Chapter I INTRODUCTION The science education has a big function to play in achieving 21st Century thinking skills within the ever-changing information environment

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The science education has a big function to play in achieving 21st Century thinking skills within the ever-changing information environment. One of the aims of science education is to harness student’s skills especially the scientific inquiry skills: scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain scientific phenomenon and draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues, understanding of the characteristic and an attribute of science as a form of human knowledge and inquiry.
According to Framework for Philippine Science Teacher Education (Pg. 1) In the Philippines, recent efforts have been directed to improve science education, both at the basic and teacher education levels. Various methods of teaching have been introduced to enhance inquiry skills and enabled them to inquire and solve problems. Reform reports publicize that science teaching should actively engage students, incorporate cooperative learning, and deemphasize the rote memorization of facts. Therefore, to address that needs, the inclusion of inquiry-based teaching and learning methodologies is a prominent theme permeating these reforms.
Inquiry-based learning is a pedagogy which best enables students to experience the processes of knowledge creation. The key attributes include learning stimulated by inquiry, a student- or learning-centered approach in which the role of the teacher is to act as a facilitator, a move to self-directed learning, and an active approach to learning. They should achieve outcomes that include critical thinking, the ability for collaborative inquiry, responsibility for own learning and intellectual growth and maturity. Strong brace for an IBL approach comes from constructivism, cognitive research on motivating learners, intellectual development. This is where inquiry-based instructional model approach: 5E’s instructional model is introduce.
Bybee (2009) stated the 5Es model is an instructional model developed for sequencing science education. It consists of five phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation wherein students redefine, reorganize, elaborate, and change their initial concepts through interactions among the environment, classroom activities and experiences, and other individuals.

Background of the study
Though classified as the most basic of the sciences, Physics is also the subject which most students find very challenging. Since the subject involves numbers with various formulas concept, students become overwhelmed. Thus, the real essence of the subject could sometimes be disregarded, and learning could be less achieved.
A study by Orleans (2007) as cited in E. Calvendra (2012) reported that in the different science subject areas, achievement in physics of Filipino students appeared below the international standards. The Philippines is ranked third and fourth to the last in the list of nations.
Since many students view Physics as a challenging subject, it is necessary for teachers to create and design new ways to capture the interests of the learners. In addition, it is wise to understand the inquiry skills of the learners the teacher has. Thus, the teacher can provide different activities that will address the inquiry-based learning of the students.
The Department of Education in the Philippines touts and stated its K to 12 Science (2016) p. 2 as a curriculum that makes use of inquiry-based learning as one of the approaches to deemphasize rote memorization of facts, but the problem is that in implementing this is often underestimated and unappreciated. That this approach requires is frequently taken for granted. Worse, this approach is oftentimes not fully understood. However, it includes hands-on activities to motivate and engage students while concretizing science concepts but then, Miner, Levy & Century (2009) found that the hands-on activities alone were not sufficient for conceptual change and suggest a further study.
Teachers, too, can reap benefits from using IBL through the integration of teaching and research, increased enjoyment and interaction with students, their induction into a wider community of practice of innovative teachers and the rewards gained from improved inquiry skills, student engagement and use of that skills in achieving goals Smith (2007) The 5e’s instructional model would be an immense help in achieving the better construction of knowledge and acquiring science process skills, this might also address the 21st century K-12 curriculum goals and objective in science education.
From this premise, it was decided upon by the researcher to conduct a further study on inquiry-based learning but particularly in physics by developing scaffolding activities utilizing 5E’s instructional model (Bybee & Landes, 1990) in educational researches used by the student enrolled in Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Physical Science.
Objectives of the Study
This research sought to develop scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model of Bybee to enhance the scientific inquiry skills among grade 9 students in physics.
Specifically, this study will try to achieve the following objectives:
1. Assess the inquiry skills of grade 9 students.
2. Develop scaffolding activities utilizing 5E’s instructional model in Physics 9.
3. Determine if there is significant difference in inquiry skills of grade 9 students after utilization of the product.
4. Determine the level of acceptability of the developed scaffolding activity in terms of:
4.1 Content of the material
4.2 Usefulness of the Material
4.3 Appeal to Target Users
4.4 Originality of the Material
Significance of the Study

Since this study will attempt to enhance the inquiry-based science learning skills and the use of scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model, this study would be beneficial to the following:
Students. This study could be helpful for students to boost and develop their inquiry skills that will enable them to learn with an ease, conduct an investigation or experiment and apply in the real-world context thus could ensure their quality performance in and outside the school for a life-long learning. Furthermore, as the teachers get ideas about this research, the learners are benefited as well. The learning environment becomes more exciting, enjoyable and interesting. They also get lot of information and knowledgeable activities given by the teacher.
Teachers. This study would aid teachers in planning, help them minimize the hardships in teaching complex topics, selection and implementations of instructional objectives, methods and strategies and even assessment tools which are suitable for the students and can be used for developing science activities: provided and teacher-made.
Future researchers. This could provide references who wish to further conduct or continue a study similar by nature. The developed activities may also aid in doing a good activity in science using such models. This could also lead to further educational research that would serve as a guide in developing much good research paper.

Scope and Limitations

The research focused on the analysis of inquiry skills of secondary Grade 9 students in Pagbilao Grande Island National High School in the academic year 2017-2018 and determining the level of acceptability and its significant difference of the developed scaffolding activities. The scaffolding activities, particularly the whole research focused on selected topics in physics grade 9 during the fourth grading period. The activities were made through the least learned inquiry skills utilizing the 5E’s instructional model in inquiry-based learning. IBL were the used approach for it is the best fit for science learning.
The research was limited to using quantitative method of research for it involves descriptive statistics using weighted mean, and as it is quantitative nature and questionnaire and assessment test. The first questionnaire refers to the student inquiry skills of the student-respondents and the second questionnaire is for the Pre-test and post-test and determining its significant difference after the utilization of the product. Third questionnaire is for the determination of level of acceptability of the scaffolding activities to the teacher. The time frame of the study was from August 2017 to April 2018.

Definition of terms
For the clarity of the study to guide and enlighten the readers, the following terminologies are hereby defined both conceptually and operationally.
Acceptability was used to determine how valid and reliable and accepted to use the developed activities.
Engage Phase you enable the student to engage in the learning task. The student mentally focuses on a problem, situation, or event. The activities of this phase should have connections with the past and the future activities.
Explore Phase are designed so that students will focus with small social groups upon which they continue building concepts, processes, and skills. This phase should be concrete and meaningful for the students.
Explain Phase the students work in small groups articulating their observations and ideas where in this stage use inquiry questions. The process of explanation provides the students and teacher with a common use of terms relative to the learning task.
Elaborate Phase here, the students extend the concepts they have learned, and apply them to the new situations.
Evaluate Phase in this phase the students are able to assess their understanding about the topic through reflection, graphic organizers, or synthesizing the concepts.
Inquiry skills are the ability of the students to learn through posing their own ideas with the support structure of activities and facilitation of teachers.
Scaffolding activities the same as with instructional scaffolds are temporary support structures faculty put in place to assist students in accomplishing new tasks and concepts they could not typically achieve on their own.

