Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 1
Chapter I

The Problem and Its Background

Introduction
Modes in educational delivery system vary depending on the condition and
situation of localities in a particular country. For instance, in remote areas of developing
countries with sparse population, establishing a multigrade school has become a necessity
due to a very problematic transportation and communication system (Blum and Diwan,
2007). Correspondingly, in the Philippines, multigrade schools were organized as a
matter of necessity especially for isolated barangays, sitios, and among the communities
of indigenous peoples. The normal structure of a multigrade school consists of a single
room where one teacher teaches basic literacy and numeracy to children from six to
fifteen years of age. A multigrade teacher may teach two grade levels (commonly called a
combination class), while others teach three or four grade levels.
The multigrade classroom provides the opportunity to break down walls among
grade levels and look at students as groups of learners. It can promote real studentcentered learning built on the principles of bayanihan, the barangay spirit of working and
learning together.
The Department of Education (DepEd) conceptualized the Multigrade Program in
the Philippine Education (MPPE) in order to improve access to quality education of
residents of far flung barangays. It is envisioned to help achieve the 2015 target
Education for All (EFA) and the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on universal
primary education (Birch and Lally, 1995).

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 2

Similar to other provinces in the Philippines, Bulacan, comprising of 3 cities and

21 municipalities also opted for multigrade classes in geographically isolated areas. The
following elementary schools in the Distict of Doa Remedios Trinidad (DRT District)
offer multigrade classes: twelve (12) out of twenty two (22) schools in DRT District are
registered as Pure Multigrade School. Pure multigrade school refers to schools with no
monograde class. The multigrade class has at least two groups of pupils. These schools
are manned by a school head or focal person and one to two teachers. Enrollees are
usually children of indigenous people (Dumagat Tribe) and migrants.
Multigrade schools suffer the same challenges, if not more, as common
monograde schools. Among these challenges are inappropriate curriculum, lack of
teaching devices and learning materials, lack of classrooms and furnishings, lack of
teacher training in handling multigrade classes, demoralized teachers due to inadequacy
and professional isolation, and lack of community support. Language barrier posts
another problem among schools in indigenous communities. Multigrades teaching
sometimes have to solve the problem of how to teach pupils with different language
backgrounds in their own language in the same class at the same time (Birch and Lally,
1995). Such condition has caused perception among Filipinos that students attending
multigrade classes are generally low in achievement level compared to their counterparts
in monograde schools. Such perception must be validated through scientific studies and
researches of multigrade schools.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 3

Statement of the Problem

There is a perception that pupils under the multigrade program are generally lowachievers. Hence, this study hopes to find answers to the following questions:
1. What are the average school achievements of grade six pupils under the
multigrade program for the school year 2013-2014 in terms of:
a. National Achievement Test (NAT)
b. General Average/Final Grade
2. What are the relationships that exist between teachers instructional approaches
and teachers teaching techniques in multigrade program?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the academic performances of Grade
six pupils under the multigrade program in relation to the multigrade teachers
instructional approaches and teachers techniques?
Objectives
This study aims generally to determine the instructional approaches and
techniques of multigrade teachers and how these affect the pupils academic achievement.
Specifically, it aims to:
1. Determine the average school achievements of grade six pupils under the

multigrade program during the school year 2013-2014 in terms of:

a. National Achievement Test (NAT).
b. General Average/Final Grade.
2. Determine the significant relationships exist between the teachers instructional

approaches and teacher teaching techniques?

3. Determine the significant relationships between the academic performances of

grade six pupils under the multigrade program in relation to the multigrade
teachers teaching approaches and the teachers teaching techniques.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 4

Hypothesis
Use of multigrade instructional approaches and teaching techniques increases the
performances of pupils in terms of:
a. National Achievement Test (NAT).
b. General Average/Final Grade.
Theoretical Framework
This research focuses on the relationship of teachers instructional approaches and
techniques to the academic performance of pupils in multigrade classes. This study is
anchored on Robert Gagnes seminal work in his condition of learning theory. Gagnes
work (1985) focuses on intentional or purposeful learning, which is the type of learning
that occurs in school. He believed that events in the environment influence the learning
process. Gagne objectively analyze the condition of learning as he says since the
purpose of instruction is learning, the central focus for rational derivation of instructional
techniques is the human learner. He also stated that evaluation is concerned with the
effectiveness of the course or program, regarding the students performance, measures are
taken of the kind of student capabilities the program is intended to establish.
In this study, the events in the environment influence the learning process are the
teachers techniques and approaches in the multigrade class as the independent variables
and the pupils performances in National Achievement Test (NAT) and General Average
(GA) of the Grade 6 pupils are the dependent variables for evaluating the effectiveness of
the multigrade program.

Conceptual Framework

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 5

The researcher is aware of the effects of instructional approaches and techniques

of multigrade teachers to the multigrade classes. The independent variables in this study
are approaches for classroom teaching and teaching techniques. A multigrade teacher in
the classroom has to know and to use different approaches such as individual teaching,
group teaching and whole class teaching. Because his/her class consists of children of
various age and different ability groups teaching. As regards to the teachers techniques
are the methods the teachers employ for various purposes of teaching/learning activities.
Different techniques have varying degrees of effects on students learning. The major
teaching techniques are: questioning, interaction, discussion, reinforcement and self
instructional techniques. These are briefly explained in the definition of terms. The
dependent variables are the academic performances of pupils as of MPS of National
Achievement Test (NAT) and General Average (GA) of grade six pupils for school year
2013 2014.

School Performance
of Students
Independent Variables

Approaches for Classroom

Teaching
a. Individual teaching
b. Group teaching
c. Whole class teaching

Variables
a.Dependent
National Achievement
Test (NAT)
b. General Average

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 6

Teaching Techniques
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Questioning
Interaction
Discussion
Reinforcement
Self-Instructional

Figure I
Paradigm of the Study

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This inquiry shall deal only with the study of the relationship of teachers
approaches and teachers technique to the academic performances of pupils in multigrade
classes. It shall include only twelve (12) pure multigrade schools in the District of Doa
Remedios Trinidad, Division of Bulacan.
Significance of the Study
This study is a contribution for the 2015 target Education for All (EFA) and the
Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on achieving the universal primary education
through the utilization of multigrade program in sparsely populated and far flung
barangays. It will measure results and pinpoint weaknesses of the program that will

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 7

enable the teachers and the Bureau of Elementary Education to make an action plan for
the improvement of the said program. For future researchers, this study can serve as a
springboard for future in-depth studies on the multigrade program in our country.

