Received 5 June 2016 , accepted 16 March 2018. [621159]

Received 5 June 2016 , accepted 16 March 2018.

Cite as: Gane b, M. D. & Montebon, D. R. T. (2018). Student: [anonimizat], 11(1), 87 -99. DOI: 10.24193/adn.11.1 .7. Volume 11, Number 1, 2018

STUDENT: [anonimizat], Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Abstract : The present research explores the perception of students on their
use of the SPARK Science Learning System device and s ensors in their
science classes as they study the K to 12 science modules in the Philippines.
Two groups of students were assigned to be the experimental and the control
group of the study. The experimental group was exposed to the SPARK
Science Learning S ystem and the other group was not. To determine the
perceptions of both groups on their science classes, the instrument, iKnow My
Class Survey was utilized. Upon analysis, it has been found out that the
difference in the pre -test mean and the post -test mea n on the survey
conducted was statistically significant with a p -value of less than 0.05 (p –
value = 0.019 < 0.05). Thus , it can be concluded that the use of SPARK
Science Learning System incurred better perception of science classes among
students.
Keyword s: SPARK Learning System, ICT in the classroom, Perception

1. Introduction
A significant change was implemented in the Philippine education system —the K to 12 Program. The
Enhanced Basic Education Curriculum or the K12 Curriculum was carried out b y virtue of Republic
Act (RA) 10533 in 2012 . In particular, the Science program under the K to 12 experienced major
reforms: decongestion of topics, inquiry based instruction, contextualization of lessons, and the spiral
progression of competencies. All of the descri bed reforms are to develop as scientifically literate
citizen.
The change in the curriculum influenced different perspectives among its stakeholders. First, s tudents
perceive d the K to 12 program to help them become holistic individuals (Montebon, 2014). Second,
parents view the K to 12 curriculum to have good and bad impacts to their way of living (Cabansag,
2014 ). Lastly, teachers see the curriculum to help students for the challenges of the 21st Century (Tuga
& Montebon, 2017).
Though the change in cur riculum influenced different perceptions in the K to 12 program , the present
research introduces a method how to help student s survive in the new curriculum —through the use of
SPARK Learning System (SSLS) in science. Using SSLS as technology in science is hoped to aid
science teaching and learning; since, technology help students develop positive per ceptions towards
the discipline. Studies also reveal that the nature of the learners nowadays is inclined towards
technology , thus using technology in the class room helps them achieve better (Morales, 2014; Cla rk,
2010; Auditor & Roleda, 2014 ).
The findings of this study could be an indicator to educators to continuously utilize SSLS as an
instructional tool in science. The interest of the learners may lead to positive outcome wherein they

88 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430 view and find science as an enjoyable subject ; thus, promoting student: [anonimizat]e SPARK in their
lessons.
2. The Related Litera ture
Curriculum Change in the Philippines
According to the D epEd K to 12 Curriculum Guide (2013) the science education aims to develop
scientific literacy among learners that will prepare them to become informed and be participative
citizens who are able t o make sound judgments on matters regarding the applications of scientific
knowledge that may have social, health, or environmental impacts. The science curriculum recognizes
the place of science and technology in everyday human affairs. It integrates scie nce and technology in
the social, economic, personal and ethical aspects of life. Further, one of the aims of the new K12
curriculum is to prepare students to become globally competitive individuals and attain the optimum
scientific and technological liter acy.
The science curriculum promotes a strong link between science and technology including indigenous
technology; thus, preserving our country’s cultural heritage. The K to 12 science curriculum will
provide learners with a repertoire of competencies im portant in the world of work and in a knowledge –
based society. It envisions the development of scientifically, technologically, and environmentally
literate and productive members of society who are critical problem solvers, responsible stewards of
nature, innovative and creative citizens, informed decision makers, and effective communicators.
As a whole, the K to 12 Science Curriculum is learner -centered and inquiry -based, emphasizing the
use of evidence in constructing explanations. Concepts and skills i n life sciences, physics, chemistry,
and earth s ciences are presented with increasing levels of complexity from one grade level to another
in spiral progression, thus paving the way to a deeper understanding of core concepts. The integration
across science topics and other disciplines will lead to a meaningful understanding of concepts and its
application to real -life situations primarily aims to help students understand scientific knowledge and
to develop the ability of the scientific inquiry skills. Feedb ack on the implementation of this newly
adopted curriculum may take time from the period of its implementation because it will take two more
years to assess the performance level of pioneer students in National Achievement Test under the
newly enhanced sci ence curriculum.
Student Perception of Science and their Performance in Class
The main role of perception in learning is to speed up the learning process and recall. Perception
involves the use of identification and sensory information of a subject. Exposu re to stimulus develops
the interest and conscious knowledge of a person which enables better understanding and learning of
the person about a specific subject ( Kumar & Sampath , 2010).
Some students perceive that their teachers’ instructional practices are oriented towards helping them
learn but lack of inquiry -oriented activities and support or encouragement for self -directed and
effortful learning (Bernardo, et.al, 2008). Without positive attitudes and perceptions, students have
little chance of learning proficiently (Marzano, 2006 ). Learners’ perception in science in general plays
an important role to learners’ achievement. The students’ perception of learning is correlated is much
higher with student ratings of instruction and did significant gain in the ir pre -and posttest scores
(Centra & Gaubatz, 2005). Moreover, the learners’ negative perception in science can be a hindrance
in uplifting the interest of students in learning science (Hancer & Tuzemen 2008; Valdez, 2005;
Yakar, 2005 & Salgut, 2007). If students develop or possess a better perception towards the subject,
they may always look forward to learn more about the subject (Fonseco & Conboy, 2006; Aurentz,
Kerns & Shibley, 2011; Centra & Gaubatz, 2005).
Researchers in the developed countries like the United States have focused on students’ perceptions of
science classes to try to understand some of the problems in the science educational system in their
countries (Bernardo, et.al, 2008). Educators must prepare for a technology -rich future and keep up

