Development of Laboratory Manual in Physics for Engineers

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

Development of Laboratory Manual in Physics for

Engineers

Justine C. Mercado

Natural Science and Mathematics Department, College of Arts and Sciences, Notre Dame of Marbel University, Koronadal City, 9506,

Philippines

jcmercado[at]ndmu.edu.ph

Abstract: This study aimed to identify the least learned competencies, needs, and challenges of engineering physics students and

teachers, and develop a laboratory manual for Engineering Physics through a mix method design and ADDIE model, but limited to

analysis, design and development of Laboratory Manual only. The participants were six Engineering Physics Laboratory teachers and

ten second year engineering students. The result showed that the prevailing challenges that needs to be addressed in the laboratory class

were lack of updated instructional materials such as laboratory manuals and laboratory equipment, old laboratory apparatus that give

inaccurate data and the least learned competencies were thermodynamics, waves and optics, and electricity and magnetism. From the

least learned competencies, a laboratory manual was developed to address the needs identified by students and teachers. Results

revealed that the developed laboratory manual is much acceptable (M=4.64), by experts. In particular, the laboratory manual is

acceptable in terms of Content Quality (M = 4.69), Instructional Quality (M = 4.64) and Technical Quality (M = 4.58). In conclusion,

the implementation of the engineering physics curriculum faces many challenges especially the lack of laboratory facilities and

instructional materials. The validated developed laboratory manual was found very much acceptable and can be used to address the

needs of the students and teachers of engineer physics. It is recommended that the laboratory manual will be used as a supplemental

instructional material. Also, further review and evaluation of the manual maybe considered to make it more contextualized, localized

and indigenized in the Philippine setting.

Keywords: Development, Engineering Physics, Laboratory Manual, ADDIE Model

1. Introduction

Educational curriculum continues to evolve in order to fit to

the students’ needs and capabilities

[1]

. In fact, recently the

Commission on Higher Education released a memorandum

order mandating to change the curriculum in tertiary level;

hence, topics in college courses especially experiments have

changed. Science learning is practical-oriented which entails

that it requires practical activities in the laboratory, at the

same time, broad-based experiences to widen students’

understanding in a world of opportunities to give meaning to

the learning they have acquired from lectures

[2]

. In addition,

[3]

stated that science learning involves experimentation that

uses hands-on and minds-on activities for better

understanding. However, when there is no laboratory

manual to be used, how can these practical activities be done

properly? These reasons are the primary consideration on

developing a laboratory manual.

Experimental methods enable students to verify theories,

laws and principles surrounding science phenomena;

however, hands-on activities and practical experiments need

a guide in order to realize the observation and results and to

better grasp the concept behind

[4]

this is through a laboratory

manual because laboratory applications are playing a

significant role in Physics education

[5]

. Due to the change in

the curriculum in tertiary education, coverage in engineering

physics has changed dramatically; hence, there are no

existing manuals in the laboratory that can support the

learning of the students on the practical applications.

The terms practical work, which is common in the UK and

Germany context, and laboratory work, which is common in

USA were activities done in order to establish students

understanding through practical work. A precise definition is

difficult as they embrace an array of activities in school, but

generally they refer to experiences in school settings in

which students interact with equipment and materials or

secondary sources of data to observe and understand the

natural world

[6]

. On the other hand, the objectives of

studying science in Nigeria are contained in the Western

African examination council

[7]

. Syllabus include-

understanding basic science concepts, acquisition of

laboratory skills, awareness of linkage between science and

industry/environment and everyday life in terms of benefits

and hazards, and acquisition of critical skills and logical

thinking. These objectives require that science must be

learnt through experimentation by doing practices and

making thorough observations that give meaning and

relevance to understanding it. Thus, the WAEC developed

and assessed the manual and concluded that practical

manuals are effective in teaching science concepts. This is

due to the fact that students had direct access and adequate

instructional materials to work with

[8]

On the other hand the current state of science education in

the Philippines lags behind other countries in the world. The

results of the Second International Science Study (SISS) and

Third International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS) placed the Philippines in disadvantaged position

among participating

[9]

. In the SISS, the Philippines ranked

almost at the bottom of the list of seventeen (17) nations

which took part in this large-scale evaluation of educational

achievement. The factors that resulted to this rank of the

Philippines are the lack of instructional materials and the use

of inappropriate materials

[10]

. Research results confirm that

instructional materials improved learning, if used

appropriately such as laboratory manuals

[11, 12]

workbook/worktext

[13, 14]

, learning modules

[15]

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

200

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

Locally, the HEIs in Region XII have adopted already the

suggested subjects and contents for the different programs in

accordance to the CMO’s, although most of the schools are

still trying to adjust to the new curricula. A part of this

adjustment is the development of instructional materials

such as a laboratory manual to be used for the offered

engineering physics subject, because, since the transition

phase last S.Y 2018-2019, Notre Dame of Marbel University

has no existing manual in engineering physics that would

match to the chapters and topics taught in the lecture, and if

this will continue the science education will be impaired due

to lack of appreciation. This study hopes to develop

laboratory manual that can be used for the betterment of

students’ academic performance and to give them

meaningful learning. This would serve as a tool to improve

and enhance students understanding of physics in general

and would strengthen more the scientific literacy of the

students as well as the quality of science education in the

institution.

Statement of the Problem

The main goal of the study is to develop a Laboratory

Manual for Engineering Physics 101. Specifically, it aimed

to answer the following questions:

1) What is the level of learned competencies of the

engineering students based on CMO?

2) What are the needs of teachers and students in teaching

and learning engineering physics?

3) What are the experiences/ challenges of the students and

teachers in engineering physics laboratory class?

4) What are the suggestions and possible remedy on the

challenges/ needs that the students and teachers have

identified.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Research Design

The study adopted a mixed method approach which allows

the researcher to explore the experiences, the level of

learned and least learned competencies, challenges and

needs of the teachers and students of the engineering physics

laboratory class. This study used a semi-structured interview

guides, CMO and the past exam questions because the

researcher opted to gather information that would have

salient contribution in the success of the study.