Chapter II

A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the different literature pursued to gather insights for the study. This also includes the studies considered to strengthen the concept. Moreover, the chapter provides the conceptual framework that lead to formulation of hypothesis. The related literature is arranged according to content’s classification, followed by the definition and discussion together with the general theory and its significance.
Inquiry-based Learning
Inquiry based learning in science ”is more than simply answering questions or getting the right answer, it also promotes investigation, exploration, search, quest, pursuit and study, it is heightening by involvement with a community of learners, each learning from the other in social interaction.” Kuklthau, Maniotes, ; Caspari (2007, p. 2 ) as cited in Brenda (2015) Moreover, K-12 Capacity Building Series (2013) as cited in Scardamalia (2002) stated “inquiry-based learning is an approach to teaching and learning that places students’ questions, ideas and observations at the heart of the learning experience.” Educators play an active role throughout the process by initiating a culture where ideas are respectfully challenged, tested, redefined and viewed as improvable, moving children from a position of wondering to a position of enacted understanding and further questioning. Underlying this approach is the idea that both educators and students allocate responsibility for learning. For students, the process often involves open-ended investigations into a question or a problem, requiring them to engage in evidence-based reasoning and creative problem-solving, as well as “problem finding.” For educators, the process is about being responsive to the students’ learning needs, and most importantly, knowing when and how to introduce students to ideas that will move them forward in their inquiry. Together, educators and students co-author the learning experience, accepting mutual responsibility for planning, assessment for learning and the advancement of individual as well as class-wide understanding of personally meaningful content and ideas Fielding, (2012) as cited in K-12 Capacity Building Series (2013).
Natural Curiosity, p. (7, 2011) as cited in K-12 Capacity Building Series (2013) Stated that although inquiry-based learning is a pedagogical mindset that can pervade school and classroom life and can be seen across a variety of contexts, an inquiry stance does not stand in the way of other forms of effective teaching and learning. Inquiry-based learning concerns itself with the creative approach of combining the best approaches to instruction, including explicit instruction and small-group and guided learning, in an attempt to build on students’ interests and ideas, ultimately moving students forward in their paths of intellectual curiosity and understanding.
For an instance, all students can contribute to a collaborative inquiry. For example, while some students might find it easier to ask questions and clarify other students’ responses, others are more likely to provide overarching theories, making connections between the “big ideas.” Although all contributions help in moving the inquiry forward, it is important to recognize patterns in the quality of contributions made by both individual students and the class as a whole. There is no one recipe for success. There are, however, some pedagogical approaches to transforming educational practice that seem better suited for the job than others. What follows is a review of the key characteristics of inquiry-based learning that offer promise in supporting students to become thoughtful, motivated, collaborative and innovative learners capable of engaging in their own inquiries and thriving in a world of constant change. Capacity Building Series (2013, p.2-3)
Supporting students in the inquiry-based learning process Darling-Hammond (2008): Barron et al. (1998) as cited by Friesen (2013) argued that scaffolding activities, frequent opportunities for formative assessment, as well as powerful guiding questions are vitally important for ensuring inquiry-based projects to lead to deep understanding. Dr. Sharon Friesen (2013, p.21) claimed that although there is widespread disagreement in the field as to what constitutes a scaffolding activity, in general it involves tools, strategies, and guides to support students in gaining levels of achievement that would not be otherwise possible. However, Friesen (2013) claimed that inquiry-based teaching is the art of developing challenging situations in which students are asked to observe and question phenomena; pose explanations of what they observe; devise and conduct experiments in which data are collected to support or contradict their theories; analyze data; draw conclusions from experimental data; design and build models; or any combination of these. (p. 208)
Of note inquiry-based teaching increased the amount of time students spent in labs, decreased teacher-led discussions in classrooms, and also improved critical. Although Friesen (2013) found that this approach helped students gain greater competencies in scientific process, the effects were less great on content. Overall, these studies suggest that inquiry-based teaching has positive effects; however, it does not rank these effects on learning as dramatic.
Meanwhile, Furtak (2008) explored the relationship between guidance and conceptual understanding during inquiry-based, post-investigation discussions held in the classrooms of four physical science teachers. Comparison of students with lower learning gains indicate that, in general, pairs of teachers shared several similarities in terms of the nature of guidance they provided to students, the concepts addressed during lessons, and student performance. The results of this study also underscore the importance of active involvement by teachers during inquiry-based discussions. The teachers of higher-gain students in this study were actively and continuously manipulating the halo of social learning during discussions, providing different amounts of guidance at different times to scaffold student learning and this address the sufficiency of alone hands-on activities.
Furthermore, in inquiry-based learning, students should be able to derive questions, design and carry out investigations, record and analyze data and draw conclusions from the evidence they have collected Eva Trnova, Josef Trna, (2013) Because it requires a high level of scientific reasoning and cognitive demand from students it is suitable for development of gifted students. Hands-on activities play a crucial role in Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) because they are beneficial to promoting students´ interest and participation in science activities. These implementations of hands-on experiments develop students’ knowledge and skills in constructivist.
When it comes to inquiry-based teaching and learning, Nurturing Critical and Creative and Thinkers through Inquiry-based Teaching and Learning (2016) claims in schools visited by the study, it was observed that IBTL stimulates thinking, encourages children’s curiosity, and gives them opportunities to explore and ask questions. IBTL also fosters imagination when students are allowed to create artworks, spend time outdoors, try different or new things, and extend their understanding of stories in literacy activities. Through simple science experiments, learners develop the habit of investigating and validating the information they encounter. In addition, students learn life skills that can be translated into different contexts. Through collaborative activities, students’ interpersonal skills are likewise developed. Encouraging them to make choices and decisions during learning activities can help develop their independence. Moreover, allowing students to think of different solutions to a given problem and giving them opportunities to present their outputs in front of the class can help build their self-confidence. Nurturing Critical and Creative and Thinkers through Inquiry-based Teaching and Learning (2016) p. 66-67
Tze Jiun, Lee (2014 p.12) mentioned Inquiry “enable students to describe objects, make observations, ask questions, formulate predictions, collect and analyze data, develop scientific principles, synthesize laws, construct explanation against current scientific knowledge and communicate their ideas to others in learning science.” Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning method and teacher perceptions of inquiry-based instruction give important messages to whoever wishes to shift their learning or teaching strategy from traditional ‘cookbook’ to inquiry-based learning or instructional. The shift from traditional ‘cookbook’ teaching to inquiry-based pedagogy for teaching science needs a lot of preparations in terms of physically and mentally for the process as mentioned above. Certainly, teachers’ responses whether through quantitative or qualitative methods did give some deep thoughts for the policy makers or the researchers to go out and find more alternatives to solve the negative feelings about the inquiry-based learning/instructions where at the end, science inquiry would be one of the major components of scientific literacy along with the nature and history of science and science-mathematics-technology connections.
Having all of the foresaid concepts of inquiry-based learning, it is added by E. Peffer, L. Beckler, Schunn, Renken and Revak (2015) that as student’s progress through a science classroom inquiry simulation, they are frequently prompted to describe their rationale for choosing a particular hypothesis, testing strategy and conclusions after discovering an important piece of data. These justifications, along with the path students take through the simulation and recorded field notes, provide a rich data source yielding insight into students’ thought processes. Research findings have indicated that participation in inquiry activities alone is insufficient to cause change in students’ understanding of authentic science practices, particularly those that relate to knowledge of NOS, Sandoval suggests that the reason for this may be due to a lack of understanding of the students’ science epistemologies in inquiry activities. In addition, Piaget (2009) states that merely using IM does not guarantee effective teaching, to make teaching and participation effective, the IM must be appropriately selected and used.
On the other hand, in the study conducted by Miner, Levy, and Century (2009) in looking more specifically at the 101 studies of student science conceptual understanding, they found that there was no statistically significant association between amount of inquiry saturation and increased student science conceptual learning. However, subsequent model refinement indicated that the amount of active thinking, and emphasis on drawing conclusions from data, were in some instances significant predictors of the increased likelihood of student understanding of science content. The evidence of effects of inquiry-based instruction from this synthesis is not overwhelmingly positive, but there is a clear and consistent trend indicating that instruction within the investigation cycle (i.e., generating questions, designing experiments, collecting data, drawing conclusion, and communicating findings), which has some emphasis on student active thinking or responsibility for learning, has been associated with improved student content learning, especially learning scientific concepts.
Lutheran Education Queensland (2009, p.1) stated that “inquiry-based learning is a constructivist approach where the overall goal is for students to make meaning.” While teachers may guide the inquiry to various degrees (externally facilitated) and set parameters for a classroom inquiry, true inquiry is internally motivated. Inquiry based learning is an umbrella term that incorporates many current learning approaches (including project-based learning, design thinking) and may take various forms, depending on the topic, resources, ages and abilities of students and other variables.
There are numerous processes and models for inquiry-based learning emerging from discipline, one of those is the 5E’s Instructional Model. Using a model/process can be helpful in structuring a unit for flow and according to J. Warner and E. Myers (2008) when learning through inquiry approaches, students should engage in each element of the inquiry cycle and extend their knowledge to different situations. While completing inquiry-based lessons, students develop important skills that will help them become successful, lifelong learners.