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 89

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 with change by adopting effective strategies that infuse lessons with appropriate technologies (Valdez,
2005).
Kardash and Wallace (2001) made an instrument to assess the perceptions of students and obtain
quantitative data on student perceptions. Thei r study revealed perceptions related to the problems of
teaching in science classes (1) pedagogical strategies, (2) faculty interest in teaching, (3) student
interest and perceived competence in science, (4) passive learning, (5) grades as feedback, and (6 )
laboratory experiences. Women differed significantly from men on the pedagogical strategies, passive
learning, grades as feedback, and laboratory experiences factors. Correlational analyses and evidence
from distinct groups supported the survey's constru ct validity. Students reported room for
improvement of the science faculty's pedagogical practices. From the students' perspective, how
information is taught appears to be the concern to what knowledge is being learned (Psyc h Info
Database Record, 2012).
Bevins and Brodie (2005) conducted a study in England on secondary school students' perceptions of
science and engineering. They found out that students do not recognize the specific identities and
importance of science regarding its role in society as much as it does with politics. Students suggested
that they would benefit if teachers are able to utilize their expertise in the classroom at a time where
the experts’ particular specialist knowledge would greatly enhance the concepts being taught: students'
perceptions towards classroom science. Responses from interviews indicate that students view
physics as a difficult and complex subject. The students also suggest that topics such as forces have
little relevance to their life experiences. School -based educ ational experiences have a strong influence
on students’ decision making and career choices. Students perceive physics as ‘too hard’ and not
relevant to them and it is unlikely they will consider further study and career options related to this
subject. Bi ology, on the other hand, is viewed as ‘easier’ and ‘more meaningful’. Students suggest that
the application of concepts from biology is transparent and recognizable to them in everyday situations
while physics and chemistry have few immediate linkages wit h their everyday lives. It highlights
students’ apparent interest in science but lacks enthusiasm for school science education that pays little
or no attention to science related issues that students encounter throughout their daily lives.
Furthermore, par ticipating students highlight the impact of restricted involvement in practical/hands
on sessions in classroom science. The science curriculum is heavily content loaded which reduces
teachers’ opportunities for engaging students in practical sessions.
In the Philippines , Bernardo, et.al (2008) conducted a study which was a modified version of The
Perception of Science Classes Survey by Kardash and Wallace (2001) entitled “Students’ Perceptions
of Science Classes in the Philippines (PSCS)” and surveyed 7,8 85 grade school and high school
students in different provinces in the Philippines regarding their perceptions of their science classes.
They developed a survey questionnaire based on the PSCS to study perceptions of Filipino students
regarding their scien ce classes. The results suggest that students perceive that their teachers’
instructional practices are oriented towards helping them learn but that these practices do not involve
enough of inquiry -oriented activities and do not provide enough support or e ncouragement for self –
directed and effortf ul learning.
Auditor and Roleda (201 4), recently conducted a study on the impact of WebQuest on students’
critical thinking, performance and perception in basic Physics. Researchers’ study determined the
relations hip between students’ content -knowledge acquisition and perception. They employed both
descriptive and inferential data analysis procedures. On students’ perceptions, statistical analysis
showed that students responded positively on the use of Web Quest mo del in terms of collaboration,
creativity, motivation, and knowledge enhancement but were not in time management. They found out
there was negligible correlation between students’ academic performance and perceptions. Generally,
they found out that student s viewed Web Quest favorably irrespective of their ability to learn and it
suggests that WebQuest model can be a useful tool for student learning.
Integration of computer assisted instruction in science
It is well -established by researches that integrating technology into the curriculum and instruction will
bring about significant student achievement and deep understanding of concepts (Clark, 2010 ;

