Banghay-Aralin sa Filipino 6 (Pagsulat ng Reaksyon)

Banghay-Aralin sa Filipino 6

                                                                                         

I. Layunin

a. Nakasusulat ng isang maikling reaksyon tungkol sa napapanahong paksa

b. Naipapahayag ang saloobin sa kapwa mag-aaral

c. Naibabangit ang mga paraan sa pangangalaga ng kapiligiran

II. Paksang-Aralin

A. Pagsulat ng Reaksyon

B. BEC Handbook in Filipino pp. 42-48; Landas ng Pagbasa p. 152

C. batayang aklat, larawan, flashcard

D. Pangangalaga ng kapaligiran

III. Pamaraan

A. Panimulang Gawain

1. Pagganyak/Balik-Aral

Mini-Game: Pangkatin ang klase sa lalake at babae. Paunahan ang dalawang grupo sa pagtukoy sa mga salitang nasa flashcard kung ang mga ito ay salitang may kaugnay sa pandama o damdamin.

1. matamis

2. nakakatakot

3. taas

4. berde

5. kaguluhan

6. tuwa

7. gitara

8. masalimuoyt

9. mainit

10. pagkagulat

B. Panlinang na Gawain

1. Mga Gawain (Activity)

a. Paglalahad ng Aralin

            Itanong: May pakinabang ba ng basura? Bakit meron? Bakit wala?

b. Pag-alis ng Sagabal

            Hayaan ang mga mag-aaral na alamin ang kahulugan ng mga sumusunod na salita:

            1. bio-gas

            2. anaerobic

            3. generator

            4. planta

            5. polusyon

c. Pagbasa nang Tahimik

            Ipabasa sa mga mag-aaral ang akdang “Pakinabang sa Basura p. 152.

            Ipaalala ang batayan ng wastong tahimik na pagbasa.

d. Talasalitaan

Ihanay ang Hanay A sa Hanay B upang matukoy ang kahulugan ngmga salita.

A	B
1. bio-gas	a. isang lugar kung saan ipinoproseso ang mga panggatong upang gawing enerhiya
2. planta	b. isang uri ng panggatong na nanggaling sa mga nabubulok na bagay tulad ng gulay, prutas, dumi at iba pa
3. generator	c. pagdumi ng paligid dulot ng kapabayaan ng tao
4. anaerobic	d. mga mikrobyong nabubuhay kahit walang hangin
5. polusyon	e. ginagamit upang makagawa ng kuryente galling sa panggatong

2. Pagsusuri (Analysis)

Talakayin: 

a.       Paano nagging kapaki-pakinabang ang basura ayon sa binasang seleksyon?

b.      Ano ang  tinatawag na bio-gas?

c.       Paano nagkakaroon ng bio-gas?

d.      Saan-saan nagagamit  ang bio-gas?

e.       Anu-ano ang mga naitulong ng paggamit ng bio-gas sa kompanya ni G. Maramba?

3. Paghahalaw at Paghahambing (Abstraction and Comparison)

            Magpakita nga dalawang larawan: isang malinis at isang maruming kapaligiran.

            Itanong: Alin sa larawan ang nais niyong mamuhay?

                         Anu-ano ang epekto ng polusyo o pagkawasak ng kapaligiran?

4. Paglalapat (Application)

Pangkatang-Gawain: (Photo Analysis)

            Pangkatin ang mga mag-aaral sa limang grupo. Bawat grupo ay may isang larawan na magiging paksa ng talakayan at pagbibigay reaksyon ng mga miyembro.

Pangkat I- Polusyon

Pangkat II- Kahirapan

Pangkat III- Kriminalidaad

Pangkat IV- Droga

Pangkat V- Edukasyon

            Ang napiling taga-ulat ang maglalahad sa klase ng reaksyon ng bawat grupo.

5. Paglalahat (Generalization)

            Bilang mag-aaral, anu-ano ang maari mong gawin upang makatulong sa pagsugpo ng mga suliranin sa ating kapaligiran?

IV. Pagtataya

            Sumulat ng isang talata na may di bababa sa limang pangungusap tungkol sa mga sumusumnod na paksa. Pumili lamang ng isa.

a. Yolanda

b. Selfie

c. Climate Change

d. Pope Francis

V. Takdang-Aralin

            Manuod ng balita sa telebisyon o magbasa ng isang pahayagan. Isulat ang pamagat ng balita at sumulat ng reaksyon na di bababa sa limang pangungusap. Isulat ito sa kalahating pad paper.

Lesson Plan in Math 6 (Addition of Similar Fractions)

Lesson Plan in Math 6 (Integrated with Science)

I. Objectives

a. Add similar fractions in simple and mixed form

b. Write the correct solution to the problem

c. Persevere in one’s endeavor

II. Subject Matter

A. Addition of Similar Fractions

B. BEC PELC II.H.4

C. chart, paper strips, chalkboard

D. Perseverance

III. Procedure

A. Preparatory Activities

1. Drill/Review

            Who invented the electric bulb? Match the fraction to its simplest form to know the answer.