Science Inquiry Skills
One of the most important goals of science education is to teach students how to get involved in inquiry. In other words, students should integrate skills, knowledge, and attitudes to develop a better understanding of scientific concepts. So, teachers must focus on teaching science skills such as facts, concept and theories, to encourage students through scientific investigation. Science process skills are a necessary tool to produce and use scientific information, to perform scientific research, and solve problems. A. H. Zeidan (2015) They postulated that the activities which consist of basic and integrated process skills are the key factor of scientific / science literacy and the key dimension of scientific / science literacy. Padilla (2010) as cited by De La Torre (2012) classified these skills as basic and integrated due to their usage according to student’s progression phases. Basic science process skills such as observing, using numbers and classifying are the foundation for the acquisition of integrated science process skills. Both basic and integrated scientific skills are important in any scientific investigation such as conducting projects and carrying out experiments. Science process skills are known as procedural skills, experimental and investigating science habits of mind or scientific inquiry abilities. Appropriate selections of science process skills can be taught and studied in the early years of primary school the basic skills considered as prerequisite to learning the Integrated skills. The young students can be given the opportunity to observe, handle things and explore the environment classified basic and integrated scientific skills as follows according to A.H. Zeidan, & M.R Jayosi (2015)
Basic Science Process Skills Observing is noting the properties of objects and situations using the five senses. It is description of what was perceived. While measuring is expressing the amount of an object or substance in quantitative terms. Inferring explaining a particular object or substance in quantitative terms. Classifying according to Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools (2016) as cited by M. R. Jayosi (2015) journal most of the students know the process of sorting objects, ideas, and events into groups according to identified criteria. Development begins with simple classification of various physical systems and progresses through multistage classifications. Relating objects and events according to their properties or attributes. Predicting. Forecasting a future occurrence based on past observation or the extension of data. Communicating is using words, symbols, or graphics to describe an object, action or event.
Integrated Science Process Skills Controlling variables is like manipulating and controlling properties that relate to situations events for determining causation while inferring is stating tentative generalization of observations or inferences that may be used to explain a relatively larger number of events but that is subject to immediate or eventual testing by one or more experiments. Experimentation is testing a hypothesis through the manipulation and control of independent variables and noting the effects on a dependent variable: interpreting and presenting results in the form of a report that others can follow to replicate the experiment. Data Interpreting is arriving at explanations, inference, or hypotheses from data that have been graphed or placed in a table.
Altun (2012) as cited by M. R. Jayosi (2015) studied the validity and reliability of science process skills for secondary students. The test was applied on 222 students from a vocational high school in Turkey. The test consisted of 30 multiple-choice questions, the reliability of the test was (0.83). The test consisted of sub-dimensions such as, observing, classifying, measuring, communicating, inferring, predicting, formulating hypotheses, identifying variable, organizing data, and interpreting it, designing investigations, acquiring data. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported validity and reliability of the test. Ozgelen (2012) as cited in A.H. Zeidan, studied the student’s science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. A sample of 306 sixth and seventh grade students from public, private, and bussed schools. The Turkish integrated process skills test was used to measure scientific process skills, and the findings showed generally low scores. private school’s students had higher scores compared to public and bussed school students.

5E’s Instructional Model
The 5E Model is based on the constructivist theory to learning, which suggests that people construct knowledge and meaning from experiences. By understanding and reflecting on activities, students are able to reconcile new knowledge with previous ideas. According to subject matter expert Matthew Lynch (2010) as cited Friesen (2013), “Educational movements, such as inquiry-based learning, active learning, experiential learning, discovery learning, and knowledge building, are variations of constructivism. In the classroom, constructivism requires educators to build inquiry, exploration, and assessment into their instructional approach. In many ways, this means the teacher plays the role of a facilitator, guiding students as they learn new concepts. The findings of Atkin and Karplus 1977 as cited by Bybee 2009 directly informed the creation of the 5E Model, which focuses on allowing students to understand a concept over time through a series of established steps, or phases. These phases include Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. The 5E Model, developed in 1987 by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, promotes collaborative, active learning in which students work together to solve problems and investigate new concepts by asking questions, observing, analyzing, and drawing conclusions Lynch (2017).
To achieve the success through the learning cycle existing knowledge of the students gives a strong idea of students’ achievement in science. In order for meaningful learning to occur, students should link between new and existing knowledge. So, this should be taken into account for an effective teaching. Students also should be given the opportunity to discuss the concepts, test predictions, and refine hypotheses. The 5E Learning Cycle Model as a constructivist approach is an effective way in terms of help students enjoy science, understand content, and apply scientific processes and concepts to authentic situations. Similar research studies should be carried out for different grade levels and different science courses to investigate the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle model. S. L. Hokkanen (2011) as cited in Elvan Akar (2007).
According to result of the research of ?smet Ergin (2012); 5E Model is an approach that students have an active role in their learning. Besides, it is taken up seriously by them and it is thought to be an effective method. If teachers are trained before they begin to work, they will have an idea about characteristics and implementation of this model, so they will have opportunities for implementing this method in their lessons. In a claim to 5E Model, while teaching a subject, giving examples from real world and wanting students to give examples similar to these the teachers given help students both research and link between real world and the subject. When the students have active roles in their learning, they learn and use the knowledge they have learned in the real world more easily. These make students more eager to science lessons to which they are usually reluctant.
As concluded by Sibel AçÕúOÕ a*, Sema Altun YalçÕn a, Ümit Turgut (2011) It can be extrapolating that enough knowledge and experience are performed in Education Faculties and students who are candidates of teaching jobs about understanding of the 5E learning model steps and to apply them to any subjects. It can be said that science teacher candidates are on a high level in their knowledge of contemporary education approaches, use of them an enough level and to apply them to any subjects that are waited from teachers and teacher candidates. To apply contemporary education approaches by teacher candidates, these approaches must be found on the field education lessons. It was said that teacher candidates got the learning model knowledge and techniques from the private education methods lesson about 5E learning model that is one of the contemporary education models of teacher candidates.
Furthermore, on above mentioned, Current Challenges in Basic Science Education (2012) stated in this context, modeling scientific phenomena in school implies learning a combination of linguistic modes in order to understand thought and action. For example, formulate good questions is the starting point for looking, seeing and explaining with meaning. Describe implies establishing a way of looking at events and includes drawing as a way to amplify the communicative field. Compare is to establish events and their relationships. Justify is to explain why and because, that is to interpret a set of events based in theory and to use scientific vocabulary in context. Local studies have identified several reasons to account for this situation: lack of qualified teachers, an overloaded curriculum, lack of quality textbooks and instructional materials, and unavailability of science equipment.
The 5E Instructional Model is grounded in sound educational theory, has a growing base of research to support its effectiveness, and has had a significant impact on science education. Although encouraging, these conclusions indicate the need to conduct research on the effectiveness of the model, including when and how it is used, and continue to refine the model based on direct research and related research on learning. The uniqueness of the BSCS 5E Instructional model is related to its alliterative nature. Every stage of the model begins with the same letter—in this case, an E. When we compare this model of 5Es with Herbart’s (1901) models of preparation, presentation, generalization, and application or Atkin & Karplus’ (1962) model of exploration, invention, and discovery, it becomes apparent why those models did not “catch on.” A danger, of course, is that something that is catchy and easy to remember might be misused as often as it is used effectively; however, something that cannot be remembered or understood is less likely to have widespread sustainable effects Bybee (2009)
The wide-spread acceptance of the 5E instructional model suggests that its use in the design of curriculum materials for 21st century skills would greatly enhance the adoption and acceptance of those materials by science educators and science teachers. The BSCS 5E instructional model and other such models do hold promise for teaching 21st century skills. This said, it also must be noted that although the development of skills and abilities has been noted as educational goals for science programs, very little emphasis has been placed on these goals Rodger W. Bybee (2009)
With regard to this specific study, further inquiry into students’ verbal versus written knowledge of science concepts must be pursued if indeed their understanding will be continually tested in this manner. This has implications not only in states where standardized science testing is conducted yearly, but nationwide as American students continue to be compared to international students. Generally speaking though, the body of research that exists to support cooperative learning, scientific inquiry, and reflective practice in education is massive. When it comes to implementing scientific inquiry in an elementary classroom, found that in this study, it is not the idea of inquiry that is so difficult to embrace, but the imposition of school bureaucracy. For example, the need for the classroom teacher to have grades forced me to evaluate the students’ work differently. One reason the classroom teacher may have assigned science homework during the study was in the quest for grades. When she asked me for grades for the students I did not feel that assessing their work in a formal fashion was supportive of inquiry, nor fair to these students who, like I, were embarking on this voyage of scientific inquiry for the first time Campbell (2012).
The introduction of the brief history of learning cycles, how people learn, and the components of the 5E model introduce the reader to new terms and ideas and a one-sided Explanation phase. The second charge to the reader to revisit their last class session and its order, along with the articulation of several starting strategies for using the 5E model in college science teaching, serves as a prompt for an Elaboration exercise by the reader. And finally, the conclusion section offers questions for the reader as more of a self-evaluation than an evaluation of the effectiveness of this article. Though the 5E model was developed primarily to aid K–12 science teachers in achieving more effective lesson planning and teaching, its grounding in what is known about how humans learn makes it widely applicable to instruction of students at all cognitive levels. In addition, the 5E approach can be used in developing a research seminar, a lab meeting structure, a conference sharing session, a faculty meeting, a negotiation session with an administrator, or any other venue where you want one or more humans to leave with different ideas than they began Kimberly D. Tanner (2010).
Susanne Lorraine Hokkanen (2011) claims in her study that students have gained in science knowledge and interest in science, as a result of the learning cycle. While academic growth was expected, the ISAT pre- and posttest data demonstrated that the 5E model helped my students achieve more than students in a traditional taught classroom. The increase in student interest and confidence in science, albeit slight, demonstrated a much-needed trend in science education, especially within minority populations. These results demonstrated modest improvement in overall student achievement and students’ self-expressed interest and confidence in a science within a 5E learning environment. Greater gains were made in increasing student interest in a science as a career. Areas in which the students did not demonstrate as strong as gains can be directly attributed to the lesson presentation or completion.
Hermes B. Lynn (2012) do find using inquiry to be enjoyable and will do more of it in the future. He liked seeing students being engaged and also enjoyed teaching differently. In the future a blend of traditional and inquiry seems most prudent because not all students respond the same way to inquiry teaching and change keeps things interesting for me and my students. In conclusion, regarding student understanding, the results show that both methodologies work to help students learn. Students demonstrated proficiency in learning for all of the key concepts I was trying to teach. There is not enough evidence to suggest that one strategy is necessarily better or worse than the other for student understanding.
On the other hand, based on the findings obtained in the study of Ali Abdi (2014) proves that there is a significant difference between the achievement levels of the students who have been educated by inquiry-based instruction supported by 5E learning method and the students who have been educated by the traditional teaching methods. The students who have been educated by inquiry-based instruction supported 5E learning cycle method have become more successful than the students who have been educated by the traditional teaching methods. Ali Abdi (2014) compared two classes taught by traditional methods with two classes taught using the 5E instructional model method. The study indicated that the experimental groups had much greater understanding of the information covered especially on questions that required interpretation.
A constructivist approach implies that the use of a variety of activities in the classroom promotes a child’s making sense of the world and developing scientific concepts. The 5E model can help you to prepare for inquiry in your classroom. Scaffolding is when an adult first structures a learning task and then provides the dialogue needed to guide a child’s successful participation in that task. Kelly Dolan (2009)

