with the SD of 0.75. All these specific means, as

well as the overall mean of 4.41 with the SD of 0.52, are

described as Very High Level of Learners Level of

understanding

Presented in Table 2 are the data on the level of Learners level

of understanding of Explaining, Interpreting, Applying,

Perspective, Empathizing, Self-Knowledge. The overall mean

is 4.35, with a standard Deviation (SD) of 0.38 described as

Very High. This indicates that learners’ understandings are

highly competent in understanding in terms of using Strategic

Intervention materials. Furthermore, the six indicators on

Learners’ level of understanding obtained the following

weighted mean and SDs: 4.51 and SD of 0.48 for Explaining

got the first highest means and SDs; Interpreting, the second

indicator got the highest standard of 4. 36 and the SD of 0.56;

Self-Knowledge got the thirst highest mean score of 4. 35 with

the SD of 0.60; Perspective also got the mean of 4. 33 and the

SD of 0.58 and the two indicators got the lowest mean is

Empathizing with the mean score of 4.29 and SD of 0.60 while

applying got the lowest mean score of 4.24 and the SD of 0.61

with the described interpretation as Very High.

In terms of Explaining as reflected in Appendix F-

Table 2.1, the mean scores and SDs of the five items under this

learner’s level of understanding indicators are as follows: Give

examples of a particular topic that got the first highest mean

score of 4. 56 with the SD of 0.57; explain the content of the

materials used got the second highest mean score of 4.55 with

SD of 0.60; make connections with the materials that I’m using

got the third mean score of 4. 52 with the SD of 0.59; while

justify and support my answers in every activity and described

the content in each activity got the same mean score of 4.47

And with the same SD of 0.66. These specific weighted means

and the overall mean of 4.51 with an SD of 0.48 are very high.

Table 2. Learners Level of Understanding

Indicator Mean SD Descriptive

Equivalent

Explaining 4.51 0.48 Very High

Interpreting 4.36 0.56 Very High

Applying 4.24 0.61 Very High

Perspective 4.33 0.58 Very High

Empathizing 4.29 0.60 Very High

Self-

Knowledge

4.35 0.60 Very High

Overall 4.35 0.38 Very High

Specific mean scores of the five items under learners’

level of understanding in terms Interpreting are reflected in

Appendix F- Table 2.2 as shown, the following items got the

corresponding mean scores and SDs: Interpreting the specific

data in the material got the first highest mean score of 4.39

with the SD of 0.65; relating a topic to another activity got the

second highest mean score of 4.38 with the SD of 0.73;

Showing importance of the manipulative materials got the

third-highest mean of 4.35 with the SD of 0.73; and Providing

and analogy of a specific topic got the fourth highest mean

score of 4.33 with the SD of 0.72; telling a revealing story

based on the materials that are being used got the fifth mean

score of 4.33 with the SD of 0.78. The overall mean and

Standard deviation of the said indicator got the mean score of

4. 36 with the SD of 0.56 as described interpretation of very


high. In terms of the level of learners’ level of understanding

under the applying indicators as presented in Appendix F-

Table 2.3, the mean scores and SDs of the five item under this

indicator are as follows: Applying new information in my daily

activities got the first highest mean score of 4.28 with the SD

of 0.72; using the manipulative material got the second highest

mean score of 4.25 with the SD of 0.79; act out stories rather

than talk about it also got the mean score of 4.25 and with the

SD of 0.80; Designing and inventing materials according to my

learning needs got the mean score of 4.23 with the SD of 0.78;

Demonstrating activity by showing how to do it rather than

reading about it or listening to a tape about it got the fifth mean

score of 4.21 and has the SD of 0.80. These specific weighted

means and the overall mean of 4.24 and the SD of 0.61 are

very high. Specific mean scores of the five items under the

learners’ level of understanding in terms of Perspective are

reflected in Appendix F- Table 2.4, as shown, the following

item got the corresponding mean scores and SDs: Analyzing

the directions and illustrations before beginning a project got

the First highest mean score of 4.40 with the SD of 0.81;

showing how to manipulate a particular activity got the second

highest mean score of 4.37 and the SD of 0.69; Comparing

what has been learned at the end of the discussion got the third

highest mean score of 4.33 with the SD of 0.74; picture out

things easily on the mind got the fourth highest mean score of

4.31 and with the SD of 0.81 while Recall a story and share it

during class discussion got the lowest mean score of 4.25 and

with the SD of 0.78. All these specific weighted means and the

overall mean of 4.33 and the SD of 0.58 are very high.

