Evaluation on the Effectiveness of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) at Holy Angel University: Basis for Enhancement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23479943Keywords:
Dynamic Learning Program, Seven Criteria of Effective Implementation of Program (SUCCESS)Abstract
The study used a descriptive method primarily to evaluate the effectiveness of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). It involved 86 head and teacher participants and 197 Grade 10 student participants. The researcher used a questionnaire for data collection and analyzed it using SPSS. The researcher used frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, and T-test for statistical analysis. Based on the seven criteria for effective DLP implementation, the results showed that participants' implementation of DLP is effective. However, the most resilient criteria among the seven for head and teacher participants are Understanding, Commitment, and Effectiveness, while Acceptability, Capability, Efficiency, Solutions to the Problems, and Support from the School are the least resilient criteria. While in student participants, the most resilient among the seven criteria are Social Acceptability, Understanding, Effectiveness, and Support from the School, while Capability, Commitment, Efficiency, and Solutions to the Problems are the least resilient criteria. The profile of the respondent groups was significantly related to their perceptions of DLP implementation in terms of Social Acceptability, Understanding, Capability, and Efficiency. This implies that participants’ perception of relevance does not affect implementation. The criteria of Commitment, Effectiveness, and Support from the School were found to be significantly related to DLP implementation. It shows that these three criteria affect the implementation of DLP. However, the criteria of Solutions to the Problems were found to be significant for the respondent group but not for perceptual assessment. It can be inferred that respondents consider the criteria of Solutions to the Problem relevant in the implementation of DLP.
Downloads
References
Basilio, M. A. (2009). The adaptation of the dynamic learning program. Retrieved fromEjournals.ph
Bernido, C. & Carpio-Bernido, M. V. (2015). The CVIF dynamic learning program: Achieving performance targets with strategic and efficient learning. A PowerPoint presentation.
Bustos, A. & Espiritu, S. (1996). Psychological, anthropological, and sociological
Foundations and education. Revised edition II.Quezon City: Katha Publishing.
Carballo, A. (2016). Growth Revolution Magazine. Education: Analyzing the Status of Math & Science Education. Retrieved from: www.growthrevolutionmag.wordpress.com
Carpio-Bernido, M.V. & Bernido, C. (2006). Essentials versus Peripherals-Our Experience in Basic Education. Appeared in Philippine Star, April 13, 2016, p. B-4; April 20, 2006, p. B-7.
Carpio-Bernido, M.V., Bernido, C. & Carpio, J. A. (2011). CVIF Dynamic Learning Program: Reference and Management System Manual (Version 1.1). Philippines: Books N Stuff, Incorporated
Chun, M. (2010). Taking teaching to (performance) task: Linking pedagogical and assessment practices. ProQuest Central. Pg. 22
Farrell, M. (2001). Key issues for secondary schools. New York: Routledge Falmer
HAU earns national school of character designation. (2017). Retrieved from hau.edu.ph
Jackson, Y. & Mcdermott, V. (2015). Unlocking student potential: How do I identify and activate student strengths? USA; ASCD
Jalmasco, N. (2014). The Manila Times. Science Education Realities. Retrieved from: www.manilatimes.net
Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of learning. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Luistro, A. A. (2015). Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 basic education programs. DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015
Mathew, J. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ and students’ perceptions on the implementation of the dynamic learning program (DLP). Retrieved from academia.edu
Maranan, M. J. D. (2012). Filipino head teachers’ transformational leadership from lens
of mixed-methods analysis.
McTighe, J. (2014). Designing cornerstone performance tasks to promote meaningful learning and assess what matters most. Jays Master handout for CAIM 2014.
Mendoza, M. F. V. (1998). Public policy and program document. University of the Philippines. College of Administration.
Nash, R. (2016). From seatwork to feetwork: Engaging students in their own learning. Second edition. California: Corwin
Newton, D. P. (2008). A practical guide to teaching science in the secondary school. New York: Routledge
Psychology Notes HQ. (2013). The psychology notes: Online resources for psychology students. Retrieved from https://psychologynoteshq.com/psychological-field-theory/
Psychology Notes HQ. (2018). The psychology notes: Online resources for psychology students. Retrieved from https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/vygostky-theory
Rances, L. (2015). Dynamic learning program. dynamic-learning-program.pdf online handout
Ross, K., Lakin, L., McKechnie, J., & Baker, J. (2015). Teaching secondary science:
Constructing meaning and developing understanding. New York: Roulegde
Spaulding, D. (2008). Program evaluation in practice: Core concepts and examples for Discussion and analysis.CA: Jossey- Bass
Stone, R. (2007). Best practices for teaching. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press
Villadiego, M.C.B. (2013). A case study on the perceived effects on the dynamic learning program on the communication skills and behavior of fourth year high school students. University of the Philippines Los Banos. 1987 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 10 www.Raosoft.com
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