Scaffolding for Enhancing Science Inquiry Skills by 5E’s Instructional Model
Like the scaffolding used in construction to support workers as they work on a specific task, instructional scaffolds are temporary support structures faculty put in place to assist students in accomplishing new tasks and concepts they could not typically achieve on their own. Instructional scaffolds promote learning through dialogue, feedback and shared responsibility. Through the supportive and challenging learning experiences gained from carefully planned scaffolding learning, instructors can help students become lifelong, independent learners. Once students are able to complete or master the task, the scaffolding is gradually removed or fades away—the responsibility of learning shifts from the instructor to the student. Larkin, M. (2007).
According to Vygotsky the external scaffolds provided by the educator can be removed because the learner has developed “…more sophisticated cognitive systems, related to fields of learning such as mathematics or language, the system of knowledge itself becomes part of the scaffold or social support for the new learning” Van Der Stuyf (2002), Raymond, (2000), p. 176 and De La Cruz (2010), as cited by E. Calvendra (2012)
Caregivers help young children learn how to link old information or familiar situations with new knowledge through verbal and nonverbal communication and modeling behaviors. Observational research on early childhood learning shows that parents and other caregivers facilitate learning by providing scaffolds. The scaffolds provided are activities and tasks that motivate or enlist the child’s interest related to the task, simplify the task to make it more manageable and achievable for a child, provide some direction in order to help the child focus on achieving the goal, clearly indicate differences between the child’s work and the standard or desired solution, reduce frustration and risk and model and clearly define the expectations of the activity to be performed.
The scaffolding is secondary. The building is primary.” (McKenzie, 1999, Matters of Definition section, para. 6 as cited by. He goes on to describe eight characteristics of scaffolding. The first six describe aspects of scaffolding instruction. The last two refer to outcomes resulting from scaffolding and are therefore presented in a later section of this paper. According to McKenzie scaffolding:
1. Provides clear direction and reduces students’ confusion – Educators anticipate problems that students might encounter and then develop step by step instructions, which explain what a student must do to meet expectations.
2. Clarifies purpose – Scaffolding helps students understand why they are doing the work and why it is important.
3. Keeps students on task – By providing structure, the scaffolded lesson or research project, provides pathways for the learners. The student can make decisions about which path to choose or what things to explore along the path, but they cannot wander off of the path, which is the designated task.
4. Clarifies expectations and incorporates assessment and feedback – Expectations are clear from the beginning of the activity since examples of exemplary work, rubrics, and standards of excellence are shown to the students.
5. Points students to worthy sources – Educators provide sources to reduce confusion, frustration, and time. The students may then decide which of these sources to use.
6. Reduces uncertainty, surprise, and disappointment – Educators test their lessons to determine possible problem areas and then refine the lesson to eliminate difficulties so that learning is maximized.
Meanwhile, the term science process skills as the same as science inquiry skills was defined by Padilla (2010) as cited in R. De La Torre (2012) as a set of broadly transferrable abilities, appropriate to many science disciplines and reflective of the behavior of the scientists. These are tools that are needed to be scientifically literate. They are the focus of science as inquiry, or the thinking that goes along the content. In support of this study, R. De La Torre (2012) as cited in Sis (2006) clarified that science process skills are fundamental to science, allowing everyone to conduct investigations and reach conclusions. We are convinced that there is a serious educational gap in this are both in bringing this skill into the classroom and students. This were also often described as the building blocks of inquiry investigations according to literature of R. De La Torre as cited in Hautz (2008)
There is a study by Erin Marie Furtak (2008) explored the relationship between guidance and conceptual understanding during inquiry-based, post-investigation discussions held in the classrooms of four physical science teachers. Comparison of students with lower learning gains indicate that, in general, pairs of teachers shared several similarities in terms of the nature of guidance they provided to students, the concepts addressed during lessons, and student performance. The results of this study also underscore the importance of active involvement by teachers during inquiry-based discussions. The teachers of higher-gain students in this study were actively and continuously manipulating the halo of social learning during discussions, providing different amounts of guidance at different times to scaffold student learning.
However, it is recommended that further studies must be conducted to assess the impact of the approach to the students – their perception and evaluation of outcomes. In addition, studying young students’ scientific literacy may provide a better understanding. This research straight-forwardly concluded that in its contextualized setting, the emerging instructional approach is deemed effective. K. Camiling (2017)
In this context, modeling scientific phenomena in school implies learning a combination of linguistic modes in order to understand thought and action. For example, formulate good questions is the starting point for looking, seeing and explaining with meaning. Describe implies establishing a way of looking at events and includes drawing as a way to amplify the communicative field. Compare is to establish events and their relationships. Justify is to explain why and because, that is to interpret a set of events based in theory and to use scientific vocabulary in context. Local studies have identified several reasons to account for this situation: lack of qualified teachers, an overloaded curriculum, lack of quality textbooks and instructional materials, and unavailability of science equipment. Current Challenges in Basic Science Education (2014)
The advantage of active learning techniques such as the discussion is that students have the opportunity to verbalize course materials for them-selves and receive feedback in class from the instructor on how well they understood that material which is directly favorable in embedding 5e’s instructional model Bybee (2009) Showing students why the discussion was important to their learning, a summary provides the opportunity to fill in points that were not covered and to praise the class for the quality of their responses. Instruction at FSU Handbook (2011)
E. Peffer, L. Beckler, et. Al (2015) stated that as students’ progress through a 5E’s instructional approach they are frequently prompted to describe their rationale for choosing a particular hypothesis, testing strategy and conclusions after discovering an important piece of data. Research findings have indicated that participation in inquiry activities alone is insufficient to cause change in students’ understanding of authentic science practices, particularly those that relate to knowledge of NOS, Sandoval suggests that the reason for this may be due to a lack of understanding of the students’ science epistemologies in inquiry activities.