In terms of Empathizing, as reflected in Appendix F-

Table 2.5, the mean scores and SDs scores are as follows:

Remember the sequence of the activity got the first highest

mean score of 4.32 with the SD of 0.75; Manipulative and

touch the materials got the second highest mean score of 4.30

with the SD of 0.78; Reach common understanding with my

peers concerning specific tasks got the third highest mean score

of 4.28 with the SD of 0.76; work alone also got the mean

score of 4.28 and with the SD of 0.73; make a list of the

materials being required got the lowest mean score of 4.26 with

the SD of 0.81. All these specific weighted means and the

overall mean of 4.29 with the SD of 0.60 are very high.The

Specific mean score of the five items under the learners’ level

of understanding in terms of Self- Knowledge are reflected in

Appendix F- Table 2.6,as shown, the following items got the

corresponding means scores and SDs: Identifying terms used in

the materials got the first highest mean score of 4.39 and with

the SD of 0.75; Reflecting the questions in every activity based

on the materials being presented also got the mean score of

4.39 and with the SD of 0.74; Recognizing specific part of the

materials being used got the second highest mean score of 4. 37

with SD of 0.70; Explaining what I understand in the

discussion got the third highest mean score of 4.33 with the SD

of 0.75; Manipulating the materials in every activity got the

lowest mean score of 4.27 and with the SD of 0.71. These

specific weighted means and the overall mean of 4.35 with the

overall SD of 0.60 are described as very high.

Significant Relationship between Strategic Intervention

Materials to Learners’ Level of Understanding.

Table 3 presents the significant relationship between strategic

intervention materials to learners’ level of understanding. The

four strategic intervention materials indicators are as follows:

Content, Instructional design, Organization and presentation,

Assessment. Computations reveal the following R- Value and

their corresponding P-values: the r- value of content is 0.358

with p-value of 0.001 which shows positive correlation; the r-

value for Instructional design is 0.272 with p-value of 0.001

which shows positive correlation; the r- value of Organization

and Presentation is 0.312 with the p- value of 0.001 which

shows positive correlation; the r- value of Assessment is 0.416

with the p- value of 0.001 which shows positive correlation this

means that the domains Content, Instructional design,

Organization and presentation, Assessment. Have probability

level of 0.001 which is less than the level of significance,

which is 0.05, the null hypothesis which states that “there is

NO significant relationship between strategic intervention

materials to learners’ level of understanding”.

Table 3. Significant Relationship between strategic intervention materials to learners’ level of understanding

Independent

Variables

Dependent

Variable

r- value r-squared P-value Decision

Content

Learners level

of Understanding

0.358 0.1282 0.001 Ho is rejected

Instruction

Design

0.272 0.0740 0.001 Ho is rejected

Organization

and

presentation

0.312 0.0973 0.001 Ho is rejected

Assessment 0.416 0.1731 0.001 Ho is rejected

*P< 0.05

Regression Analysis on the influence of Strategic Intervention

Materials to Learners level of Understanding

Table 4 illustrates the regression analysis on the influence of

Strategic intervention materials to learners’ level of

understanding. The table shows the F-ration of 17.22 and the p-

value of 0.001, less than the 0.05 level of significance. This

allows the researcher to reject the null hypothesis, which states

that “there is no domain in strategic intervention material that

significantly influences the Learners’ level of understanding.

Thus, there is a field in strategic intervention materials that

substantially affects the learner’s level of understanding.