2.2 Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were the second year

engineering students of Notre Dame of Marbel University as

well as the teachers who have experienced teaching Physics

laboratory class. They were selected because these people

had direct experience both teaching and learning

Engineering Physics. The participants of the study played a

very important role in the conduct of the study because their

responses, perceptions and suggestions determined how the

laboratory manual was designed and developed.

The participants of the study were chosen purposively.

There were 16 informants, 6 teachers and 10 second year

engineering students who have contributed to the focus

group discussion sessions, and key informant interview.

The teacher participants were selected according to the

following criteria: (1) He or she is teaching engineering

physics laboratory class in the new curriculum, (2) Should

be teaching at least 1 year or more.

The engineering student participants were selected

according to the following criteria: (1) he or she should be

second year engineering students of any major. (2) have

taken the engineering physics lecture and laboratory class,

(3) was able to pass the subject.

2.3 Research Instruments

The research utilized the following instruments: Focus group

discussion guide, key informants interview guide, previous

test questions and CMO, and evaluation tool for Laboratory

manual.

The researcher developed a semi-structured interview guide

for focus group discussion (FGD) and for key informant

interview (KII) that was validated by 3 experts on the field

to assure that the guide questions stated really helped the

researcher in gathering the needed information in the

conduct of the study. The researcher used semi-structure

interview guide because this allows and gives a flexible way

in asking questions to the participants about their

experiences, challenges and suggestions in the conduct of

laboratory class of engineering physics that they have in

their mind.

Another supplementary materials used in the study were the

previous exams used by the teachers who taught laboratory

class for Engineering physics and the issued new curriculum

guide by the Commission on Higher Education. The exams

and the curriculum guide from the teacher and CHED,

respectively were used to match the competencies leaned

and achieved by the students to the prescribed course

outcome of the new Physics for Engineers curriculum. In

order to have an accurate capture of the result of the

interview, the researcher used a voice recorder to assure the

reliability and the veracity of the information for

transcription and analysis.

To evaluate and validate the developed laboratory manual,

the researcher devise an evaluation tool rubric based from

the study of Alegre, Charles C. (2012) to assess the 3

components of the developed laboratory manual, the

technical quality, the content, and instructional quality. It is

made up of a 5 point rating scale, where 5 means strongly

agree, 4 means agree, 3 means disagree, 2 means strongly

disagree and 1 if the criteria stipulated in the laboratory

manual is not applicable.

2.4 Data Gathering Procedures

In conducting this study, the researcher wrote a letter

addressed to the Dean of the College of Engineering and

Technology and to the University President of the school.

After securing the approval from the proper authorities, the

researcher immediately started the conduct of the study.

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

201

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

During the conduct of the study, the researcher briefed the

participants that their participation will be voluntary and if

agreed they will be given a letter of consent that the

researcher prepared. After securing the participants’ consent,

the mechanism and purpose of the interview were briefed to

them such as the use of audio recording while the interview,

or focus group discussion are on-going, and for the record of

raw responses that helped the researcher to achieved the

goals of the study.

After briefing the participants about the mechanism during

the conduct of focus group discussion, it was then

conducted. The first session of FGD was for teachers. There

were 4 teachers who were assigned as informant 1, 2, 3, 4

randomly so that their responses can be recorded and

transcribed accurately. The next session was intended for

students so their experiences and suggestions which were

properly accounted for the needs analysis as well as the

remedies they have suggested to have a better learning

experience in physics for engineers laboratory class.

Furthermore, gathering of data was done by the researcher,

through an in-depth interview. It was done with 2 teacher

participants, as well as 5 student participants which are

different from the focus group. Before starting the interview

briefing was made by the researcher so that the participants

will be aware of their rights, role and the confidentiality of

their participation in the study. They were interviewed

individually by the researcher. The interview utilized an

interview guide which was validated by experts to assure

that the data needed to the study will be obtained.

After doing the qualitative data collection, the quantitative

part of data gathering was conducted. Using the previous

examination test papers used by the teachers teaching

engineering physics and the CHED memorandum order on

the new curriculum for physics for engineers the learned and

unlearned competencies were identified. The test questions

in the exams were matched in the course outcomes stated in

the new curriculum for the physics for engineers. Then the

researcher used a 5 point bracket to determine the level of

learned competencies based on how many of them were

attained with respect to the total number of competencies to

be learned by the engineering students.

Development of Laboratory Manual

After the conduct of needs analysis, as well as knowing the

learned and least learned competencies of the students

compared to the course outline of physics for engineers

planning was done by the researcher. Careful planning was

made in order to identify what are to be included in the

manual, and how the manual will address the needs of the

teachers and students, as well as enable the students to learn

better the competencies stated in the course outline of

physics for engineers, this part of the study is under the

design phase. After the designing of what are to be included

in the manual and how it should be incorporated, the

development of manual began. In developing the laboratory

manual many considerations were taken, from the materials

available, unlearned competencies, alignment to the

curriculum and the quality of the manual in terms of content,

illustrations and questions to be asked were all scrutinized.

The contents of the manual were chosen from the suggested

experiments by the new curriculum for physics for

engineers. 12 different experiments were chosen in order to

observe the course outcome as stipulated in the curriculum.

The laboratory manual is composed of the following parts:

Preliminaries which include, title page, foreword, safety

guidelines in the laboratory, table of contents, and score

sheet. Secondly, the experiments or laboratory activities

which the students will be performing. Every activity is

composed of introduction which will explain and elaborate

the background and the concepts behind the experiment,

objectives, list of materials to be used, equations,

illustrations, procedures, tables & data sheet, follow-up

questions and conclusions. And lastly, the references which

the introductions, some of the illustrations used in

developing the manual and equations were based.

2.5 Data Analysis

The data were analysed and interpreted using a thematic

content analysis. This analysis method comprises steps,

namely; (1) transcriptions, checking and editing, analysis

and interpretation and verification

[17]

. The transcription was

done by transferring the recorded data on to paper, and read

it to get an idea of what the data was all about. (2) Checking

and editing the data were divided into smaller related

(meaningful) units. This was be done by reading the

paragraph and recording the themes that were in every

paragraph. Similar themes were grouped together to make

related units. (3) Analysis and interpretation, psychological

meanings were used to interpret the themes from step 2. This

was achieved based on the researchers understanding of the

themes presented. (4) Generalization, the data were

summarized by looking into the differences and similarities

between interview. Lastly, (5) validation of the data, this

was done by going through the transcripts again and

allowing a colleague to read it as well as to validate the

findings, then the central theme can be obtained such as the

challenges, the needs and the suggestions of the participants

on how to improve the laboratory class in physics for

engineers.