1) 8/12 ___      2) 4/10 ___      3) 2/5___         4) 15/30 ___    5) 2/18 ___      6) 12/24 ___

I- 2/5                E- 2/3               N- 1/2              O-1/9               D- 2/5              S-1/2

2. Motivation

             Ask: Who is Thomas Edison? What are the thing that he invented?

B. Developmental Activities

1. Presentation

Present the following problem:

             Thomas Alva Edison is an inventor.  He spends 3 1/8 hours in the morning, 2 3/8 hours in the afternoon and 5 5/8 hours at night working in his laboratory. How many hours does Thomas Edison spend in his laboratory?

Discuss the problem to the pupils using guide questions.

Guide the pupils in arriving to the correct answer.

Let pupils discover the process of adding similar fractions.

Ask: Do you know that Thomas Edison invented a lot of things that we use today? What attitude do you think did he have to invent new things? Do you think he was always successful?

Share Edison’s famous quote: “A genius is 10% made of inspiration and 90% made of perspiration.”

2. Exercise

Pair-Share Activity. Find a partner and add the series of fractions.

a) 2/9 + 3 + 4/9 + 1/9 + 2 1/9 + 1 + 3/9

b) 2 + 4 + 1/10 + 3/10 + 5/10 + 3 2/10 + 2 + 4/10

c) 1 + 4/7 + 3 + 0 + 1 2/7 + 3/7 + 2 + 8/7

d) 8 + 2/6 + 1/6 + 3 + 2/6 + 2 + 4/6 + 1/6

3. Generalization

            How do we add similar fractions in simple form? in mixed form?

C. Application  

            Thomas Edison wanted to invent a new machine. Help him ass the materials he needed:

1) 2/4 m + 3/4 m of rope

2) 1 1/14 ml + 3 3/14 ml + 8 9/14 ml of He

3) 2/5 kg + 3 3/5 kg + 5 5/5 kg of nails

4) 1/10 tsp + 2/10 tsp + 12/10 tsp + 1 3/10 tsp of sand

5) 3/15 cup + 8/15 cup + 2 cups of acetic acid

IV. Evaluation

Give the sum of the following fractions:

1) 2/5 + 2 + 4/5

2) 6/11 + 7/11 + 8/11 + 9/11

3) 2 + 3/15 + 3 + 4/15

Read and write the correct solution

4) Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone needed the 1/8 m of copper wire; 3 4/8 m of silver wire and 5 m of tin wire. How many meters of wire did he need in all?

5)  The Wright brothers used fuel to test their newly-made air vehicle. They used 9 3/7 liters of fuel in the first try, 11 6/7 liters in the second try and 8 1/7 liters in the third try. How many liters of fuel did the brothers use in all?

V. Assignment

             What is the sum of 1/15, 2/15, 3/15, 4/15 … 15/15?

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale

This scale was developed by Lindsay Gething, a professor in the Nursing Research Centre in the Faculty of Science at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Australian Psychological Society. Gething developed the IDP for Australian setting to assess discomfort in social interaction which is suggested to reflect reactions associated with non-accepting or negative attitudes towards people with disabilities (Gething, 1994).

Though IDP was developed and primarily tested in Australia, the scale has been translated into four languages and tested in nine different countries. It has also been tested as part of a battery of research scales designed to assess attitudes towards people with disabilities (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005).

Gething (1994) defined Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale as paper-and-pencil report measure stated in the first person. It asks respondents to rate how much of each of a series of twenty statements fit their own reactions when meeting a person with disability. It is an instrument comprising 20 items that are rated on a six point scale (ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with no midpoint or neutral point).   

IDP measures attitudes at a personal level and is based on the assumption that negative attitudes are reflections of the subjects’ lack of association with the object and that this lack of information or strangeness engenders feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Gething 1993). This was developed to address criticism that the ATDP is written at the societal level and was designed specifically as a unidimensional measure of the overall attitude toward individuals with disabilities. IDP was instead developed to measure attitudes at the individual level of analysis. It describes how a given rater feels about a particular person with disability in a certain situation (Haskell,2010).  

The majority of statements in IDP are constructed in such a way that an agreement response reflects relative discomfort in social interaction. A higher Total Score indicates more discomfort in social interaction toward persons with disabilities, thus reflect negative attitudes toward them.

Moreover, as both the ATDP and IDP scales are intended to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, Gething (1994) predicted that significant associations exist between the their scores. Since the direction of the scoring is reversed for the two scales, significant negative relationships could be revealed.