Table 4. Regression analysis on the influence of Strategic intervention materials to learners’ level of understanding

Independent

Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t-value P-value Decision

Indicators B Standard

Error

Beta

(Constant) 2.253 0.259

Content 0.165 0.042 0.258* 3.937 0.001 Ho is rejected

Instructional

Design

0.025 0.049 0.038 0.522 0.603 Ho is accepted

Organization

and Presentation

0.062 0.045 0.102 1.387 0.167 Ho is accepted

Assessment 0.224 0.051 0.305* 4.370 0.001 Ho is rejected

Dependent Variable: Learners’ Level of Understanding

R-value = 0. 511* F-ratio = 17.22

R = 0.261 P-value = 0.001

The r-value of 0.511 indicates a moderate positive relationship

between strategic intervention materials and learners’ level of

understanding. The coefficient of determination or the r-

squared, which is 0.261, connotes that only 26.1% of the total

variation in learner’s level of knowledge is explained or

accounted for by the indicators of Strategic Intervention

materials. The indicator Content has a beta of 0.165 and a p-

value of 0.001, which is less than the level of significance at

0.05. This means that Content is a domain of Strategic

Intervention Material which that significantly influence

Learners’ understanding. Another indicator of Strategic

Intervention Material is that Assessment has the beta of 0.224

with p-value of 0.001, which is less than the level of

significance at 0. 05. This means that the second is domain of

Strategic Intervention Materials which significantly influences

learners’ level of understanding. Therefore, the indicator on

Strategic Intervention Material in terms of Instructional Design

has a beta of 0.025 and a p-value of 0.603, which is greater

than the level of significance at 0.05. The indicator

Organization and Presentation has a beta of 0.062 with p- value

of 0.167. Which means that Instructional Design and

Organization and Presentation are the two domains of Strategic

Intervention materials that have no significant influence on

learners’ level of understanding. The two indicators from

among the four indicators under this variable have no

significant impact on the dependent variable, the learner’s level

of performance.

5. Discussion:

This chapter presents the discussion, conclusion and the

finding of the study and some related works. Also included are

the conclusion are drawn from these findings and the valuable

recommendations of the researchers.

Quality of Strategic Intervention Material

In the preceding chapter, it was found out that the

quality of the Strategic Intervention Materials has affected the

learners’ level of understanding in the academic performance

among the grade 6 pupils of three big elementary schools in the

Municipality of Trento, Trento District, Division of Agusan del

sur. Finding also showed that Content and Assessment got the

highest mean among the four indicators in the Strategic

Intervention Materials. This implies that learners were honed

on the content to understand specific context or even subject

facts and concepts. This further means that Content and

Assessment are the essential aspect of the Strategic

Intervention Material among Learners’ level of understanding.

While the other two indicators, Instructional Design and

Organization and Presentation, are the indicators that need to

be improved. This result confirms the study’s claims by Edwin

I. Salviejo, Allen Espinosa and The Science Department,

Makati High School. Published in the Learning,Teaching and

Educational Research, Faculty-International Journal showed

the effectiveness as to the Content of SIM as an instructional

materials will remediate and enhance students in their

academic performance in the teaching-learning process.

This result is in consonance to the notion of Bowman

(2009) that teachers continually strived to develop instructional

materials that are suited to the needs of the students a concrete

theoretical foundation for their instruction; before teachers can

responsibly provide quality education for students, they must

conclude what students should learn and why. These findings

also are similar to the notions of Cochran, et.al (2013) that the

teachers’ focuses on subject matter as to facts and instructional

content are complementary and mutually dependent, as

Shulman mention on his study entitled “Pedagogical content

knowledge”, which he defined that content and assessment in

instructional materials is essential as to the construction of

educational materials. Thus, before the teacher innovate

instructional materials, they must consider what content applies

to the needs of the learners. In this way, the transfer of learning

to the learners was improved because they could easily

understand the lesson well. (Hill, 2015)

Moreover, Langer (2016) also confirmed that teacher

made innovation in the instructional materials in builds

connections to the learners. This manipulative activity inside

can develop their skills in a particular subject area. Thus,

engage them in a challenging and exploratory learning to

improve pupils’ academic performance and create a mutual

core of understanding necessary for success. Results also

coincide with the concepts of Borko and Livingston (2014) that

curriculum implementers also assess the quality of accessible

resources in crafting Instructional materials. They must meet

standards in making intervention materials that suits the grade

level of the learners associated and approved by the committee

of accurate information and time allowed in a particular lesson.