In identifying the level of learned competencies by the

engineering students, a five point scale was used. Every

scale has a corresponding number of competencies learned

and labelled with an interpretation from poor to excellent.

The numbers of learned competencies were based from

pairing the exam questions used by the instructor from

midterm to final exam. Below is the range which the level of

learned competencies was based:

Table 1: Range for the level of learned competencies

Scale Range of learned competencies Verbal Description

1 1-3 Poor

2 4-7 Fair

3 8-11 Good

4 12-15 Very Good

5 16-18 Excellent

Based on the needs analysis and to the level of learned and

the unlearned competencies, a Laboratory Manual was

developed. It was validated and evaluated by 4 Physics

experts using the 5 point Likert rating scale below and the

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

202

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

mean was calculated to evaluate its content, instructional,

and technical quality.

Table 2: Rating Scale for the Developed Laboratory Manual

Validation

Range Verbal Description

1.00 – 1.40 Not Applicable

1.50 – 2.40 Strongly Disagree

2.50 – 3.40 Disagree

3.50 – 4.40 Agree

4.50 – 5.00 Strongly Agree

3. Results & Discussion

Level of Learned Competencies

The numbers of competencies of Physics for engineers in the

new prescribed curriculum by the Commission on Higher

Education (CHED) were eighteen (18) and out of this

number only seven (7) competencies were achieved

throughout the course during the semester the subject was

offered. These seven (7) competencies that have been

learned were identified by matching the test items in the

course outcome where the item belongs to. Please refer to

Table 3.

As presented in Table 3, the seven competencies were

namely; (1) Use calculus to solve problems in force statics

and kinematics, (2) Apply the Newton’s law of motion, (3)

Use calculus to solve work and energy problems, (4) Apply

the law of conservation of energy problems, (5) Solve

problems on impulse and momentum and collisions, (6)

Determine the stress and strain on a body, (7) Solve basic

problems in fluid statics and kinematics. Among the

competencies included in the exam, the number 1

competency which is all about statics and kinematics has the

most number of items, followed by competency number 5

on impulse, momentum and collision, then by Applications

of Newton’s laws, followed by stress and strain and fluid

mechanics, and lastly the work and energy conservation. If

you can notice, all this topics and competencies achieved

and included in the exams were the coverage for engineering

Physics 111 under the old curriculum, and they deal more on

the introductory part of Physics which is the coverage of

General Physics 1 in the Science, Technology, Engineering

and Mathematics (STEM) strand of the Senior High School,

following the curriculum guide of K-12 program.

Table 3: Matched number of tests items to the course outcomes from the CMO

Course outcomes / competencies in physics for engineers

Number of Items included in

the exam

1) Use calculus to solve problems in force statics and kinematics 24

2) Apply the Newton’s law of motion 8

3) Use calculus to solve work and energy problems 1

4) Apply the law of conservation of energy problems 1

5) Solve problems on impulse and momentum and collisions 11

6) Determine the stress and strain on a body 6

7) Solve simple harmonic motion applications 0

8) Describe the characteristics of fluids at rest and in motion 0

9) Solve basic problems in fluid statics and kinematics 6

10) Describe three methods of heat transfer 0

11) Solve basic problems in heat transfer 0

12) Discuss the properties of waves, modes of vibration of strings and air column 0

13) Define electric current, electric resistance and voltage 0

14) Compute the electric force between electric charges 0

15) Solve problems on resistance and cells in series and parallel 0

16) State Kirchhoff’s rule and apply them in a given circuit 0

17) Describe electromagnetism and apply its principles to problem on magnetic field and torque 0

18) Describe image formation by mirrors and lenses and solve basic optics problems 0

Subsequently, the data above shows that the focus of the

laboratory class examination is on Newtonian classical

mechanics (Kinematics and the forces that acts on a

particular system). The primary reason on having this data is

the instructional material being used in the engineering

laboratory class which is based on the old curriculum where

physics for engineers is divided into 2 subjects namely

Mechanics, and Electricity and Magnetism.

On the level of learned competencies based on the new

curriculum in physics for engineers, the finding revealed that

it is at Fair range because only seven (7) course outcomes

were achieved, and this is based on the scale used by the

researcher to determine the level of learned competencies.

This simply means that something should be done in order

to increase the level of learned competencies for

Engineering Physics. Furthermore, the topics being covered

were already been introduced in the basic education due to

the spiral progression of the K-12 program; hence, the topics

which are least learned should be emphasized more to the

students

[18]

. As shown in Table 3, there are good number of

course outcomes which are not achieved and included in the

examinations in Physics for Engineers specifically;

Thermodynamics, Waves and Optics, and Electricity and

Magnetism.

[19]

These topics and their course outcomes were

the least learned concepts in Physics, and most students have

difficulties mastering these concepts. Another study

supported the results on the least learned concept. It was

mentioned that Electricity, Magnetism, Optics and

Thermodynamics were the most difficult topics of physics

that students cannot simply grasp and struggle the most

[20]

On the study conducted in 2014 instructional materials such

as modules, manual, textbooks and electronic books are

effective in delivering instruction and promote students’

performance in content and knowledge acquisition

[21]

. Also,

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

203

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

on utilization of effective resources in teaching Physics,

achievement level of students increases as the innovative,

updated and contextualize resources are used in delivering

instruction

[22]

. As a matter of fact, laboratory manuals which

are designed to help students master the least learned

concepts in Physics play an important role in the success of

instruction delivery

[19]

. Studies have shown that in order to

address the problem on unachieved course outcomes of the

curriculum, instructional material such as a laboratory

manual should be developed aligned to the existing guide

issued by the commission on higher education.

Experiences and Challenges of Students and Teachers

This section discusses the perceived challenges experienced

by the Physics instructors and students of Engineering

Physics laboratory class.