Definition of Terms
Approaches
Brain storming

refers to the way how teacher teach his/her pupils

refers to an exciting group activity designed to elicit
multiple answer to a question or alternate solution to

Buzz grouping
Common timetable

an issue
refers to small groups which meet for a few minutes

and discusses specific questions/issues raised

refers to an approach wherein a specific subject is
presented to all grades by the teacher in a given
schedule with each grade having prescribed-work
program planned by the teacher. Age, grade level,
and/or capability of students should be considered by
the teacher in designing the work program. For
example, in a class of 3-grades (I, II, III) all the grades
may be undertaking Science and Health from 9:00 to
9:40 A.M. then Mathematics for 60 minutes after
recess. All the other subjects will follow the same

Individual teaching
Instructional approaches
Instructional materials

pattern
refers to the approach in which the teacher engages
students on a one on one basis
refer to methods, methodology of teaching
refer to materials (visual, audio) used to simplify or

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 8

make abstract concepts and ideas more

Integrated day option

comprehensible in the teaching/learning process

refer to an approach wherein there is no fixed
timetable followed. Students as independent learners,
are free to choose what subject to study and when.
This approach is difficult to use in large classes
because it demands lots of student-student interaction

Games

and close monitoring on the part of the teacher

refer to a strategy usually used in remedial teaching,
provide opportunity to repetition of instruction with

Group teaching

enjoyment
refers to the approach in which students are grouped
on the basis of more or less the same ability or mixed

Mixed ability group

ability, bright, average, and weak

refers to the kind of grouping makes for a cross

Multigrade class/es

section of abilities
refer to a class comprising of 2 or more grades
handled by one teacher. This can be called

Peer teaching

combination class in the Philippines

refers to the utilization of the more able students to

Pure multigrade class

Same ability group

help their weaker group mates

refers to schools with no monograde class
refers to the approach wherein students are group into

advanced, average, and low ability grouped

refers to the chronological age of the children
refers to the extent which a student, teacher, or school

has achieved their educational goals

refers to subjects using Filipino as medium of

Same age group

School performance
Subject grouping

instruction such as CE/GMRC, SK/HEKASI, EPP,

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales 9

MSEP and Filipino as a subject are taught on

Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays while those in
English like Mathematics, Science and Health and
English as a subject are taught on Tuesdays and
Subject grouping option

Thursdays
refers to subjects which easily lend themselves to
integration; are presented by the teacher to all grades
at the same time. This may be done in Filipino and
Sibika at Kultura or Good Manners and Right

Subject staggering

option

Conduct, or in English and Elementary Science/Health

refers to subjects that require more teacher-student
interaction; are grouped with subjects that require less
interaction, e.g. in a 3-grade class, one or two grades
may work independently on a subject such as Arts
while the teacher works intensively with another
group in English or Math. The two grades may be
assigned different activities with student leaders

monitoring the activity

refers to the approach wherein the class is divided into

various groups
refers to be method of organizing classroom activity

Tutor and tutee

that makes pupil dependent on each other to learn

refers to the technique that requires students to break

Whole class teaching

into pairs
refers to the approach in which the teacher teaches the

Team learning
Technique

students in the multigrade class as a whole regardless

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

10

Rosales

of grade level

Chapter II
Review of Literature

The multigrade class structure -- also known by various names in different

countries as multiage, composite or grade combination, double-class, split-level, mixedaged, mixed-grade vertically grouped classes -- is defined as a class in which students of
two or more adjacent grade levels are taught in one classroom by one teacher for most, if
not, of the day. Such multigrade classes are embedded within the traditional graded
system (Miguel in Chapman, 1997; Mulryan-Kyne, 2007; VEA, 1990; Veenman, 1995).
In multigrade teaching, teachers are responsible, within a timetabled period, for
instruction across two or more curriculum grades. In one-teacher schools, the teacher is
responsible for teaching across five or six grades of the curriculum. In two or threeteacher schools the teacher is responsible for teaching across two or more curriculum
grades. In monograde teaching, by contrast, teachers are responsible, within a timetabled
period, for instruction of a single curriculum grade (Little, 2001).
Multigrade teaching arises under several conditions: (a) Geographical -- difficult
terrain, lack of easy means of transportation, straggling settlement areas, small islands,
fishing and forestry areas; (b) Demographical the use of multigrade teaching may be

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

11

Rosales

practical in thinly populated areas with low enrolments, areas with population decline;
schools in areas of population growth and school expansion; (c) Absence/Teacher
shortage -- sometimes even in large schools some teachers may be absent or vacancies for
some teachers may remain unfilled for a long time. In this situation some classes may
require to be combined and put under one teacher. Adequate number of teachers may not
be available for various reasons like scarcity of funds, teachers unwillingness to work in
remote rural areas, general shortage of trained teachers; (d) shortage of classrooms; (e)
Migration and displacement multiple class teaching is a practical device for imparting
education to children of displaced people, nomadic tribes, and temporary migrants; (f)
Disadvantaged people to provide education for the marginalized, particularly girls, who
cannot be brought to formal school, multiple class teaching can be applied (APEID,
1988; Little, 2001). However, while much multigrade teaching arises through necessity
some arises through pedagogic choices, especially in the industrialized countries (Miguel
in Chapman, 1997; Little, 2001, Miller, 1990).
In general, researches indicated that in terms of academic achievements, the data
clearly support the multigrade class as a viable, effective organizational alternative to
single-grade instruction. In terms of the affective domain, students in multigrade classes
have significantly more positive attitudes toward themselves, their peers, and school
(VEA, 1990). However in a more recent article of Mulryan-Kyne (2007), it was reported
that there was no difference in cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes between the singlegrade and multigrade settings. Furthermore, researches have shown that it is the quality
of teaching rather than grade configuration or class composition that is the most powerful
determinant of student learning.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