In this way, the teacher can maximize their working strategies


to expand their horizon in the development and progress of the

learners’ achievement.

Level of Learners’ Level of understanding

The learners level of understanding among Grade 6

pupils of three Identified big school in the Municipality of

Trento, Province of Agusan del Sur presents that pupils

understand best in terms of the following indicators

Explaining, Interpreting, and self-knowledge which has the

highest mean percentage score among the six indicators it only

shows that explaining, Interpreting and Self Knowledge is

essential aspect of the Learners level of Understanding while

the other indicators namely applying, perspective, empathizing

were need to be developed and improve. This result is

congruent to the study of Wiggins and Mctighe, 2005 that

learners’ understanding is the concept characterize by the

human mind as an able construct that involves transmitting

information of what the pupils have learned to new situations

by explaining, interpreting, and learners’ self-knowledge. The

study by Perkins 1992 also support this that teachers should

reflect on the needs of students since they learn best in terms of

knowledge, cognitive schemata, and resources to achieve the

chosen understanding and learners performance.

Atienza (2010) also noted that students exposed to the

activities involving cognitive and affective domains have

higher achievement rate. The curriculum implementers

suggested such standards. The study also revealed that the

learners’ level of understanding in terms of Explaining got a

higher mean than the other five indicators. This implies that

Grade 6 Pupils of Trento Agusan del sur. A better

understanding of the concept of explaining things in the

particular topic it also provides positive management of student

behaviour in collaborating with the home and community for

the benefit of students to better understand a particular lesson.

Furthermore, this result confirmed with the findings of

Anderson,krathwol,and Blooms, 2001 that the learners who

hone in the exercises and expose to the activity involving the

development of their thinking are highly competent. It is also

confirmed that learners’ understanding in relating

comprehensive awareness of the learning area and

demonstrating the appropriate level of content knowledge in

their specialty and using a variety of resources promote social

and emotional competence and improve learning outcomes for

students. Moreover, Interpreting and Self –knowledge got the

same mean score which is very high. This shows that Grade 6

pupils of Trento Agusan del Sur learn better in the topic or a

lesson with interpretation and self-knowledge developmental

activities. This also supports the study of Jennings &

Greenberg (2009). Those learners better understand if they had

experienced it in the real-life situation. The result presents the

significant relationship between strategic intervention materials

to learners’ level of understanding, implying that the four

Strategic Intervention Materials indicators corresponds to a

high mean percentage score indicating positive correlations.

This means that the domains Content, Instructional design,

Organization and presentation, Assessment. With have

probability level of 0.001, which is less than the level of

significance, which is 0.05, the null hypothesis states that

“there is a significant relationship between strategic

intervention materials to learners’ level of understanding.

This finding confirms with the theories espoused in the study.

The study by Dahms et al. (2007) presented that the students’

performance towards understanding learning is through the

different instructional materials. Innovation in teaching other

than the traditional method has higher achievement rate among

learners who used the strategic intervention materials and had

a higher level of understanding than the students who are only

exposed to the traditional way of teaching.

This result is also supported by the joint study

published in the international journal learning in 2004. The

effectiveness of the content of SIM as an instructional

materials showed a development in the learner’s level of

understanding in academic performance. It was noted that

pupils could remember the lessons over a more extended

period after using the strategic intervention materials. Further,

through self-assessment, students gain insights into how

refined and accurate students views in the given task, criteria

and standards they are to master. This finding confirms with

the theories espoused in the study. Dahms et al. (2007) theory

states that the students’ performance towards understanding

learning is through different instructional materials. Innovation

in teaching other than the traditional method has a higher

achievement rate. Finally, this finding is associated to the work

of Barredo 2014 Strategic Intervention Materials as

instructional material for learning contributed a lot in the

education system to address and improved teaching of the

theories among pupils. The learners taught using the Strategic

Intervention Materials had better retention of the facts and

concepts and were superior in relating the knowledge in

problem-solving exercises.