Table 4 shows distinctive responses from the participants

about the challenges they have experienced. The common

and prevailing problem of the school as shown in table 4 are

lack of updated laboratory instructional materials and

equipment. Topics on the lecture do not coincide or not

related to the activities done in the laboratory. This is also

supported by the findings on the level of learned

competencies which is on fair level. This finding can be

attributed to the lack of updated instructional materials as

well as the laboratory equipment that would result to limited

number of experiments to be performed in order to cover the

stipulated course outcomes in the curriculum.

Obtaining in accurate data was also one of the challenges

expressed by the students which will also boil down to the

common prevailing challenge on the lack of updated and

calibrated laboratory apparatus. Students have said that it is

hard for them to gather accurate data because laboratory

equipment were already rusty and crooked and is difficult to

operate.

Table 4: Challenges experienced by the students and teachers in Engineering Physics Laboratory Class

Physics teachers

 Lack of laboratory equipment and updated laboratory apparatus

 Different teachers in the laboratory and lecture classes

 Old instructional materials and laboratory apparatus

 Students’ difficulty in following and understanding procedures

 Topics on the lecture does not coincide with the laboratory activity

 Hard to cope to the new curriculum

 Congested topics and Big class size

 Defective laboratory apparatus

 Classrooms are not conducive for learning

 Students who are not STEM strand graduates

Students

 Concepts and the procedure on how to conduct experiments were not explained

 We are left by our instructor while conducting experiments

 Lack of instructional materials such as manuals and laboratory apparatus

 Old and uncalibrated laboratory equipment

 Some activities in the laboratory are not related to the lesson in the lecture

 Difficulty in operating laboratory equipment

 Obtaining inaccurate data

 Unable to perform experiments because of insufficient materials

 We do not have access to the instructional material

 Writing the laboratory report consumes most of our time

The conduct of pre-laboratory discussion and post-

laboratory discussion play vital roles in the success of

students experiment sessions; failure to incorporate

comprehensive pre-lab and post lab discussion will mislead

the students and affect the outcome of the activity

[23]

. It was

believed that teachers have different practices and different

ways on how to deal with their students, and not all teachers

are doing what students have expressed. The statements of

students above are partly explaining why they have

encountered difficulties in understanding and following

procedures of the experiment. At some point, we can also

attribute the challenges on difficulties of students to

understand the procedures and concepts of experiment on

the instructional materials being used, the students shared

their experience.

In the study of Roberts (1988), it was found out that limited

purchase of instruments, lack of maintenance and

unavailability of the laboratory facilities were also common

challenges experienced by schools

[24]

. Subsequently, the

challenges experienced by teachers and students revealed in

table 4 were unconducive classrooms for learning, students

which are not graduates of STEM strands in Senior High

School, congested topics, inaccurate data and etc. It was

emphasized that students who were none product of STEM

strand encounter much difficulties and have tendencies to

shift or change course; hence, it will affect how the teacher

delivers instruction

[25]

A major problem of the institution is the lack of updated

instructional materials, facilities and equipment. The

participants express their struggle on their need for

adequate Science materials and equipment especially the

Physics laboratory as shown in table 4. This was supported

by by study of Ramdari, et al. (2019) that Physics learning

is rarely done thoroughly due to many things such as lack

of inventory practical tools, practice rooms, modules,

manuals and incomprehension to poor teaching materials

into practical materials.

This finding was affirmed by Jalmasco (2014) that

approximately 20% of the typical laboratories are present

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

204

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

among Philippine schools, which was also supported by

the study of Ongowo and Indoshi (2013), and Roberts

(1988). This is the reason why the students have less

opportunity to engage in laboratory activities and develop

their scientific inquiry. Another challenge that the students

and teachers faced was the lack of laboratory equipment.

This was based on the responses of the students and

teachers and Orleans (2007) affirmed this finding.

Class size can also have a versatile effect in other factors

of the teaching and learning process experience and can

affect in different ways. An example of this is it can have

negative effects on laboratory class interactions. This will

lead to noise, disruptive behaviour, laziness of students to

participate, and greater demand for instructional materials

and facilities which in turn affect the teaching-learning

process. Lesser class size is more advantageous and less

burdensome for teacher, and will enable the teacher to aid

the students need better. Class size can also affect the

materials needed for activities and also for allocated time

(Ehrenberg et al., 2001).

Need of Students and teacher in Engineering Physics 101

class

This section discusses the needs of the students and teachers

of Engineering Physics laboratory class.

Table 5 shows commonality between the responses from the

teacher and student participants about the urgent needs of

teachers and students in Engineering Physics laboratory

class that are to be addressed as soon as possible. The

common and prevailing needs as shown in table 5 is the

updating of instructional materials and facilities. It was

found out during the conduct of the in-depth interview

(Appendix J) with the teachers and students, as well as in the

focus group discussion to another of teachers and students

(Appendix I), and this is supported also by the findings in

the level of learned competencies which is in Fair level. It is

perceived that due to outdated instructional materials and

facilities limited number of activities can be done in order to

satisfy the course outcome stipulated in the curriculum.

Table 5: Needs of Students and teacher in Engineering

Physics laboratory class

Physics

teachers

 Updated laboratory manual based on the new

curriculum

 Enough laboratory equipment and facilities in the

stock room

 Calibrated laboratory apparatus

Students

 We need new sets of laboratory materials and

apparatus

 We need laboratory workbook where we can write

observations and data gathered

 I want Specific laboratory activities incorporated to

our courses

These needs expressed by the teachers and students are clear

manifestation that there is an existing inadequacy of

laboratory instructional materials and facilities. Roberts

(1988), on her study about the assessment of laboratory

needs, found out that purchase of instruments, installation

and maintenance of the laboratory facilities are the most

common need of the schools in communities. This way of

expressing their needs is also a way of expressing their

desire to have a complete, updated, and sufficient laboratory

facilities as shown in table 5. This is related to the

encountered challenges of the teachers and students which

are lack of instructional materials and laboratory apparatus

which were mentioned in the previous discussion and in

table 4. It was pointed out during the interview and focus

group discussion that this needs would affect the attitudes of

the participants in the teaching-learning process.

As perceived by the students when the needs will be

addressed this will help them become more advanced in

terms of skills, learning and facilities. This would also help

them learn in a different way and would trigger curiosity,

stimulate interest and critical thinking that would enable

them to apply their learnings in the real life scenario. Based

on the results of study done by Ongowo and Indoshi (2013)

on the analysis of undergraduate laboratory manuals, high

percentage of basic science process skills is incorporated

rather than to integrate complex science process skills which

are highly needed in tertiary education.

