1

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
.
The economic theory states that the progress of one nation lies on the quality of
education, thus with more and better educated people, a country would have a greater
chance of economic development. To become globally competitive, we have to educate
our Filipino learners to filter information critically, seek credible sources of knowledge,
and use data and facts creatively so that they can survive, overcome poverty, raise their
personal and national self-esteem, and realize gracious life in the risky new world (Basic
Education Curriculum Primer 2002). Filipino learners need an educational system that
empowers them from lifelong learning or enables them to be competent in life. Lifelong
learning meets the challenges posed by a rapidly changing world but it is nearly
impossible today for anybody without functional literacy that includes essential skills like
scientific-numerical competence and language fluency. With functional literacy, Filipino
learners can do self-regulated learning and with enough motivation, they can seek sources
of knowledge, read instructional materials, and conduct explorations on other subject
matters that interest them.
Recent emphasis on teaching-learning method is that learners are made to have
active participation. Active participation of learners will increase motivation and also
minimize abstraction associated with Mathematics learning, thus increasing learning
experience. This can be facilitated by making use of instructional materials and resources
which can minimize abstraction associated with Mathematics. Teaching can only be

2
effective when adequate and relevant instructional materials are used (Afolabi, et. al,
2006).
Many educators and researchers have reported about the importance of
instructional materials in teaching. Teaching and learning could not be effective without
adequate and relevant use of instructional materials. Schramm referred to instructional
materials as basic channel of communication (or ideas and concepts) in the classroom for
the purpose of bringing about effective teaching and learning.
Today it is vital that students understand the Mathematics that they are learning.
Using computers on the job, making good consumer choices, evaluating information, and
other life skills depend upon good Mathematics skills. Students struggling with
Mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed at improving their Mathematical
ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure. Helping all students succeed in
Mathematics and develop their mathematical reasoning skills is an ultimate goal.
Educational interventions provide teachers with the tools to deliver meaningful
learning activities that improve academic performance and modify behavior of students
who have already failed and need credit recovery, and for borderline students who require
immediate support to avoid failure.
Intervention has become an important way for teachers to ensure that all students
succeed in todays high stakes testing environment. Helping students who are struggling
in Mathematics requires teachers to choose an appropriate time and strategy for the
intervention. Without a systematic approach, this can be a challenge for teachers who
have multiple students who are in need of help.

3
In line with this, for the mastery and retention of the students for the subject being
taught, materials like workbooks, visual aids, pictures, graphs and modules greatly help
the teacher in facilitating the learning process in producing and bringing students towards
quality education.
At present, changes in materials used as instruction can be observed, both in style
and appearance. This emergence of colorful designs makes the materials more interesting
and appealing as well to the perception of the students.
One way of intervention is through the use of Strategic Intervention Materials
(SIMs). A Strategic Intervention Material (SIM) refers to teaching aid introduced into the
teaching methods to stimulate the activity of the students and thereby increasing their
level of understanding. The SIMs has five basic parts. These are Guide Card, Activity
Card, Assessment Card, Enrichment Card, and Reference Card. It is through this material
that learning become interesting and enjoyable to the students.
Performance of the students will be affected if they failed to master the lesson. It
is for this reason that this research study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of
Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching relationship of pairs of angles in Geometry
based on the Philippine Secondary School Learning Competencies (PSSLC).
Students struggling with Mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed
at improving their Mathematics ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure.

4
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of using Strategic Intervention
Materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle among Third Year Students at
Corazon C. Aquino High School during the school year 2012-2013.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:
1. How are the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) developed and validated?
2. How did the students in the control and experimental groups perform in the pretest and
posttest?
3. What is the implication of the study in teaching Mathematics?
Hypotheses:
1. There is no significant difference between the pretest scores of the control and
experimental groups.
2. There is no significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and
experimental groups.
3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and post-test scores of the
control group.
4. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the
experimental groups.
5. There is no significant difference between the mean gains of the control and
experimental groups.

Significance of the Study

5
The goal of the study is to facilitate learning and makes teaching meaningful. The
results may help the students cope their lessons in the actual scene of instruction and help
them master the competencies of the lessons. With the use of SIMs, students could
improve their performance towards the subject and have a positive outlook of the lessons
being taught.
Furthermore, the study could serve as a guide for future researchers in developing
activity materials, workbooks, and intervention materials for the effective and efficient
teaching-learning process.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study focused on the use of

Strategic Intervention Material (SIMs) in

teaching relationship between pairs of angle to enhance the mastery learning of the
students.
The SIMs was developed based on the least learned/skills in Geometry. The
topics covered were as follows: supplementary angles, complementary angles, adjacent
angles, linear pair, and vertical angles. It was validated by the Mathematics teachers
based on the following criteria: relevance of the Strategic Intervention materials,
adequacy of the Strategic Intervention Materials, and appropriateness of the Strategic
Intervention Materials.
Fifty (50) thrid year students from Corazon C. Aquino High School served as the
subjects in testing the effectiveness of the developed SIMs. The class was divided into
two groups - the control and experimental groups that composed of 25 students each
group. The experimental group was the one who used the prepared SIMs.

6
Definition of Terms
For clarity, the following terms used in this study are being defined:
Activity Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it defines the task that the
learner should undertake in order to develop a skill.
Assessment Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it helps the learner
measure his/her level of mastery of the skill upon completion of the task(s).
Control Group. It refers to the group of students that underwent the traditional
teaching method with no intervention strategy administered to them.
Effectiveness. It refers to the degree in which the utilization of the Strategic
Intervention Materials (SIMs) can cause significant difference between the scores in the
pretest and posttest of the experimental group and significant post test

of the

experimental group when compared with the control group.

Enrichment Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs where it extends learning by
providing additional exercises for further application of knowledge or skill.
Experimental Group. It refers to the group of students who are assigned to
undergo learning process with Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs).
Guide Card. It refers to the part of the SIM where it gives the overview of the
lesson, presents the focus skills, engages the learners interest, and leads the learner
towards the performance of the task(s).
Mathematics Teachers. It refers to the Mathematics school leaders and teachers
at Corazaon C. Aquino High School.

7
Pairs of Angle. It refers to the relationship that exist between any two angles that
can be made as a basis in classifying angles.
Posttest. It refers to the test given after the lesson was presented to evaluate the
achievement of the students in relation to the topic presented.
Pretest. It refers to the test given before the lesson proper that is used to
determine the stored knowledge about the lesson.
Reference Card. It refers to the part of the SIMs which provides additional
content to the coverage of the textbook and lists the sources that the learner may refer to
further learning.
Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). It refers to teaching aid introduced to
the students in the experimental group to stimulate the activity of the students thereby
increasing their level of understanding.
Traditional Instruction. It refers to an old method of lesson presentation that
involves discussion and lecture.
Validation. It refers to the process of justifying materials for instructional
purposes. In this study, it is the process where SIMs was tested for its effectiveness to the
students.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

8
This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies which served as a
frame of references for this study.
Related Literature
Mathematics is one of the core subjects in secondary school curriculum.
Performance in the subject is crucial for students admission to scientific and
technological professions.
While it is true that Mathematics serves as an important tool in our life, in general
it is unfortunate to observe that students find difficulty in learning Mathematics subjects
until to the point of disliking it.
Adebanjo (2004) reported the view of Abimbade (1997) that instructional
resources in teaching and learning make students to learn more and retain better what
they have been taught and that it also promotes and sustains students interest. It also
allows the learner to discover themselves and their abilities.
Research reports have shown that availability of instructional materials and ability
of Mathematics teachers to use them are vital determinant of teaching methods to be used
by the Mathematics teachers (Afolabi, 2008) and consequently, Mathematics
achievement.
According to Oyeniran (2003) posited that pupils learn best if they are given the
opportunity to see and to make observation of what they are taught. He said that a good
instructional material might be a substitute for real life objects in the classroom as against
the use of exploratory method.