Regression Analysis on the Strategic Intervention Materials

to Learners Level of Understanding

The regression analysis that predicts the domains of

Strategic Intervention materials to learners’ level of

understanding reveals that there are indicators in dependent

variable strategic intervention materials that significantly

influence the Learners level of understanding. Using simple

linear regression, it was found out that Content and assessment

are the two domains of strategic intervention materials that

significantly influence the learner’s level of understanding.

This result also supported by the joint study published in the

international journal learning in 2004. The effectiveness as to

the content and assessment of SIM as an instructional material

showed a development in the learner’s level of understanding

in academic performance. It was noted that pupils could

remember the lessons over a more extended period of time

after using the strategic intervention materials.

This result confirms the theory of Grant Wiggins and

Jay Mctighe in their study of six facet of understanding that

this use to aid teachers and pupils provides strategies to assist

and evaluate Learner’s level of performance. And

understanding that is a non- hierarchical framework- means

there is an interpretation on the lower level thinking skills and

higher level of thinking skills. Further, the diverse assessment

expands view of learning models above and beyond workbooks

and paper and pencil test assessment. Through self-assessment,

students increase complete insights as to how accurate the

students’ opinions on the task, criteria and standards they are

to develop. Similarly, these results are congruent to the views

of Skelton (2015) that teachers who portray excellent teaching

strategies as to the formulation of content and assessment in the

lesson relating to a comprehensive view of content areas that

focuses on the depth and complexity of learners understanding


can draw more complex and make explicit development areas

to scaffold learners understanding of what the content really

means. This allows pupils to establish the complexity of their

new knowledge and understanding through meaningful

presentation and share it to their audience.

Finally, the study confirms that learners better

understand if the instructional materials are suitable to their

needs. They can transfer their learning well and demonstrate it

by applying what they have learned in the new setting. This

statement is also supported by Bowman (2009), that to

understand there level of knowledge better they need to have

the instructional materials that focuses on the content. They

must have a complex and direct hands-on assessment to check

what they have learned. Thus, collaboration of the learners and

teaching facilitators in the transfer of learning effected student

academic performance.

6. Conclusion:

Based on the findings of the study, the pertinent

conclusions drawn are as follows: it was found out that the

quality of the Strategic Intervention Materials has affected the

learners’ level of understanding in the academic performance

among the grade 6 pupils of three big elementary schools in the

Municipality of Trento, Trento District, Division of Agusan del

sur. Finding also showed that Content and Assessment got the

highest mean from among the four indicators in the Strategic

Intervention Materials. This implies that learners were honed

on the content to understand specific context or even subject

facts and concepts. While on the Learners’ level of

understanding, indicators Explaining, Interpreting, Self-

Knowledge is given importance and significance to the level of

learners’ comprehension. This only means that the necessary

elements that learners effectively understands in certain

information are the knowledge and skills; thus, learners’

understanding requires more skill to asses one’s self to , justify,

and evaluate such acts and to be able students to understand it

involves the skill to transfer what they have learned to new

setting.

Furthermore, to better understand there level of knowledge,

they need to have the instructional materials that focuses on the

content and to check what they have learned, they must have a

complex and direct hands-on assessment. Thus, collaborating

the learners and teaching facilitators in the transfer of learning

had a great significant in the student academic performance.

This result is in accord with the notion of Bowman (2009) that

teachers continually must strive to develop instructional

materials that are suited to the needs of the students. It is a

strategic foundation for their teaching that aids them to

smoothly delivering the content of a particular lesson without

the difficulty of transferring information to them. Thus,

teachers can responsibly provide quality education for students

if they can determine gauge the level of their understanding.