12

Rosales

At least three broad approaches have been identified in small schools around the
world which address the issue of multigrade classes, avoidance, quasi-monograde, and
differentiation. These describe how teachers transact learning and teaching in classes and
small schools within systems designed for larger classes and larger schools. Within the
three approaches eight pedagogic strategies exist which are described in the next section.
Pedagogic Strategies in Multigrade Class
In some systems school principals avoid the need to adopt a multigrade
curriculum by organizing schooling in one or more of three different ways. The first
organizational strategy is deferred entry. While most schools admit students annually,
some admit biennially or triennially. By deferring the entry of a group of primary grade 1
students and combining them with the next years entry, a reasonable number of students
can be enrolled at the same time and taught as if they are in a monograde.
The second strategy is the use of double and sometimes triple shifts. In this way
teachers teach more than one shift of school during the day. They may, for example, teach
grade 1 in the morning and grade 4 in the afternoon. While this may avoid combining
classes, it often means that the length of the school-day from the childs perspective is
shorter than it would be if he/she attended school for a whole day.
The third strategy is abandonment. Teachers divide the time available for a school
day by the number of grades they are timetabled to cover. This generates the time
teachers allocate to each graded class. These classes are then taught as a monograde class.
By implication, some students are ignored for some part of each day. They are not guided
towards self-study because no teacher feels responsible for them.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

13

Rosales

The term quasi-monograde refers to attempts by teachers to organize a multigrade

class as if it were a monograde class. Within this approach there are three main strategies.
In the first strategy, the teacher organizes the class into separate spaces and grade
groups. Students work alongside their class grade peers. There are often separate chalkboard spaces for different grade groups. The teacher divides her time between the grades
and may or may not use a student-monitor to supervise the work of one grade while she is
working with another. Subjects requiring high teacher-student contact may be matched
with those requiring high teacher-intensive subject. Alternately, two or three different
lessons at different levels may be prepared on the same subject. This approach allows all
children to learn the same subject in a given timetable period, with each group following
its own work according to grade level.
In the second strategy, the teacher makes use of curricula that have been planned
in units spanning more than one year multi-year span curricula. Learners from different
grades enter the span at different times, but all students in the class then follow the
curriculum unit together. For example, if grade 5 and grade 6 are combined to make a
large enough class size, they can be taught a grade 5-6 combined curriculum. Children
then flow into and out of the combined class after spending two years learning and cover
the entire two years curriculum, albeit in a different order. The teacher has different
expectations of learning outcome dependent on the formal grade of the learner.
In the third strategy, the whole class strategy, the teacher teaches the same lesson
to all the students in the same way and treats them as if they were a single monograde
class. Music, art, religious knowledge and social studies lend themselves well to this

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

14

Rosales

option. Similar inputs and similar processes are followed and similar learning outcomes
are expected from all students, irrespective of their formally assigned grade.
The third broad approach rests on the concept of differentiation, within which two
strategies can be identified. The first strategy focuses on the teacher and his/her handling
of curricula texts and material inputs with learners. This involves teachers reconstructing
curriculum frameworks for each of two or more grades into one by identifying learning
objectives and/or topics in common. The teacher focuses her attention in common
elements and teaches the whole group as one, followed by some differentiated tasks and
activities. Which differentiated tasks come in differentiated expected learning outcomes?
The potential advantages of this approach for the multigrade teacher are several.
First, children from different grades can be grouped together and taught the same
curriculum subject at the same time. Second, children of all ages, abilities and grade
discussion groups, individual enquiry and activity, the teacher can appreciate the unity of
the lesson planning task one topic across several lessons, albeit with differentiation
within. Most importantly, she has been professionally supported in the planning tasks by
a national authority; she has not been expected to carry the burden of planning for two or
more grade one. This supports particularly for teachers in isolated, rural schools who
frequently lack opportunities for professional support and development.
A different strategy of differentiation arises when the main driver for learning is
graded learning material. This strategy is learner-centered and materials based. In this
approach the curriculum does not necessarily need to be re-sequenced. Rather, learning
materials are designed to help the learner progress through the curriculum sequence. Such
materials need to be available in plentiful supply (Little, 2006)

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

15

Rosales

Two examples of innovative approaches to multigrade teaching and learning stand

out. In cases, the development and use of graded learning materials has been of central
importance.
The first is the Escuela Nueva Programme, originating in rural Columbia in the
1980s. The development of the curriculum focused on the learning needs of students.
Self-learning guides were developed for each of the subjects of the national curriculum,
reflecting its objectives. Regional and local adaptations were made to the content where
appropriate. Self-learning guides were developed in a natural science, mathematics,
social studies and language with regional and local adaptations. These were organized by
sequences of learning tasks and presumed levels of difficulty. Learning activity centers
and libraries complement the study guides. Assessment of learner achievement is built
into the study guides and flexible promotion systems allow students to progress at their
own pace. Learners working at several curriculum grade levels are grouped together in
the same classroom (Colbert, Chiappe, and Arboleda, 1993).
A second compelling approach comes from Rishi Valley in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, India. Developed over the past eighteen years, the scheme is premised on
differentiated learning and curriculum program that scales down the learning outputs of
each class into a meaningful sequence of concrete and manageable units (Menon and
Rao, 2004:43) five types of learning activities are stimulated by work cards and learning
aids that draw from the local environment and daily-life experiences of the learner. These
are classified as: introductory, reinforcement, evaluation, remedial and enrichment.
Multiple sets of activities comprise milestones, organized in ascending order along a
ladder of learning. This approach has recently inspired the developers of the activity-

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

16

Rosales

based program in the State of Tamil Nadu. Hailed as the Silent Revolution, the program
is currently being introduced across the state.
Multigrade teaching sets out to show how different aspects of human life, culture
and society in peripheral regions of developing countries can be used as assets in
multigrade teaching. Condition factors of education such as classroom conditions,
teachers, learners, and the community. Finally, the key challenges to EFA are located in
the remotest regions, in areas in the poorest countries where small populations and tight
budget mean that the ratio of one teacher to one grade class is generally unobtainable.