9
Being able to explain and apply knowledge of mathematical concepts should be
consistent and expected feature of students mathematical ability. Many educators place
significance on the use of SIMs to teach mathematical concepts due to the influence of
behaviorist and cognitive theorists who argue that learning should begin with concrete
experiences and move toward abstract symbolism. The focal point of instruction should
be enhancing important mathematical concepts that increase the level of student
understanding. Research consistently shows that the use of SIMs positively influences
student learning and produces better initial understanding, greater retention, and an
increased probability that the concepts will be applied in new situations.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) emphasizes the
importance of using physical models in Mathematics instruction (NCTM, 1989, 1991, &
2000). The NCTM Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics document suggests
that the teachers need, a rich, deep knowledge of the variety of ways mathematical
concepts and procedures may be modeled.
Strategic teaching requires thoughtful choices. An effective teacher employs a
toolkit of strategies which can dramatically modify student performance provided the
choice of tool fits the situation and the individual student. The best teachers are great at
sizing up a students learning and problem-solving patterns in order to figure out how
to jump start improvement.
According to Mueller, the early Mathematics experiences of students should
involve the use of various hands on materials. Mueller summarized that Mathematics is a
verb for students, wherein they actively engaged in the process of doing

10
Mathematics. Mueller is in favor of the use of sequential activities that utilize objects that
are first concrete, then pictorial, and finally symbolic.
The NCTM (2000) in its publication Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics notes that Geometry offers students a chance to develop reasoning and
justification skills. It also points to the fact that through modeling and spatial
visualization, students become better problem solvers. The document goes on to say that
students can use geometric representations to make sense of other areas of Mathematics,
and should therefore be integrated when possible.
According to Blalock (2011), SIM is an evidence-based academic support
approach to help students to become independent and successful learners. SIMs consists
of both learning strategies (for students) and content enhancement routines (for teachers)
because research shows that teachers used traditional methods with increasingly less
payoff (e.g., remedial, study skills) or increasing costs (e.g., tutorial, compensatory), thus
poor (i.e., nonstrategic) learners were set up to fail.
Related Studies
Foreign
Achievement in Mathematics continues to be a crucial factor in the success of
school system around the world. As a result, this area of the curriculum has been the
subject of considerable international comparative research, mostly focused on student
achievement but also examining teaching methods, curricula, and so on. In all this, the
central role of teachers and how they structure their lessons, has emerged as a key factor
in student learning.

11
In the study of King (2002) entitled Assessing the Effect of an Instructional
Intervention on the Geometric Understanding of Learners in a South African Primary
School concluded that the intervention has had a noticable positive effect on the
performance of the experimental group after the implementation of an instructional
program that focuses on the students reaction to the instruction in a normal classroom
setting.
The study of King is related to the present study because both studies determined
the effectiveness of using instructional intervention but with different respondents and
time frame in implementing the intervention.
Erol, et.al., (2008) revealed that instruction of problem-solving startegies was
effective for enhancing physics achievement, problem-solving performance and strategy
use. Being effective of the strategy instruction on increasing the students achievement
supports various research findings which determine that the strategy instruction increased
the success in different education levels and in different subject matters.
Fede (2010) examined the effects of GO Solve Problem Mathematics intervention
on problem-solving skills of struggling 5th grade students. She found out that there was
statistically difference between the experimental and control groups after the test. The
experimental groups performance after the intervention was improved than the control
group who underwent the standard school-based Mathematics curriculum.
The study of Fede is related to the present study because both studies used
intervention in determining the effectiveness in teaaching Mathematics. The past study
used a computer-based program designed to teach schema-based instruction strategies
(SBIs) to solve Mathematics problems to identify the effects to her 5th grade students,

12
while the present study use SIMs in presenting the lesson in Geometry in the third year
high school students.
Silkwood (2000) in his study entitled Traditional Lecture and Demonstration vs.
Modular Self-Paced Instruction in Technology Education Middle School found out that
modular technology instruction indisputably better than traditional training; however,
traditional methods show no significant advantage either. He also added that the two
methods of instruction appear presently to produce very similar test score outcomes
regarless of how many times or at what academic level.
The study of Silkwood is related to the present study because he used the
traditional method of instruction and demonstration versus the modular self-paced
instruction, wherein the present study used the traditional method of instruction versus
the used of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching. Silkwood revealed in his study
that there is no significant difference between the results of the test after implementing
the methods of instruction to his students, while the present study found that there was a
significant difference between the test results of the treated group who used the Strategic
Intervention Material than those who went through the traditional teaching method.
According to the study of David (2000) about Mastery Learning in Public
Schools found out that a predetermined level of mastery on one unit must reach by the
students before they are allowed to move on to the next lesson. Students are given
specific feedback about their learning progress at regular intervals throughout the
instructional period to assess what students have learned well and to what they have not
learned well. Topics that were not learned well will be given enough time to achieve
mastery.

13
The study of David focused on the mastery learning. The present study is related
to his study because both studies were after the mastery of the students to the lessons to
be learned. And that is, a Strategic Intervention Material was introduced to the learners to
enhance the mastery of the sudents for the lessons they have not mastered.
According to the study of Adeyemi (2007) about Learning Social Studies through
Mastery Approach in Nigeria concluded that teaching strategies effectiveness in
instruction using mastery learning approach. Findings show that conventional method is
no longer an effective approach to teaching and learning. Teachers should be creative
enough to produce relevant instructional teaching strategy that can be used to enhance
their instructional delivery so that objectives set for instructions can be achieved.
Local
According to Soberano (2009) from his study entitled Strategic Intervention
Materials in Chemistry: Development and Effectiveness suggested that the SIMs
significantly contributed to the mastery of Chemistry concepts. That the performance of
control and experimental groups showed no significant difference in the pretests before
the intervention and there existed significan difference in the posttests after the
intervention.
Tagaza (2007), concluded that the students performed better using SIMs as
compared to the students who used traditional method. The SIMs could enhance
performance of the students as revealed by the difference between means of posttests of
control group and experimental group, and the difference between mean score of the
control and experimental groups.

14
The studies of Soberano and Tagaza were the most related studies dealing directly
with Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). Both studies explored on the development
and validation of the output. Their findings were also the same with the findings of the
present study that the use SIMs significantly contributed to the mastery of learning
concepts.
Santos in her study conducted about the instructional modules in English VI,
recommended that teachers should develop and validate other module not only on
English language but also on other subjects in order to develop other desired learning
competemcies. She also recommended that teachers should use the module as
reinforcement and enrichment exercises.
Santos study was related to the present study because both studies used
educational materials in order to improve the performance of the students but with
different subject areas and respondents. The past study focused in English in elementary
and the present study focused in Geometry in secondary.
In the study of Liangco (2006), she developed modules for the first year high
school students of Teacher Education Laboratory School in Pampanga Agricultural
College. She employed modular instruction in the experimental group and the traditional
lecture method to the control group. She found out that students in the modular approach
had a better mean performance than those who had it in traditional way.
According to Viernes study (2005), he recommends the following: the developed
modules should be reproduced and used by the students of other school and other target
clientele; the developed modules should be tied up in other institutions to have a wide

15
baseline data on its effectiveness or functionality; and teachers should be encouraged to
prepare instructional materials in the respective field of specialiazation.
The present study is related to Liangco and Viernes studies because the three
studies made use of educational materials but with different strategies. Liangco and
Viernes used modular approach in instruction, while the present study used SIMs, and
also they used different respondents. Though different instructional approaches were
used, these studies were after the determining of the effectiveness of each instructional
material to the students.
Conceptual Framework
This study is anchored on the premise of using of Strategic Intervention Materials
(SIMs) in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle. The developed Strategic
Intervention Materials (SIMs) was based on the least learned of the students during the
first quarter period. This study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of SIMs as
meaningful learning approach in teaching the relationship between pairs of angles in
Geometry to the third year high school students. The experimental group was exposed to
SIMs while the control group was taught in the traditional method of teaching Geometry.
After the experimentation, the performance of the students was evaluated through the
paper and pencil test.