Theoretical framework
Kate Crotty (2012) stated that the study was based on the assumptions of Vygotsky: The zone of proximal development as the theoretical basis of scaffolding ZPD, defined as the distance between what a student can do with and without help (Vygotsky 1978), is used to explain the social and participatory nature of teaching and learning. Supporting children’s active position in their learning and assisting them in becoming self-regulated learners is at the heart of Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD. In spite of the consensus that Vygotskian socio-cultural theory and the notion of the zone of proximal development are at the heart of the concept of scaffolding, and Bruner who inform social constructivism through their diverse perspectives that espouses constructivism. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge (epistemology) that argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. Constructivism in education is also based on the belief that learning occurs when learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information wherein the learners are the makers of meaning and knowledge Corpuz (2015.) Grade 9 students are the participants who are purposively process knowledge and actively involved in the learning cycles through inquiry-based learning activities embedding 5e’s instructional model.
In constructivist teaching students’ opinion is sought and valued assumptions and suppositions are challenged. The learning experience must be close to the life experience and relevant to students’ lives. Constructivist teachers assess the whole learning experience of students rather than assessing only what that can be measured by ‘paper and pencil assessments’. It could be argued that by soliciting the views of students in a learning situation, a more engaging and empowering learning environment is facilitated. An underlying assumption is made, that the student is capable of making a valid contribution to discussion. Constructivists’ discussions share a ‘questioning, dialogical form’ where students are active in the construction of knowledge (Kate Crotty 2012 p.2;Golding 2009, p.469). By keeping the learning close to the life experience of the learner and relevant to the student an active part is played in the construction of knowledge.
On the other hand, researcher will aim to determine the inquiry skills of the students and developing scaffolding activities to harness students scientific inquiry skills and evaluating how acceptable and effective such scaffolding activities to teaching and learning. It is a sweeping generalization and early in the Philippine setting to conclude that inquiry-based learning and 5E’s instructional model is suited. Thus, the essence of this approach must to determine.

Research Paradigm

Figure1. A Modified Input-Process-Output (IPO) Model on Embedding 5E’S Instructional Model in Enhancing Inquiry Skills of Grade 9 Students

Figure 1 shows the research paradigm of the study which illustrates the Inquiry-based science learning as a scientific pedagogy for developing scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model. As can be seen, sizable review of literature and theoretical constructs is done through extensive reading of books, journals, and other printed published and unpublished material and browsing electronic sources on inquiry-based science learning and 5e’s instructional model to boost and toughen the input of the study.
For the process, assessment on inquiry skills of grade 9 students, determining through questionnaire and interview of the different strategies of the teachers for enhancing the inquiry skills of their students, supports for innovation, providing resources, monitoring will be done. Moreover, revealing the predictability using the two main variables and which was followed by analyzing its results statistically.
A scaffolding activity was developed as an output of the study, likewise determine the level of acceptability and its significant difference with hypothesis: HO: There is no significant difference between the pretest and post-test after utilization of the product.

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter clearly defines the research methods used to conduct the study. The researcher explains how the necessary data and information to address the research objectives and questions was collected, presented and analyzed. Reasons and justifications for the research design research instruments, data sources, data collection techniques, data presentation techniques and analytical techniques used are given.

Locale of the Study
This study was conducted at Pagbilao Grande Island National High School in Pagbilao, Quezon where grade 9 students have no physics laboratory and a semi-traditional teaching materials and methods are using. The researcher chose this school as the place to conduct his study because it will be beneficial to the institution where he is graduated. Aside from that, no one has tried conducting a similar study in such secondary school.

Research Design
This study dealt with the development of inquiry-based science learning activities on selected topics in physics 9. The researcher used the descriptive method of research that includes employing data analysis as the most appropriate means to determine the level of inquiry skills of the grade 9 student of Pagbilao Grande Island National High School. The questionnaire was used as the main instrument in collecting the necessary data for the material’s development and acceptability.

Population and Sampling
The respondents of the study were 80 Grade nine students. 30 from 9-Faith 30 from 9-Hope, and 20 from 9-Charity S.Y. 2017-2018. They were chosen purposively since all class was involved.

Research Instrument
The researcher requested the course outline from the physics teacher in Pagbilao Grande Island National High School for the identification of topics for the fourth grading and also science curriculum guide was used. The instrument constructed and utilize in the conduct of the study are enumerated and described on the following:

Data Gathering Procedure
In order to actualize the study, various procedures were done to gather the necessary data. This study involved the development of inquiry-based science learning activities based from the course syllabus of Pagbilao Grande Island National High School. The administration of the inquiry-based science learning activities as instructional material and determining its acceptability was also involved. The actual data gathering procedures of this study involved five major steps which were: identification of the topics in fourth grading period, level inquiry skills questionnaire, development of inquiry-based science learning activities, validation, administration of the material and activities, and administration of the adopted and revised questionnaire.

Questionnaire on the Assessment of Inquiry Skills
The researcher first identified the basic inquiry skills (observing, classifying, comparing, inferring, predicting, measuring, communicating) and the integrated science inquiry skills (using time/space relation, formulating hypothesis, identifying variables, defining variables operationally, experimenting, recognizing variables, interpreting data, and formulating models). Then he formulated questions based on the science competency for grade 9 in physics. Each skill has five indicators with the total of 70 items. Some modified questions were taken from the master’s thesis “Level of Science Process skills of Grade VI pupils: Basis for Enrichment Activities in problem solving 2012” by Rowena C. De La Torre while the rest of the questions were self-constructed. The questionnaire has four-point scale verbally described as 4-always, 3-often, 2-sometimes, 1-never.
The questionnaire was presented to the research adviser and four expert science teachers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The researcher also asked the non-respondents to answer the questionnaire to test the clarity of the questions. After the revision and incorporating all the suggestions, questionnaire was administered to the Grade 9 students of Pagbilao Grande Island National High School.