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Person Scale (ATDP) was developed following the need for an objective and reliable instrument to measure attitudes toward disabled persons as a group (Yuker et al, 1970). This is the most widely used research tool developed by Yuker, Block and Young (1970) in measuring attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Lyons, 1990; Alghazo, 2002; Yuker and Block, 1986, in Kitchen, 2007). The ATDP measures attitudes at the societal level and extent of perceived differences between disabled and nondisabled people, with a positive attitude reflected in perception of few differences (Gething, 1994). On the ATDP form O, the preferred version which includes 20 items in a Likert format, reliability is .83 on a test-retest within 5 weeks, 4 – 16 month test-retest is .68; split-half is .80, and alpha is .76 (White et al., 2006). Validity of the ATDP is acceptably high, using several approaches including content, predictive, concurrent, and construct validity (White et al., 2006). The instrument published by the Human Resources Center can be accessed free through Education Resources Information Center website (http://www.eric.ed.gov).

The ATDP may be administered as either an individual or a group test. The test covers items to which the subject responds by indicating the extent of his agreement or disagreement to each according to the following scale: (+3=I agree very much; +2=I agree pretty much; +1=I agree a little; 1=I disagree a little; -2=I disagree pretty much; and -3=I disagree very much).

ATDP scores may be interpreted as reflecting either the subject's perceiving persons with disabilities as basically the same as or different from persons without disability. A high score indicates the idea that persons with disabilities are similar to persons without disabilities; while a low score indicates the view of difference between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities. The view of differences in characteristics and treatment of persons with disabilities might be interpreted as rejection or prejudice, considering them "inferior" or "disadvantaged”. At the same time, the scale may show the degree of positive and negative stereotypy in the attitudes of persons without disabilities toward those who have disabilities (Yuker et al, 1970).

ATDP, like most attitude scales, is thought to measure the affective and cognitive aspects of attitudes. One of the many strengths of this instrument however, is that it also appears to be capable of measuring behavioral tendencies, since it inquires how people should act toward persons with disabilities (Haskell, 2010).

Measurement of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities

     Over the years, the techniques used to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities have been mainly varied (Yuker et al, 1970). In general, Antonak and Livneh (1995) grouped attitude measurement methods into two: direct and indirect attitude measurement methods.

     Direct methods include respondents that are made aware that their attitudes are being measured by the nature of the measurement technique. These include opinion surveys, interviews, sociometrics, rankings, adjective checklists, paired comparison scales, semantic differential scales, summated rating scales, and social distance scales. Although there is a significant variation among these methods, all are prone to certain systematic errors that threaten the validity of the resulting data; namely, respondent sensitization, response styles, and reactivity (Antonak & Livneh, 1988, as cited in Antonak and Livneh, 1995). Indirect attitude measurement methods on the other hand are utilized to address these threats. Examples of indirect method include physiological methods, nonobtrusive behavioral observations, projective techniques, and disguised procedures (Livneh & Antonak, 1994). Unlike direct methods, the respondent's responses on an indirect measure are thought to expose latent psychosocial constructs that are inferred as attitude. Moreover, indirect methods have not often been used in disability attitude research (Livneh & Antonak, 1994).

     Gething (1994) identified widely-used instruments and methodologies in measuring attitudes specifically toward persons with disabilities. These measures are most of the time in paper-and-pencil test format such as self-report measures, report about others, social distance scales, sociometric techniques, open-ended techniques and survey methodology.

Self-report measures. This is considered as the most direct type of attitude assessment. These include instruments which involves individual reporting his/her own attitudes, feelings and reactions. These can be collected verbally through interviews, survey and polls, or on paper through attitudinal rating scales, logs, journals or diaries. These measures are most useful if the subjects of attitude assessment can understand the questions asked of them. They must as well have adequate awareness to share important information and are expected to give honest answers and not purposively falsify their responses.

Report about others. These entail one person to describe another person or concept, either orally or in writing. Techniques include interviews, questionnaires, logs, journals, report and observational procedures.

Social distance scales. These are measures that require a person to make a series of decisions on how closely s/he is willing to mingle and interact with persons such as those with disabilities.

Sociometric techniques. These techniques ask the person to make decisions (e.g. Who do you like best/least?) about other members of a group to which s/he belongs. These explore patterns of interaction in a group to investigate matters such as acceptance and isolation. These are most often used with children and adolescents, or in a group having members with disabilities.

Open-ended technique. This technique uses oral or written open-ended questions that are content-analyzed using a predetermined set of criteria. This requires a considerable amount of time but is less susceptible to faking and social desirability bias than questionnaires.

Survey methodology. This has the advantage of permitting a large body of data to be gathered in a relatively short period of time.

    
      

     Another manner of classification relay to the psychometric properties of the instrument (e.g. direct and indirect methods). The more commonly used are direct methods, wherein respondents are knowledgeable that their attitudes are being measured, while indirect methods involves subjects being unaware of what is being measured. 

     The instruments can also be categorized in psychometric terms by the dimensionality of the scale. For example, the Attitude Toward Disabled Person Scale (Yuker et al., 1970) utilizes a unidimensional single-score method to measure generalized attitude. On the other hand, multidimensional measurement is employed in six factor Interaction With Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1994).