Mathematics
Instruction

16

Traditional
Method

With Integration of
Strategic Intervention
Materials

Students
Performance in paper
and pencil Test

Figure 1
The Paradigm of the Study

Chapter 3
METHODS OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA
This chapter presents the method of research, the subject of the study, the method
of gathering data, the research instruments or tools and the statistical treatment used in
analyzing the gathered data.
Research Design

17
The experimental design was used in this study to test the effectiveness of
Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle
among third year students of Corazon C. Aquino High School.
The design used in this study was the experimental research to establish a causeand-effect relationship between the strategy and students performance. The pretest
posttest design is as follows (TSU Research Journal, 2004).
Pretest Posttest Design
R

G1

O1

O2

G2

O1

Random Selection

G1

Group

Treatment

O1

Pretest

O2

Posttest

O2

Legend:

Subjects of the Study

The subjects of the study were fifty (50) third year students of Corazon C. Aquino
High School, Gerona, Tarlac during the school year 2012-2013. The subjects were
exposed to the used of instructional materials and traditional instruction to determine the
effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching the relationship between
pairs of angle in Geometry.

18
The experimental and control groups were selected prior to the conduct of the
study. The criteria used for grouping were the grades of the students in their first grading
period. Pairing was done in such a way that the grades of both groups are equal or of the
same level (See Appendix H).
The control group and experimental group had twenty-five (25) members each
after the pairing has been done. Before the experiment, students were oriented of the set
up and what will be expected throughout the duration of the study.
Procedure in the Conduct of the Study
The subjects of the study were taught for 8 days (6 hours and 40 minutes contact
hours) of instruction with the same concept of the lessons applied to both experimental
group who taught Strategic Intervention Materials, and the control group who taught in
the regular classroom setting using traditional method of instruction.
The experimental study involves the following activities: preparation and
validation of pretest and posttest, gathering, preparation and validation of Strategic
Intervention Materials, grouping of students into experimental and control group based
from their first quarter grades in Mathematics III, administering the pretest, experimental
proper, evaluation and analysis of the posttest, and interpretation of the results.
Teachings were done to the experimental group through regular discussions using
SIMs as aids and students were asked to answer prepared exercises on the SIMs. For the
control group, they were taught the same lessons as with the experimental group using
traditional method of instruction. Pen and paper exercises were also given after the
discussion of each of the topics included.

19
During the experimentation, the principal made her observation to the researcher
in presenting the lessons with the two groups. The principal used STAR Observation
Technique which is a supervisory tool use to collect information from the actual teaching
learning activity in the classroom (See Appendix O).
After the experiment was done, posttest was administered to both the control and
experimental groups using the items given in the pretest to assess the difference in their
performances.
Methods of Gathering Data
A letter of request to conduct the study at Corazon C. Aquino High School was
prepared to seek the permission of the principal (See Appendix A). Upon obtaining the
approval, data collection proceeded immediately.
The teacher-made tests developed by the researcher were items covered in the five
(5) topics under pairs of angles. These topics were based from the Philippine Secondary
Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC). The table of specification was prepared to
assure the content validity of the tests (See Appendix B).
The pretest was administered to determine the level of knowledge of students
about the lessons. The same test was given as posttest after the traditional instruction and
integration of Strategic Intervention Materials in teaching were administered respectively
to the control group and experimental group.
Validation of the Instruments
A fifty (50) item test on the study was developed by the researcher (See Appendix
C). Copies of the test were submitted to the thesis adviser, Mathematics teachers of

20
Corazon C. Aquino High School and Faculty of the Mathematics Department of Tarlac
State University for comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions were
considered in improving the test instrument.
To establish the difficulty indices, discrimination indices and the reliability of the
test, a dry run of the tests was given to 50 selected fourth year students of Corazon C.
Aquino High School (TSU Research Handbook, 2006) who were not included in the final
conduct of the study.
The test was tried out and item analyzed to determine the difficulty and
discrimination indices which determined the acceptability. The results provided the item
analysis of the test, the difficulty indices and the reliability coefficients.
The procedures were as follows:
After the papers were corrected, the scores were arranged from highest to lowest.
The upper 27% composed of the upper group and the lower 27%, the lower group. Thus
14 students composed each group. There were 28 students in all.
The results there after, were tabulated and interpreted. The purpose of this test is
to know whether the items worked as expected. The results lead to the revisions of some
items in the test.
To obtain the difficulty and discrimination indices, the following formulae were
used:
For Difficulty Index:
Difficulty Index = RU + RL (100)
N
For Discrimination Index:

21
Discrimination Index = RU - RL
1/2 N
where:
RU = number of correct responses in the upper group
RL = number of correct responses in the lower group
N = total number of students in the upper and lower groups
The relationship between the discrimination and difficulty indices of the item was
referred to the cross-tabulation in the Item Difficulty by Discrimination Table (TSU
Research Handbook, 2006) shown below, to determine their acceptability.
The table below used to determine good items and those items that should be
revised or omitted. The adequate difficulty index is from 44.60 74.50 whereas the
discrimination index is from 0.3 1.0. Those items that were found within the shaded
region are acceptable but those that were outside were revised or rejected.

Difficulty and Discrimination Index

Difficulty
Index
Very Hard 19.5 & below
Hard

19.6 44.4

Optimum

44.5 74.5

Easy

74.6 89.5

Very Easy

89.6 & above

Discrimination Index
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

For the computation of reliability, Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was used. The

22
formula was as follows:
KR20 =

k
pq
1 2
s
k 1

where:
k = number of items on the test
s = variance of the test
pq = p (number who got the items correctly) times q (1-p)
Teacher-made tests commonly have reliabilities somewhere between 0.60 and
0.85, for example, but these are useful for the types of instructional decisions typically
made by teachers (Gronlund, 1995, p.109).
The achievement test in relationship of pairs of angle was found to have a reliability
coefficient of 0.84 (See Appendix F). The computed values for the reliability coefficient
of the tests signified high reliability index.

Development of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)

The development and validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) for
third year students consisted of the following processes using the research and
Development Cycle (R & D).
Step 1 Pre-Planning the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)
For the collection of the relevant data on the writing of the Strategic Intervention
Materials (SIMs), the researcher read widely books, journals, and other reference

23
materials related to intervention. Formal interviews with principals and other SIM
implementers were also done to give a clear picture and valid SIMs.
Step 2 Planning the Strategic Intervention Design (SIMs)
After reviewing related literature and pertinent information, the planning stage in
the research and development cycle came next. The researcher started with specific
objectives as a focal point of the end-users on the Strategic Intervention Materials to
provide guidance on the direction of the SIMs. And the researcher also included the time
frame, place and topics for the development of the SIMs.
Step 3 Developing the Initial Form of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)
After the completion of the initial planning, the construction of the form of the
SIMs was the next step. The initial SIMs was first presented to the researchers adviser
and critics for comments, suggestions, and reactions.

Step 4 Validation of the Strategic intervention Materials (SIMs)

The validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) constituted the first
phase of the validation aspect of the study. The purpose was to obtain initial evaluation
results on the proposed SIMs.
In this aspect the researcher asked her adviser and critic to pass judgment on the
Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) for third year students based on the criteria set for
the purpose.

24
They gave their evaluation, comments, suggestions, and reactions on the proposed
Strategic Intervention Materials. After which, evaluations, comments, suggestions, and
reactions were incorporated in Strategic Intervention Materials.
On the basis of the evaluation, suggestions, and reactions from the adviser,
revision and improvement of the Strategic Intervention materials (SIMs) were finalized.
This constituted the main revision of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). The
suggestions and comments were incorporated for further improvement of the Strategic
Intervention Materials.
Step 5 Validation by Mathematics Teachers, Advisers and Faculty of Mathematics
Department
In order to perform this step, the researcher subjected the Strategic Intervention
Materials (SIMs) to the evaluation of the Mathematics teachers at Corazon C. Aquino
High School. The Mathematics teachers, adviser and faculty of Mathematics Department
evaluated the materials based on criteria namely; relevance, adequacy, and
appropriateness.

Step 6 Gathering of Data to Test the Effectiveness to Users

To show the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) to users,
the materials were pilot tested using the pretest-posttest experimental design. Fifty (50)
students were selected according to their first quarter grades in Geometry; half of these
were assigned as experimental group and the other half as the control group. The
experimental group was given the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) while the

25
control group received traditional methods of instruction. The two groups were compared
to show the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials.
If all the results would agree to the validity of the materials, they would be in their
final stage. Otherwise, if the results were found inadequate or insignificant, they would
again review for revalidation.
Validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)
In establishing the validity of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching
angle pairs in Geometry, the researcher selected ten Mathematics teachers who have
teaching experiences of more five years at Corazon C. Aquino High School including her
adviser who have great experiences and knowledge in the concerned field of study.
The group of teachers reviewed the Strategic intervention Materials (SIMs) by
giving their suggestions and comments that were incorporated for the improvement of the
SIMs. The teachers evaluated the SIMs based on the criteria on its relevance, adequacy,
and appropriateness.
For the relevance of the SIMs it was evaluated through the relevance content on
each topic, clearness of each topic, and logical presentation of the lesson to the students.
The adequacy of the SIMs includes the clarity of directions, adequacy of the activities,
and suitability of the activity. The appropriateness of the SIMs was also evaluated by the
simplicity of language used and proper sequences of the topics included.
Statistical Treatment
The following were used in the analysis and interpretation of data gathered:
Tables were used in the presentation of data to facilitate understanding of results.

26
After administering the pretests and posttests to the subjects, t-test of the
difference between means of independent data were employed to determine a groups
mean over that of the other group. Test for independent groups was employed to test the
difference between means of the experimental and control groups in the pretest and
posttest. The formula is as follows:

x1
x2_____________
(x1 x1) + (x2 x2)
1 + 1
n1n2 2
n1 n2
where:
x1/x2 = score
x1

= mean of sample 1

x2

= mean of sample 2

n1

= number of cases in sample 1

n2

= number of cases in sample 2

T-test difference between means of correlated groups was also employed to test
the difference between the pretest and posttest results of the control and experimental
groups. The formula is as follows:
t =

d_______
_n( d) ( d)
n-1

where:
d = difference of the paired scores

27
The data were encoded into the computer using Microsoft Excel and were
subjected to MS Excel Data Analysis Tool Pack.
For the interpretation of the performances of the students the following categories
were used:
Scores

Description

41 50

Outstanding

31 40

Above Average

21 30
11 20

Average
Below Average

1 10

Poor

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from the
results of the pretest and posttest of the respondents.
1. Validation of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)
The Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was evaluated by Mathematics
teachers who have teaching experiences of more than five years and knowledge on the
topics included in the SIMs. The SIMs had an average weighted mean of 4.60 and it was

28
evaluated as Excellent based on its relevance, adequacy, and appropriateness for the
students to learn.
Table 1
Results on the Relevance of Content of the SIMs
Relevance of the SIMs
1. Relevance content on each topic
2. Clearness of each learning topic
3. Logical presentation of the test items
Average

Average Weighted
Mean
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.6

Description
Excellent
Excellent
Very Satisfactory
Excellent

Table 1 shows the validation of SIMs in terms of its relevance evaluated by the
Mathematics Teachers. The results show that the topics included in the SIMs became
more significant as marked by its weighted mean of 4.80 excellent. The clearness of the
topics included in the SIMs was evaluated by its average mean of 4.6. Moreover, the
logical presentation of the test items/activity in the SIMs was presented in a logical
manner with an average mean of 4.3 very satisfactory.
In sum, the average weighted mean of 4.6 disclosed that the relevance of the SIMs
was evaluated as Excellent.
Table 2
Results on the Adequacy of Scope of the SIMs
Adequacy of the SIMs
1. Clarity of directions
2. Adequacy of test items
3. Suitability of the test
Average

Average Weighted
Mean
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.6

Description
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent

29
Table 2 shows the average weighted mean of 4.60 for the adequacy of the
evaluated SIMs. The clarity of direction described as excellent - 4.8, it means that the
content of the SIMs was clearly to be understood by the students. For the adequacy of the
SIMs was marked as excellent 4.5, that the SIMs was sufficient in quantity and quality
to meet the needs of the students. The suitability of the SIMs described as excellent 4.5,
this means that the SIMs was served as the right type or quality for enhancing the ability
of the students to improve their performance in Geometry.
Table 3
Results on the Appropriateness of the SIMs
Appropriateness of the SIMs
1. Simplicity of directions
2. Proper sequence of topics
Average

Average Weighted Mean

4.7
4.5
4.6

Description
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent

Table 3 shows the description of the SIMs in terms of its appropriateness.

Simplicity of directions was described as excellent 4.7. Directions used in the SIMs
were easy to follow by the students. The proper sequence of the topics included in the
SIMs was also described as excellent 4.5. The orderliness of the topics made the
students understand fully the relevance of each topic. As sum, the appropriateness of the
SIMs described as excellent 4.6
2. Effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) Based on the
Students Performance
To determine the effectiveness of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs), the
following results were presented and analyzed:
2.1 Performance of the Control and Experimental Groups in the Pretest

30
To determine whether there was no bias in the random assigning of subjects into
control and experimental groups, the result of the pretest were analyzed and tested using
t-test of independent data.
Results of the pretest revealed that majority of the respondents had low scores
which mean that they have low level of knowledge on angle pairs.
Table 4
Pretest Results of the Control and Experimental Group
Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Poor

Control (f)
0
0
6
15
4
25

Experimental (f)
0
0
5
15
5
25

Table 4 shows the performance of the students before the start of the experiment
was conducted. As seen on the table, majority of the students in both control and
experimental group had scores of below average. However, some students registered
average scores.
To determine the similarity or differences between the two groups, the pretest of
the students were evaluated using the t-test between means of independent group.
Table 5
Comparison between the Pretest of the Two Groups
Group

Mean

Test Value

DF

Critical Value

Significance

Control
Experimental

16.68
16.32

0.24

48

2.01

Not
Significant

31
Table 5 shows the t-test of difference between means of independent data. Results
revealed that the means of the two groups are not equal. The control group registered a
mean of 16.68 and 16.32 for the experimental group. The computed t-value was 0.24 at
0.05 level of significance and 48 degree of freedom. The result of the test showed that the
t-value was lower than the critical value which meant that the null hypothesis assuming
no difference between the means of the students from the two groups was confirmed.
Thus, it was concluded that the students in the two groups were of the same level of
performance with respect to their knowledge before the experiment.
2.2 Performance of the Control and Experimental Groups in the Posttest
After the pretest, experimentation was conducted by using Strategic
Intervention Materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle. The experimental
group was exposed to Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) while the control group
was taught using the traditional method of instruction entirely done inside the classroom
with chalk and chalkboard as the main materials in teaching.
Table 3 shows the performance of the students after the experimentation was
conducted.
Table 6
Posttest Results of the Control and Experimental Group
Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Poor

Control
1
4
12
8
0
25

Experimental
3
8
11
3
0
25

32
As shown in Table 6, it can be gleaned that the students in both control and
experimental groups scored higher than their pretest scores. Majority of the students in
both groups had average scores.
Based from the data, it can be noted that both groups showed improvements in
their performance after the use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs), and traditional
method of instruction were employed in teaching the lessons.
To determine the effectiveness of SIMs in teaching on angle pairs after the
posttest was administered, the t-value of the test results were computed. The computed
mean were compared.