Quantitative Studies on Multigrade

In Berry (n.d.), quantitative studies on the cognitive effect of multigrade teaching
in developing countries (Colombia, Belize, Togo, Burkina Faso, and Zambia) were
reviewed. The studies of Psacharapoulus et al (1993), McEwan (1998), and Jarousse and
Mingat (1991, 1992) compared the achievement of students in language and math
subjects. They argued that for Grades 2, 3, and 5, students from multigrade classes
outperformed their counterparts in the monograde classes.
Brown also reviewed studies comparing the effectiveness of multigrade
organization with the regular classroom setting. Miller in Brown (2010) found no
significant difference between academic achievements of students in single-grade and
multigrade classrooms, although some studies suggest that there may be significant
differences depending on subject or grade level (Mason and Burns, 1996; Pratt, 1986;
Veenman, 1995; Veenman, 1996 in Brown). Veenman explained the finding of no

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

17

Rosales

difference in student achievement between multigrade and single-grade classes with the
following:
a. Grouping alone is unlikely to have an effect; learning is more dependent on the
quality of teaching than on organizational structure;
b. Bias in selecting more capable students into multigrade classes, if it occurs, would
deplete the proportion of those students in single-grade classes, producing nonequivalent samples for comparison;
c. Selecting the more capable teachers for multigrade classes but not having suitable
instructional materials available for them to teach; and
d. The demands of multigrade versus that of single grade teaching; the demand
leaves multigrade teachers with little energy to pursue potentially more effective
grouping strategies, resulting in them using the same practices as single grade
teaching.
On the other hand, Brown (2010) cited different scholars (Mason and Burns,
1997; Russell, Rowe, and Hill, 1998) that criticized Veenmans contribution, arguing that
that the quality of the research reviewed by Veenman was not consistently strong and the
justification for inclusion of some of the studies in his analysis was doubtful. For
example, one of the works cited by Veenman in his review was flawed because two
multigrade classes in a small, rural school in the USA (Nebraska) were compared with
five single-grade classes in an urban school, thus confounding class structure with type of
school, location, and probably socioeconomic status.
In a re-analysis of earlier data, Veenman acknowledged that effects found in such
studies might be the result of differences in the educational systems of developing as

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

18

Rosales

opposed to developed countries. He thus omitted such studies and other weaker studies in
the re-analysis. However, it did not lead him to alter his original conclusion of no
significant difference in achievement (Veenman in Brown, 2010).
The crucial question now is why do multigrade class teaching produce similar or
slightly negative effects for student learning when compared to single-grade classes?
Mason and Burns in Brown (2010) asserted that the reason must lie in the more complex
and difficult teaching situation that multigrade classes present, for example, in terms of
greater workload, need for more preparation time and better management skills. These
factors make multigrade and single grade teaching radically different. Furthermore,
Mason and Burns in Brown (2010), expected differences in monograde and single grade
student achievement on the basis that lower quality, less effective teaching is
characterized by less instruction time per grade level group, less time to assist individual
students and meet their needs, and reduced curriculum coverage, especially in areas
beyond the basic skills.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

19

Chapter III
Research Methodology
Research Design
Data for this study were extracted from a survey of multigrade teachers from
participating schools and documentary analysis of the NAT score and general average of
grade six pupils under the multigrade program.

Sampling Technique to be Used

Convenience non-random sampling used in this study (Fraenkel and Wallen,
2007). Survey quetionaires was distributed to teachers under the multigrade program.
To determine the sample size from the population, Slovins formula used.
Where:
N .
n 1 + Ne

n sample size
e desired margin of error
N population size

Population Frame and Sample Size

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

20

The respondents for the study include 14 teachers and 45 pupils under the
multigrade program.

Table 1
Total Number of Teachers and Pupils in Selected Multigrade Schools in DRT
District
Name of School
1. Basyo Elementary School
2. Bato Elementary School
3. Cabayunan Elementary School
4. Calumpit Elementary School
5. Camachin Elementary School
6. Cucong Elementary School
7. Durumugan Elementary School
8. Kambubuyugan Elementary School
9. Kawit Elementary School
10. Pinag-anakan Elementary School
11. Talamsi I Elementary School
12. Talamsi II Elementary School
TOTAL

No. of Teachers in
Multigrade Schools
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
14

No. of
Grade Six
Pupils
3
2
3
9
3
9
3
4
4
3
1
1
45

Instrument
Survey questionnaire and interview scheduled is the main instrument of the study.
The questionnaire and interview scheduled were adapted from the DepEd multigrade

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

21

Rosales

schools survey form version 2 and the instructional practices study-teacher survey of
Lauer (2000). This questionnaire measures teachers teaching approaches and strategies,
which was used by the DepEd. The secondary sources of data are National Achievement
Test (NAT) and General Average of pupils under multigrade class.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher sought the permission from the Schools Division Superintendent,
District Supervisor and the concerned School Heads and Principals of selected multigrade
schools of Doa Remedios Trinidad (DRT) District in the Division of Bulacan. The
questionnaires were distributed to the 12 multigrade schools in the DRT District on the
appointed date. The researcher used the free time of the teachers to avoid inconvenience
in their teaching hours. The respondents were briefed as to the purpose of the study in
order to get the correct information. One hundred percent of the questionnaire was
retrieved and was fully accomplished. After that, immediately the data were tabulated,
organized, summarized, analyzed, and interpreted.

Validity of the Instrument

The instrument used in this study was designed by the researcher herself based on
the DepEd multigrade schools survey form version 2 and the instructional practices
study-teacher survey of Lauer (2000). The secondary sources of data are National
Achievement Test (NAT) and General Average of pupils under multigrade class.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

22

The instrument was shown to qualified persons to examine the content, format, as
well as the grammar of the items. Revisions were performed based on the comments and
suggestions of the experts. Once the validity of the instrument had been established,
copies of the questionnaire were reproduced.

Statistical Treatment
The researcher distributed the questionnaires then retrieves them and tabulated the
data for in-depth analysis and interpretation. The following statistical treatments were
applied and utilized:
1. Percentage used to determine which of the data has the greater number of

frequency.
Where:
x .
P=N (100%)

P percentage distribution
x part of sample size
n total sample size

2. Weighted mean is to determine the average of values (Broto, 2006).

Where:
Xi .
M= N

M weighted mean
Xi scores

N sample size
3. The Spearman Rank Order Coefficient of Correlation is a nonparametric test
which does not require the assumption of normality of the distribution. This
was used to determine the significant relationship between the variables
(Broto, 2006).