7. Recommendation:

The possible effects of prior result and pertinent assumptions

of the study, the Author recommends to maximally enhanced,

develop and improve the Instructional Design and Organization

and Presentation planning of every instruction in the

intervention materials among subject areas since it has the

lowest mean percentage score among the four indicators in this

study. While the content and assessment indicators show the

highest score and have a significant effect of the learners’ level

of understanding, DepEd officials, more particularly the

curriculum implementer’s personnel may continue to maintain

and at least conduct enrichment activities in the areas of

planning as to the context of the instructional presentation. The

use of higher-level thinking skills in the assessment areas in

every instruction must then be developed. These enhancement

programs will help teachers determine what areas to focus on

in making instructional materials of their teaching work and

remaining motivated to show more commitment to their jobs.

The enhancement of the content and assessment in every

teaching instructions will also aid in the entire improvement of

teachers’ teaching performance.

Further, in the learners level of understanding variable

indicators of Empathizing, Applying, and Perspective have

proven to be the least importance in the study. This means that

these three indicators must be developed. Thus, the teachers

must focus on how to make activities in the materials that will

enhance learner’s understanding in this area since it got the

lowest percentage score in this study. To achieve the highest

level of learners’ performance at school, teacher must think of

the best content and suitable assessment method and

thoroughly implement remediation and instructional materials.

this would help the learners quickly understand such

instruction but also helps the teachers in how they guide and

assess pupils in terms of difficulty in understanding a particular

instructions. Finally, studies related to the variables under this

study or dealing with other problems and gaps which were not

covered in this study can be conducted by other researchers. A

similar analysis can be undertaken in larger setting and broader

scope to validate results and to formulate novel concepts on the

strategic intervention materials as a predictor to learner’s level

of understanding.

8. References:

[1] Aguele, A. (2010). Understanding and tips to teach

remedially. Retrieved from brightubeducation:

http://www.brightubeducation.com/special-ed-

inclusionstrategies/103030understanding-

remedialteaching/.

[2] Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., & Blooms, B. (2001). A

taxonomy for learning, Teaching and Assessing: A

revision of Bloom's taxonomy of Educational

objectives. New York: NY: Longman.

[3] Banugan, F. (2012). SIMTALK Education. Retrieved

from Slideshare.net:

http://www.slideshare.net/felixbanugan/simtalk-felix-t-

banugan

[4] Barredo, K. J. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of

using strategic intervention materials in improving the

academic performance in science. Retrieved from

Academia: https://www.slideshare.net/kbarredo/action-

research-for-strategic-intervention-materials

[5] Bhandari, P. (2021, December 8). What Is Quantitative

Research? | Definition, Uses and Methods. Retrieved

February 20, 2022, from Scribbr:

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-

research/

[6] Blalock, G. (2010). Strategic Intervention Material

Model 6. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from Transition

Project: Education- Transition Consulting UC::

www.ku.crl.org.pdf.


[7] Borko, H., &Livinston, C. (2014). Expert-novice

differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and

implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 40 (4), 36-42.

[8] Bouckenooghe, D., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009).

Organizational change questionnaire – climate change,

processes, and readiness: Development of a new

instrument. Journal of Psychology, 143: 559–599

[9] Bowman, D. (2009). Strategies for Effective teaching.

New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

[10] Casinillo, L. F., &Casinillo, E. L. (2020). Modelling

Experiences and its Factors in General Mathematics:

The Case of Grade 11 Students. Indonesian Journal of

Educational Research and Review, 3(2),, 25–34.

[11] Conchran, K., &DeRuiter, L. &. (2013). Appraisal and

performance management: The Principle and Practice of

Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman.

[12] Daha, M. (2011). Contextual factors contributing to

ethic identity development of second -generation Iranian

American Adoloescent. Journal of Adolescent Research,

69-543.

[13] Dahms, M. (2007). The educational theory of Lev

Vygotsky: An Analysis. New Foundation.

[14] Dewey, J. (1993). How we Think: A restatement of the

Relation of reflective thinking to the educative process .

Boston: MA: Health and Company.