Table 7
Comparison between the Posttest Results of the Two Groups
Group

Mean

Test Value

DF

Critical Value

Significance

Control
Experimental

24.36
29.92

2.71

48

2.01

Significant

Table 7 shows that the experimental group had higher posttest mean score of
29.92 against 24.36 of the control group. The means score were subjected to t-test of
independent sample to find out whether the observed difference among the two means
were significant. At level of significance of 0.05 and 48 degree of freedom, the computed
t-value of 2.71 was found to be statistically significant as the computed value of t was
higher than the critical value of 2.01. This showed that there was a significant difference

33
between the performance level of students in experimental and control group in favor of
the experimental group.
2.3 Performance of the Control Group in the Pretest and Posttest
To test the effectiveness of traditional method of instruction in teaching
relationship between pairs of angle, the pretest and posttest results of the control group
were compared.
Table 8
Pretest and Posttest Performances of the Control Group
Pretest
Posttest
Outstanding
0
1
Above Average
0
4
Average
6
12
Below Average
15
8
Poor
4
0
25
25
It can be seen (refer to table 8) that the control group performed better in the
posttest compare to their performance in the pretest. The highest score in the posttest was
41 while the lowest score was 13 as compared to 29 and 9 highest and lowest score
respectively in the pretest.
T-test results were compared to show whether the traditional method was effective
in teaching relationship between pairs of angle.
Table 9
Comparison between the Performances of the Control Group in Pretest and Posttest
Control
Group
Pretest
Posttest

Mean
16.68
24.36

Test
Value

DF

Critical
Value

Significance

9.16

24

2.06

Significant

34
Table 9 shows how the control group performed in the pretest and posttest. The
students performed better in the posttest registering mean scores of 24.36 against 16.68 in
the pretest. Using t-test of difference between means of independent samples at 24 degree
of freedom, the t-value was 9.16. The computed t-value was greater than the critical vale
of 2.06, which means that the null hypothesis was rejected. This means that there was a
significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the control group in favor of the
posttest. After the students in the control group were taught using traditional method of
instruction, they registered higher scores in the posttest.

2.4 Performance of the Experimental Group in the Pretest and Posttest

To test the effectiveness of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching
relationship between pairs of angle is by comparing the pretest and posttest of the
experimental group.
Table 10
Pretest and Posttest Performances of the Experimental Group
Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Poor

Pretest
0
0
5
15
5
25

Posttest
3
8
11
3
0
25

35
Table 10 shows the experimental group students performance in the pretest and
posttest. The table shows the distribution of the students performances in the pretest and
posttest. The performance of the experimental group greatly improved in the posttest with
the pretest result as reference. The students registered below average to outstanding
performance with 43 as the highest score and 18 as the lowest score. The motivational
factor of intervention material was the main reason for the high retention of concepts.
Students were participative with the Strategic Intervention Materials used.
Table 11
Comparison between the Performances of the Experimental Group
In Pretest and Posttest
Experimental
Group
Pretest
Posttest

Mean
16.32
29.92

Test
Value

DF

Critical
Value

Significance

17.91

24

2.06

Significant

Table 11 shows the performance of the experimental group between the pretest
and posttest. Posttest mean score registered at 29.92 against the pretest mean score of
16.32. The t-value computed was 17.91 and it is higher than the critical value of 2.06
which means that the null hypothesis was rejected. The results show that there was a
significant difference between performance of the experimental group in the pretest and
posttest in favor of the posttest. The performance of the experimental group greatly
improved after using the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) and an indication of its
effectiveness in teaching angle pairs in Geometry.
2.5 Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups

36
After the experiment was conducted, the mean gain scores of the control and
experimental group were computed and compared.it could be noted that both the control
and experimental group performed better in the posttest after using the traditional method
of instruction and intervention materials in teaching relationship between pairs of angle
and therefore, both methods were effective in teaching the same topic, as observed in the
previous discussion.
Table 12
Mean Gain Scores of the Two Groups
Group

Pretest

Posttest

Control
Experimental

16.68
16.32

24.36
29.92

Mean of Gain
Scores
7.68
13.6

Table 12 shows the mean gain scores of the control and experimental group. The
control group registered a mean score of 7.68 which was lower than the mean of the score
of 13.6 of the experimental group. This means that the experimental group performed
better than the control group.
Table 13
Comparison between the Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group
Group
Control
Experimental

Mean of Gain
Scores
7.68
13.68

Test
Value

DF

Critical
Value

Significance

5.23

48

2.01

Significant

Using the t-test difference between means of independent data, table 13 shows
that the computed t-value was 5.23, which was higher than the critical value. This means
that there was a significant difference between the mean gain scores of the control and

37
experimental group in favor of the experimental group. The use of Strategic Intervention
Materials (SIMs) in teaching relationship between pairs of angle is more effective than
the traditional method of instruction.
Implication of the Study in Teaching Mathematics
The study provides some evidences of the effects of using Strategic Intervention
Materials (SIMs) on students achievement. In comparison, explicit instruction using
SIMs was more effective in developing students understanding on the concepts of the
lesson than traditional instruction.
The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching relationship
between pairs of angle in Geometry influenced greatly the performances of the students.
Findings show that group of students taught with SIMs gained higher mean score than the
group of students taught with traditional method of instruction. This gives the conclusion
that the SIMs is an effective tool in teaching Mathematics.
The study implied that an instructional tool in teaching and learning process in
Mathematics is very important. Teachers should be creative and find ways to use
available resources for designing a strategy in delivering the lessons. The success of
delivering the lessons well to the students lies on the subject-content expertise and careful
planning of the teacher. The appropriateness of the materials used by the teacher in the
different learning styles of the students will ensure the students better performance.

38

Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This

chapter

presents

the

summary

of

findings,

conclusions

and

recommendations.
Summary of Findings
1. The development of the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) was based on the
least mastered skills in teaching the relationship between pairs of angle. The SIMs
relevance had an average weighted mean of 4.6 described as excellent. The
adequacy of the SIMs was described as excellent having an average weighted
mean of 4.6 that the SIMs served as an instrument to improve the students
performance in Geometry. The appropriateness of the SIMs was marked as

39
excellent as the average weighted mean of 4.6. Generally, the SIMs was evaluated
as Excellent by the pool of validators namely: the Mathematics teachers, adviser
and faculty in Mathematics Department of Tarlac State University with an average
weighted mean of 4.60 (See Appendix E).
2.1 In the pretest, the control group registered a mean of 16.68 while 16.32 for the
experimental group. Although the means are not equal, the computed t-value was
0.24 which was lower than the critical value (2.01). This means that there is no
significant difference between the performance of the control and experimental
group. The lowest score for the control group was 9 and the highest score was 29,
while the lowest and highest score were 7 and 27 respectively for the experimental
group.
2.2 In the posttest, the control group had a mean of 24.36 which was lower than the
experimental group having a mean of 29.92. Employing the t-test of difference
between means of independent data, the t-value was 2.71 which was higher than
the critical value (2.01) that significantly differentiated the two groups; leading to
the rejection of the null hypothesis. The lowest score for the control group was 17
and the highest score was 41, while the lowest and highest score were 18 and 43
respectively for the experimental group.
2.3 Comparison of the pretest and posttest of the control group would indicate that the
mean scores were significantly different. From the computed t-value of 9.16 using
the t-test of difference of correlated data, the t-value was higher than the critical

40
value (2.06). This means that there was a significant difference between the
performance of the control group in the pretest and posttest in favor of the posttest.
The lowest score in the pretest was 9, the highest score was 29 and the mean was
16.68, while in the posttest the lowest score was 17, the highest score was 41 and
the mean was 24.36.
2.4 Between the pretest and the posttest of the experimental group, comparisons of the
mean scores were significantly different. The mean in the pretest was 16.32 while
29.92 in the posttest. Using the t-test of difference between the correlated data, the
computed t-value (17.91) was higher than the critical value (2.06). The null
hypothesis was rejected and therefore there was a significant difference between
the pretest and posttest performance of the experimental group in favor of the
posttest. In the pretest, the lowest score was 7, the highest score was 27 and the
mean was 16.32 while in the posttest the lowest score was 18, he highest score was
43 and the mean was 29.92.
2.5 The experimental group had a mean score of 13.68 which was higher than 7.68
mean of the control group. Applying the t-test of difference between means of
independent data, the computed t-value was higher than the critical value and
therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. Although the methods were effective in
teaching the relationship between pairs of angle, the experimental group performed
better than the control group. Thus, using Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs)
was more effective than the traditional method of instruction.
Conclusions

41
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher was able to draw the following
conclusions:
1. The developed Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) were evaluated as Excellent
by the validators.
2. The result of the pretest of the control and experimental group did not differ
significantly.
3. The result of the posttest was significantly higher than the result of the pretest of the
control and experimental groups. This means that the use of traditional method of
instruction and Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) were effective in teaching
the relationship between pairs of angle.
4. The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching the relationship
between pairs of angle was more effective than the traditional method of instruction
since the result of the posttest of the experimental group was significantly higher than
the control group.
Recommendations
In the light of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations were
drawn:
1. Mathematics teachers can use the Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) made by
the researcher in re-teaching the concepts and skills in angle pairs to help the
students master the competencies of the lessons.