90 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430
Morales, 2014; Auditor & Roleda, 2014 ). However, technology has to be integrated meaningfully into
the curricu lum and instruction for probable positive impact on student learning and achievement
(Clark, 2010). Meaningful integration of technology is the process of matching the most effective tool
with the most effective pedagogy to achieve the learning goals of a particular lesson. Each tool brings
different opportunities to the learning environment and involves a different set of skills on the part of
teachers and students. Further, e ach tool can play a unique role in the learning process when used at
the appropri ate time, under the most suitable learning conditions. Therefore, i t is simply the degree to
which a particular technology’s capabilities are matched with the expected learning outcomes and
supported by fitting pedagogy that will determine the impact that technology has on learning and
achievement (Clark, 2010).
According to Hamilton (2007), integration is an instructional choice that generally includes
collaboration and deliberate planning and always requires a classroom teacher’s participation. It
cannot be legislated through curriculum guides nor will it happen spontaneously. Integration of
technology in the classroom may be a vision of an administrator, a teacher, or a specialist needs to
model, enc ourage, and enable integration; however among those with capabilities to make integration
of technology happen, only a classroom teacher can make integration successfully happen in the
classroom.
Meaningful technology integration touches ground on motivation and appropriate use of tools to
match the learners a nd pedagogy at hand. The information provided by this research is of value to
science teachers working on similar objectives. This also allows science teachers to explore and
improve their motivation techniques which may later lead to a deep conceptual und erstanding of the
subject matter (Morales, 2014).
Conceptual Framework
Upon the revi ew of the different literatures, a conceptual framework has been created and is shown in
Figure 1 below .

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framewor k of the present research as seen in Figure 1 shows the three constructs
involved in the study. The SPARK Science Learning System has been utilized in teaching certain
science concepts and its effect on student perception towards scienc e was determined. As shown in
Figure 1, the conceptual framework attempted to explore whether the use of SPARK Science Learning
System to perform several experiments could back up the teacher in uplifting the learners’ perception
in science. This is to find out if the usage o f this innovative tool in the selected science topics from the
newly adopted K to 12 Science Curriculum could enhance learners’ perception in science. The
different literatures unfolded that most of the learners have a negative perception in science. The
students considered their negative perception were because of the teachers’ way of conveying the
science lessons, the teachers’ practices in the classrooms and the mastery of the subject matter. This
study has addressed those present conflicts in science le arning.

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 91

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 3. Research Questions
This research aims to find out if the utilization of SSLS to Science Classes has a significant effect on
the learners’ perception in science. Specifically, this research aims to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a signif icant difference between the pre -test and post -test means of the students exposed to
SSLS and the conventional method in their perception in science?
2. Is there a significant difference between the post -test means of the students exposed to SSLS and
the conv entional method of their perception in science?
4. Methodologies
Respondents
The respondents of this study are the 87 learners of Andres Bonifacio Integrated School in the
Division of Mandaluyong City. The experimental processes were implemented in two sect ions out of
ten Grade -7 sections of the said school in the School Year 2014 -2015.
The SSLS groups are the 44 learners who received the treatment. The treatment was the utilization of
SPARK Science Learning System device and sensors on science experiments suggested in the K to 12
science modules. On the other hand, the conventional groups were composed of 43 heterogeneous
respondents. They were called the conventional group since they were the learners who had a regular
learning instruction which was based on the K to 12 learning modules.
Setting of the Locale
This research utilized a quasi -experimental pretest posttest design. The researcher used the topics in
the 1st quarter topics in Grade 7. The topics were science investigative processes in the diversit y of
materials in the environment. The researcher mainly followed the lessons and materials as suggested
in the prescribed module of the Grade -7 Enhance Science Curriculum. The instructional processes
were implemented for six weeks wherein the teacher -researcher consistently followed the prescribed
allotted time for each topic. The topics and the objectives were paralleled in the K to 12 Curriculum in
both groups.
Researcher used two SPARK science learning system and two different passport sensors which wer e
temperature and pH sensors. These sensors were part of Chemistry packages. Spark lab automatically
recorded the numerical values of the time, temperature and pH levels during the experiments. The
allotted time indicated in the SSLS’s guidelines, each rea dymade activity needed to have 150, minutes
which is equivalent to 3 days contact with the learners. K -12 curriculum requires 50 -minute period in
a day. If the researcher would follow the time in the guidelines of the SSLS, all the lessons in the K -12
curriculum allotted in the 1st grading would not be enough, aside from that, some materials in the
laboratory activities were not found in the science laboratory of the school. Readymade activities in
the SPARK labs of SSLA were not suited in the 1st Grading l essons of the K -12 Enhance basic
curriculum. Thus, the researcher prepared simplified modules for the SSLS group who used the SSLS
device and SSLS passport sensors. The principal, the head of the science department and the master
teachers were not able to observe the classes. Instead, a weekly checking of lesson plan was made by
the head teacher and the assistant to the principal.
Extraneous variables which had affected this study were the absences of the learners, suspension of
classes on the 2nd week of t he conduct of the study due to typhoon Glenda, weak foundation of their
science concepts which were beyond the control of the researcher. Student profiles were not taken
prior to the conduct of the study. Students who were re -takers of Science -7 were not a part of
respondents.
In terms of the instruction, SSLS group was instructed during the experiments with SPARK science
learning system, passport sensors and the other materials suggested in the K -12 Curriculum while the
conventional group made use of all the materials listed in the module. The researcher prepared a

