Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 4 no. 8 (2022)

Science Spiral Progression Curriculum: The Factors Affecting Secondary Students’ Learning Progress

Joy Mark Dagasaan

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Spiral progression is one of the key components of the K to 12 curriculums. This prevents gaps between educational phases and enables students to pick up knowledge and abilities pertinent to their cognitive developmental stages. The goal of the study was to examine the factors impacting students' learning progress as well as to provide perspective into the teachers' viewpoints regarding the implementation of the science spiral curriculum at San Luis National High School in the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines, in the academic year 2021–2022. More so, this research used the quantitative approach as it delved into numerical data relative to the subject of the investigation procedure. The specific research methodology utilized was descriptive research design. The chosen public junior high school science teachers at San Luis National High School in the Division of Agusan del Sur in terms of their perspective when executing the science spiral progression curriculum is 3.55 with a descriptive interpretation of agree. The science teachers largely "agree" on the items offered to them in the questionnaire on the factors that affect students' learning development as to teachers' specialization and teacher training, seminars, and workshops, with an overall weighted mean of 3.96. a faculty mentoring program for the interdisciplinary classes they are instructing. Furthermore, the teachers are now conscious of the significance of obtaining a higher degree, whether it be for professional and personal growth or promotion, after observing the most recent trend in continuing education.



References:

  1. Ali, S., Haider, Z., Munir, F., Khan, H., & Ahmed, A. (2013). Factors contributing to the students’ academic performance: A case study of Islamia University sub- campus. American Journal of Educational Research, 1, 283-289.
  2. A q u i no II I, B. S. (2010). 1 0 t hi n g s I w i l l f ix i n P hi l ip p i n e B a s ic Education. National Institute for Policy Studies, Civil Society Network for Education Reforms: PositionPaper on the Enhanced Kto12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved from: h t tp: // w w w. e - netphil.org.
  3. Bagni, D. (2012. Philippine Basic Education: K+12 did not change old teaching system (http://www.nordis.net?p=12823www.nordis,.net
  4. Braund M (2007). 'Bridging work and its role in improving progression and continuity: An example for science education. British Educational Research Journal, 33 (6), 905-26
  5. Burila, JM (2012). K to 12 Education in the Philippines: For Better or for Worse? Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/6937076/K12_Education_in_the_Philippines_For_the_bette r_or_for_worse_Critique_Paper.
  6. Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Skjold, B. A., Muǧaloǧlu, E. Z., Bentz, A., & Sparks, K. (2014). Pedagogy of Science Teaching Tests: Formative Assessments of Science Teaching Orientations. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2265-2288. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2014.918672.
  7. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.
  8. Corpuz, B.B. (2012). The Spiral Progression Approach in the K to 12 Curriculum. Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM). 1991. Making education work: an agenda for reform. EDCOM, House of Representatives.
  9. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the Essence of inquiry: New Roles for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Dangol, Rita & Shrestha, Milan. (2019). Learning Readiness and Educational Achievement among School Students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology. 7. 467-476. 10.25215/0702.056.
  13. De Dios, A. (2013). Spiral curriculum: When and How? Redundant vs Progressive? https://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2013/05/spiral-curriculum-when-and-how.html
  14. De Ramos-Samala, H. (2018). Spiral progression approach in teaching sciecne: A case study. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 555-567. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i6.2404
  15. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ifill-Lynch, O. (2006). “If They'd Only Do Their Work!”. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 8–13.
  16. DeLong M. and Winter D. (2002). Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn Mathematics:
  17. Resources for Professional Development. USA: Mathematical Association of America.
  18. DepEd Order No. 8 Series of 2015, “Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.” Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.
  19. DepEd Order 31 s. 2012 “Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Grade 1 to 10 of the K to12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) Effective School Year 2012-2013.” Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education
  20. Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2015). Adolescents’ Homework Performance in Mathematics and Science: Personal Factors and Teaching Practices. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance Online Publication.
  21. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative Learning: Improving University Instruction by Basing Practice on Validated Theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.
  22. K to 12 Curriculum Guide (2013). Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.
  23. Kapur, R. (2018). Factors influencing the students’ academic performance in secondary schools in India. University of Delhi \
  24. Kumar, R., Gheen, M. H., and Kaplan, A. (2002). Goal Structures in the Learning Environment and Students’ Disaffection from Learning and Schooling. NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. Merza L.L, Orge N.B, Agatep J.L & Edaño D. (2018). Factors affecting the implementation of spiral progression approach in relation to students’ academic performance in mathematics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 6, 4, 490-495.
  26. Lacanilao, D. (2010). A critique of some commentaries on the Philippine K to 12.http://philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012/04/critique-of-some-commentaries-on.html
  27. Labaree, D. F. (2000). On the Nature of Teaching and Teacher Education: Difficult Practices that Look Easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 228-233.
  28. Leedy, Paul D., and Ormrod, Jeanne E. (2014). Practical Research and Design. Pearson Publishing.
  29. Mason, L. (2019). Dewey and Political Communication in the Age of Mediation. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 2(3), 94-102. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.02.6
  30. Ombra A. Imam. (2016). Effects of Reading Skills on Students’ Performance in Science and Mathematics in Public and Private Secondary Schools. Journal of Education and Learning, Vol. 10 (2) pp. 177-186.
  31. Orbe, J. R., Espinosa, A. A., & Datukan, J. T. (2018). Teaching Chemistry in a Spiral Progression Approach: Lessons from Science Teachers in the Philippines. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4).
  32. Ochieng’, W. (2015). Self-efficacy and academic achievement among secondary schools in kenya: mathematics perspective. Unpublished Thesis, University of Nairobi.
  33. Putnam, J. (1997). Cooperative learning in diverse classroom. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Printice-Hall, Inc.
  34. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
  35. Quijano, Y. S. & Technical Working Group on Curriculum (2012). Orientation for K to 12 division coordinators. DepED Complex
  36. Resurreccion, J.A., & Adanza, J.R. (2015). Spiral progression approach in teaching science in selected private and public schools in Cavite. International Conference on Research in Social Sciences, Humanities and Education (SSHE-2016) May 20-21, Cebu (Philippines).
  37. Science Framework for Philippine Basic Education: Department of Science and Technology (2011). Retrieved from http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads/publ/sei_scibasic.pdf
  38. Snider, M. (2004). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
  39. Tan, M. (2012). Science education in the Philippines: Where To? National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development, University of the Philippine.
  40. Tosun, C, Ilhan, N, Tatar, E, Hairless, C. & Karakuyu, Y. (2015). Science success of secondary, high school and university students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 1 (35), 29-45. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/maeuefd/issue/19408/206314
  41. Vainionpää, J.E. (2006). Different learners and learning materials in e-learning. Tampere University.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic