Research Article LUMAT General Issue 2021

Facilitating factors of scientific literacy skills

development among junior high school students
Kareen Marie E. Palines1 and Ruth A. Ortega-Dela Cruz2
1
Department of Education, Division of Calauan, Laguna, Philippines
2
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

The study used causal-comparative research design to examine the scientific

ARTICLE DETAILS
literacy among randomly selected Junior High School students under the Science,
Technology and Engineering Program (STEP) of a National High School in the LUMAT General Issue
Philippines. Specifically, it investigated the factors that facilitate and hinder the Vol 9 No 1 (2021), 546–569
students’ ability to write and present scientific research. Quantitative and Received 20 February 2021
qualitative data were gathered from primary and secondary sources. Descriptive Accepted 11 June 2021
statistics were used to analyse the data obtained from the interviews and Published 11 August 2021
questionnaires. Findings showed that the scientific literacy of students in terms of
Pages: 24
writing was perceived as good while presenting the scientific research was References: 41
described as fair. The study also revealed that teachers’ factors, learning
environment, and school administrative support affect the scientific literacy skills Correspondence:
raortegadelacruz@up.edu.ph
development of the students. Thus, the study suggested that by promoting the
identified factors, the scientific literacy skills of the students will be further https://doi.org/10.31129/
developed. Additionally, increase of teacher’s availability during consultation LUMAT.9.1.1520
hours, use of differentiated instructions, localization, contextualization,
formulation of policy guidelines for the use of learning resources, plan of activities
for STEP, as well as development of a module, research networks and linkages
should be given importance.

Keywords: facilitating factors, high school students, scientific literacy, skills development

1 Introduction

Scientific literacy, which consists of the knowledge and understanding of the scientific
concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic
and cultural affairs and economic productivity (Mohapatra, 2013) is an important
factor of development in every nation. It is an important factor of social and economic
progress (Rodriguez-Espinosa, 2005). According to Dragoş and Mih (2015), scientific
literacy can be classified into four categories. These include (i) Cultural Scientific
Literacy, which is the understanding of science with average intelligence and
education of a culture; (ii) Civic Scientific Literacy, which is the understanding of
science in order to make informed decisions with regard to legislation and public
policy; (iii) Scientific Literacy Practice, which is the understanding of science in
order to solve practical problems; and (iv) Aesthetic Literacy and Consumer Science,
which is the understanding of scientific laws and phenomena that enhances a person’s

LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education

Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

appreciation of life itself through intellectual beauty of scientific ideas.

In general, science as a subject taught in every school should support the
development of scientific literacy. This will prepare students for a more complex,
interconnected world, with jobs that require critical thinking, teamwork and problem-
solving skills. In fact, scientific literacy is one of the essential skills required in this
digital age literacy (Turiman, Omar, Daud, & Osman, 2012). Thus, science education
shall help the students and motivate them in pursuing careers in line with science and
its application to technology and the industry.
In the process of teaching and learning science, news reports in 2017 from the
Philippine Inquirer show that Filipino students exhibit high regard in science by
applying the concepts through an invention or innovation and joining several science
competitions in the national and international arena (Leonen, 2017).
On the contrary, it has also been reported that the state performance of Filipino
students in science national and international examinations remained poor. The
Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) recognizes the need for addressing this
issue on scientific literacy after the country got a poor ranking in the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018. The PISA is a student assessment
of 15-year-old learners across 79 countries done by the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) as part of the Quality Basic Education reform
plan and a step towards globalizing the quality of Philippine basic education (DepEd,
2019). It looks into the extent to which the students have acquired key knowledge and
skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies (OECD, 2018). Based
on the PISA results, the Filipino students scored 357 in Scientific Literacy, which was
significantly lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) average of 489 points.
Science Literacy, as defined in the PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical
Framework, refers to the students’ ability to engage with science-related issues, and
with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. Accordingly, a scientifically literate
person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology, which
requires the competencies to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design
scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically (OECD, 2019).
The Philippines’ low performance in science and scientific literacy poses a serious
challenge on teachers, as they are the prime movers of education. It can be viewed
that teachers possess both the privilege and responsibility in helping to address some
issues in our educational system. This privilege is priceless in a sense that teachers

547
 LUMAT

have a direct influence on the students in shaping their minds and hence, in building
the nation’s future leaders. However, the price of this privilege is a greater weight of
responsibility on the teachers’ end.
Teachers bear the greater responsibility in the case of low performance on the
National Achievement Test (NAT) in science. In essence, it is no doubt that every
nation needs proactive teachers to embody and perform the goals of its education
system. As reported by the National Education Testing and Research Centre of the
Department of Education (NETRC-DepEd cited in Benito, 2005), on average, high
school students’ overall performance on NAT is improving from a mean percentage
score of 46.80 in School Year (SY) 2004-2005 to 48.90 in SY 2011-2012. With these
figures, however, students’ performance in science was the lowest (39.49 in SY 2004-
2005 and 40.53 in SY 2011-2012) among the other subjects that are included in NAT;
these are Filipino, Mathematics, English, Social Studies, and Critical Thinking Skill
Test.
With these results, the accomplishments of few students are overshadowed by the
poor performance of many in NAT, which is in fact, the country’s measure of quality
education. The authors in Science Education Institute and University of the
Philippines-National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (SEI-DOST &
UP NISMED, 2011) found out that, in general, Filipino students have low retention of
concepts, have limited reasoning and analytical skills, have poor communication
skills, and they cannot apply concepts to real-life problem-solving situation. Likewise,
low performance in science of Filipino students can be associated with several factors
such as the quality of teachers, the teaching-learning process, the school curriculum,
instructional materials and the administrative support (SEI-DOST & UP NISMED,
2011).
University of the Philippines (UP) Board of Regents, (1997) as revealed by SEI-
DOST and UP NISMED (2011) discussed the efforts of Science Education Institute of
the Department of Science and Technology (SEI-DOST) and University of the
Philippines National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development
(UP NISMED) to address the low performance of Filipino students by focusing on
curriculum development, conducting researches, and providing trainings for
stakeholders.
However, it is necessary for other stakeholders like the schools under the
supervision of the Department of Education to take part and focus on the following
concerns: quality of teachers, improvement of the teaching-learning process,

548
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

preparation of the instructional materials and administrative support. It is apparent

therefore that National High Schools with Science, Technology and Engineering
Program (STEP) should also take part in improving teaching science and research.
Students under this program have an additional research subject as an elective of
science subjects. Though, most of the students in STEP are not interested in doing
research works, they are required to go through the scientific research process and
apply it to the Science Investigatory Project (SIP). These SIPs are the direct
applications of the scientific method where the students identify problems, proposed
a possible solution through conducting experimentations, testing their hypothesis,
and presenting their findings.
In the Schools Division of Laguna, Region IV-A, Philippines, students taking the
STEP are expected to compete for the annual Science Fair and Congress. The aim of
the Science Fair is to promote science and technology consciousness amongst youth.
Similarly, identify the most creative and best science researches in the region (DepEd
Regional Memorandum No. 270, 2016). The Science Fair features the SIPs from
different participating schools competing from the following category: life science,
applied science and robotics. It is held during the month of September and
participated by teams or individual student from Grades 9 and 10.
In connection with this, research subjects in a National High School have been
taught since 2016. For the past years, the said School was not able to compete and
produce a SIP output. This only signifies how scientific literacy has been a critical
issue in science education. Thus, this study looked into the scientific literacy skill of
students under the STEP. The study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the scientific literacy of the students in terms of the level of their skills
in writing scientific research paper?
2. What is the scientific literacy of the students in terms of the level of their skills
in presenting scientific research paper?
3. What are the factors facilitating the student’s scientific literacy?
4. What are the factors hindering the student’s scientific literacy?

The study aimed to examine the scientific literacy of Junior High School students
under the Science, Technology and Engineering (STE) program of a National High
School in the Philippines. Specifically, the study: (i) described the scientific literacy of
the students in terms of the level of their skills in writing and presenting a scientific

549
 LUMAT

research paper; and (ii) identified the factors that facilitate and hinder the students’
ability to write and present scientific research paper in terms of the teacher (i.e.,
teacher’s personality, teaching style, teaching procedure, teaching strategies, and
classroom management), the instructional materials, learning environment, and
administrative support.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Research design

This study utilized the causal-comparative research design. According to Maheshwari

(2018), it is an attempt to identify a causative relationship between an independent
variable and a dependent variable. This design suggests to determine the cause or
differences among the variables being studied. As cited by Salkind (2010), causal-
comparative design seeks to find relationships between variables after an action or
event has already occurred. It can also be termed as ex post facto research. One of the
characteristics of this design is that the variables that are examined cannot be
experimentally manipulated for practical or ethical reasons (Schenker & Rumrill, Jr.,
2004). In this study, the independent variables were the teacher’s personality traits,
teaching styles, procedure, strategies, classroom management, instructional
materials, the learning environment, and administrative support. These x factors were
believed to have contribution to the dependent variable which is the perceived
scientific literacy of three groups of Junior High School students such as Grades 7, 8,
and 9. The study was conducted upon their completion of the requirements in the
research subject.

2.2 Subjects of the study

The study employed a stratified random sampling in selecting the subjects. The
respondents were composed of randomly selected 76 Junior High School students (i.e.
23 students from Grade 7, 31 from Grade 8, and 22 from Grade 9) under the science
curriculum in particular the STEP during the fourth quarter of the School Year 2017-
2018. The sample represented 81 per cent of the total population, which is 94 Junior
High School students at a Public National High School in the Philippines.

550
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

2.3 Instrumentation

The study utilized the researcher-developed survey questionnaires. The research

instrument is composed of two parts that determined the: 1) profile of the students as
well as their perceived level of scientific literacy skills in terms of their ability to write
and present a scientific research paper; 2) factors affecting their ability to write and
present research paper. The students’ scientific literacy in terms of writing and
presenting a scientific research used five-point performance scale ranging from needs
improvement (1) to excellent (5). On the other hand, factors affecting the student’s
ability to write and present research paper were composed of 2.a) teacher-related
factors, 2.b) instructional materials, 2.c) learning environment, and 2.d)
administrative support. The indicators for teacher’s personality trait, teaching style,
teaching procedure, teaching strategies, classroom management and administrative
support used the five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5). Whereas the instructional materials and the learning environment
indicators used another five-point frequency scale ranging from never (1) to always
(5) was used.
The questionnaires were also patterned from the elements of teaching and
learning, the big five personality traits, Grasha’s five teaching styles, including expert,
formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. Grasha (1994) describes
the teaching styles as a pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviours that teachers display
in the classroom. The study also utilized the Department of Education Daily Lesson
Log, and the evaluation tool for Science Investigatory Projects oral and written
presentation. Experts validated the content of the research instrument. The
instrument was also pilot tested and reviewed for the internal consistency of questions
by conducting the test of reliability with test-retest to a group of 20 Junior High
School students from another public high school. The administration of retest was
three weeks after the first test. Likewise, the Cronbach-Alpha method was applied,
and the result got a total test and retest scores (0.75 and 0.77) with a reliability factor
of ‘acceptable’.

2.4 Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from primary and secondary sources.
The primary data were obtained from the ratings of the respondents and the interview
from the teachers and the students. Secondary data such as the third quarter Grades

551
 LUMAT

of the students in Research I, II, and III subjects were also gathered. The result of the
oral and written presentation during the conduct of Research culminating activity was
also considered in the study.
After the data were gathered, an informal interview from teacher participants and
a follow up interview from students were also conducted. Those students who had low
ratings in some indicators were included in the interview. A total of 25 students were
identified as interview participants.

2.5 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency distribution, percentage were used to

analyse the data obtained from the interviews and questionnaires. The data from
students’ scientific literacy and the factors affecting their scientific literacy skills
development were tallied, tabulated and subjected to mean analysis. To further
validate the responses, the Kendall’s W or Coefficient of Concordance was used to
assess the agreement in the responses among students. The Kendall’s W or Coefficient
of Concordance for each item ranges from 0 to 1. A Kendall’s W yield of zero indicates
no agreement at all among students, while 1 indicates perfect agreement (Salkind,
2010).
Finally, responses to the interview were transcribed verbatim and were carefully
analysed. Themes were formulated from these in order to enrich the discussion of
findings on the factors facilitating and hindering the student’s scientific literacy.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Profile of the student respondents

Of the 76 respondents who participated in the study, 67 per cent were female, while
34 per cent were male. The largest percentage of the female students (29 per cent)
appeared from Grade 8. Thirty-three per cent were 13 years old, 28 per cent were 14.
The age group 13 to 14 belongs to Grades 7 and 8. While the age group 15 to 16 were
in Grade 9.
In terms of the third grading performance in Research subjects, most respondents
(42 per cent) obtained a grade from the range 86- 90 (proficient). Followed by 32 per
cent who gained the Grades from 81- 85 (approaching proficiency). Majority of the
respondents’ academic performance fall on average.

552
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

3.2 Students’ Scientific Literacy Skill in Writing Research Paper

Table 1 presents the comparison of the respondent’s perceived rating on their ability
to write research paper per year level. Across the Grade levels, the overall mean was
described as good (x̅ =2.83). Respondents believed that they could write a good
research paper (SIP), for it has been discussed in the class. They also underscored that
the examples were available at hand. Furthermore, they were able to observe one
Division competition exhibit. Among the three, Grade 9 respondents got the highest
mean score of 3.35 (good).

Table 1. Perceived rating on research writing across grade levels

Writing a Research Paper Grade Level Overall
7 8 9 Mean
Title
Formulate brief and comprehensive 3.52 2.77 3.32 3.20
title
Create a title relevant to the objectives 3.43 2.94 3.41 3.26
of the research
Abstract
Write an abstract that contains 2.57 2.55 3.05 2.72
objectives, methodology, and results
and conclusion in capsule from
Introduction
A. Background of the Study
Identify the origin of the problem 3.57 3.10 3.64 3.43
Indicate rational (justification) of the 3.09 2.58 3.45 3.04
study
B. Statement of the Problem
Discuss the research problem 3.35 3.16 3.59 3.37
Specify the research questions 3.09 2.84 3.68 3.20
Clearly state the research goal(s) 3.04 2.94 3.55 3.17
Evidently apply SMART Objectives 2.70 2.32 3.05 2.69
C. Significance of the Study
Determine who and what will be the 2.70 2.90 3.86 3.15
benefit from SIP
State the potential of the research for 2.78 2.52 3.32 2.87
commercialization
D. Scope and Limitations
Discuss the scope and limitations of the 3.00 2.48 3.36 2.95
study
Set the time frame for conducting the 3.30 2.32 3.18 2.94
study
Determine the subject and locale of the 3.13 2.58 3.45 3.06
study
Review of Related Literature

553
 LUMAT

Write comprehensive RRL 2.35 2.48 2.82 2.55

Organize the RRL well 2.30 2.35 2.77 2.48
Use appropriate in text citation in RRL 2.43 2.84 2.91 2.73
Materials and Methods
Classify the variables in the research 3.04 3.03 3.50 3.19
Explain the sample and sampling 2.91 2.58 3.36 2.95
procedure in the research
Define the treatment given to the 3.09 2.39 3.50 2.99
sample of the study
Discuss the research design and the 3.04 2.42 3.41 2.96
data gathering procedure
State the statistical treatment of the 2.87 2.16 3.23 2.75
data under study
Results and Discussion
Present my results in an organize 1.39 1.90 3.23 2.17
manner
Illustrate the results through graphs 1.35 1.97 3.36 2.23
and tables with proper labels
Discuss the results completely 1.43 2.13 3.18 2.25
Ensure that the discussions of the 1.39 1.87 3.18 2.15
results are relevant to the data
collected
Summary, Conclusion, and
Recommendations
Write accurate summary of findings and 1.39 1.84 3.36 2.20
conclusion
Formulate appropriate 1.35 1.77 3.55 2.22
recommendations based on the results
of the study
Literature Cited/ Bibliography
Cite properly the sources using 1.39 2.42 3.18 2.33
prescribed citation style (i.e., APA)
Grand Weighted Mean 2.80
Range: 4:.45-5.00- Excellent, 3.45-4.44- Very Good, 2.45-3.44- Good, 1.45-2.44- Fair,
1.00-1.44- Needs Improvement

The results also deemed that they were very good in writing parts of the
introduction and some parts of materials and methods. When asked about their
reasons, respondents answered that it was their third year doing chapters 1 to 3 and
they like introduction more than the other parts of research paper. They believed it is
the easiest part. Some parts of the methodology also got the highest rating, with the
descriptive analysis very good. These are classification of variables (x̅ =3.50),
sampling (x̅ =3.36) and treatment applied (x̅ =3.50). Grade 9 students were able to
experience the whole part of the research paper.

554
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

On the other hand, the perceived rating of Grade 7 respondents (x̅ =2.62) was
higher than Grade 8, which is 2.53. Grade 7 respondents believed that they were very
good in the identification of the problem (x̅ =3.57), which was confirmed by their
research teacher. Several parts of the review of related literature, methodology, were
for the reason of having difficulty in terms of the APA format of in-text citation
furthermore identifying the independent and dependent variables of the study.
Results and discussions, summary, conclusion, recommendation and literature cited
were described needs improvement for these were not covered by the lessons in Grade
7.
Whereas Grade 8 respondents rated good in most parts of the introduction.
Similar to the reasons of Grade 7 students, Grade 8, regarded RRL and methodology
as fair. In most parts of the results and discussion up to literature cited, respondents
gave a rating of fair. In particular, they were relating their response to their
understanding in writing a simple science paper.
On the contrary, both Research teachers believed that most of the students rating
fall on needs improvement in all parts of the scientific research paper. Students under
the STE lack reading habit and time management that is why their research output
did not meet the highest standard. The teachers also argued that the SIP was done by
group of three or by pair. The core leaders did most of the output while some members
of the groups were just riders who memorized the lines for oral presentation.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that it was the first time to conduct the classroom
competition among Grades 9 students. Grades 7 and 8 just participated during the
SIP exhibit.
Since SIP uses experimental research design, teachers underscored that students
should be well aware of the classification of variables of the study as well as the
treatment that will be applied (CRD or RCBD). Formulation of the hypothesis is one
of the important tasks in which most of the students failed. In that case, writing of the
SIP report becomes more difficult.
In terms of the in-text citation, students appear in need of more practice on
paraphrasing, summarizing and direct quoting. Also, in terms of utilizing the built-in
citation in Microsoft word or use a software to ease the formatting (APA) of the
references.
Reading habit is an important aspect of society which helps people to develop the
right mindset and create new ideas (Palani, 2012) towards skills in writing short story
reviews text (Amelia, Ramadhan, & Gani, 2018). In the study of Widya, and Wahyuni

555
 LUMAT

(2018), they concluded that grammatical mastery gives a significant contribution to

the thesis proposal writing of English department Students at STKIP YDB Lubuk
Alung, Indonesia. In the same way vocabulary mastery influence significantly the
students writing ability (Abidah, Kurniasih, & Ni'mah, 2019).
In addition, time management is very important, and it may affect individual's
overall performance and achievements (Nasrullah & Khan, 2015). According to
Adebayo (2015), lack of proper time management on the part of the students has some
impacts on certain academic activities especially in doing the assignment.

3.3 Students’ Scientific Literacy in Presenting Research Paper

Table 2 on the other hand, presents the respondents’ perception of their performance
in presenting a scientific research paper. Contrary to the results in writing SIPs, the
overall mean in presenting a research paper across all the Grade levels was 2.24 (fair).

Table 2. Perceived rating on research presentation across Grade levels

Presenting the Research Paper Grade Level Overall
Statements 7 8 9 Mean
A. Introduction
1. Background of Sufficiently and concisely 1.43 2.39 3.05 2.29
the Study discuss the circumstances
that led to the problem
2. Statement of Clearly and completely state 1.52 2.68 3.36 2.52
the Problem the problem
3. Significance of Adequately and clearly state 1.43 2.52 3.50 2.48
the Study justification for doing the
research
4. Scope and Completely and clearly 1.43 2.32 3.32 2.36
Limitations discuss the scope and
limitations of the study
B. Review of Include relevant and 1.43 2.32 2.68 2.15
Related Literature adequate literature search
C. Materials and Sufficiently and concisely 1.57 2.42 3.59 2.53
Methods describe the materials and
methods used in the study
D. Results and Present and discuss the 1.39 1.90 3.14 2.14
Discussions results completely
E. Summary, Present a complete summary, 1.39 1.97 3.18 2.29
Conclusion and conclusion, and
Recommendation recommendation
II. Organization Plan my presentation well 1.57 1.94 3.36 2.29
and Clarity

556
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

III. Mastery of the Demonstrate thorough 1.48 1.84 3.18 2.29

Subject understanding of the subject
matter
IV. Delivery I am relax and confident 1.52 1.71 2.68 1.97
during an oral presentation
V. Presentation Make use of well- prepared 1.48 1.84 3.00 2.11
Aid audio-visual materials
VI. Time Finish the presentation with 1.43 1.81 3.14 2.13
Management the prescribed time and
appropriate pacing
VIII. Audience Sustain the interest of the 1.52 1.97 2.77 2.09
Impact audience most of the time
VIII. Teamwork Work with all members of my 1.52 2.35 3.14 2.34
group and share equally in
handling the presentation
and open forum
IX. Punctuality Present ahead of schedule 1.48 1.94 3.14 2.18
Grand Weighted 2.26
Mean
Range: 4:.45-5.00- Excellent, 3.45-4.44- Very Good, 2.45-3.44- Good, 1.45-2.44- Fair,
1.00-1.44- Needs Improvement

Several probable reasons stated by the respondents were: 1) they were not
confident in speaking English when presenting, 2) they exhibited inappropriate body
language when nervous, 3) they were afraid of the panels, and 4) they experienced
mental blocked when ask a difficult question.
Grade 7 students seemed to have the lowest mean score of 1.48 (fair). The
respondents mentioned that they have not experienced presenting the research paper
but related their answers to presenting a group project or an individual report.
Grade 8 students ranked a bit higher (x̅ =2.12), which also has a descriptive
equivalent as fair. It can be seen from Table 2 that parts of the introduction were rated
good. This is for the reason that during their presentation, the panels gave positive
feedback on the statement of the problem and the significance of the study.
Meanwhile, it can be seen from the results that Grade 9 respondents overall rated
mean is described as good (x̅ =3.14). Here, the Grade 9 students believed that they
have the experience in presenting the completed SIPs. It was confirmed by the
respondents that the lesson learned during the presentation were worthwhile in
becoming better presenters in their next SIP. Also, their view in describing the
materials and methods used in the study was very good (x̅ =3.59) for it is deemed to
be the easiest during the presentation.

557
 LUMAT

3.4 Factors Facilitating and Hindering the Students’ Scientific

Literacy

3.4.1 Teachers’ Personality Trait

There are two teachers handling research classes. Teacher A handles Grade 7, and
teacher B handles Grades 8 and 9. Both teachers followed the curriculum guide and
budget of work prescribed by the Philippine Department of Education for the STEP.
Based on the result, the students’ rating on the personality traits of the teacher
handling research classes was high (x̅ =4.19). Wherein, the respondents agreed across
all the variables under the teacher’s personality traits.
The overall mean of the three Grade levels were 4.09, 4.16, 4.18 agree, but the
highest rating was found in Grade 9. Among the personality traits depicted in Grade
7, being sociable (x̅ =4.52) strongly agree got the highest weighted mean followed by
being responsible, calm, happy, and cooperative. The teacher who handled Grade 7,
has been described by the respondents as a jolly and a very approachable person.
Moreover, the teacher who handled Grades 8 and 9 was described as hardworking
(x̅ =4.58, x̅ =4.64), responsible, (x̅ =4.58, x̅ =4.59), self-disciplined (x̅ =4.59),
imaginative (x̅ =4.59) and intellectual (x̅ =4.55).
The respondents described their teacher as strict and serious. It was also
underscored that their research teachers portray self-discipline and responsibility by
sticking to the set rules and duties in the class and reprimand students with
misbehaviour by counselling not by punishing. Students believed their teachers in
research exert much effort in terms of preparing instructional materials since there is
no module for this subject matter. However, in terms of emotional stability
(unworried), the results for both teachers from Grades 7, 8, and 9 were found the
lowest with the mean of 3.43, 3.13, 3.32, respectively. Respondents were uncertain if
their teachers are unworried. They observed that most of the time, both teachers
worry if the respondents will be able to meet the required output in every Grade level.
Moreover, the results of this study support the findings of Kim, Dar-Nimrod, and
Mac Cann (2017), which explained that teacher personality characteristics such as
conscientiousness (being hard-working and detail-minded), agreeableness (being
sympathetic and kind), and emotional stability (having fewer negative emotions such
as anxiety) are important factors in achieving students academic success. Teachers’
personality traits were associated with students’ confidence in achieving an academic
goal. However, in the study of Mkpanang (2015) on the personality traits of teachers

558
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

and the students’ performance in Physics, it was found that there was a low significant
relationship between teachers’ personality profile and students’ academic
achievement in the subject.

3.4.2 Teaching Styles

Based on the students’ rating regarding their teacher’s teaching styles from Grasha’s
description as an expert, the respondents regarded their teachers being equipped with
knowledge and competency they needed for the Science Investigatory Projects. As a
formal authority, teacher sets rules, goals and expectations to guide the students on
the track they should follow.
Correspondingly, respondents described both teachers give positive and negative
feedbacks. For instance, giving merits and demerits in the class. As a personal model,
guiding and directing by showing how to do things was given the mean scores of 4.52,
4.65, and 4.64 (strongly agree) across all the Grade levels. It is portrayed by
demonstrating laboratory experiments inside the classroom using improvised and
indigenous resources. Moreover, providing sample researches and SIPs was also
emphasized by the respondents. As a facilitator, guiding by asking questions,
exploring options and suggesting alternatives was noted with the highest mean
(strongly agree) scores of 4.52, 4.77, and 4.73 from all Grade levels.
However, having consultation hours got the least mean score of 3.78 and 3.77 from
Grades 7 and 8 (agree). Both teachers handling Research subjects were given other
auxiliary task as the Grade level coordinator and the Grade level guidance counsellor
of the school. Comparing the results across all the Grade levels on teaching styles as a
delegator, it was found out that Grade 9 has the highest (x̅ =4.32, x̅ =4.41).
Respondents described their teacher being available as a resource person and
allows them to work in autonomy. Grade 9 respondents indicated that they were
tasked to complete the Science Investigatory Project paper and oral presentation that
is the reason they were given much time to work in autonomy and via consultation
with the Research teacher. Grade 7 teacher was given the lowest mean scores of 3.87
and 3.83 for the same criteria. One possible reason for that result is students were
working with close supervision by the teacher. For Grade 7 is more on foundational
concepts and theories that will help the students in higher year level.
The study of Frunză (2014) affirmed that effective teaching styles also depend on
the students’ learning styles. More so, willingness to experiment with teaching
strategies will help in developing an effective teaching style for the students. However,

559
 LUMAT

the findings of the study deviated from the study of Stanford (2014), which revealed
that the mathematical scores of students in classroom who were taught using
facilitator and delegator teaching styles were significantly higher than the scores of
students from an expert, formal authority, and personal model teaching styles.

3.4.3 Teaching Strategies

The teaching strategies help the teacher to engage the students in the teaching and
learning process. In general, the perceived rating of the respondents towards teaching
strategies used by their research teachers was 4.24 (agree). Moreover, criterion from
cooperative learning and technology integration got the highest mean score (x̅ =4.65).
Under cooperative learning, working by partners or peer tutoring was the highest
across the Grade levels interpreted as strongly agree (x̅ =4.61, x̅ =4.65, and x̅ =4.68).
Working with their chosen partner or the pairs selected by the teachers were allowed
as long as they will accomplish the set objectives and outcomes for a certain topic.
This indicates that students across all the Grade levels are willing to work with pairs
and teams for they can express themselves better and progressed better results.
The findings on cooperative learning supports the study of Altun (2017), which
emphasized the favourable effect of cooperative learning on students’ performance.
The development of students’ social and personal skills can also be achieved in
cooperation-based learning since it provides support and cooperation from the group
(Altun, 2017).
In terms of technology integration, reporting the results of class activity through
PowerPoint presentation was also high 4.77 (strongly agree) for both Grades 8 and 9.
It is an indication that the facilities like laptop, projector, screen, and speaker are
already available for the teaching and learning process, whether provided by the
teachers or the school. Lessons were also delivered through PowerPoint presentation
as emphasized by both teachers. The findings on technology integration verified by
Weathersbee (2008), where the impact of technology and academic performance was
analysed. The results specified that technology integration in the classroom increased
the students’ performance in science, mathematics and reading in selected public
schools in Texas.
Meanwhile, criterion from the inquiry-based instruction was found highest
(x̅ =4.74)- strongly agree at Grade 8 while the use of differentiated instruction got the
lowest (3.36)- agree in Grade 9. The results signify that the incorporation of
respondents’ multiple intelligences is not highly evident in the teaching and learning

560
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

process. One probable reason for that is the number of students in the class and the
number of hours in teaching a particular lesson.
The findings on the use of inquiry-based instructions further support the earlier
studies done by Alameddine, and Ahwal, (2016); Abdi (2014); and Bayram, Oskay,
Erdem, Özgür, and Şen (2013). The studies revealed that inquiry-based instructions
increase students’ performance. On the other hand, the findings on the use of
differentiated instruction were supported by the identified challenges on the learning
curve and planning time (Stetson, Stetson & Anderson, 2018).

3.4.3 Teaching Procedure

The teaching procedure is the day to day lesson delivery of the teachers based on the
Daily Lesson Log (DLL) prescribed by the Department of Education. The prescribed
DLL also follows the Gagne’s nine events of instructions such as: 1) gaining attention,
2) informing learners of objectives, 3) stimulating recall of prior learning, 4)
presenting the content, 5) providing guidance, 6) eliciting performance, 7) providing
feedback, 8) assessing performance and 9) enhancing retention (Gagne, 1997). It was
found that the overall mean for all the Grade levels was high (x̅ =4.41).
The findings indicate that both teachers followed the prescribed DLL. It is
interesting to note that both Grades 7 and 8, got mean scores of 4.50 and 4.55, which
most of the respondents strongly agreed. Found in Grade 9 was the highest weighted
mean of 4.77 (strongly agree) which indicates that the teacher always presents
examples of new lesson. Respondents shared that their teacher brought a magazine,
a printed journal, sample experiments, and a lot of video presentations if the resources
are not available at hand.
The results of the study support Miner, Mallow, Thekee, and Barnes (2015), which
revealed that Gagne instructional events enhanced teachers ‘mastery, enthusiasm and
effectiveness. Thus, the grades of the students increased. Moreover, the findings also
support the study of Ngussa (2014), which showed that the higher the performance of
the students the greater the perception on Gagne instructional events.

3.4.4 Classroom Management

Classroom management is a way in which the teacher ensures that the class
maximizes learning time without disruption. It can be in a form of seating
arrangement, assigning of task, creating a harmonious environment, or even
delivering the lesson.

561
 LUMAT

It was found out that across the Grade levels under the study, the overall mean is
4.16 with the descriptive analysis agree. With the same criteria across the Grade level,
it was found out that the highest score with the description strongly agree can be seen
only in Grade 9 (x̅ =4.50). Respondents confirmed that their teacher showed respect
and believed that they are becoming mature that is why there is no need to scold them
often. The result also shows that positive discipline reinforces positive behaviour
among learners.
The use of instructional time effectively got the second highest mean score of 4.45
(strongly agree). However, respondents uttered that their teachers always begin with
the end in mind making the class agitated and overwhelmed with ideas. The next
highest score (x̅ =4.36) with the descriptive analysis agree, talks about seating
arrangement that encourages an interactive teaching and learning process. It was
mentioned by the respondents that seating arrangement changes from regular lecture
type to circle time, U shape seat plan, by group, by pairs, and sometimes with no
chairs. Seating arrangement depends on the activity prepared by the teacher.
The findings on classroom management support the study of George, Sakirudeen,
and Sunday (2017), which revealed that the academic performance of students who
experienced classroom management (verbal instruction, corporal punishment,
instructional supervision, delegation of authority to learners) differs from those who
do not. Additionally, the major findings of Ahmad and Hussain (2017) indicated that
there is a positive relationship between teachers’ classroom management strategies
and the performance or achievement of the students.

3.4.5 Instructional Materials

Instructional materials are tools that help the teachers in facilitating the day-to-day
lessons. The use of instructional materials can maximize the learning potential of the
students as well as the time allotted in teaching. Findings show that the perceived
mean rating on the instructional materials used by the teacher in facilitating the
lesson was 3.44 described as about half of the time. This indicates that the Junior
High School students perceived that their teachers used varieties of instructional
materials as much as they could.
In general, using PowerPoint presentations, sample researches, and
supplementary reading materials appeared to be the most commonly used
instructional materials by the Research teachers. On the other hand, the students
agreed that their teachers used learning modules once in a while, with mean ratings

562
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

of 2.39, 1.45, and 2.14, respectively. They related their answers with the science
learners’ modules but not the research module since it was not yet developed.
Studies on the use of instructional materials revealed that that students taught
with instructional materials performed better than those taught without instructional
materials. The use of instructional materials generally improved students’
understanding of concepts and led to high academic achievements (Olayinka, 2016;
Adalikwu & Iorkpilgh, 2013).

3.4.6 Learning Environment

The status and availability of school facilities have direct and indirect impacts on the
learning of students. Results revealed that the students were able to utilize all
available school facilities for research-related activities about half of the time, with
overall mean of 2.99. Classrooms appeared to be the most commonly used school
facility for the conduct of the research studies of Grades 7 to 9. When asked about
their reason, they explained that there is not enough time to go and avail other
learning facilities. They have 10 subjects per day with different requirements.
On the other hand, across all levels, DOST Star Books facility was the least tapped
resource that is available in the school, with perceived ratings of 1.57, 2.26, and 2.27
from Grades 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The respondents felt that they were not trained
to operate the DOST Star Books, which are housed inside the library. They also
mentioned that they were hesitant to do research works in the library since there are
no clear policies or guidelines in using the resources in the library. Students also
identified that the science laboratory was always closed.
Additionally, computer laboratory lacks internet access most of the time. Also,
only one computer with internet access can be utilized by a class. The respondents
reiterated that classes were also held at the computer laboratory that is why students
opted to maximize the use of their mobile phones instead of going to the computer
laboratory. In the same manner, teacher respondents agreed to the statements given
by the students. They also emphasized the unavailability of teacher in charge in the
laboratory and the lack of training guide to utilize the DOST star books.
The findings on the learning environment, specifically school facilities affirmed
the findings of study Al-Enezi (2002) which revealed that there is a positive significant
relationship exists between student achievement scores and building conditions. On
the contrary, student achievement, attendance and completion rate measures were
not found to be statistically significant in relation to school facility conditions as

563
 LUMAT

measured by the Total Learning Environment Assessment (TLEA) at the 0.05 level;
second, discipline, or behaviour, was found to be significantly related to the TLEA
(Mcgowen, 2007).

3.4.7 Administrative Support

Grade 7 students seemed to be uncertain on the support given by the school
administrators during the time that they took their research subject. Specifically, the
overall mean from Grade 7 students was 3.14, which described as about half of the
time.
On the other hand, Grades 8 and 9 students both agreed that appropriate
administrative support was given to them during the time they took their Research
subjects. In particular, they both agreed that the school administration primarily
encouraged research exposure visits, with means of 4.35 and 4.91, respectively.
Within each Grade level, providing moral and financial support received the least
ratings. These are 3.00, 3.29 and 4.09 from Grades 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
Nevertheless, the overall mean of 3.85 suggests that the research students of Grades
7 to 9 agreed that they received support from the administrators of the school.
On the contrary, the teacher respondents pointed out that financial support was
not given all the time. The department raised funds to send the students for most of
the competition. Funds were raised from the contributions of teachers or private
individual. From the point of view of the teachers, administrative support encourages
the students to achieve academic success.
Nevertheless, the findings do not support the study of Bello, Ibi, and Bukar (2016)
which revealed that that 1) there were no significant relationships between principal’s
initiative administrative styles and students’ academic performance; 2) no significant
relationships between consideration structure of principals’ administrative styles and
students’ academic performance; 3) no significant relationships between
participatory administrative styles of principals’ and student academic performance
in senior secondary schools; and 3) among the three leadership styles, none is the best
predictor of students’ academic performance in Taraba State secondary schools.
Furthermore, Coefficient of Concordance revealed congruence in the perceptions
of the students regarding the factors that facilitate and hinder their scientific literacy
skills development. Basically, the statistical findings showed a strong to perfect
agreement in the students’ perceptions of all the factors examined (Kendall’s W (df=8,

564
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

n=76) = 0.60, p= 0.00). Table 3 presents the summary of each of these factors. The
findings were all statistically significant.

Table 3. Summary of facilitating factors of students’ scientific literacy skills development

Factors Mean SD Kendall’s W
Teaching Personality 4.23 0.38 1.00
B. Teaching Style 4.33 0.38 1.00
C. Teaching Strategy 4.26 0.37 1.00
D. Teaching Procedure 4.42 0.45 1.00
E. Classroom Management 4.16 0.44 1.00
F. Instructional Materials 3.41 0.67 1.00
G. School Facilities 3.01 0.85 0.93
Administrative Support 3.85 0.88 1.00
Kendall’s W level of agreement: 0.00 No; 0.10-Weak; 0.30-Moderate; 0.60-Strong; 1.00-Perfect

4 Conclusions and implications

It can be concluded that although the results of the scientific literacy skills in terms of
writing scientific research paper was good already, yet, there are several parts of the
research paper that must be taken into consideration. In addition, the respondents
believed that they were having difficulties in presenting the research paper. Thus, they
need a lot of trainings and exposure to become better presenters.
The findings of the study also suggested that the perceived scientific literacy of
students were influenced by factors primarily the teacher’s personality traits, teaching
styles, procedure, strategies, classroom management, instructional materials, the
learning environment, and administrative support. Thus, to improve the scientific
literacy skills of the students as to presenting scientific research in written and oral
form, such factors should be given importance just as how scientific literacy is
important in the society.
The following are the recommended strategies to improve the scientific literacy
among Junior High School students:
For the Research Teachers’ personality and teaching style, since the findings
showed the least scores on teachers’ emotional stability (unworried), it is suggested to
find ways of improving teacher’s communication, empathy and comfort to increase
the effectiveness in teaching research as a subject. An increase in teacher’s availability
during consultation hours is an important avenue for giving feedback and
encouragement to the students having difficulty in their identified research problems.
Also, helping the students to work in autonomy will empower them to aim higher in

565
 LUMAT

the field of scientific research. Differentiated instruction should also be considered

while utilising local and indigenous instructional materials. This will help the students
to relate well to the learning activities and thus maximize their learning experiences.
For the Science Coordinator and Teachers, the formulation of some policy
guidelines in the use of the library, DOST STAR BOOKS, computer laboratory, science
laboratory and other learning resources will be a great help for the students as to
setting directions. Developing a research learning module will help to standardise the
lesson across different Grade levels. Additionally, drafting a proposal for the STEP of
activities or the annual plan will also encourage teachers to perform better.
For the School Leaders, the increase of support to the Science Department in
terms of moral and financial, will be a significant factor in boosting students’ morale
as well. Henceforth, allowing the science/research teachers to attend seminars or
trainings that will improve their teaching skills and become more abreast with current
research practices. Students’ exposure to the field of research should also be
prioritised by the educators and educational leaders. Allowing them to visit schools
that already excel in the field of Science Investigatory Projects is a good way to adopt
techniques and best practices. Furthermore, strengthening linkages through
partnership with the Local Government Units (LGUs) and non-government
organizations will help in identifying other sources of fund. This will aid the trainings
and acquisition of laboratory equipment that can be utilized by the students in the
development of their scientific literacy skills.
Now that the world is continuously overwhelmed by vast amount of information,
the development of scientific literacy skills is becoming more important than ever.
This ultimately amplifies the significant role of educational leaders and educators in
promoting scientific literacy in science education. For a populace with well-developed
scientific literacy can better cope with many of its problems. Hence, people will be
able to make better judgements and informed decisions that will affect the quality of
life beyond personal and social. And this in turn leads to the betterment of the entire
nation.