92 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430 modified module for the SSLS but this adapted the K -12 modules. The only different between the two
groups was that the SSLS group had SSLS software and SSLS passport sensors during their
experi ment whereas the conventional group had none. Conventional group needed to record the result
manually while the SSLS group just read the digital data from the SSLS.
After six weeks of instructions with the two classes, a post -test was administered to both groups.
Forty three students took the post test in the control group while there were forty four students for the
experimental group or a total of eighty seven respondents answered the post test in the survey of
science perception. Pre -test and Post test results were gathered from the respondents to determine the
learners’ perception towards Science.
Instruments
To determine the perception of students towards learning science, a survey using a questionnaire was
administered to the students. The instrument, iKnow My Class Survey, was designed as a formative
assessment tool for teachers, giving voice to students’ perceptions of various aspects of their
individual classes and themselves (Bundick, 2011). Th e scale of validation of the iKnow My Class
Survey used Cronbach’s alpha statisti cs with a reliability test 0.70.
The research i nstrument made use of a Likert s cale to assess the student’s agreement or disagreement
with the statement to find out the students perception in science. The choices of the respondent s range
from 1 -5 where 5 shows the respondent strongly agrees and 1 if respondent strongly disagree for
positive statement, while it is reversely coded for the negative statements.
The choices of the respondents in the survey questionnaire have correspondi ng scores. Positive and
negative statements in the choices were scored 5 -1 respectively. The ratings of the students’ responses
in perception questions were computed to determine the over -all perception of the students towards
science. Below are the arbit rary points to be used in interpreting the over -all rating of learners’
perception (Soliven, 2004).

5. Results
Statistical treatment assisted the researcher in finding out whether significant difference exists between
the pre -test mean and posttest means on the perception of the control and experimental groups. The
researcher employed independent sample mean t -test to compare the posttest of the SSLS group and
the conventional group while paired samples mean t -test was used to compare their pretest and posttest
mean scores.
Initially, the learners’ test scores in their pre -test had undergone test of normality to find out whet her
they are normally distributed to determine what statistical treatment should be employed. It employed
Shapiro -Wilk Test for normality at 0.05 level of significance.
Table 1: Shapiro Wilk Test of Normality
Variable Group Test p-value Interpretation
Science
Perception Conventional Group Pretest 0.263 Normal
SLSS Group Pretest 0.086 Normal
Table 1 shows that the normality for the distribution of the data varies. Shapiro Wilk -test analysis
revealed that the pre -test scores of both control and experime ntal groups in their perception in science
and integrated science process skills are normally distributed. Rating Perception Level
4.2-5 Very Positive
3.5- 4.1 Positive
2.4-3.4 Fairly Positive
1.6-2.3 Negative
1-1.59 Very Negative