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

23

Where:

r-

2
.
r = 1 -6D
2
n(n -1)

Spearman Rank Order Coefficient of

Correlation

D - sum of the squares of the difference

between rank x and rank y
n -

sample size

Chapter IV
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter deals with the tabular presentation of data with corresponding
analysis, discussions and interpretations. The findings in this study were used to generate
generalizations.
Chapter IV was divided into four (4) major parts. The gathered numerical and
textual data were presented through tables to make them intelligible to readers and to
facilitate comparisons and contrasts.
The first and second parts of the presentation provide the profile of multigrade
teachers in terms of gender, age, school, grade levels being handled in the District of
Doa Remedios Trinidad, Division of Bulacan.
The third part dealt with the respondents engagement to the kind of teaching
approaches and techniques of the multigrade teachers use in his/her classroom.
The fourth part is the documentary analysis of the NAT score per subject and
general average of grade six pupils in each twelve (12) schools in the Doa Remedios
Trinidad, Division of Bulacan under the multigrade program.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

24

Table 2
Distribution of the Pure Multigrade Teachers Respondents According to Profile

Gender

Age

Length of Service

Educational
Qualification
Units earned in
graduate course

No. of Multigrade
Trainings/Seminar
attended

Male
Female
Total
41 - 45
36 - 40
31 - 35
26 - 30
20 - 25
Total
20 - 15
14 - 10
9-5
4-1
below 1
Total
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Bachelor of Elementary Education
Total
with units
no units
Total
5
4
3
2
1
no training
Total

Profile
12
2
14
3
4
3
2
2
14
3
1
8
2
14
14
14
6
8
14
2
3
2
3
4
14

Percentage
85.71
14.29
100.00
21.43
28.57
21.43
14.29
14.29
100.00
21.43
0.00
7.14
57.14
14.29
100.00
100.00
100.00
42.86
57.14
100.00
14.29
21.43
0.00
14.29
21.43
28.57
100.00

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

25

Rosales

Gender
There were 2 female (14.29%) and 12 male (85.71%) pure multigrade teachers
participated in the study. From this distribution, majority of the pure multigrade teacher
respondents were males.

Age
As revealed, there were 3 pure multigrade teacher respondents (21.43%) in the
age bracket of 41 years old and above, 4 respondents (28.57%) in the age bracket of 36
40 years old, 3 respondents (21.43%) in the age bracket of 31 35, 2 respondents
(14.29%) in the age bracket of 26 30 and 2 respondents (14.29%) in the age bracket 25
years old and below.
Length of Service
Among the 14 respondents, there were 3 pure multigrade teachers (21.43%) has
served 15 20 years, 1 respondent (7.14%) has rendered 5 9 years, 8 respondents
( 57.14%) has rendered 1 4 years, and 2 of the respondents (14. 29%) has been in the
service below 1 year.
Educational Qualification
As shown in table 2, majority of the respondents are Bachelor of Elementary
Education graduates.
Units Earned in Graduate Course
More than 57% of the respondents were no units in the graduate course and 42%
of the teacher respondents earned units in the graduate course.
Multigrade Trainings/Seminars Attended

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

26

Majority of the respondents (4 teachers) do not have trainings/seminars attended,

3 respondents have 4 and 1 trainings/seminars, and 2 respondents have 5 and 2
trainings/seminars attended.

Table 3
Class Schedule
Class
Schedule

Engli
sh
2

Engli
Hours/Session
sh

Scien
ce

14.29

Scien
ce

%
7.14
%

Math
2
Math

Filipi
no

14.29

Filipi
no

Heka
si

14.29

14.2
9

Heka
si

20 - 29 mins

Char.
Educ.
1

%
7.14

EPP

MSEP

14.2
9

14.29

MSEP

6.67
20.0
0

13.33

20.00

26.67

26.67

13

86.6
7

Char.
%
EPP
Educ.
2
13.33
1

30 - 39 mins
4

26.67

73.33

46.67

11

73.33

11

73.33

26.67

26.67

26.67

26.67

15

100.0
0

15

100.
00

15

100.
00

15

100.
00

10

Engli
sh

Scien
ce

Math

Filipi
no

Heka
si

46.67

33.33

46.67

46.67

6.67

6.67

6.67

40 - 49 mins

6.67

33.33

50 - 59 mins
1 hr/60 mins
More than 60
mins
Total
Days/Week
5

11

40.0
0
20.0
0
66.6
7

33.3
3
26.6
7
86.6
7

26.67

11

73.3
3

13

Char.
Educ.

EPP

MSEP

26.6
7

33.33

26.6
7

20.00

13.3
3

13.33

33.33

10

66.6
7

4
3
2

6.67

6.67

1
Others
Total
Total Hours/SY
More than 1000
1000 - 500
499 - 100
Total

33.33

33.33

33.33

33.33

13

86.67

11

73.3
3

13

86.6
7

13

86.6
7

10

Engli
sh

Scien
ce

Math

Filipi
no

Heka
si

60.00

6.67

20.00

13

86.67

64.29

21.43

12

85.7
1

64.29

64.29

7.14

7.14

28.57

14.29

14

100.
00

12

85.7
1

10

33.3
3
66.6
7
%
50.0
0
7.14
14.2
9
71.4
3

26.6
7
66.6
7

33.33

10

66.6
7

10

Char.
Educ.

EPP

MSEP

57.1
4

64.29

21.43

12

85.7
1

64.29

21.43

12

85.7
1

11

21.4
3
78.5
7

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

27

Table 3 shows that majority of the respondents are teaching all the subjects
everyday, consuming more than 60 minutes daily and more than 1000 hours per school
year.
Table 4
Types of class schedule adopted

Subject grouping
Common timetable
Subject integration
Subject staggering option
Integrated day option
Total

6
3
3
1
1
14

42.86
21.43
21.43
7.14
7.14
100.00

The distribution presented on table 4 shows that more than 40% of the pure
multigrade teacher respondents said that their using subject grouping in their class
schedule.
Table 5
Assesment of Learning

Paper and pencil test

Activity-based test
Essay/Inquiry approach
Total
Weekly
Every period
Twice a week
Twice in a month
Once in a month
Total
Summative Assessment to achieve
mastery
Formative assessment to guide the

F
10
4

%
71.43
28.57

14
F
5
4
3
2

100.00
%
27.78
22.22
16.67
11.11

14
F

77.78
%

44.44

27.78

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

28

teachers
Pre-assessment for diagnostic
Total

2
15

11.11
83.33

As shown in the data, most of the pure multigrade teacher respondents are using
paper and pencil test as their assessment in learning. Most of the respondents are using
this method weekly. They are assessing their pupils by using the summative assessment
to achieve mastery.

Table 6 shows the descriptive measure on teaching approaches and techniques.