On the other hand, teachers have also enumerated some

effects on the way they teach Engineering Physics when this

needs will be provided. It would be easier for them to

conduct classes and this will make them more efficient and

organized.

The data sources have many implications when the needs of

the students and teachers will not be addressed. For the

students, writing the laboratory reports will be a burden

because their teacher focuses more on neatness than

accuracy because of the lack and defective facilities. They

can’t also enjoy and feel the impact of learning laboratory

activities, and they will become lazy and dependent on their

group mates in doing the experiments. On teachers end, they

will be more creative and wise in strategizing on how to

regroup and devise a plan in order for the students to

conduct the activity; also they are just going with the flow,

letting things be whatever they are just to avoid stress while

teaching the subject. According to Nyanda (2011), learning

Science subjects in absence of well-equipped Science

laboratory, students cannot master Science concept,

knowledge and nature of the Science. In addition,

encountered difficulties in facilitating Inquiry to their

Science students will lead to failure of the specific goals of

practical work to be attained. On the other hand, students

also account difficulties to interact with phenomena as well

as materials in order to enhance meaningful learning

process. Lastly, the absence of a well-equipped laboratory

would possibly hinder the leaning to occur as well as

teaching process to failure.

Suggestions and possible remedies to the perceived

challenges experienced by the students and teachers

This section presents the possible ways to overcome the

challenges that were enumerated in the previous discussions

and this part answer’s the fourth statement of the problem.

Table 6 shows the suggestions given by the students and

teachers on how to provide the needs and address the

challenges they have experienced while taking and teaching

Engineering Physics laboratory class, respectively.

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

205

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

Suggestions were taken during the conduct of focus group

discussion and in-depth interview. There are common and

prevailing suggestions from both teacher and students such

as updating of laboratory manual which is aligned to the

new curriculum, purchase new laboratory equipment and

apparatus based on the instructional material, and make the

classroom conducive for learning by decongesting the

number of members per group which will make the

teaching-learning process in Physics for Engineers better.

It was stated that lack of instructional materials and

facilities, and its alignment to the curriculum were the

primary challenge faced by the participants, and their needs

are updated laboratory materials and facilities, which give

light to the prevailing suggestion of updating the laboratory

manual and that is aligned to the curriculum and purchasing

of new and enough laboratory apparatus and equipment.

Gobaw (2016) recommended in his study that developing a

harmonized and standard laboratory manual with all the

necessary scientific skills would promote the students’ use

of much integrated scientific skills. Also, it was mentioned

by the participants that they have big number of members

per group because of the fact that the class is oversized, and

it pave the way for the participants to suggest the reducing

of the number of group members into 2-4 persons per group

which was also suggested in the study of Pascal and Schultz

(2002) because it greatly affects the educational production

function of a student.. Looking into the data source there is

really need to aid and act on the prevailing challenges based

on the suggestions enumerated by the participants.

Table 6: Suggestions and Possible Remedies to the

challenges experienced by the students and teachers

Physics

teachers

 Buy new laboratory apparatus based on the

instructional materials

 Update the laboratory manual aligned to the new

curriculum

 Reduce class size

 Teacher should have a demonstration table

 Video clip on how to conduct every activity

 To have a projector inside the laboratory classrooms

 There should be enough or more number of laboratory

apparatus

 Regular checking and calibration of laboratory

equipment

 Make classrooms more conducive

 The teacher in the laboratory should be the same with

the lecture

Students

 Reduced the number of group members to 2-4 persons.

 There should be a guide that will enables us, students to

be aware of the succeeding activities.

 The instructor should do pre-lab and post lab discussion

 Align the activities in the laboratory to the topics in

lecture

 Update the laboratory materials and facilities based on

the number of students and instructional material

 Teachers guidance during the conduct of experiment

 There should be an updated laboratory manual

 Teachers should be prepared well for the class, and

answer students questions

 Classroom rules and regulations should be established

well

 Physics major teacher should handle the subject.

Part of the suggestions is the conduct of pre-laboratory and

post-laboratory discussions which was suggested by the

students and was also suggested by the participants in the

study of Gobaw (2016), in order to address the problem on

understanding the concept behind the laboratory activity and

follow the steps on how to conduct the activity properly so

that they can gather an accurate data. On the other hand,

teachers suggested to have demonstration table, additional

projector on laboratory rooms and video clip of the

procedure for every activity in order for them to do the pre-

lab and post lab discussion and also to provide students a

clear grasp on how the activity will be done and will help

them overcome the difficulty in doing the experiment and

will enable teachers to come to class prepared.

Other suggestions shown in table 6 were regular checking

and calibration of laboratory equipment, establishing well

the classroom regulations, conducting learning assessment,

physics teacher should be handling the class, and etc. All of

the suggestions above were perceived by the participants for

the betterment of the delivery of instruction as well as to

mitigate and gradually to eliminate the challenges that they

have experienced.

Development of Laboratory Manual

From the aforementioned analysis, discussions and

suggestions, the researcher was able to develop a laboratory

manual in Physics for Engineers in order to address the

needs and challenges, and to materialize the prevailing

suggestion of the participant which is to develop an updated

curriculum-based instructional material in a form of

laboratory manual.

The laboratory manual contains 12 different activities. The

activities were selected and included based on the least

learned competencies as indicated in the levelling and

matching of test items to the CMO based on the new

curriculum for engineering courses specifically on physics

for engineers. The completed laboratory manual was first

subjected to expert validation and evaluation. Design,

development, or even selection of instructional materials can

be quite challenging depending on the subject, goal, target

audience, context and so on (Sebdurur et al., 2016).

The developed laboratory manual is titled “Ɛpsilon:

Laboratory Manual in Physics for Engineers 1.” It contains

laboratory experiments and activities that will allow the

student perform practical applications that can expand the

knowledge and understanding of the engineering students on

the concepts of Physics that are taught in the lecture

subjects. The experiments included in the manual were

aligned with the competencies and course outcomes

prescribed and required by the new engineering physics

curriculum from the Commission on Higher Education

(CHED). Every activity in the manual contained several

parts, which include the introduction, objectives or learning

outcomes, materials of the experiment, procedures on how

to conduct the activity, tables and data sheets, follow-up

questions, and summary and conclusions.