42
2. Seminars and in-service training should be conducted in the division level
regarding development and implementation of the strategic intervention materials
in the classroom.
3. Teachers handling other subjects are also encouraged to make use of Strategic
Intervention Materials (SIMs) to address the least mastered skills.
4. The use of Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs) in teaching motivates and
stimulates the interest of the students to learn and therefore, it could be used as
supplementary aid in the traditional method of instruction.
5. Teachers should be encouraged to look for other tools in teaching to enhance the
mastery of the students for the lesson being taught.
6. Further research similar to this study is hereby recommended.

Bibliography
David, Christian F. (2009). Strategic Intervention Materials in Mathematics II.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State University
Dilao, Soledad Jose, (2009). Geometry Textbook for Third Year High School Mathematics
III
Domingo, Edgard C., et al. (2004). 21st Century Soaring Mathematics Exploring
Geometry
Dowker, Ann. (2004). The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes. University of Oxford
King, Lonnie C.C. (2002). Assessing the Effect of an Instructional Intervention on the
Geometric Understanding of Learners in a South African Primary School. SMEC,
Curtin University
Labena, Vicente C., et al. (2006). Scoring High in Math Activity Workbook in Geometry

43
Liangco, Minnie P. (2005). Development and Validation of Basic Education Curriculum
(BEC) Based Modules in Elementary Algebra. Unpublished Master Thesis,
Tarlac State University
Malaborbor, Pastor B., et al. (2002). Geometry for the Basic Education Curriculum
McGuire, C.L. & Ritter, S. (2006, September). Guide to Mathematics Intervention: A
Roadmap for Student Success. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning. Retrieved from
www.carnegielearning.com/web_docs/guide_to_intervention.pdf
Orines, Fernando B., et al. (2003). Next Century Mathematics Geometry Third Year
High School
Pascual, Ferdinand C., et al. (2002). Worktext in Geometry Simplified Concepts and
Structures
Priest, Deborah Jean. (2009). A Problem-Posing Intervention in the Development of
Problem-Solving Competence of Underachieving, Middle-year Students. PhD
Thesis, Queensland University of Technology
Santos, Sarah L. Development and Validation of Instructional Modules in English VI.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State University
Silkwood, Michael N. (2000). Traditional Lecture and Demonstration vs. Modular Selfpaced Instruction in Technology Education Middle School. Unpublished Master
Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA
Soberano, Andy L. (2009). Strategic Intervention Materials in Chemistry: Development
and Effectiveness
Sumaoang, Dolores P. (2012). The Effectiveness of Frayer Model in the Mathematics
Vocabulary development Among Second Year High School Students. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Tarlac State University
Sunday, Afolabi S., et al. (2010). Assessment of Resources and Instructional Materials
Status in the Teaching of Mathematics in Southwestern Nigeria. Emmanuel
Alayande College of Education Lanlate Campus. Lanlate, Oyo State, Nigeria
Tagaza, Marites S. (2007). Development and Validation of Strategic Intervention
Materials (SIMs) for Enhancing Mastery in Araling Panlipunan I. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Tarlac State University
Viernes, Freddie D. (2005). Development and Validation of Modules on Linear
Inequalities in Two Variables. Unpublished Master Thesis, Tarlac State University

44
http://www.frewencollege.co.uk
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_strategic_intervention_materials#ixzz27ewxen8Z
http://hdl.handle.net/2097/202
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/48
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d242282725v37265&size=largest
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/236
http://hdl.handle.net/10344/450
http://www.whatworks.ed.gov
http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_All.pdf
http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/C_full.pdf
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/
Appendix A
Letter to the Principal
Republic of the Philippines
University of St. La Salle
ECF-Project Free
Bacolod City
September 24, 2012
TEOFISTA A. DANTES
Principal II
Corazon C. Aquino High School
Pob. 3, Gerona, Tarlac
Madam:
The undersigned is presently conducting a research study entitled
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION
MATERIALS IN MATHEMATICS III. It is expected that the result of this study will be
of great help in improving the teaching of Geometry in High School.

45
In this regard, I have the honor to request permission from your good office to
administer test to Third Year students in your school in order to gather pertinent data
needed for the study.
Your kind consideration and approval is highly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
(sgd) DAISY MAY B. TANKE
Researcher
Noted:
(sgd) GLENDA P. BLANCO, Ph. D.
Thesis Adviser

(sgd) TEOFISTA A. DANTES

Principal II
Appendix B
Table of Specification
Relationship between Pairs of Angles
Content

No. of Days Taught

No. of Items

Percentage

Complementary
Angles

13

25%

Supplementary
Angles

13

25%

Adjacent Angles

12%

Linear Pair

13%

Vertical Angles

12

25%

Total

50

100%

46

Appendix C
Pretest/Posttest on Relationship between Pairs of Angles
CORAZON C. AQUINO HIGH SCHOOL
Pob. 3, Gerona, Tarlac
Name: _______________________________
TEST I.

Directions:

Score: ______________

Write the letter of your answer on the space before each

number.

_____1. If A and B are complementary, what is the sum of their measures?

a.
90
b. 45
c. 180
d. 30
_____2. If the measure of an angle is equal to the measure of its complement, then the
measure of the angle is _______.
a.
45
b. 30
c. 90
d. 180
_____3. What is the measure of the complement of 36?
a.
144
b. 54
c. 64
d. 74
_____4. Which of the pair of angles are adjacent angles?
A

D
C

47
a.
ABD & CBE
b.
DBC & EBC
_____5. a and b are __________.
A

c.
d.

ABD & ABE

ABE & EBD

D
a

B
a.
b.

Adjacent angle
Linear pair

c. Supplementary angles
d. Complementary angles

For items 6-8, refer to the figure below.

E
A

D
B

_____6. What angle is supplement to ABD?

a.
ABE
b. EBD
c. DBC
d. EBC
_____7. If m ABD = 160, what is m CBD?
a.
20
b. 30
c. 40
d. 50
_____8. If the measure of ABD is twice the measure of CBD, what is the measure of
CBD?
a.
45
b. 60
c. 90
d. 75
For items 9-10, refer to the figure below.
D
A

70

_____9. Find the measure of ABD, if the measure of CBD is 70?

a.
60
b. 20
c. 10
____10. Find the measure of CBD, if the measure of ABD is 115?
a.
65
b. 75
c. 85
____11. If m 1 = 138.5, the m 2 = _________.