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 93

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 The primary goal of this study is to find out the effect of usage of SPARK Science Learning System
on students’ perception. To determine if there is a significant gain in learners’ perception in Science,
statistical comparison of the pre -test and post -test of the participants exposed to SSLS and those who
were under the conventional method on their perception in Science through paired sample t -test is
presented in the table below.
Table 2: T-test comparison in the Pre -test and Posttest Scores in Science Perception
Group Test N Mean t-test p-value Interpretation
Conventional Pre-Test 43 204 -2.43 0.019 Significant
Posttest 43 214.05
SSLS Pre-Test 44 208.16 -3.53 0.001 Significant
Posttest 44 221.25
Table 2 shows that the participants in the SSLS group had a higher perception in their posttest as
compared to the pre -test after the utilization of the SPARK Science learning System. The differ ence in
the pre -test mean and the posttest mean was statistically significant with a p -value less than 0.05 (p –
value=0.001<0.05). Similarly, participants in the conventional group had a better perception too in the
posttest as compared to the pre -test afte r the used of the prescribed Grade -7 modules in their
perception in Science. The difference in the pre -test mean and the post -test mean was statistically
significant with a p -value of less than 0.05 (p -value = 0.019 < 0.05). The SSLS group that utilized
SPARK Science Learning System has higher mean difference in their perception in science than the
conventional group. The pre -test and posttest mean difference of the control group is 10.047 while
experimental group is 13.09 (Md=10.07<13.09). However, results show significant gains in both
groups in the students’ perception in Science. This implies that the utilization of both SPARK Science
Learning System and the K -12 Science modules in teaching Science Investigative Processes in the
diversity of materials in the environment could be an avenue in improving learners’ perception in
Science.
The present result seems to respond on the study conducted by Bernardo, et.al (2008) whom suggested
that students perceive that their teachers’ instructional practices are o riented towards helping them
learn but that these practices do not involve enough of inquiry -oriented activities and do not provide
enough support or encouragement for self -directed and effortful learning. Utilization of SPARK
Science Learning System as we ll as the modules prescribed in the K -12 Curriculum were bunches of
activities to encourage learners to perform different tasks and hold on the idea of learning by doing.
The rating of the students’ responses in perception questions was computed to dete rmine the over -all
weighted mean in the learners’ perception in science. Arbitrary points were used in interpreting or
determining the level of perception of as shown in the table below.
Table 3: Pre-test and posttest over -all mean score of the control an d the experimental groups and interpretation
of level of the learners’ perception
Table 3 shows the comparison of the participants pre -test over -all weighted and posttest over -all
weighted means on the learners’ perception in science. The result shows that there is an increase in the
perception level in both groups. The pre -test over -all weighted mean in both groups show that the
learners have positive perception prior to the instructional process. The posttest over -all weighted
mean indicates that both groups have a very positive level of perception in science. It could be
deduced th at both groups changed their level of perception in science after implementation of the two Group Test Over -All Weighted
Mean Level of Perception
Control Pre-Test 4.07 Positive
Post-Test 4.28 Very Positive
SSLS Pre-Test 4.16 Positive
Post-Test 4.4 Very Positiv e

94 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430 learning pedagogies. This implies that both learning pedagogies have the ability to increase students’
level of perception in science. However, it was observed that the SSLS group has a higher weighted
mean score than the conventional group.
The result of this study agrees with (Montebon, 2014) that the learners have positive perception in the
K-12 Science Curriculum. As shown in table 3, the pre -test of the convent ional and the experimental
group revealed that the participants have positive perception towards the implementation of the K -12
Science Curriculum prior to the implementation of the instruction. Although learners have already
manifested a positive percepti on towards science due to the newly implemented curriculum, the
posttest mean score in their perception in science were significantly different. This significant gain
made their positive perception become very positive. This change signifies that after the
implementation of both learning pedagogies, SSLS group that used SSLS and the conventional group
that used the prescribed modules in Science can be avenue to uplift the learners’ perception in science.
On the contrary, this result disagrees with the findi ngs of Jenkins and Pell (2006) from the ROSE
project on the science perspective of students in England. These are largely concurrent with those of
school students from industrialized nations globally. Most boys but, in particular, girls prefer other
subje cts to science. Furthermore, the study of Bevins and Brodie (2005), a study in England on
secondary school students' perceptions of science and engineering and found out that students do not
recognize the specific identities and importance of science regar ding their role in society as much as
they do with politics. Seymour and Hewitt e (1997) revealed that many informative perceptions of
students, such as the perception that science teachers dislike their students and do not have the
motivation to teach effe ctively. The students interviewed also perceived many features of ineffective
teaching in science such as the lack of fit between the materials used in class and the tests and
assignments, the use of grading practices that do not reflect actual student lea rning, an overemphasis
on memorization instead of conceptual understanding and establishing conceptual connections, among
many others. Their study of students’ perception revealed notions of good teaching in science classes,
such as encouraging discussion, and valuing the sense of discovering things together, and respecting
students
Negative perception in science among learners in the previous studies was observed in different
countries. Notice that these results could have been different in terms of persp ectives of participants
depending on the setting. The adaption of the K -12 Science curriculum might have been a factor that
changed the learners’ perception in science.
To explicitly detail whether specific component in learners’ perception in science has truly improved,
the pre -test means and posttest means comparison of the eight components of the learners’ perception
in science of the control group is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. T-test Comparison of the Eight Components in Science Perception of the Conventional group
Table 4 shows that after the implementation of the instructional processes, the control group increased
the critical thinking and class efficacy of science perception respectively. Most of the eight factors in
science perception had increas ed after the implementation of the instructional process. T -test revealed
that only the three components in science perception had increased significantly. The differences in Skill Pre-test Posttest t-value p-value Interpretation
Meaningful Engagement 2.52 24.1 -1.3 0.200 not significant
Relevance 3.03 31.14 -1.18 0.24 not significant
Relationship 37.07 39.35 -2.54 0.015 significant
Class Efficacy 48.98 51.91 -1.52 0.076 not significant
Cooperative Learning
Environment 20.02 21.4 -2.23 0.031 significant
Critical Thinking 36.19 39.6 -3.27 0.002 significant
Positive Pedagogy 4.25 4.23 0.113 0.898 not significant
Discipline Problem 1.84 2.37 -1.9 0.064 not significant

