Peer Tutoring and Study Session for National Achievement Test

    As part of our goal to improve our National Achievement Test scores, we did peer tutoring and study sessions together with my students. Usually, I do remediation to some of my students. This time however, I tried to expand this by asking the help of my best students to teach their peers who have difficulty in my subject which is Math.
    Part of my strategy this year was to focus on my good students so that in one way or another they could help boost the scores. And one way to boost the scores is to use the knowledge I have given them and share this to their classmates and schoolmates.

   What I did was in fact very productive. Not only did the tutees learn but the tutors also improve their Math competencies by sharing what they know. This reiterates the idea that teaching is also learning. 

     I also didn't forget to give credit to both the tutees and the tutor. We did this after class so it was really an effort for them to stay when all other students preferred to go home. I also was very glad that there were no negative competition. The atmosphere was really full of learning and sharing. 

    What I also liked about what we did is the fact the students from other sections forge friendship with one another. They became friends even though they don't belong to the same section. Sometimes, we had contests just to heat things up and to make our study sessions fun and lively.

   I don't know if it was appropriate, but I actually shared to my student about our status with regards to our National Achievement Test scores. That I told them that we got very low last year so we need to really do extra effort to improve. That we need to help one another, I as a teacher, and them as students. I think this made them really motivated. They said that they wanted to help the school rise to the top. This made me proud of my students. I didn't care about their scores anymore. I think their winning attitude is already an achievement.

P.S. Our efforts paid off! We drastically increased our National Achievement Scores. This batch actually got the highest score after more or less 5 years in our school's history. So proud of them!!!

.

4As Lesson Plan in Math 5 (Circumference)

4As LESSON PLAN IN MATH VI (Circumference

I. OBJECTIVES

A. Discover the formula for finding circumference using pi and diameter

B. Solve problems involving circumference of a circle

C. Work cooperatively in groups

II. SUBJECT MATTER

A. Circumference of a Circle

B. BEC PELC Math V 1; 1.1; 2; 2.1.1-1.4

C. pictures, circular/round objects, string, ruler, activity sheets

D. Cooperation

III. Procedure

A. Preparatory Activities

1. Review

Who is the Father of Geometry? Find the perimeter of the following plane figures/polygons to find out.(Draw your figure beside the numbers.)

1.                                    2.                                    3.

4.                                    5.                                    6.

 ______     _____     _____     _____      _____      _____

    3           1               5               4           2              6  

2. Motivation

Ask: How well are you familiar with different circles around you? Identify the following circular objects shown in the following pictures.

·         Show pictures of circular objects and let pupils raise their hand if they know the object.

Ask: Do you know that circles just like polygons also have perimeter? How do we call the perimeter of a circle? How do we solve for the distance around the circle?

B. Developmental Activities

1. ACTIVITY

Group Activity: Exploration with Discs

·         Divide Pupils into 5 groups and let them gather in circle.

·         Orient the pupils on the rules and proper decorum during group activity.

·         Distribute the needed materials and activity sheets. Instruct pupils to read carefully the directions.

·         Emphasize the importance of cooperation to successfully accomplish the task.

2. ANALYSIS

·         Guide pupils while the activity is going on. Have them focus on the following questions:

a.    What is the distance/length around the circular object?

b.    What is the distance/length across the circular object?

c.    What is the value if we will divide the length around the circular object by the length of the circular object? Express your answer to the nearest hundredth.

·         Let pupils write their results in the matrix written in the chalkboard. Have them observe and compare their result with the result of the other groups.

3. ABSTRACTION AND COMPARISON

Ask: What have you noticed with your results? Are the results similar? Why do you think are they similar?

·         Introduce that the distance/length around the circular object is called the CIRCUMFERENCE. Relate that the CIRCUMFERENCE is actually the “PERIMETER” of a circle. The distance across the circular object is called the DIAMETER. Half the diameter is called the RADIUS.

·         Elaborate that long time ago, people started to notice that the Circumference of a circle is approximately 3 times the diameter. Discuss that at present, mathematicians have accurately solved this value to 3.1415926535 or simply 3.14. This value is called as pi (π).

·         Present the equation to the class: π = . Explain that if this equation would be rearranged, we can have C= π x d. Since the radius is half the diameter, circumference can also be solved through C= π x 2 x r.

·         Let pupils memorize the formula in finding the circumference through body movements.

4. APPLICATION

Provide the following example:

Liza wants to put a lace around a circular pillow. If the pillow has a diameter of 20 dm, how long should be the lace?

Let pupils analyze the problem using STAR Strategy.

ü  S-Search the Problem

The circular pillow has 20 dm diameter.

I need to use pi which is equal to 3.14.

I need to find the circumference of the pillow to find the length of the lace.

Or simply,    d= 20; pi= 3.14 C= ?

ü  T-Translate the problem into an equation

C= π x d     C=3.14 x 20 dm

ü  A-Answer the Problem

C=3.14 x 20 dm

C= 62.8 dm    The length of the lace needed is 62.8 dm.

ü  R-Review the Solution

Since π = C/d, hence 62.8 dm/20 dm should be equal to 3.14.

62.8 dm/20 dm = 3.14

3.14=3.14

Provide other examples:

a. A circular fountain has a diameter of 4 m. What is the circumference of the fountain?

b. A circular aviary needs to be surrounded with screen.  If the aviary measures 15 ft across, how long should be the screen needed to surround the aviary?

Reinforcement Activities: 
A.

Find the circumference. Use pi=3.14

1.                                                       2. 

3. What is the circumference of a circle with a diameter of 4.5 cm?

4. A round wooden table has a radius of 2 m.  Find its circumference.

5. Give the circumference of a clock with 9 inches as its diameter.

B. 

1. You are a gardener. A round flower plot needs to be fenced with wire.  If it measures 9 m across, how long should be the wire needed to fence around the plot?

2. The distance around a circular running field is 75 m. If you are a runner and you want to run across the field, how far would your run be?

3. Generalization

·         What is the circumference of a circle?

·         What is pi? What is the value of pi?

·         How do we solve for the circumference of a circle?

IV. Evaluation

Read the problem and show you solution.

1.                                                       2. 

3. Give the circumference of a circle with 3.5 cm as its radius.

4. What is the diameter of a round mirror if its circumference is 35 dm?

5. A rubber tire measures 3 ft across. Find its circumference.

V. Assignment

Try to look for round/circular objects around your house. Then complete the table below.

Object	Diameter	Radius	Circumference
e.g. plate

Prepared by:

JAYLORD S. LOSABIA

Teacher I

A. Bonifacio Elementary School

Measurement of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities

Measurement of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities

Given that measuring attitudes toward people with disabilities can be very complex, it was important that this study utilizes appropriate measurement instruments to conduct the assessment. 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.

A number of scales exist to measure attitudes towards disability (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005). This is the result of attitude research that paved the way to a large number of instruments aimed to measure attitudes toward people with disabilities (Findler et al, 2007). Table 1, found on the succeeding page, presents a list of instruments measuring attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Getachew, 2011).

Findler et al, (2007) says that the instruments that have been developed over the years can be categorized in different ways. For instance, these instruments can be grouped according to content or context. Some can be seen to measure attitudes toward people with disabilities in general (e.g. Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP), Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960), while others center on a specific disability or population (e.g. Attitudes to Deafness Scale, Cowen, Rockway, & Bobrove. 1967).  Other instruments relate to certain social situations, such as attitudes toward disability or attitudes toward inclusion (e.g. Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale, Wilczenski, 1992).

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).

Attitude Toward Persons with Physical-Motor Disability

Attitudes toward persons with physical-motor disability are less negative as compared to other disabilities. It has been conclude by a number of researches that physical disability receives the least amount of social stigma (Miller et al, 2009). This may due to the fact that people have more favorable attitudes toward visible rather than unobservable disability. This disability is evident, thus people may have a better understanding about it (Barr and Brachitta, 2008). For instance, Albdulwahab and Salah (2003) reported positive attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities among Saudi Arabian health professionals. Barr and Brachitta (2008) and Choi and Lam (2001) noted most positive attitudes towards individuals with physical disabilities and favor this disability as compared to other disabilities. Marini et al (2011) also discussed that 66% of their respondents would have no problem dating or even marrying a person with physical disability.

On the contrary, Hodge and Jansna (2000) reported no favorable preferences toward persons with physical disabilities among teachers. Idrecs (2012) as well described that 8 out of 11 respondents who have physical disability experienced discrimination, were underestimated, and were not preferred for any activity in school from their classmates and teachers.  

In terms of sex, females were less negative than males on their attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities (Hodge and Jansna, 2000; Raic and Leutar, 2008; Marini et al, 2011). Getachew (2011) however reported more positive attitudes among males than on females. On the other hand, no significant differences between both sexes were reported by Albdulwahab and Salah (2003) and Choi and Lam (2001).

Younger people have less positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Raic and Leutar, 2008). Burkhardt and Haney (2012) on the other hand found that older adults tended to have negative attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities.

Educational level seems insignificant on attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. No significant difference was found among the respondents’ attitudes in terms of educational level (Albdulwahab and Salah, 2003; Getachew, 2011). In contrary, Choi and Lam (2001) suggest that higher education influences attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities.

Contact is consistently related to positive attitudes specifically toward persons with physical disabilities. It decreases the fear of the unknown, minimizes awkwardness, social anxiety and/or uncertainty, and erases stereotypical misconceptions (Albdulwahab and Salah, 2003; Choi and Lam, 2001; Marini et al, 2011). Getachew (2011) however indicated that contact is not significant on the attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. 

image source: http://bicoltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/persons-with-disabilities.jpg