Each worksheet of the manual has an introductory paragraph

to give the students the concepts and the ideas of what topic

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

206

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

they are working on and this will serve as a review on what

they have discussed in the lecture. The objectives or the

learning outcomes provide the specific target that should be

attained after performing the experiment. Next is the

procedure which is the step-by-step process on how to do

the experiment and obtain correctly the accurate data needed

for the data sheets and tables. The data sheets will serve as

the basis on how to discuss the results of the experiment. It

will be part of the follow-up questions, and this will help to

verify whether the activity was done correctly. Lastly, the

summary and conclusions where the data and its

implications are included and will fulfil the stated learning

outcomes in the experiment. When the task in the manual

will be done accordingly, it will help the students support

their scientific inquiry and develop understanding about

scientific ideas through experience (Yang &Lui, 2016).

Content and Face Validity of the Laboratory Manual

To secure the validity, appropriateness and usefulness of the

developed laboratory manual, expert-validators were asked

to validate it. The criteria for evaluation include content

Quality (Table 7), technical quality (Table 8), and

instructional quality (Table 9).

As shown from Table 7, the validators strongly agreed that

the developed laboratory manual has content validity (M =

4.69, SD = 0.36). Each indicator received a strongly agree

remarks and showed that the manual is scientifically

adequate and accurate and emphasizes active learning. Also,

its activities were relevant to the objectives, aligned to the

curriculum, well organized and free from stereotypes, except

with the indicator on allowing the development of multiple

intelligences (M = 4.00, SD = 0.00) which the validators just

agreed on it. Gardner (1982), pointed that the intelligence of

a person cannot be summed up into a single number. It is

more than scholastic ability, and the student learning will

increase with differentiated instructions. Shearer (2018) said

that experiments and practical activities are not the sole

source of multiple intelligence development but also

personalized learning strategies. Content knowledge is very

important and is related to student learning (Magnusson et

al., 1992). Teachers with strong content knowledge are more

likely to teach in ways that help students construct

knowledge, pose appropriate questions, suggest alternative

explanations, and propose additional inquiries (Alonzo,

2002; Gess-Newsome& Lederman, 1995; Roehrig & Luft,

2004), and is more efficient when appropriate manual is

used for teaching.

Table 7: Validators’ evaluation on the Content quality of Developed manual

Content

Criteria

Weighted Mean SD Remarks

1) The content is scientifically adequate and accurate. 4.75 0.50 SA

2) Emphasize active learning. 4.50 0.58 SA

3) Contents of each activity is relevant to the objectives. 4.75 0.50 SA

4) It is well organized. 4.75 0.50 SA

5) It evaluates student learning as stated in objectives. 5.00 0.00 SA

6) It allows the development of multiple intelligences. 4.00 0.00 A

7) Topics are supported by illustrations and tasks suited to students. 4.75 0.50 SA

8) It is aligned to curriculum. 5.00 0.00 SA

9) The contents are free to ethnic, gender, and other stereotypes. 4.75 0.50 SA

Composite 4.69

0.36 SA

1.0-1.40=Not applicable 2.41-3.40=Disagree

4.41-5.00=Strongly Agree

1.41-2.40=Strongly Disagree 3.41-4.40=Agree

In terms of technical quality, the developed laboratory

manual got a very favourable rating as shown in Table 8 (M

= 4.58, SD = 0.45) which means that validators strongly

agreed to most of the indicators. Although 2 indicators

namely, layout and design are attractive (M = 4.25, SD =

0.50); and the manual is aesthetically pleasing (M = 4.25,

SD = 0.50) which received an “agree” rating from the

validators. It was suggested that artistic layout and the over-

all look of the manual should be improved. Research

literature suggests that the quality of learning material is

enhanced if the material is designed to take into account the

learners individual preference and learning style (Ramussen,

1998; Riding & Grimley 1999; and Rogayan & Dollete,

2019).

Table 8: Validators’ evaluation on the Technical Quality of the Developed laboratory Manual

Technical Quality

Criteria

Weighted Mean SD Remarks

1) The manual is easy to understand. 4.75 0.50 SA

2) The manual allows learner to control pace of learning 4.75 0.50 SA

3) The graphics are excellent 4.50 0.58 SA

4) The layout and design are attractive 4.25 0.50 A

5) Intend users can easily and independently use the manual. 4.75 0.50 SA

6) The language used is clear, concise, and motivating. 4.50 0.58 SA

7) The manual is aesthetically pleasing 4.25 0.50 A

8) The symbols used are well-define 4.75 0.50 SA

9) Topics are presented in a logical and sequential order. 4.75 0.50 SA

Composite

4.58 0.45 SA

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

207

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

1.0-1.40=Not applicable

2.41-3.40=Disagree

4.41-5.00=Strongly Agree

1.41-2.40=Strongly Disagree

3.41-4.40=Agree

Furthermore, the validators strongly agreed on the

instructional quality (M = 4.64, SD = 0.42) of the laboratory

manual which is shown in Table 9. Almost all of the

indicators received a strongly agree remark except for the

indicator about the current trends in Physics instruction and

experiments (M = 4.25, SD = 0.50). Nevertheless, two of the

indicators under the instructional quality got a perfect rating

(M = 5.00, SD = 0.00) from the validators which indicates

that the manual is of high educational value, and addresses

the needs and concern of the students which is the primary

purpose of developing this laboratory manual.

Table 9: Validators’ evaluation on the instructional quality

of the laboratory manual

Instructional Quality

Criteria

Weighted

Mean

Remarks

1) It provides feedback on accuracy of

the student’s answer.

4.75 0.50 SA

2) It is of high educational value. 5.00 0.00 SA

3) It is a good supplement of the

curriculum.

4.50 0.58 SA

4) It addresses the needs and concern of

the students

5.00 0.00 SA

5) The manual facilitates collaborative

and interactive learning.

4.50 0.58 SA

6) It integrates student’s previous

experience.

4.50 0.58 SA

7) The manual introduction helps

answering follow-up questions.