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 95

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 the pre -test mean and the posttest means of three components were statistically s ignificant. These are
as follows: in relationship with a p -value of 0.015 less than 0.05 (p -value=0.015<0.05), in cooperative
learning environment, the p -value of 0.031 less than 0.05 (p -value=0.031<0.05) and critical thinking
with the p -value of 0.002 l ess than 0.05 (p -value=0.002<0.005) is also less than and critical thinking.
This implies that usage of the prescribed modules in Science can uplift such factors. These three
components are important factors in learning science. Relationship is the buildin g up a positive
relationship between the learners and the teachers brings a good camaraderie which can result to
positive learning outcome. Positive relationship among learners could lead to cooperative learning of
the students. Learner’s perception in cri tical thinking improved too, thus this implies that the learners,
developed their science -inquiry skill, which is the aim of the SSLS.
However, it could be observed that after the posttest, the engagement of the learners in the
conventional group has a dec rease of 1.1. The occurrence may have happened because certain
learners were absent and there were many tasks to do during the instructional process. When they
came back for school, they had a lot of activities to catch up. They were also tasked to perfor m several
experiments which they are not used to prior to the instructional process. In an interview, a student
from the convent ional group honestly replied, “[w] e did not usually perform science experiments in
the past. We experienced difficulty and confu sion in the different tasks but we believed, experiments
are needed in science classes because these will help us learn more.” Such difficulty of students
agrees with de Frondeville (2009) and Weiss and Pasley (2004) ideas that student motivation and
adap tability towards technology in the classroom takes time and is affected by different factors:
exposure time to the technology, engagability of activities provided, and the competence of students
for the technology.
To explicitly detail the specific compon ents if learners’ perception in science has truly improved, the
pre-test means and posttest means comparison eight of the components of the SSLS is shown in the
table 5.
Table 5: T-test Comparison of the Eight Components of Science Perception of the Pre -test and Posttest of the
SSLS Group
Skill Pre-Test Post Test t-test P-value Interpretation
Meaningful Engagement 25.2 25.5 -2.31 0.822 not significant
Relevance 29.57 31.23 -2.39 0.021 significant
Relationship 37.97 40.86 -3.39 .002 significant
Class E fficacy 48.98 51.91 -3.55 .001 significant
Cooperative Learning
Environment 20.02 21.4 -1.25 0.218 not significant
Critical Thinking 36.19 39.6 -3.27 0.002 significant
Positive Pedagogy 4.25 4.23 -0.91 0.368 not significant
Discipline Problem 1.84 2.37 -1.86 0.07 not significant
Table 6 shows that after the post test, the experimental group obtained the highest increment in class
efficacy and critical thinking in science perception. The comparison of posttest and pre -test of the
SSLS group reveal ed si gnificant gain in the four components in learners’ perception in science which
are relevance, (p -value =0.021<0.05) relationship (p -value=002<0.05), class efficacy (p –
value=001<0.05) and critical thinking (p -value=0.002<0.05). This result implies that usag e of SSLS in
science class could further improve such components. This shows that SPARK has the ability to
improve the following: teachers and learners’ application of the content and information how this
science content applies to the student’s everyday lives, the trust and the mutual respect between the
students and the teachers, the assurance of the teacher that the students are able to be themselves, ease
in making inquiries about the content hesitation when asking for support in their own learning.
Comparison of Post -tests Scores in Perception
Problem number 2 aimed to find out if there is a significant difference between the post -test means of
the students exposed to SSLS with those who were under the conventional method in their science