566
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

References
Abidah, K. H., Kurniasih, K., & Ni'mah, D. (2019). The Influence of Grammar and Vocabulary
Mastery toward Writing Ability In the Second Semester Students of English
Department. Jurnal Penelitian, Pendidikan, dan Pembelajaran, 14(12).
http://www.riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/jp3/article/view/3915
Abdi, A. (2014). The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students' Academic
Achievement in Science Course. Universal journal of educational Research, 2(1), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
Adalikwu, S. A., & Iorkpilgh, I. T. (2013). The influence of instructional materials on academic
performance of senior secondary school students in chemistry in Cross River State. Global
Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 39–46.
Adebayo, F. A. (2015). Time Management and Students Academic Performance in Higher
Institutions, Nigeria A Case Study of Ekiti State. International Research in Education, 3(2),
1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ire.v3i2.7126
Ahmad, S., & Hussain, Ch. (2017). Relationship of Classroom Management Strategies with
Academic Performance of Students at College Level. Bulletin of Education and
Research, 39(2), 239–249.
Alameddine, M. M., & Ahwal, H. W. (2016). Inquiry based teaching in literature
classrooms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 332–337.
Al-Enezi, M. M. (2002). A study of the relationship between school building conditions and
academic achievement of twelfth grade students in Kuwaiti public high schools (Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Tech).
Altun, S. (2017). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and views on the
science and technology course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 7(3), 451–468.
Amelia, S., Ramadhan, S., & Gani, E. (2018). The effects of cooperative learning model type TPS
and reading habits toward skills in writing short story reviews text. In International
Conference on Language, Literature, and Education (ICLLE 2018) (pp. 512-518). Atlantis
Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/iclle-18.2018.86
Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem, E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of inquiry based learning
method on students’ motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988–996.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2013.12.112
Bello, S., Ibi, M. B., & Bukar, I. B. (2016). Principals' Administrative Styles and Students' Academic
Performance in Taraba State Secondary Schools, Nigeria. Journal of Education and
Practice, 7(18), 62–69.
Benito, N. V. (2005). National Achievement Test Results Fourth Year SY 2005-2006. National
Education Testing and Research Center, Department of Education. Retrieved 05 June
2020 from http://www.fnf.org.ph/downloadables/National Achievement Test-4th Year
(05-06).pdf
Department of Education (DepEd) (2019). PISA 2018 National Report of the Philippines.
Retrieved 05 June 2020 from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-National-Report.pdf
Deped Regional Memorandum No. 270, S. of 2016. (2016). DepEd Regional Memorandum No.
270, Series of 2016.
Dragoş, V., & Mih, V. (2015). Scientific literacy in school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 209, 167–172.
Frunză, V. (2014). Implications of teaching styles on learning efficiency. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 127, 342–346.

567
 LUMAT

Gagne, R. M. (1997). Mastery Learning and Instructional Design Originally published in 1988, PIQ
1.1. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(1), 8–19.
George, I. N., Sakirudeen, A. O., & Sunday, A. H. (2017). Effective classroom management and
students' academic performance in secondary schools in Uyo local government area of
Akwa Ibom state. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 43.
Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model,
facilitator, and delegator. College teaching, 42(4), 142–149.
Kim, L. E., Dar-Nimrod, I., & MacCann, C. (2018). Teacher personality and teacher effectiveness in
secondary school: Personality predicts teacher support and student self-efficacy but not
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 309.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000217
Leonen, J. N. (2017). Pinay student wins P20M in global science competition | Inquirer Global
Nation. Retrieved 28 May 2018 from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/162938/pinay-
student-wins-p20-m-global-science-competition-bjc-leyte-student-science-competition-
hillary-andales
Maheshwari, V. K. (2018). Causal-comparative research. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from
http://www.vkmaheshwari.com/WP/?p=2491
McGowen, R. S. (2007). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, attendance,
behavior, completion rate and teacher turnover rate in selected Texas high schools. Texas
A&M University.
Miner, M. A., Mallow, J., Theeke, L., & Barnes, E. (2015). Using Gagne's 9 events of instruction to
enhance student performance and course evaluations in undergraduate nursing
course. Nurse educator, 40(3), 152.
Mkpanang, J. T. (2015). Personality Profile of Teachers and their Students’ Performance in Post-
Basic Modern Physics. African Research Review, 9(1), 159–168.
Mohapatra, A. K. (2013). Exploring Perspective of Scientific Literacy: an Overview. Cogn.
Discourses Int. Multidiciplinary J, 1(1), 79–88.
Nasrullah, S., & Khan, M. S. (2015). The Impact of Time Management on the Students’ Academic
Achievements. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics 11 (2015), 66–71.
https://core.ac.uk/reader/234693030
Ngussa, B. M. (2014). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction in Teaching-Learning Transaction:
Evaluation of Teachers by High School Students in Musoma-Tanzania. International
Journal of Education and Research, 2(7), 189-206.
Olayinka, A.R.B. (2016). Effects of Instructional Materials on Secondary Schools Students’
Academic Achievement in Social Studies in Ekiti State, Nigeria. World Journal of
Education, 6(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n1p32
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018). PISA Results in focus
2015, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved 24 June 2020 from
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015- results-in-focus.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). PISA 2018
Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved 24 June
2020 from https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Palani, K.K. (2012). Promoting reading habits and creating literate society. Journal of Art, Sains
and Commerce, (online). III 2, (1), 90-94, ISSN: 2231-4172. https://korg.pw/09-08-10.pdf
Rodriguez-Espinosa, J. M. (2005). The importance of scientific literacy in our Society.
In Astrophysics, and How to Attract Young People into Physics (pp. 28-31).
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design: Volume 1. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288

568
 PALINES & ORTEGA-DELA CRUZ (2021)

Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill Jr, P. D. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of
vocational rehabilitation, 21(3), 117–121.
Science Education Institute and University of the Philippines-National Institute for Science and
Mathematics Education (SEI-DOST & UP NISMED) (2011). Science Framework for
Philippine Basic Education. Manila: SEI-DOST & UP NISMED. Retrieved from
http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph
Stanford, A. (2014). The effects of teachers' teaching styles and experience on elementary students'
mathematical achievement.
Stetson, R., Stetson, E., & Anderson, K. A. (2017). Differentiated instruction, from teachers’
experiences. Retrieved 20 June 2017 from
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=6528
Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K. (2012). Fostering the 21st century skills through
scientific literacy and science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59,
110–116.
Weathersbee, J. C. (2008). Impact of technology integration in public schools on academic
performance of Texas School Children (Doctoral dissertation, Texas State University-San
Marcos).
Widya, S. O., & Wahyuni, I. (2018). The Correlation Between Grammar Mastery and Writing
Thesis Proposal at STKIP YDB Lubuk Alung. Jurnal Arbitrer, 5(2), 75–80.
http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id/index.php/arbitrer/article/view/114

569