4.75 0.50 SA

8) It reflects current trends in physics

instruction and experiments.

4.25 0.50 A

9) The graphics, and colours used are

appropriate for instructional objectives.

4.50 0.58 SA

Composite 4.64 0.42 SA

1.0-1.40=Not applicable 2.41-3.40=Disagree

4.41-5.00=Strongly Agree

1.41-2.40=Strongly Disagree 3.41-4.40=Agree

Table 10 shows the summary of evaluations done by the

experts on the laboratory manual. As reflected in Table 10,

the developed laboratory manual received a favourable

rating from the experts (M = 4.64, SD = 0.26) which implied

that the validators strongly agree with all the aspect of the

developed laboratory manual. Content Quality (M = 4.69,

SD = 0.30) rank first, followed by the instructional Quality

(M = 4.64, SD = 0.25), and Technical Quality (M = 4.58, SD

= 0.22).

Table 10: Summary of experts’ validation of the Developed

Laboratory Manual

Criteria Mean & SD Remarks Rank

Content Quality 4.69±0.30 SA 1

Technical Quality 4.58±0.22 SA 3

Instructional Quality

4.64±0.25

SA 2

Composite 4.64±0.26 SA

1.0-1.40=Not applicable 2.41-3.40=Disagre

4.41-5.00=Strongly Agree

1.41-2.40=Strongly Disagree 3.41-4.40=Agree

The expert validators provided positive feedback in the

developed laboratory manual and were looking forward for

the benefits it would provide to the teachers and students in

the teaching-learning process once it will be used for

instruction. This research finding agrees with several

research studies (Rogayan & Dollete, 2019; Evangelista, et

al., 2014; Ocampo, 2015; Pastor, et al., 2015). Tomlinson

(1998) commented that the impact of instructional materials

and facilities were achieved when the materials have

noticeable effect on learners when they are stimulating

curiosity, interest and attention are attracted. Likewise, when

teachers use instructional materials in teaching it improves

the performance of the students and enables teachers to

clarify their lessons (Leonen, 2016).

4. Conclusion

Based from the findings, the following conclusions were

formulated:

1) In the implementation of the new curriculum for

Engineering Physics, the level of learned competencies is

fair and there lots of challenges that should be addressed

such as inadequate updated laboratory instructional

materials and facilities, big class size, and lots of course

outcomes were not achieved which has serious impact in

teaching and learning process.

2) The needs that should be addressed urgently to make the

teaching learning process better were updated

instructional materials and facilities, and reduce the class

size which were also strongly suggested by the

participants to be materialized to cope with the

challenges.

3) The developed laboratory manual was found to be very

much acceptable as validated by experts. The expert-

validators strongly agree that the “Ɛpsilon: Laboratory

Manual in Physics for Engineers” possesses excellent

content, technical, and instructional quality.

References

[1] Johnson, Ann. (2018). Six Qualities of a dynamic

curriculum development process. Retrieved from

https://www.onatlas.edu/dynamic-curriculum-

development-process.

[2] Achimugu, L. (2014). Strategies for Effective Conduct

of Practical Chemistry work in Senior Secondary

Schools in Nigeria. Journal of Science Teachers

Association of Nigeria, 47 (1), 126-136.

[3] Etiubon, R., et al., (2017).Effects of practical activities

and manual on science students’ performance on

solubility in Urban Local Education Authority

AkwaIbom State. 8(3), 202-205.

[4] Njelita, C. B. (2008). Enhancing Science Process

Skills Acquisition in Volumetric Analysis using

Cooperative Learning Strategy. Paper presented at the

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

208

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

workshop organized by science teachers Association of

Nigeria.

[5] Geleta, Tolosa, (2015). How can i improve my

students’ ability in doing laboratory practical work on

analytical chemistry-I? A case on class n23 at KCTE.

Chemistry Department, In Kamise College of Teachers

Education (KCTE), Ethiopia. ISSN 2227-5853.

[6] Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R. & Samuel, D. (1976). The

measurement of the interest in, and attitudes to,

laboratory work amongst Israeli high school chemistry

students. Science Education, 60, 401–411.

[7] West African Examination Council (WAEC, 2014).

Latest WAEC Syllabus for all Subjects (SSCE, GCE,

2015). Retrieved on February 23, 2020 from

http://www. myschoolgist.com/ng/waec-syllabus.

[8] Udoh, N. M. (2015). Effects of Computer Simulation

and Charts on Biology Students Academic

Performance and Retention on the concept of Nervous

Coordination. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation,

Department of Science Education, University of Uyo,

Uyo

[9] Philippine Department of Education, Culture, and

Sports, Department of Science and Technology

Science Education Institute, and University of the

Philippines National Institute for Science and

Mathematics Education Development (2000) TIMSS-

R Philippine Report, Volume 1: Science

[10] Orleans, A.V. (2007). The condition of secondary

school physics education in the Philippines: Recent

developments and remaining challenges for

substantive improvements. Aust. Educ. Res. 34, 33–54

(2007). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216849

[11] Curammeng, G. (1993). Development and Evaluation

of a laboratory manual in College Physics I for

engineering students using standard and improved

apparatus, Unpublished master’s thesis, De La Salle

University, Manila.

[12] Capili, M. (1987). Development of laboratory manual

in physics for students enrolled in the double

secondary curriculum with a thrust in the arts,

Unpublished master’s thesis, De La Salle University,

Manila, Philippines.

[13] Amid, D. (1998). Development and validation of a

proposed work-text in analytic geometry, Unpublished

master’s thesis, Centro Escolar University, Manila.

[14] Flores, A. (1989). A proposed workbook in algebra for

an agricultural school, Unpublished master’s thesis, De

La Salle University, Manila.

[15] Ariota, R. (1997)Proposed instructional materials in

the teaching of mathematics at La Salette College of

Engineering, Santiago City, Unpublished master’s

thesis, Saint Paul University, Santiago City.

[16] Alegre, C.C. (2012) Computer Aided Instructional tool

in Linear Equation in two variables. (Unpublished

dissertation, Notre Dame of Marbel University

Research and Publication Center.

[17] Karlsson, J. (1998). International handbook of research

in Arts Education. Retrieved from

https://www.Amazzon.com/hasson-karlsson-1998-03-

18/dp/BO1K8QBHDE. April 13, 2020.