96 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430 perception. A n independent sample t -test was employed to determine if there is a significant difference
in learners’ perception in science. The statistical comparison of post -test of the participants exposed to
SSLS and those who were under the conventional method on t heir perception in science is presented in
the table below.
Table 6 : T-test comparison between the post -test mean scores of the control and the experimental groups on
their Science Perception
Variable Group N Mean Mean
Difference t-value p-value Interpr etation
Science
Perception Conventional 43 214.05 7.2 -2.22 0.029 Significant
SSLS 44 221.25
Table 7 shows the over -all post -test mean scores of the two independent samples. The conventional
group has a post -test mean score of 214.05 while the SSLS group has a mean score of 221.25. These
mean scores have a mean difference of 7.2 which gain a p -value of 0.029 less than 0.05 level of
significance (p -value=0.029<0.05). Such difference suggested that there is a significant difference on
the post -test m ean scores in the science perception between the conventional and the SSLS groups.
This implies that the integration of SSLS has a positive effect on the learners’ science perception
better than the conventional group. This study also revealed that after t he implementation of the
experimental process, the group which received the integration of SSLS had higher science perception
than the control group which had the traditional method of teaching under the K -12 curriculum. This
suggests that SSLS can elevate the perception of learners in science.
Present study revealed that utilization of SPARK Science Learning System improved learners’
perception in science. Previous studies also disclosed that perception and achievement are correlated,
that supports why IS PS of the learners improved as well.
This study agrees on the study of Kumar and Samp ath (2010), the main role of perception in learning
is to speed up the learning process and recall. Exposure to stimulus develops the interest and conscious
knowledge of a person which enables better understanding and learning of the person about a specific
subject. This denotes that as the perception of learners improve; the more motivated they will be in
learning the subject thus, they will perform better as well.
To exp licitly detail which specific component of the learners’ perception in science has significant
difference between the posttest means of the control and the SSLS groups, statistical comparison of
the posttest means of the participants on their perception in science through independent sample
means t -test was made as presented in the table below.
Table 7 . Posttest Comparison of the Component of the Conventional and SSLS Groups in Science Perception
Skill Conventional SSLS t-value p-value Interpretation
Meaningful Engagement 24.1 25.5 -2.00 0.049 significant
Relevance 31.14 31.23 -0.143 0.866 not significant
Relationship 39.35 40.86 -1.95 0.037 significant
Class Efficacy 51.91 54.09 -1.43 0.158 not significant
Cooperative Learning
Environment 21.4 21.68 0.472 0.638 not significant
Critical Thinking 39.6 40.68 -1.28 0.206 not significant
Positive Pedagogy 4.23 4.18 0.32 0.749 not significant
Discipline Problem 2.37 2.86 -1.57 0.12 not significant
Table 8 shows the comparison of the mean scores and the ir mean differences between the
conventional and the SSLS groups. It statistically reveals that utilization of SSLS has improved in
terms of meaningful engagement with a p -value of 0.049 less than 0.05 level of significance (p –
value=0.049<0.05) and relati onship with a p -value of 0.037 less than 0.05 level of significance (p –
value=0.037<0.05). This reveals that most of the mean scores of the experimental group were higher
than the control group. Class efficacy has the greatest mean difference though differe nce was not

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 97

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 significant. Since the difference on the over -all posttest mean scores of the control and the
experimental group were statistically significant, it could imply that, utilization of SSLS has a better
effect on the over -all science perception of the learners in the experimental group. In the eight
components, it specifically unfolded that the SSLS group has a better improvement in learners’
engagement and relationship.
This implies that SSLS improved the engagement of learners to learn the concep ts through
experiments and built up a better student -student and teacher -student relationships.
6. Conclusions
The present research investigates primarily the perception of students of their science lessons when
technology in the form of SSLS was used in thei r classes. The pre and post test scores of students ’
responses on the i Know My Class Survey revealed a significant difference (t = -2.11 at 0.0 sig.). It
means that students’ perceptions of their classes were positive upon using SSLS in their classes.
Results of the study agrees with the findings of different researchers (Valdez, 2005; Chingos &
Whitehurst, 2012; Aurentz, Kerns & Shibley, 2011; Morales, 2014). According to Valdez (2005),
technology based learning tool is needed to achieve statistically sig nificant effects. Thus, the use of
SSLS to science i nvestigative lessons support that educators must adapt to the modernizing education
setting by infusing technology in their classroom strategies. The results of this study also agree with
Chingos and Whit ehurst (2012) whom revealed that there was strong evidence that the choice of
instructional materials has large effects on student learning. Contrary to common practice of
educational institutions to wrongly or blindly choose instructional materials withou t evaluation most
of the time, results of the present research affirms the schools ’ effort to properly evaluate the impact of
SSLS on the learners performances through this study .
To assist students as they learn science under the K to 12 program is the u nderpinning principle of the
researchers upon the conduct of this study. Consequently , research results revealed that SSLS
improved their view of their science classes; Aurentz, Kerns and Shibley (2011) said that inclusion of
modern instrumentation indicat ed a positive change in students’ perception in scientific ideas.
Bernardo (2004) suggest that classrooms in the Philippines should a nchor more on the constructivist
philosophy. In the present research, constructivism has been an evident philosophy that h ave been
observed in the classroom as student learn science with the use of SSLS; for SSLS may allowed
learners to connect lessons with prior knowledge and investigate new concepts through hands on
experiences that lead them to develop new knowledge.
Lastly, the results of the research affirms that of Morales (2014) : SPARK Science Learning System is
an effective technology to be used in science classes for it enables students to improve their innovation
skills, develop their creativity, use critical thinki ng, enhance their communication skills, and
collaborat e with their peers and teacher . That said, the present research posits that SPARK Science
Learning System can help assist the K to 12 program to achieve its goals of developing a scientific
literate cit izen.
References
[1] Auditor, E. & Roleda L. (2014). The WebQuest: Its impact on students’ critical
thinking,performance, and perceptions in physics. International Journal of Research Studies in
Educational Technology , 3(1), 3 -21.
[2] Aurentz, D. & Kerns, L. (2011 ). Improving Student Perceptionsof Science Through the Use of
State -of-the-Art Instrumentation. Journal of College Science Teaching , 40(6).
[3] Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). Constructivism, curriculum and the challenges in transforming science
education in the Philippines. Learning Edge , 4, 1-33.
[4] Bernardo, A., Limhap, A., Prudente, M., & Roleda, L. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of Science
Classes in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Education Review , 9(3), 285 -295.