Table 6
Level on Teaching Approaches
Approaches

Always
4
f
%
8 57.14
2 14.29
2 14.29

Frequently Rarely
Never
Weighted
Verbal
3
2
1
Mean Interpretation
f
%
f
%
f
%
6 42.86
3.57
Always
6 42.86 5 35.71 1 7.14
2.64
Frequently
4 28.57 8 57.14
2.57
Frequently

1. Whole Class Teaching

2. Individual Teaching
3. Group Teaching
4. Grouping Pupils within the Class
9 64.29
a. Same Age Group
10 71.43
b. Same Ability Group
3 21.43 6 42.86
c. Peer Teaching
8 57.14
d. Mixed Ability Group
Weighted Mean Average

5
4
5
6

35.71
28.57
35.71
42.86

2.64
2.71
2.86
2.57
2.80

Frequently
Frequently
Frequently
Frequently
Frequently

Based on the findings, pure multigrade teacher respondents mostly used whole
class teaching approach with a weighted mean of 3.57 and a verbal interpretation of
always.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

29

However, the teacher respondents uses peer teaching (2.86), same ability group
(2.71), both same age group and individual teaching (2.64), and both group teaching and
mixed ability group (2.57) in teaching approaches with all frequently verbal
interpretation.
The weighted mean average of all the items were 2.8 and with a verbal
interpretation of frequently.

Table 7
Level on Teaching Techniques
Always Frequently
4
3
f
%
f
%
9 64.29 5 35.71
1. Questioning
9 64.29 5 35.71
2. Interaction
14
100.00
3. Discussion
3 21.43 11 78.57
4. Reinforcement Techniques
5. Self-Instructional Techniques 2 14.29 11 78.57
1
7.14 8 57.14
6. Tutor and Tutee
3 21.43 9 64.29
7. Peer Tutoring
5 35.71 9 64.29
8. Team Learning
1
7.14 8 57.14
9. Buzz Grouping
2 14.29 10 71.43
10. Brain Storming
6 42.86 7 50.00
11. Games
Weighted Mean Average
Approaches

Rarely
2
f %

1 7.14
5 35.71
2 14.29
5 35.71
2 14.29
1 7.14

Never
Weighted
Verbal
1
Mean Interpretation
f %
3.64
Always
3.64
Always
4.00
Always
3.21
Frequently
3.07
Frequently
2.71
Frequently
3.07
Frequently
3.36
Frequently
2.71
Frequently
3.00
Frequently
3.36
Frequently
3.25
Frequently

The pure multigrade teacher respondents were asked to select the teaching
techniques they used in teaching. Based on the findings, three items got the highest
weighted mean. Most of the teacher respondents always used discussion techniques

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

30

having 4.00 weighted mean. They also used interaction always having 3.64 mean and
questioning having 3.64 weighted mean with the verbal interpretation always.
The findings show that most of the pure multigrade teacher respondents used
discussion, interaction and questioning techniques in the classroom. The pupils easily
learn the lesson using these techniques.
On the other hand, the two items that got the lowest weighted mean were item no.
6 (Tutor and Tutee), item no. 9 (Buzz Grouping) having both 2.71 weighted mean with a
verbal interpretation of frequently.
Even though these two items got the lowest weighted mean, they still had the
verbal interpretation frequently, proving that the pure multigrade teacher respondents
had really trying to teache well.
The weighted mean average of all items was 3.25 with a verbal interpretation of
frequently. Majority of the pure multigrade teacher respondent have developed very
good in teaching techniques.
Table 8
Learning Activities
Always
5

Frequently Occasionally Seldom

4

f
%
f
%
1. Peer coaching or tutoring
5 35.71 8 57.14
2. Cooperative learning
4 28.57 10 71.43
3. Learning centers
4 28.57 6 42.86
4. Classroom projects
3 21.43 5 35.71
5. Small group learning or partners 1 7.14 11 78.57
Weighted Mean Average

3
f
4

%
28.57

4
5
2

28.57
35.71
14.29

Never

2
f

WM

1
%

4.93
4.29
4.00
1 7.14 3.64
3.93
4.16

Verbal
Interpretation
Always
Frequently
Frequently
Frequently
Frequently
Frequently

As presented in Table 8, the respondents affirmed that in interaction with pupils

and pure multigrade teachers, the main focus of interaction with pupils is cooperative
learning as indicated by the mean rating of 4.93 and with a verbal interpretation of
always. In addition, the respondents confirm that interaction with pupils is peer coaching

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

31

or tutoring with a weighted mean of 4.29, learning centers with a weighted mean 4.00,
small group learning or partners with a weighted mean of 3.93, and classroom projects
with a weighted mean of 3.64 with the same verbal interpretation of frequently. All these
indicators appeared to be observed with frequently by the respondents in their schools
as revealved in the overall weighted mean of 4.16.

Table 9
Level on Use of the Resources to Plan Instruction
Always Frequently Occasionally
5
4
3
f % f
%
f
%
1. Content standards and benchmarks 3 21.43 9 64.29 1
7.14
2. Teachers manual
12 85.71 3 21.43 2
14.29
3. Student textbooks
9 64.29 3 21.43 1
7.14
4. Internet
2 14.29 3
21.43
5. Computer software
2 14.29 3
21.43
6. Content area resources
3 21.43 6 42.86 2
14.29
7. Resources on teaching techniques 2 14.29 8 57.14 4
28.57
8. Audiovisual resources
3
21.43
9. Staff development materials
5 35.71 5
35.71
10. Materials from conferences
2 14.29 5
35.71
Weighted Mean Average
Approaches

Seldom
2
f
%
1 7.14

7.14

Never
1
f
%

1 7.14
8 57.14
9 64.29

3 21.43
2 14.29 9 64.29
2 14.29 2 14.29
3 21.43 4 28.57

WM

Verbal
Interpretation

4.00
5.57
4.36
1.93
1.86
3.64
3.86
1.57
2.93
2.36
3.21

Frequently
Always
Frequently
Seldom
Seldom
Frequently
Frequently
Seldom
Occasionally
Seldom
Occasionally

As presented in table 9, the teacher respondents were asked to choose on the use
of resources to plan the instruction. Based on the findings, teachers manual got the
highest weighted mean (5.57) with a verbal interpretation of always. Most of the
respondents used student textbooks (4.36), content standards and bechnmarks (4.00),

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

32

resources on teaching techniques (3.86), and content area resources (3.64) with the verbal
interpretation of frequently.
Findings shows that most of the teachers used different kinds of resources in their
planning their instruction. Using these different kinds of instruction the pupils will learn
the lesson very well.
However, the three items that got the lowest weighted means were materials from
conferences (2.36), internet (1.93) and computer software (1.86) with a verbal
interpretation of seldom.
The weighted average mean of all the items were 3.21 with a verbal interpretation
of occasionally. Most of the teacher respondents used different kinds of resources.