[18] Nava, F.J., & Camarao, M. (2017). High School

Students difficulties in Phyiscs. Retrieved from

https://www.reseachgate.net/publication/320980117.

April 20, 2020

[19] Ocampo, C.A., de Mesa, D.M.B., Ole, A.F., Auditor,

E., Morales, M.P.E., Sia, S.R.D., & Palomar, B.C.

(2015). Development and evaluation of PHYSICS

MICROLAB (P6-Μlab) Kit. The Normal Lights, 9(1),

134-158

[20] Montero, Jomel. (2019). Effectiveness of the ARCS

mdels in teaching Physics competencies for grade 10.

Retrieved from

researchgate.net/publication/331638333_Effectiveness

_of_the_ARCS_model_in_teaching_physics. May 5,

2020.

[21] Auditor, E., & Naval, D. J. (2014). Development and

validation of tenth grade physics modules based on

selected least mastered competencies. International

Journal of Education and Research, 2(12), 145-152.

[22] Okeke, S. and Okoye, N. (2013). Effective resource

utilization: A better approach to teaching and learning

of Physics. Academic Journal of interdisciplinary

studies, 2(6), 35. doi: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n6p35.

[23] Gobaw, Getachew. (2016). Analysis of Undergraduate

Biology Laboratory Manuals. International Journal Of

Biology Education. 5. doi: 10.20876/ijobed.99404.

[24] Roberts, Sharon K. (1988). An Assessment of

Laboratory Needs and Current Practices of Physician

in Rural Community. Oxford Academic, Laboratory

Medicine. doi: 10.1093.19.8.502

[25] Whalen, Donald & Shelley, Mack. (2010). Academic

success for STEM and non-STEM. Journal of STEM

Education: Innovations and Research. 11. Retrieved

from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234753041_

Academic_success_for_STEM_and_non-STEM. May

5, 2020

[26] Ramdari, Ricky, Murdani, Eka, Kusumawati, Intan and

Park, Haewon. (2019). Development of Physics

laboratory Manual: Characteristics of resistor

circuits.JIDF.4.13. doi:1026737/jipf.v4i1.971

[27] Jalmasco, N.M. (2014). Science Education realities.

The Manila Times Available. Retrieved from https://

www.manilatimes.net/science-education-

realities/100096. March 13, 2020

[28] Ongowo, Richard & Indoshi, Francis. (2013). Science

Process Skills in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary

Education Biology Practical Examinations. Creative

Education. 04. 713-717. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.411101.

[29] Orleans, A.V. (2007). The condition of secondary

school physics education in the Philippines: Recent

developments and remaining challenges for

substantive improvements. Aust. Educ. Res. 34, 33–54

(2007). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216849

[30] Ehrenberg, Ronald & Brewer, Dominic & Gamoran,

Adam & Willms, Jon. (2001). Class Size and Student

Achievement. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest. 2. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.003.

[31] Nyanda, Frank. (2011). EFFECTS OF TEACHING

SCIENCE SUBJECTS IN ABSENCE OF SCIENCE

LABORATORY: A CASE STUDY OF

COMMUNITY SECONDARY SCHOOL

MOROGORO MUNICIPAL. Retrieved from

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

209

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN: 2319-7064

ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2019): 7.583

Volume 9 Issue 10, October 2020

www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318101220.

May 10, 2020

[32] Pascal, N. and Schultz, B. (2002). The effects of class

size on students Academic Performance in a principle

of Microeconomic course. Retrieved from

https://www.usi.edu/media/3655163/Effects-of-Class-

Size.pdf. April 20, 2020

[33] Şendurur, E., Ersoy, E., & Çetin, I. (2016). The design

and development of creative instructional materials:

The role of domain familiarity for creative solutions.

International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, 28(2), 507-522

[34] Yang, W., & Liu, E. (2016). Development and

validation of an instrument for evaluating inquiry-

based tasks in science textbooks. International Journal

of Science Education, 38(18), 2688-2711

[35] Sheares, Branton. (2018). Multiple Intelligences in

teaching and education lessons learned from

neuroscience. Intelligence journal. 6, 38. doi: 10.3390.

[36] Magnusson, S., Borko, H., Krajcik, J., & Layman, J.

(1992). The Relationship between Teacher Content

and Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Student

Content Knowledge of Heat Energy and Temperature.

Boston, MA: National Association for Research in

Science Teaching. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED385435).

[37] Alonzo, A.C. (2002). Evaluation of a Model for

Supporting the Development of Elementary School

Teachers’ Science Content Knowledge. Charlotte, NC:

Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of

the Association for the Education of Teachers in

Science.

[38] Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1995). Biology

teachers’ perceptions of subject matter structure and its

relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 32(3), 301-325

[39] Roehrig, G.H., &Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints

experienced by beginning secondary science teachers

in implementing scientific inquiry lessons.

International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24

[40] Rasmussen, K.L. (1998). Hypermedia and learning

styles: Can performance be influenced? Journal of

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291-308

[41] Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and

learning from multimedia materials in 11-year

children. British Journal of Educational Technology,

30(1), 43-59.

[42] Rogayan, D., &Dollete, L. (2019). Development and

Validation of Physical Science workbook for senior

high school. Science education international. doi:

10.33828/sei.v30, 4.5.

[43] Evangelista, E., Ayuste, T.O.D., Belmi, R.M., Butron,

B.R., Cortez, L.A.S., Evangelista, L.T., Tondo, J.E.

(2014). Development and evaluation of grade 7 and

grade 8 biokit. The Normal Lights, 8(2), 152-171.

[44] Pastor, C.J.M., Marasigan, A.C., Aranes, F.Q.,

Camacho, V.M.I., Datukan, J.I., Roque, A.P., Ocampo,

C.A. (2015). Initial validation of the chemistry

microlab kit (Chem. μLab Kit) in facilitating learning

of selected chemistry concepts for k-12 science. The

Normal Lights, 9(2), 180-204

[45] Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Development in

Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

[46] Leonen, R.B. (2016). Development and Validation of

Worktext in Chemistry10. Unpublished Research: Don

Mariano Marcos Memorial State University.

Paper ID: SR201002120011

DOI: 10.21275/SR201002120011

210