98 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430 [5] Bevins, S., Brodie, M., & Brodie, F., (2005). A study of UK secondary school students'
perceptions of Science . Retrieve December 12, 2014 from
http://shura.shu.ac.uk/956/1/fulltext.pdf
[6] Bundick, M. J. (2011). Scale Validation of the I know my Class Survey .
[7] Cabansag, M.G. (2014). Impact Statements on the K-12 Science Program in the Enhanced Basic
Education Curriculum in Provincial Schools. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce , 5 (2). 29 -39
[8] Centra, J. & Gaubatz, N., (2005). Perceptions of Learning and Instructional Effectiveness in
College Courses . Retrieve d from https://www.ets.org . on December 15, 2014
[9] Chingos, M. M. & Whitehurst R. G. (2012). Choosing Blindly Instructional Materials, Teacher
Effectiveness, and the Common Core. Retrieve from https://www.brookings.edu/wp on
November 20, 2014
[10] Clark, J. (2010). Best Practices Research Summary. Sun Associates . Retrieved November 1,
2012 from www.sun -associates.com
[11] de Frondeville, T (2009) How to Keep Kids Engaged in Class , Edutopia. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org on January 2015
[12] Department of Education (2013). K-12 Curriculum Guide in Science . Retrieved Aug. 18, 2013
from http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2014/Final%20Science%20CG%203 –
10%2005.08.2014.pdf
[13] Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. RA 10533 (2012). Retrieved
from http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic -act-no-10533/
[14] Fonseco, J. M., Conboy, J. E., (2006). Secondary student perceptions of fa ctors affecting failure
in Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 2(2), 82 -95.
[15] Hamilton, B. (2007). Integrating technology in the primary grades . International Society for
Technology in Education. Retrieved July 9, 201 4 from
http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/ITSELE -excerpt.pdf
[16] Hançer, A. H. & Tuzemen, A. T., (2008). A Research on the Effects of Computer Assisted
Science Teaching. World Applied Sc iences Journal , pp. 199 -205.
Institute for Student Aspirations.Retrieved from www.qisa.org on February 9, 2014
[17] Jenkins, E. W. & Pell, R. G., (2006). The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in
England: A Summary of Findings. Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education,
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
[18] Kardash, C. A., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perception of science classes survey: What
undergraduate science reform efforts need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9 3,
199-210.
[19] Kumar, G.T., & Sampath, B.T., (2010). Perception and usage of e -resources and the internet by
Indian academic. The Electronic Library, 28(1), 137 – 156,
[20] Marzano, R. J. ( 2006). Different kind of classroom . Retrieved on February 9, 2015 at
http://www.ted.com/conversations/14518/perception_is_an_important_asp.html
[21] Montebon, D. R., (2014). “K12 Science Program in the Philippines: Student Perception on its
Implementation,” International Journal of Education and Research , 2(12), 153 -164.
[22] Morales, M. P., (2014). Influential Factors in Modelling SPARK Science Learning System.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research , 4(1)., 36 -50
[23] Psych Info Database Record, (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.a pa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/
[24] Salgut, B., (2007). The effects of computer assisted instruction along with internet for 5th grade
primary school students' acquisition in science and technology lessons light and voice unit.
Unpublished Master Dissertation, Çukurova University, Turkey.
[25] Seymour, E., & Hewitte, N. M., (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder , CO: Westview Press
[26] Tuga, B., & Montebon, D. R. (2017) . The Ethnography of K to 12 Classrooms in the Philippines .
Unpublished manuscript, Manila.
[27] Valdez, G., (2005). Critical issue: Technology: A catalyst for teaching and learning in the
classroom. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory . Retrieved, F eb. 9, 2014 from
http://www.edu2.georgetowncollege.edu

Student Perce ption of Science as Influenced by Spark Science Learning System (SSLS) 99

Volume 11 Number 1, 2018 [28] Weiss, I.R. & Pasley, J.D., (2004). Improving Achievement in Math and Science What Is High –
Quality Instruction? 61(5), 24 -28.
[29] Yakar, H., (2005). The effects of computer assisted teaching on student’s success in teaching
Newton’s movement laws . Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale, Institute of Sciences, Denizli, Turkey
Authors
Maribel D. Ganeb , PhD Student, Philippine Normal University , email: waribelg aneb@gmail.com
Darryl Roy T. Montebon , Assistant Professor III, Institute of Teaching and Learning, Philippine
Normal University, montebon.drt@pnu.edu.ph

100 Maribel D. Ganeb, Darryl Roy T. Montebon

Acta Didactica Napocensia, ISSN 2065 -1430