Table 10
Multigrade School in the District of Doa Remedios Trinidad (DRT District)

School

1. Basyo Elementary School

2. Bato Elementary School
3. Cabayunan Elementary School
4. Calumpit Elementary School
5. Camachin Elementary School
6. Cucong Elementary School
7. Durumugan Elementary School
8. Kambubuyugan Elementary School
9. Kawit Elementary School
10. Pinag-anakan Elementary School
11. Talamsi I Elementary School
12. Talamsi II Elementary School

General
Average

Rank

National
Achievement
Test Average

Rank

80.15
78.78
83.78
83.45
82.67
82.06
81.06
80.93
81.83
81.67
79.20
79.40

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

92.83
93.50
92.33
76.00
70.25
91.17
91.50
77.20
95.00
92.00
78.50
76.00

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

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

33

Rosales

In determining the effectiveness of teachers instructional approaches and

techniques to the pupils performances. The researcher use the percentile rank to compare
the performance of each school through the general average and National Achievement
Test (NAT).

Almost all inputs were not related to the outputs except number of grades handled
and number of preparations as compared to NAT. The positive value connotes that as the
input increases the output also increases. The negative value of (r) means, that as the
input increases the corresponding output decreases or vice-versa. Size of class is
significantly related to the performance in terms of the general average at -0.18 level. The
negative value means that the smaller the size of class the higher is the general average.
Hypothesis which states that the use of multigrade instructional approaches and
teaching techniques increases the performances of pupils in terms of National
Achievement Test (NAT) and General Average Grade 6 pupils are high under multigrade
program. In this connection the level of performance of the Multigrade classes can be
equal the single classes is accepted.It even surpassed what is expected.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

34

Rosales

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and

recommendations.

Summary of findings
The main objective of this study was to determine the significant relationships
exist between the teachers instructional approaches and teacher teaching techniques and
determine the average school achievements of grade six pupils under the multigrade
program during the school year 2013-2014 in terms of General Average and National
Achievement Test (NAT).

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

35

Rosales

The study used correlational research. Usefulness non-random sampling was used
as a sampling technique. The following was the summary of the findings.

1. Profile of the pure multigrade teacher respondents

Gender
There were 2 female (14.29%) and 12 male (85.71%) pure multigrade teachers
participated in the study.
Age
There were 3 pure multigrade teacher respondents (21.43%) in the age bracket
of 41 years old and above, 4 respondents (28.57%) in the age bracket of 36 40 years
old, 3 respondents (21.43%) in the age bracket of 31 35, 2 respondents (14.29%) in the
age bracket of 26 30 and 2 respondents (14.29%) in the age bracket 25 years old and
below.
Length of Service
Among the 14 respondents, there were 3 pure multigrade teachers (21.43%) has
served 15 20 years, 1 respondent (7.14%) has rendered 5 9 years, 8 respondents
( 57.14%) has rendered 1 4 years, and 2 of the respondents (14. 29%) has been in the
service below 1 year.
Educational Qualification
In distribution, majority of the respondents are Bachelor of Elementary Education
graduates.
Units Earned in Graduate Course

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

36

Rosales

More than 57% of the respondents were no units in the graduate course and 42%
of the teacher respondents earned units in the graduate course.
Multigrade Trainings/Seminars Attended
Majority of the respondents (4 teachers) do not have trainings/seminars attended,
3 respondents have 4 and 1 trainings/seminars, and 2 respondents have 5 and 2
trainings/seminars attended.

2. Multigrade Class Schedule

Majority of the respondents are teaching all the subjects everyday, consuming more
than 60 minutes daily and more than 1000 hours per school year.

3. Types of multigrade class schedule adopted

The distribution presented on table 4 shows that more than 40% of the pure
multigrade teacher respondents said that their using subject grouping in their class
schedule.
4. Multigrade Assessment of learning
Most of the pure multigrade teacher respondents are using paper and pencil test as
their assessment in learning
5. Teaching Approaches
Based on the findings, pure multigrade teacher respondents mostly used whole
class teaching with a weighted mean of 3.57 and a verbal interpretation of always.
6. Teaching Techniques

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

37

Rosales

As regards teachers technique, both respondents have rated the multigrade

teachers rated themselves as Frequently with a weighted average mean of 3.25.
7. Pupils Participation in Learning Activities
Most of the respondents affirmed that in interaction with pupils and pure
multigrade teachers, the main focus of interaction with pupils is cooperative learning as
indicated by the mean rating of 4.93 and with a verbal interpretation of always. In
addition, the respondents confirm that interaction with pupils is peer coaching or tutoring
with a weighted mean of 4.29, learning centers with a weighted mean 4.00, small group
learning or partners with a weighted mean of 3.93, and classroom projects with a
weighted mean of 3.64 with the same verbal interpretation of frequently. All these
indicators appeared to be observed with frequently by the respondents in their schools
as revealved in the overall weighted mean of 4.16.

8. Use of the Resources to Plan Instruction

Findings shows that most of the teachers used different kinds of resources in their
planning their instruction. Using these different kinds of instruction the pupils will learn
the lesson very well.
9.

Multigrade School in the District of Doa Remedios Trinidad (DRT District)

Almost all inputs were not related to the outputs except number of grades

handled and number of preparations as compared to NAT. The positive value connotes
that as the input increases the output also increases. The negative value of (r) means, that
as the input increases the corresponding output decreases or vice-versa. Size of class is
significantly related to the output in terms of the general average at -0.18 level. The
negative value means that the smaller the size of class the higher is the general average.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

38

Rosales

10. Hypotheses Testing

Almost all inputs were not related to the outputs except number of grades handled
and number of preparations as compared to NAT. The positive value connotes that as the
input increases the output also increases. The negative value of (r) means, that as the
input increases the corresponding output decreases or vice-versa. Size of class is
significantly related to the performance in terms of the general average at -0.18 level. The
negative value means that the smaller the size of class the higher is the general average.
The hypothesis which states that the use of multigrade instructional approaches
and teaching techniques increases the performances of pupils in terms of National
Achievement Test (NAT) and General Average Grade 6 pupils are high under multigrade
program. In this connection the level of performance of the Multigrade classes can be
equal the single classes is accepted.It even surpassed what is expected.

