Page 35 - GS_Journal_2014

GS Research Journal

SY 2013-2014. Specifically, Problem No. 1 focused on the profile of the respondents namely:
age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years teaching Science and
relevant trainings attended. Problem No. 2 dealt with the extent of use of teaching approaches in
Science namely: classic teaching, innovative teaching, participatory teaching, principle teaching,
autocratic teaching and brainstorming approach. Problem No. 3 determined the significant
differences in the extent of use of the teaching approaches in Science across profile variables.
Problem No. 4 focused on the problems encountered by the teachers in the use of teaching
approaches in Science. Problem No. 5 dealt on the proposed program to enhance the use of
teaching approaches.
The research hypothesis was tested in its null form at .05 level of significance. There
is no significant difference between the profile variables and the extent of use of the teaching
approaches in Science.
Further, the following are the findings of this study: 1) with regards to the profile of
the respondents, the age bracket of 26 to 41 above, dominantly females, married, almost all
of whom are pursuing graduate studies with less than 10 to more than 20 years in service and
have been attending relevant trainings at various levels; 2) their extent of use of the different
teaching approaches: classic teaching, innovative teaching, participatory teaching, principle
teaching approach, autocratic teaching and brainstorming approach, their extent of use of
the different approaches is generally in the “extensively used” level as indicated by a grand
overall mean of 3.95 with classic teaching approach having the highest overall weighted mean
of 4.06 and brainstorming having the lowest overall weighted mean of 3.87; 3) the teacher
respondents encountered serious problems in the extent of use of the different approaches in
teaching Science as indicated by and overall weighted mean of 3.84; 4) the null hypothesis of
no significant difference in the teachers’ extent of use of the different approaches in teaching
Science across their profile variables is generally accepted at .05 level of significance except in
the use of participatory teaching across highest educational attainment and autocratic teaching
across relevant trainings attended, whereby the same null hypothesis is rejected; 5) based on
the findings a Program Building Activities was developed.
The following conclusions are hereby presented: 1) the profile variables of the teachers
are adequate enough that qualify them in the teaching profession; 2) the teachers are still
wanting of enhancing or upgrading their extent of use of the different approaches in teaching
Science being one level lower to the highest level or state of using such teaching approaches; 3)
the problems seriously encountered by the respondents are common problems by any teacher
teaching Science.
In the light of the findings and conclusions drawn the recommendations are 1) all
concerned teachers must be encouraged to finish their graduate degree to enhance their
professional growth; 2) teachers should improve their extent of use along innovative teaching
and brainstorming approach to further enhance pupils achievement and performance; 3) a
more carefully selected variables should further be identified specifically those that are strong
indicators for very effective teaching in Science.

22