[15] Dy, L. (2011). Teaching Mathematics through strategic

intervention Materials (SIM). Retrieved from Hubpage:

http://jhody.hubpages.coom/hub/

[16] Education, D. o. (2009). Department of Education

Memorandum No. 225, . Retrieved august 9, 2019, from

7th national Science Quest for Elementary and

Secondary levels: https://bit.ly/2OP7Fnq

[17] Escoreal, A. (2012). A Strategic Intervention Material a

tool to reduce least learned skills in grade four science.

New York: NY: Press.

[18] Gallo, A. (2015, november 4). A Refresher on

Regression Analysis. Retrieved february 20, 2022, from

Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2015/11/a-

refresher-on-regression-analysis

[19] Govindaraju, R., &Venkatsen, D. (2017, september 1).

A Study on School Drop-outs in Rural Settings.

Retrieved february 20, 2022, from Taylor & Francis

Onine:

https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2010.11885445

[20] Gultiano, A. (2012). Effects od Strategic Intervention

Materials ( SIM) on the Academic Achievement in

Chemistry of Public High School Students. Retrieved

from Slideshare.net:

http://www.slideshare.net/neoyen/strategic-intervention-

material

[21] Hill, H., Rowena, B., & D.L. (2015). Measuring

Teachers Content Knowledge of Language and Reading

. Westport: CT: Greenwood Press.

[22] Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). he Prosocial

Classroom: The Teacher Social and Emotional

Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom

Outcomes. SAGE Journals, 30-56.

[23] Langer, J. (2016). Beating the odds: Teaching middle

and Highschool students to read and write well.

American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4) 837-

880.

[24] Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science

through inquiry: A case study approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: NSTA Press & Corwin Press.

[25] Lusica, M. (2015). Effectiveness of an enhanced Deped

Module in improving the achievement of Grade7

students in motion problems. Davao City: University of

Southeastern Philippines.

[26] Perkins, D. (1992). Smartschools: From training

memories to educating minds. New York: NY: Free-

Press.

[27] Rodrigo, R. (2015). Importance of Strategic

Intervention Materials. Retrieved from duyong.net

teachers: http://duyong.net/teachers-corner/6925-

imortance-of-strategic-intervention-material.

[28] Salviejo, E. I. (2014). Strategic Intervention Material-

Based Instruction, Learning Approach and Students'

Performance in Chemistry. International Journal of

Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol 2,

No 1, 91-123.

[29] Salviejo, E., F, A., & E., E. (2014). Strategic

Intervention Materials-based instruction learning

approach and students performance in chemistry.

Retrieved from International Journal of Learning,

Teaching and Educational Research:

http://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/download/1

0/pdf.

[30] Skelton, F. (2015). Identifying Attributes of High

quality special education teachers. teacher education

and special education. teacher education and special

education, 27, 350-359.

[31] Soberano, A. (2009). Strategic Intervention Materials in

Chemistry . Penang, Malaysia: Third International

Conference on Science and Mathematics Education.

[32] Soriano, A. (2012). The efficacy of Strategic

intervention materials with physics and mathematics

remediation to the achievement of selected fourth year

of las nieves. Las Nieves.

[33] Tavakol, M., &Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of

Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical

Education, 53-55.

[34] Tejada, J. J., &Punzalan, J. R. (2012). On the Misuse of

Slovin ’ s Formula. he Philippine Statistician, 61(1),,

129-136.

[35] Thompson, C. B., &Panacek, E. A. (2007, January).

Research study designs: Non-experimental. Retrieved

February 20, 2022, from Research Profile:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2006.10.003

[36] Togonon, I. (2011). Development and Evaluation of

Project- Based SIM (PB_SIM) in Teaching High School

Chemistry. Masters Thesis. Technological University of

the Philippines.

[37] Wiggins, D., &Mctighe, J. (2005). Understanding by

design. Alexandria: VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development ASCD.

[38] Wittink, D. R., & Bayer, L. (2003). “The Measurement

Imperative,”. A scientific Research, 14-22.

Strategic Intervention as a Predictor to Learners Level of ...

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Intervention as a Predictor to Learners Level of ...