Identification of the Topic
The researcher selected the topics in Physics 9 for the third grading period for the development of inquiry-based science learning activities based from the syllabus provided by the Pagbilao Grande Island national High School.
Development of Scaffolding Activities Embedding 5e’s Instructional Model
The researcher gathered different activities from different textbooks which can be a great help in the development of the material. The researcher also browsed the internet for possible activities to be utilized. The researcher also designed the scaffolding activities based on the least learned science inquiry skills. The developed scaffolding material was utilized by the two (2) grade 9 science teachers for two and a half weeks (2 ; 1/2)
Development of Pre-test and Post-test
The researcher made a pretest based on the least learned science inquiry skills and utilized the developed scaffolding activities and made the post test to determine if there is an improvement.
Face Validation
The researcher requested permission to the adviser for the face validation letter for the developed inquiry-based science activities. The activities were consulted to the adviser of the study and the subject teacher Physics to seek their comments, remarks and suggestions to revise some parts of the project-based activities for the improvement of the instructional material.

Administration of the Questionnaire on the Level of Acceptability
A questionnaire was constructed to find out the level of acceptability of the developed instructional tool in terms of content, accuracy, clarity of material, and appeal to the target users. The researcher adapted the questionnaire from Nolasco (2008) to evaluate the development and acceptability of the activities.
The questionnaire on the level of acceptability of the developed instructional tools was also given to the teacher’s respondents. The data gathered were tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.

Statistical Treatment
The data regarding the level of science inquiry skills of the grade 9 students were utilized as the basis for the scaffolding activities in embedding 5E’s instructional model. The data were tallied, analyzed and treated statistically by using the following statistical treatment.
To level of inquiry skills of the grade 9 students determine the level of acceptability and of the inquiry-based science activity, the weighted arithmetic mean was used in analyzing the data. The formula is:
Wm = f5 + f4 + f3 + f2 + f1
N
Where
Wm = weighted mean
f = frequency responses
N = total number of respondents

To find the result of the weighted mean on the level of science inquiry skills, the result would be interpreted as follows:
POINT RANGE INTERVAL DESCRIPTIVE RATING
4 3.25-4.00 Highly learned (HL)
3 2.50-3.24 Learned (L)
2 1.75-2.49 Unlearned (U)
1 1.00-1.74 Highly unlearned (HU)

To determine if there is significant difference between the pretest and the posttest scores of the chosen respondents, t-test for dependent samples was used.
The formula is shown below:
t=(?D)/?(?(n?^2-(?D)^[email protected]——@(n-1)))

Where:
?D- the sum of all individuals’ pre-post score differences
(?D)^2- the sum of all individuals pre-post score differences squared
n- the number of paired observations.
The acceptability level of the developed instructional materials is measured using the scale for acceptability indicated as follows:
Point Score Rating Interval Acceptability Level
4 3.25 – 4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA)
3 2.50 – 3.24 Acceptable (A)
2 1.75 – 2.49 Fairly Acceptable (FA)
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not Acceptable (NA)

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the gathered data. It presents the descriptive analysis and interpretation of the data resulting from the research questionnaire used in the study.

Table 1: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Observing
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Observing
I can do the following tasks:
Describe the color and shape of objects. 47 21 12 0 80 3.44 HL
Describe the object as rough or smooth. 47 17 16 0 80 3.38 HL
Describe the process that is being used. 24 38 15 3 80 3.04 L
Distinguish fast from slow moving object. 37 28 15 0 80 3.28 HL
Identify sequence in an event. 23 20 33 4 80 2.78 L
Average Weighted Mean 3.18 L

Table 1 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Observing
Statement 1, 2, and 4 got a weighted mean of 3.44, 3.38, and 3.28 respectively hat falls under “highly learned”. While statement 3 and 5 got a weighted mean of 3.04 and 2.78 that falls under “learned”. Statement 3 got the highest weighted mean of 3.44 which fall under “highly learned”. Statement 5 got the lowest weighted mean of 2.78 which fall under “learned”, it means that the students have a low level of identifying sequence in an event. The level of science inquiry skills as to observing got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.18 described as “Learned”. This result revealed that the students have high level of inquiry by describing physical properties of an object, distinguishing movement, and identifying the sequence of an event as to observation. It is also because it is the first skill that is built through the years of studying at previous years and is very fundamental for integrationof skills.
Tze Jiun, Lee (2014 p.12) mentioned Inquiry “enable students to describe objects, make observations, ask questions, formulate predictions, collect and analyze data, develop scientific principles, synthesize laws, construct explanation against current scientific knowledge and communicate their ideas to others in learning science. In addition, observing is noting the properties of objects and situations using the five senses. It is description of what was perceived.
Table 2: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Classifying
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Classifying
I can do the following tasks:
Group the objects by looking at their color and size. 41 31 8 0 80 3.41 HL
Arrange objects according to its properties from increasing to decreasing order or vice versa. 30 35 14 1 80 3.18 L
Relate objects and events according to their properties or attributes. 14 34 28 4 80 2.73 L
Group vehicles according to their comfort for a ride. 31 30 15 3 80 3.11 L
Classify objects according to their weight. 36 31 9 4 80 3.24 L
Average Weighted Mean 3.13 L

Table 2 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to classifying.
Statement 1 got a weighted mean of 3.41 which fall under “Highly Learned” descriptive rating. Statement 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 3.18, 2.73, 3.11, and 3.24 respectively which fall under “Learned” in descriptive rating while the statement 3 got the lowest weighted mean of 2.73 which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating, it means that the students has learned how to relate objects and events according to their properties or attributes, arrange objects from increasing to decreasing or vice versa. The level of science inquiry skills as to classifying got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.31 which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating. Development begins with simple classification of various physical systems and progresses through multistage classifications.
According to Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools (2016) as cited by M. R. Jayosi (2015) journal most of the students know the process of sorting objects, ideas, and events into groups according to identified criteria
Table 3: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Comparing
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Comparing
I can do the following tasks:
Compare vector and scalar quantity. 14 24 28 14 80 2.48 UL
Compare the textures from smooth to rough. 16 25 25 14 80 2.54 L
Compare the feeling of hot and cold. 17 26 26 11 80 2.61 L
Examine objects and events in terms of similarities and differences 7 9 37 17 80 1.83 UL
Compare the mass and weight of an object. 6 25 35 14 80 2.29 UL
Average Weighted Mean 2.34 UL

Table 3 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students in terms of comparing.
Statement 1, 4 and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.48, 1.83 and 2.29 respectively which fall under the third level of science inquiry skills as to comparing, “Unlearned”. Statement 2 and 3 got a weighted mean of 2.54 and 2.61 which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating. Statement 4 got the lowest weighted mean of 1.83, shows that the students are still not able to examine objects and events in terms of similarities and differences, compare mass and weight, and scalar and vector quantity. The Level of Science Process Skills as to Comparing got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.34 which fall under “Unlearned”, second to the lowest level. Therefore, this science process skill needs to be improved and included in the developed scaffolding activities. Making observations naturally leads to making comparisons. Comparing and contrasting require students to sharpen their observations and to focus on details to identify similarities and differences.
As stated in the journal Early Learning in Math and Science (2017) the process skills of comparing and contrasting are the basis for making groups and classifications.
Table 4: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Inferring
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Inferring
I can do the following tasks:
Suggest more information about an object or event than is readily observable 8 22 38 12 80 2.33 UL
Explain a particular object or substance in quantitative terms. 2 25 43 10 80 2.24 UL
Infer relationships in simple measurements and events. 9 22 39 10 80 2.38 UL
Conclude that an object can cause more damage according to its mass. 16 34 23 7 80 2.74 L
Make an interpretation or explanation based on my reasoning. 15 21 39 5 80 2.58 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.45 UL

Table 4 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students in terms of Inferring.
Statement 4 and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.74 and 2.58 respectively which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating. Statement 1, 2, and 3 got the lowest weighted mean of 2.33, 2.24, and 2.38 respectively which fall under “Unlearned”, the students have a low level of suggesting, explaining, and inferring through observable data, quantitative terms, and measurements. The level of science inquiry skills as to inferring got an Average weighted mean of 2.45 which fall under the second to the lowest level: “Unlearned”. Therefore, this science process skill needs to be improved and included in the developed scaffolding activities. Students should make inferences about causes of phenomena we observe based on the data which was collected through observation which is necessary for performing science inquiry.
According to Atkinson (2017) students must be able to Infer as to inference is an explanation based on an observation or experience. Inference is drawing conclusion from an observed event. The conclusions must be based on data.