1
4

d. 110
d. 95

48
a.
21.5
b. 31.5
____12. What angle forms a linear pair with AEF?
F

c. 41.5

d. 51.5

20

E
C
a.
FEB
b. DEB
c. AEC
____13. Which angle forms a linear pair with 4?
3

d. CEF

a.
1
b. 5
c. 3
d. 2
____14. Angle D and angle E form a linear pair and E is three times as D. Find the
measure of E.
a.
45
b. 90
c. 135
d. 180
____15. Angle 1 and angle 2 form a linear pair and 1 is twice as 2. Find the measure
of 1.
a.
45
b. 25
c. 60
d. 30
For items 16-17, refer to the figure below.
H
B

T
E
L

____16. If m HET = 45, what is m LET?

a.
145
b. 135
____17. If m BEH = 125, what is m LET?
a.
55
b. 125
For items 18-20, refer to the figure below.
E
A

30

45

G
C

c. 105

d. 140

c. 65

d. 75

49
____18. Find m AGC.
a.
75
b. 105
c. 30
d. 45
____19. Find m BGF.
a.
75
b. 105
c. 30
d. 45
____20. Find m AGD.
a.
75
b. 135
c. 30
d. 45
____21.Find m EGD.
a.
75
b. 105
c. 30
d. 45
____22. Find m EGB.
a.
75
b. 150
c. 30
d. 45
____23. Find m DGF.
a.
75
b. 150
c. 30
d. 45
____24. Find m CGE.
a.
75
b. 150
c. 30
d. 45
____25. Find m CGF.
a.
75
b. 105
c. 30
d. 45
____26. What is the vertex of QRS?
a.
Q
b. R
c. S
d. cannot be determined
_____27. In the figure below, m ABC = 90. Find x.
A
x 60 C
B
a.
60
b. 30
c. 45
d. 15
_____28. What is the supplement of an angle whose measure is 112.5?
a.
67.5
b. 68.5
c. 69.5
d. 72.5
_____29. Two angles which have a common vertex and a common side but have no
interior points in common are ____.
a.
Linear pair
b. Adjacent angles
c.
Complementary angle
d. Supplementary angles
TEST II.

Directions:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Identify the angle pairs in the following figure. Write

the letter of your answer on the space after each
number.

Complementary angle
Supplementary angle
Adjacent angle
Vertical angle

C
20

45

H
30. BXC and CXD ____

B
45
70

70
45
45

50
31. AXD and AXH ____
32. AXB and EXF ____
33. BXC and GXF ____
34. HXG and GXF ____
35. FXE and EXD ____
36. HXG and CXD ____
37. GXF and CXD ____
38. DXE and EXF ____
39. GXF and BXC ____
TEST III. Directions:

20

Write a if the statement is true and b if the statement is

false on the space provided.

____40. The supplement of an acute angle is an obtuse angle.

____41. If two angles are both congruent and supplementary, then each is a right angle.
____42. The supplement of a right angle is a right angle.
____43. Adjacent angles have a common vertex.
____44. Vertical angles are adjacent.
____45. If two angles are supplementary, then they are both acute.
____46. If one of two angles in a linear pair measures 90, then the other angle has a
measure greater than 90.
____47. Two angles are said to be complementary if the sum of their measures is 90.
____48. Two angles form a linear pair if and only if they are adjacent and their noncommon sides are opposite rays.
____49. Linear pair angles are complementary.
____50. Two adjacent right angles are supplementary.
Appendix D
Evaluation Scale
EVALUATION SHEET FOR MATHEMATICS TEACHER
Name:_________________________________________________________
School:________________________________________________________
DIRECTION:

A set of criteria is formulated to evaluate the Strategic Intervention

Materials (SIMs) in teaching Mathematics III. Please evaluate the SIMs
based on the criteria outlined below by checking the appropriate
space in
the questionnaire.
Be guided of the following scale in evaluating the content and
scope of the SIMs.

51
4.50 - 5.00
3.50 4.49
2.50 3.49
1.50 2.49
0 1.49

Excellent
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Fair
Needs Improvement

ITEMS
Relevance of Content
1. Relevance of content on each topic
2. Clearness of each topic
3. Logical presentation of topics
Adequacy of Scope
1. Clarity of directions
2. Adequacy of activities
3. Suitability of the activities
Appropriateness of the SIMs
1. Simplicity of language used
2. Proper sequences of topics

Comments/Suggestions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
Evaluator
Appendix E
Summary of the Evaluation Scale for the Strategic Intervention Materials
Items
Relevance of Content
Relevance of content on each topic
Clearness of each learning topic
Logical presentation of topics
Adequacy of Scope
Clarity of Directions
Adequacy of activities
Suitability of the activities
Appropriateness of the SIMs
Simplicity of language used
Proper sequences of topics
Average Total

Average Weighted Mean

4.6
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.6
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.6

Description
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Very Satisfactory
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent

52

Appendix F
Test Validation
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5

Upper/Lower
Group
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower

13
6
9
5
9
4
12
8
9
3

Index of
Difficulty

Index of
Discrimination

Remarks

0.68

0.50

Accepted

0.50

0.29

Accepted

0.46

0.36

Accepted

0.71

0.29

Accepted

0.46

0.43

Accepted

53
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper

7
3
13
4
8
5
11
8
11
8
13
8
9
5
10
3
8
5
9
6
11
9
9
3
13
4
12
2
9
4
12
7
11
1
11
7
12
1
11
8
11

0.61

0.29

Accepted

0.61

0.64

Accepted

0.46

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.79

0.36

Accepted

0.50

0.29

Accepted

0.46

0.50

Accepted

0.46

0.21

Accepted

0.54

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.14

Accepted

0.61

0.43

Accepted

0.61

0.64

Accepted

0.50

0.71

Accepted

0.46

0.36

Accepted

0.68

0.36

Accepted

0.68

0.71

Accepted

0.64

0.29

Accepted

0.46

0.79

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

54

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower

8
11
8
12
8
12
9
13
10
12
8
10
7
10
7
13
9
11
7
11
8
12
8
11
8
12
7
11
6
13
10
12
4
13
10
11
8
12
7
10
5

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.29

Accepted

0.71

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.29

Accepted

0.61

0.21

Accepted

0.61

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.29

Accepted

0.64

0.29

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.71

0.29

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.36

Accepted

0.61

0.36

Accepted

0.71

0.21

Accepted

0.57

0.57

Accepted

0.71

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.36

Accepted

0.54

0.36

Accepted

55
47
48
49
50

Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper

11
8
11
3

Lower

8
5
11

0.68

0.21

Accepted

0.50

0.57

Accepted

0.46

0.21

Accepted

0.68

0.21

Accepted

Appendix G
Computation of Reliability of the Test
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Correct
Response
13
6
9
5
9
4
12
8
10
3
9
8
13

Wrong
Response
1
8
5
9
5
10
2
6
4
11
5
6
1

pq

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.61

0.39

0.24

Respondents

Scores

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

45
38
37
37
36
36
35
35
35
34
33
32
32

56

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4
8
5
11
8
11
8
13
9
9
5
10
3
8
5
9
6
11
9
9
8
13
4
12
2
9
4
12
7
11
8
11
7
12
1
11
8
11
8
11
8

10
6
9
3
6
3
6
1
5
5
9
4
11
6
9
5
8
3
5
5
6
1
10
2
12
5
10
2
7
3
6
3
7
2
13
3
6
3
6
3
6

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.79

0.21

0.17

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.54

0.46

0.25

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.64

0.36

0.23

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S
s
KR20 = 0.84

30
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
17
8.08
65.21

57
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

12
8
11
9
11
9
12
8
10
7
10
7
11
9
11
7
11
8
12
8
11
8
12
7
11
6
11
9
12
4
12
8
11
8
12
7
10
5
11
8
11

2
6
3
5
3
5
2
6
4
7
4
7
3
5
3
7
3
6
2
6
3
6
2
7
3
8
3
5
2
10
2
6
3
6
2
7
4
9
3
6
3

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.64

0.36

0.23

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.61

0.39

0.24

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.57

0.43

0.24

0.71

0.29

0.20

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.54

0.46

0.25

0.68

0.32

0.22

0.50

0.50

0.25

58
3
8
5
11
8

49
50

11
6
9
4
6

0.46

0.54

0.25

0.68

0.32

0.22

Appendix H
Groupings of the Respondents Based on Mathematics III Grades
(First Quarter Grading Period)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Control Group
Aguinaldo, Ramona
Aquino, Mary Jane
Arciaga, Darwin
Baliola, Luis Joseph
Bugayong, Joy
Cecilio, Ralph Prex Recto
Corpuz Jr., Leo
Daileg, Rachelle Ann
Eglipa, Rafael Jeffrey
Gamurot, Joy
Iglesia, William
Labasan, Aljon
Mercado, Denice Angelou
Montemayor, Ria
Pagatpatan, Daniel
Pajarillo, Aeron