Conclusions
After a careful study of the findings the following conclusions were arrived at:
No teacher is too young nor too old to teach.
According to government regulations, all the teachers handling the multigrade
classes were qualified to teach.
Level of achievements in NAT of the multigrade classes in the five subject
areas tested was commendable but there is still a room for improvement, particularly in
the very small percentage of failure.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

39

Rosales

Level of performance of multigrade pupils in the general average/final grade

rating should be looked into, because when compared to their performance in NAT, they
were lower.
Almost all instructional approaches and techniques of the teachers revealed a
significant relationship with academic achievement, which implies that the two variables
mentioned above have something to do with the academic performance of the twelve (12)
multigrade school in the Distict of Doa Remedios Trinidad (DRT District).
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions arrived at the following recommendations are highly
offered:
1. Trainings and other in-service education should be given priority for multigrade
teachers. In this way, the teachers will be acquainted with the present thrusts and
innovations in education.
2. Teachers should improve their approaches and techniques to maintain or increase
the commendable level of performance of their pupils.
3. Multigrade teachers should be given financial incentives to compensate for the
numerous preparations made before teaching.
4. Implementation of the Grading System should be studied carefully and be
implemented with care.

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

40

Rosales

References
Berry, C. (n.d.). Multigrade teaching: A discussion document. Retrieved August 24, 2014
from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/94851/Multigrade%20
Teaching%20%20a%20discussion%20document%20by%20Chris%20Berry
%20%28Anglais%29.pdf
Brown, B. A. (2010). Multigrade teaching: A review of issues, trends, and practices
(Implications for teacher education in South Africa). Retrieved August 24, 2014,
from http://www.cepd.org.za/files/pictures/Multigrade%20project%20%20Literature%20review_0.pdf

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

41

Rosales

Chapman, D. W., Mahlck, L. O., & Smulders, A. E. M. (1997). From planning to action:
Government initiatives for improving school-level practice. International Institute
for Educational Planning. Retrieved July 10 2014, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001085/108576eo.pdf
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th edition).
New York: CBS College Publishing.
Javier, R. B., Reganit, A. R., Regandola, M. S., San Juan, M. D. (2005). Research made
easy (Educational Setting). Anahaw Enterprise
Lauer, P. A. (2000). Instructional practices and implementation issues in multiage
classrooms (REL Contract #96006101).Office of Educational research and
Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 450099)
Little, W. A. (2004). Learning and teaching in multigrade settings. Education for All
Global Monitoring Report 2005.Retrieved July 10 2014, from
portal.unesco.org/.../548cfe4ac0864fcea666900c2144e4d1Little.doc
Little, W. A. (2001).Multigrade teaching: Towards an international research and policy
agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 481-497.
Retrieved July 10 2014, fromhttp://cmge.co.za/document/category/187
Miller, B. A. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade instruction.
Research in Rural Education, 1, 1-8. Retrieved July 14, 2014, from
http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/7-1_1.pdf
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2007). The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 23, 510-514. Retrieved July 10 2014,
fromhttp://cmge.co.za/document/category/187
VEA & AEL (1990).Teaching combined grade classes: Real problems and promising
practices. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 339557)

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

42

Rosales

Educational Survey Questionnaire

Part I. PROFILE OF MULTIGRADE TEACHERS
Directions: Please answer the following questions by providing the needed information
on the space provided for.
Name (Optional)_________________________________ Age _______ Sex ____
Length of Service (in years) _______
Educational Qualifications:
a) Degree

Bachelor of Elementary Education

Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in_____________

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

43

Others (pls. specify)______________________________

b) Units earned in graduate course _______________________
Numbers of Multigrade Trainings/Seminars attended _____
Part II.
Please complete the questionnaire by either filling out the needed information or
by putting a check mark in the box beside the given option for your answer. Note that
there are items in which you may have one or more answers. You can check as many
options as applicable. There is also an option Others, in case your answer may be
different from the given options. When you check this option, please specify your answer.
1. Class schedule
Please indicate the hours/session per week, days per week and total no. of hours
of teaching
Subjects

Hrs/Session

Days/Week

Total Hrs. / S.Y.

2. Types of class schedule adopted

Subject staggering option
Common timetable
Integrated day option
Subject integration
Subject grouping
Others, please specify ________________________________
3. Assessment of learning by the subject teachers
Paper and pencil test
Activity-based test
Essay/Inquiry approach
Others, please specify___________
3.1 Frequency of testing by the subject teachers

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

44

Every period
Twice a week
Weekly
Twice in a month
Once in a month
3.2 Types of Assessment
Pre-assessment for diagnostic
Formative assessment to guide the teachers
Summative Assessment to achieve mastery
Part III: Check the number that describes best fits on your teaching approaches and
techniques.

Rate the following item by putting a check

4 Always

3 Frequently

2 Rarely

How often do you use the following teaching

approaches?
1. Whole Class Teaching
2. Individual Teaching
3. Group Teaching
4. Grouping Pupils within the Class
a. Same Age Group
b. Same Ability Group
c. Peer Teaching
d. Mixed Ability Group

How often do you use the following teaching

techniques?
1. Questioning
2. Interaction
3. Discussion
4. Reinforcement Techniques
5. Self-Instructional Techniques
6. Tutor and Tutee
7. Peer Tutoring
8. Team Learning
9. Buzz Grouping
10. Brain Storming
11. Games

1 Never
4

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

Rosales

45

Part IV
1. When students you teach interact with each other, how often are they participating in
the following learning activities? (Make one check for each activity)
Always

Frequently

Occasionally

Seldom

Never

Occasionally

Seldom

Never

Peer coaching or
tutoring
Cooperative learning
Learning centers
Classroom projects
Small group learning
or partners
Other (please name
and rate)
2. How often do you use the following?
Always

Frequently

Worksheet
Tests
Demonstrations
One-one-one
conferencing
Rubrics
Running records
Portfolios
Student self
assessment
Other, please specify
and rate
3. How often you use the following resources to plan your instruction? (Make one check
for each resource)
Always

Content standards
and benchmarks
Teachers manual
Student textbooks
Internet
Computer software
Content area
resources

Frequently

Occasionally

Seldom

Never

Multigrade Instructional Approaches

46

Resources on
teaching
techniques
Audiovisual
resources
Staff development
materials
Materials from
conferences
Other, please name
and rate the
frequency

Rosales