Table 5: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Predicting
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Predicting
I can do the following:
Prove that events are consistent with evidence. 24 27 27 2 80 2.91 L
Predict how something may have happened. 21 30 23 6 80 2.83 L
Attempt to use evidence in making predictions. 25 25 28 2 80 2.91 L
Use past experiences to support findings. 27 27 23 3 80 2.98 L
Visualize the size of a marble that would make bigger holes on a soil ground. 19 35 20 6 80 2.84 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.89 L

Table 5 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Predicting
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.91, 2.83, 2.91, 2.98, and 2.84 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got the high weighted mean it means that the students have high level of science inquiry skills as to Predicting that revealed students are able to guess what will happen as an outcome of an event with an attempt to use evidence in making prediction. The level of science inquiry skills as to predicting got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.89 described as “Learned”. Information about what will happen after continuation or modification of a process is determined by predicting.
Arslan & Tertemiz, (2008) as cited by Raneses stated that predicting allows students to guess the most likely outcome of a future event based upon evidence that supports the result of the data.

Table 6: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Measuring
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Measuring
I can do the following tasks:
Calculate measurement using different scale. 11 22 34 13 80 2.39 UL
Measure the length of a place using meter stick. 35 28 15 2 80 3.20 L
Measure the mass of an object using beam balance. 58 15 6 1 80 3.63 HL
Measure the volume of an object 31 30 16 3 80 3.11 L
Measure through standard and non-standard measurement to describe dimension of an object. 31 27 19 3 80 3.08 L
Average Weighted Mean 3.08 L

Table 6 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to measuring.
Statement 1 got a weighted mean of 2.39 which fall under “Unlearned” descriptive rating which has the lowest level of descriptive rating. Statement 2, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 3.20, 3.11, and 3.08 respectively which fall under “Learned” in descriptive rating while the statement 3 got the highest weighted mean of 3.63 which fall under “Highly Learned” descriptive rating, it means that the students has learned how to measure objects and distances through different devices by standard or non-standard measurement to describe dimension of an object. The level of science inquiry skills as to measuring got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.08 which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating. Students should be encouraged to seek out “new” ways of measuring things.
According to Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools (2016) journal Measurement allows students to quantify observations in science that includes distance, mass, volume, area, time, and temperature. Measuring is usually done first with nonstandard units, then standard units. Length or distance in one dimension (height, perimeter, width, etc.) is the simplest and most concrete measurement for most young children to understand.
Table 7: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Communicating
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Communicating
I can do the following tasks:
Construct graph to transmit information learned from science experiences. 12 38 26 4 80 2.73 L
Write a report about motion and explain it to my classmates. 27 30 20 3 80 3.01 L
Talk freely about my concepts and the ideas I have with my group-mates. 33 27 17 3 80 3.13 L
Use appropriate vocabulary to describe their observations. 27 28 19 6 80 2.95 L
Share ideas during brainstorming. 23 30 19 8 80 2.85 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.93 L

Table 7 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Predicting
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.73, 3.01, 3.13, 2.95, and 2.85 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got the high weighted mean it means that the students have prominent level of science inquiry skills as to communicating through self-vocabulary and transmitting information through graphs and tables, written report, and able to talk freely with their groupmates. The level of science inquiry skills as to communicating got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.93 described as “Learned”. Students can communicate their observations, ideas, and conclusions by talking or writing, visually in drawings and other art media, or through dramatic representations.
The journal Early Learning in Math and Science (2017) stated communication requires a child to gather information, process it, and then present it so that others can understand his or her meaning.
Table 8: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Using Space Time Relations
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Using Space Time Relations
I can do the following:
Sketch an object that is thrown through a curve line and tell its location. 10 19 34 17 80 2.28 UL
Sketch the position of an object with regard to the north, east, west, and south where each part of the vector is located. 40 16 15 9 80 3.09 L
Plot the trajectory path of a ball thrown across and describe its position and relative speed. 38 22 10 10 80 3.10 L
Describe the speed and the motion of a rolling ball. 33 30 12 5 80 3.14 L
Locate the position of an object through a diagram. 35 20 14 11 80 2.99 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.92 L

Table 8 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to using space time relations.
Statement 1 got a weighted mean of 2.28 which fall under “Unlearned” descriptive rating. Statement 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 3.09, 3.10, 3.14, and 2.99 respectively which fall under “Learned” in descriptive rating. Statement 1 got the lowest weighted mean of 2.73 which fall under “unlearned” descriptive rating, it means that the students has not learned much how to sketch object and describe its location. The level of science inquiry skills as to using space time relations got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.92 which fall under “Learned” descriptive rating.
Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World (2014) mentioned comprehension of space-time relations: “is a process to comprehend the relations between place and time of objects, facts, and events, and to determine them appropriately by using place and time adverbs, and to comprehend them in this kind of verbal and written statements.”
Table 9: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Defining operationally
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Defining operationally
I can do the following tasks:
Define a term on how it was performed. 25 33 17 5 80 2.98 L
Define a motion as you throw an object. 36 20 22 2 80 3.13 L
Define distance as you walk from your house to the store. 18 41 18 3 80 2.93 L
Define displacement as you go to school back to your house. 33 28 16 3 80 3.14 L
Define a device or tool according to its use. 27 28 23 2 80 3.00 L
Average Weighted Mean 3.07 L

Table 9 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Defining Operationally
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.98, 3.13, 2.93, 3.14, and 3.00 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got the high weighted mean it means that the students have high level of science inquiry skills as to defining operationally through self-vocabulary and transmitting information through the way the term was performed. The level of science inquiry skills as to defining operationally got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.07 described as “Learned”.
Explaining how to measure a variable in an experiment. The term should be defined according to how the students perform or use the term and citing its relationship to other variables De La Torre (2012)
Table 10: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Experimenting
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Experimenting
I can do the following tasks:
Test hypothesis through manipulation of variables. 18 31 25 6 80 2.76 L
Make observations that are relevant to the specific question. 14 40 23 3 80 2.81 L
Suggest equipment, materials and procedure for conducting investigations. 24 32 21 3 80 2.96 L
Conclude fast as I find results. 13 35 29 3 80 2.73 L
Follow scientific rules and processes. 28 30 21 1 80 3.06 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.87 L

Table 10 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Experimenting
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.76, 2.81, 2.96, 2.73, and 3.06 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got an average level weighted mean it means that the students have high level of science inquiry skills as to experimenting that simply depicts the student’s knowledge about following scientific rules which has the highest weighted mean, use of equipment and making observations that are relevant to a specific question. The level of science inquiry skills as to experimenting got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.87 described as “Learned”. Doing experiments introduces students to the process of making a hypothesis. However, it is not reasonable to expect that children will be systematic in their experiments at an early age.

The journal Early Learning in Math and Science (2017) mentioned that students can conduct simple experiments to test out their ideas (hypotheses). Experiments are often spontaneous, teachers can help them be more thoughtful about planning their investigations.
Table 11: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Recognizing Variables
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Recognizing Variables
I can do the following tasks:
Control the variables in the experiment. 7 21 34 18 80 2.21 UL
Identify the manipulated (independent) variable. 2 21 43 14 80 2.14 UL
Identify the responding (dependent) variable. 4 21 38 17 80 2.15 UL
Identify the variable -held-constant in an experiment. 6 15 42 17 80 2.13 UL
Describe the difference between independent and dependent variables. 7 22 41 10 80 2.33 UL
Average Weighted Mean 2.19 UL

Table 11 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Recognizing Variables
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.21, 2.14, 2.15, 2.13, and 2.33 respectively which fall under “Unearned”. All statements got low weighted mean it means that the students have low level of science inquiry skills as to Recognizing variables through manipulating, identifying, and describing the variables. The level of science inquiry skills as to defining operationally got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.19 described as “Unlearned”. Therefore, this science process skill needs to be improved and included in the developed scaffolding activities. It is important to change only the variable being tested (independent variable) and keep the others constant in controlled experiments. The aim of this process is to monitor the changes occurring in dependent variable by the changes in independent variable.
The same finding with the study of Fatih Kalemku? (2016) This skill must be enhanced to have an ability for figuring out the factors that can affect an experiment. Students should perform controlled experiments to develop this process skill.