Grade
76
77
80
83
85
75
75
80
76
75
79
77
75
75
82
76

Experimental Group
Abuyan, Mark Joseph
Alvarez, Andria
Ancheta, Allen
Bautista, Winslet
Carbonell, Jonmar
Cortes, Jeamuel
Daileg, Lester
De Vera, Warren
Duldulao, Eunice
Fabros, Devon
Fernandez, Christian
Fontanos, Marisol
Gazmin, Neil Russel
Macasling, Jeric
Magaoay, Christine Joyce
Paduit, Kristine Jane

Grade
76
75
83
75
75
79
81
76
80
82
79
79
81
83
78
79

59
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pascua, Marinel
Resoso, Resty
Robillos, Joy-Joy
Rojo, Anthony
Sta. Marina, Princess Zyra
Tejada,Rei Christmore
Tulabot, Gabrielle Joy
Vicente, Raymond
Wilson, John Mark
Average

78
81
83
83
79
91
79
83
75
79.12

Paduit, Reeco James

Peralta, Angelito
Quibal, Denmark
Saptang, Dennis
Sapungay, Janice
Soriano, Wendy
Sumaoang, Renzo
Tadena, Arianne
Toralde Jr., Melchor
Average

78.04

Appendix I
Pretests Results of the Control and Experimental Group
Student No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Experimental
27
26
26
22
21
19
19
18
18
18
17
17
16
16
15
15
15

75
75
78
85
75
77
75
75
75

Control
29
24
23
22
22
21
20
20
19
18
18
18
17
16
15
14
13

60
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

15
13
12
10
9
9
8
7

13
13
12
11
10
10
10
9

Appendix J
Posttests Results of the Control and Experimental Group

Student No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Experimental
43
43
43
39
39
34
32
30
30
25
36
32
34
34
23
23
22
29

Control
41
32
34
27
23
27
32
25
28
23
25
32
23
29
21
14
20
19

61
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

29
23
27
18
20
22
18

13
17
25
17
18
20
24

Appendix K
Mean Gain Scores of the Control and Experimental Group
EXPERIMENTAL

CONTROL

Student
No.
PRETEST POSTTEST GAIN PRETEST POSTTEST GAIN
1
27
43
16
29
41
12
2
26
43
17
24
32
8
3
26
43
17
23
34
11
4
22
39
17
22
27
5
5
21
39
18
22
23
1
6
19
34
15
21
27
6
7
19
32
13
20
32
12
8
18
30
12
20
25
5
9
18
30
12
19
28
9
10
18
25
7
18
23
5
11
17
36
19
18
25
7
12
17
32
15
18
32
14
13
16
34
18
17
23
6
14
16
34
18
16
29
13
15
15
23
8
15
21
6
16
15
23
8
14
14
0
17
15
22
7
13
20
7
18
15
29
14
13
19
6

62
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

13
12
10
9
9
8
7

29
23
27
18
20
22
18

16
11
17
9
11
14
11

13
12
11
10
10
10
9

13
17
25
17
18
20
24

0
5
14
7
8
10
15

Appendix L
t-Test of Difference Between Means Using MS Excel Data Analysis Tool Pack
t-Test of Difference Between Pretests of the Control and Experimental Group

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference
DF
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Experimental
16.32
29.97666667
25
28.56
0
48
-0.238165256
0.406383362
1.677224196
0.812766723
2.010634758

Control
16.68
27.14333333
25

t-Test of Difference Between Posttests of the Control and Experimental Group

63
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference
DF
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Experimental
29.92
60.82666667
25
52.575
0
48
2.711066418
0.00463849
1.677224196
0.009276979
2.010634758

Control
24.36
44.32333333
25

t-Test of Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest of the Control Group

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
DF
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Pretest
16.68
27.14333333
25
0.777078128
0
24
-9.16366003
1.31516E-09
1.71088208
2.63033E-09
2.063898562

Posttest
24.36
44.32333333
25

t-Test of Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest of the Experimental Group

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation

Pretest
16.32
29.97666667
25
0.894435206

Posttest
29.92
60.82666667
25

64
Hypothesized Mean Difference
DF
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

0
24
-17.90921228
1.07981E-15
1.71088208
2.15961E-15
2.063898562

t-Test of Difference Between the Mean Gain Scores

of the Control and Experimental Group

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference
DF
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Experimental
13.6
14.41666667
25
15.98833333
0
48
5.23449894
1.80554E-06
1.677224196
3.61108E-06
2.010634758

Control
7.68
17.56
25

65

Appendix M
Observation Form
STAR Observation Technique
Name of the Teacher: Daisy May B. Tanke
School: Corazon C. Aquino High School
District: Gerona North
Division: Tarlac Province
Class: III Bronze
Subject: Mathematics III
Date & Time of Observed: October 2, 2012
Note: This is a supervisory tool which is useful to collect information from the actual
teaching learning activity in the classroom.
What to observe
Observations (Record in detail if possible)
SITUATION
(Focus and observe closely the context
There was a conducive learning
and teaching episode, i.e. learning environment and the teacher motivated the
environment, motivation, presentation students well and gives a clear presentation of
of the lesson, evaluation, others in the the lesson.
lesson)
TASK
Students were encouraged to participate.
(Focus and observe closely the There were students who tried their best to
Teachers action in the particular recite although others met difficulties in
Situation described above)
expressing themselves in English.
ACTION
(Focus and observe closely the
The teacher gave the students enough time
learners actions relative to the to think and answer.
teachers Task described above)
RESULT
(Focus and observe the end results or
82% of the learners were able to illustrate

66
outcomes of the Teachers Task and the different kinds of angle pairs.
the Learners Action described above
in both quantitative, i.e. 85% of the
learners were able to identify nouns
and qualitatively: most of the learners
actively participated in the class)
General Comments for Teacher Support
The teacher mastered her lesson and was very enthusiastic in her teachings.

(Sgd.) TEOFISTA A. DANTES

Principal II

(Sgd.) DAISY MAY B. TANKE

Teacher
Appendix N
Documentation

67

CURRICULUM VITAE

DAISY MAY BAGAOISAN TANKE

Dicolor, Gerona, Tarlac 2302
Mobile #: +639088929221
E-mail: dasi_bagaoisan@yahoo.com

PERSONAL DATA
Birth Date:

May 18, 1981

Birth Place:

Camiling, Tarlac

Height:

5.0

Weight:

45 kg

68
Religion:

Methodist

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Master of Education
Major in Mathematics
University of Saint La Salle
Bacolod City
Master of Education
Major in Educational Management
Central Institute of Technology Colleges Foundation, Inc.
Tarlac State University Consortium Program
(Academic Requirements)
Paniqui, Tarlac
2008 - 2010
Bachelor of Secondary Education specialization in Mathematics
(with 30 Professional Units)
Central Institute of Technology Colleges Foundation, Inc.
Paniqui, Tarlac
2006 2007
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Tarlac State University
Tarlac City
1997 2002
Secondary Education
Ecumenical High School
San Roque, Tarlac
1993 - 1997
Elementary Education
Gerona North Central Elementary School
Pob. 3, Gerona, Tarlac
1987 - 1993
ELIGIBILITY
Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET)
August 2007
Licensure Examination for Civil Engineering

91

69
November 2002
WORKING EXPERIENCE
High School Teacher
Corazon C. Aquino High School
Pob. 3, Gerona, Tarlac
September 2010 present
High School Teacher
Central Institute of Technology Colleges Foundation, Inc.
Paniqui, Tarlac
June 2006 to March 2008