Table 12: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Interpreting Data
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Interpreting data
I can do the following tasks:
Interpret in my own words information based from the experiment. 23 40 17 0 80 3.08 L
Revise interpretation of data based on new information. 14 36 26 4 80 2.75 L
Interpret graphs and tables. 14 34 25 7 80 2.68 L
Record data from the experiment in a data table and form a conclusion which relates trends in the data to the variable. 22 25 25 8 80 2.76 L
Draw conclusions based on charts. 21 29 20 10 80 2.76 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.81 L

Table12 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Interpreting Data
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 3.08, 2.75, 2.68, 2.76, 2.76 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got an average level weighted mean it means that the students have prominent level of science inquiry skills as Interpreting Data that simply depicts the student’s knowledge about interpreting the recorded data, conclusions, and revisions through text or graphs and tables. The level of science inquiry skills as to experimenting got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.81 described as “Learned”.
Century (2009) explain the interpretation of data as transferring information by using graphs and tables. In addition, includes the meaning to be given to the results of experiments and observations in process of interpretation of data.
Table 13: Weighted Mean of the Level of Science Inquiry Skills as to Formulating models
INQUIRY SKILLS COMPETENCY 4 3 2 1 Total WM DR
Formulating models
I can do the following tasks:
Create a storyline with pictures to explain changes in an object. 18 40 17 5 80 2.89 L
Evaluate their own designs using simple criteria. 21 37 18 4 80 2.94 L
Construct models either by following instructions or by using my own designs. 28 34 18 0 80 3.13 L
Select appropriate material to make models and gadgets. 23 32 19 6 80 2.90 L
Use bar graphs, pictures, tables and charts to report results. 27 34 11 8 80 3.00 L
Average Weighted Mean 2.97 L

Table 13 shows the Level of Science Inquiry Skills among Grade 9 students as to Formulating Models.
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got a weighted mean of 2.89, 2.94, 3.13, 2.90, and 3.00 respectively which fall under “Learned”. All statements got an average level weighted mean it means that the students have elevated level of science inquiry skills as Interpreting Data especially in statements 3 and 5with highest weighted mean that simply depicts high level of inquiry skills as to formulating models by selecting and constructing designs of graphs, pictures and tables. The level of science inquiry skills as to formulating models got an Average Weighted Mean of 2.97 described as “Learned”.
A model is a verbal, structural, or graphic representation of the physical world. Models can be magnified samples of small objects, reduced size samples of large objects, or conceptual models which are prepared for understanding of complex ideas. Therefore, making models can be explained as making a concrete design of objects, events or ideas Jale Kalemku? (2016)
Table 14. Significant difference on Respondents Science Inquiry Skills Before and After Utilizing the Scaffolding Activities Embedding 5E’s Instructional Model
Paired Differences
Mean Mean Difference Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df p-value
Pretest-Comparing-Posttest-Comparing 7.4000 -10.77500 2.16400 .24194 -44.535 79 .000
18.1750
Pretest-Inferring – Posttest-Inferring 6.9125 -10.90000 2.18510 .24430 -44.617 79 .000
17.8125
Pretest-Recognizing-Posttest-Recognizing 6.0125 -11.31250 2.51876 .28161 -40.171 79 .000
17.3250
Pretest-Total Posttest-Total 20.2750 -33.03750 5.40146 .60390 -54.707 79 .000
53.3125

Table 14 displays the significant difference on respondent’s science inquiry skills before and after utilizing the scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model. The mean of the pretest scores in comparing is 7.4000 while the mean of the post-test scores in comparing is 18.1750 with the mean difference of 10.77500. Since the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the 0.05 the pre-test mean is significantly different from the post-test mean. While the mean of the pretest scores in inferring is 6.9125 while the mean of the post-test scores in inferring is 17.8125 with the mean difference of 10.90000. Since the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the 0.05 the pre-test mean is significantly different from the post-test mean. The data also says the mean of the pretest scores in Recognizing variables is 6.0125 while the mean of the post-test scores in recognizing variables is 17.3250 with the mean difference of 11.31250. Since the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the 0.05 the pre-test mean is significantly different from the post-test mean. The total pretest mean score has 20.2750 while the total posttest mean score has 53.3125 with a mean difference of 33.03750. Since the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the 0.05 the pre-test mean is significantly different from the post-test mean.
Therefore, the hypothesis that “there is no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test by utilizing the scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model among grade 9 students on selected topics in physics 9 is rejected. This indicates that the respondents enhanced their science inquiry skills as to comparing, inferring and recognizing variables. Thus, the scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model is a valid instructional tool in enhancing inquiry skills in grade 9 physics.
The results are proven by the findings of Susanne Lorraine Hokkanen (2011) Claims in her study that students have gained in science knowledge and interest in science, as a result of the learning cycle. While academic growth was expected, the ISAT pre- and posttest data demonstrated that the 5E model helped the students achieve more than students in a traditional taught classroom.
In addition, based on the findings obtained in the study of Ali Abdi (2014) as cited in Seyhan & Morgil (2007) proves that there is a significant difference between the achievement levels of the students who have been educated by inquiry-based instruction supported by 5E learning method and the students who have been educated by the traditional teaching methods. The students who have been educated by inquiry-based instruction supported 5E learning cycle method have become more successful than the students who have been educated by the traditional teaching methods.

The Developed Inquiry-based Science Learning: Scaffolding Activities Embedding 5E’s Instructional Model on Selected Topics in Physics 9.
The succeeding pages present the hard copy of the material that was developed and constructed by the researcher. It contains four (4) sets of scaffolding activities that is based from the idea of the researcher embedding 5E’s Instructional Model
Carol Kuhlthau (2015) Inquiry learning is based on constructivist learning theory and involves active questioning and discovery by learners. Inquiry learning has many models and synonyms. where student’s investigations begin with their own interests and background knowledge; 5E’s – a science inquiry model based on engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation; and Guided Inquiry which aims to develop 21st Century thinking skills within the ever-changing information environment.
The purpose of this Inquiry-based science learning: Scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s Instructional model is to help the Grade 9 students enhance their science inquiry skills aspect by mean of activities which the students appreciate and enjoy. Also, it is in a form of group which can develop collaborative inquiry with their classmates.

Table 15 Weighted Mean of the Level of Acceptability of Scaffolding Activities in Terms of Content of the Material
Statement Weighted
Mean Descriptive
Rating
The concepts are clearly presented. 3.75 Highly Acceptable
There is a logical flow of ideas and concept. 3.65 Highly Acceptable
The presentation of concepts catches and sustains the student interest. 3.85 Highly Acceptable
Issues and topics presented attain its objective. 3.80 Highly Acceptable
Issues and topics are sustainable to the high school students. 3.80 Highly Acceptable
Average Weighted Mean 3.77 Highly Acceptable

Table 15 presents the acceptability of Scaffolding Activities in terms of Content of the Material.
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 got the weighted mean of 3.75, 3.65, 3.85, 3.80, and 3.80 respectively results to “highly acceptable”. The content of the material got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.77 described as “Highly Acceptable”. This also means that the concepts are well presented, and the topic are arranged into clear sequence that also catches and sustains the students interest that helped the topic to attain its objective.
Findings also show the similarity of the study conducted by Raneses (2012) where the use of module with an organized and clear lesson can convey a simple and understandable instruction. In addition, the content of those instructional materials may reflect the knowledge that can be measure by the students.
Table 16: Weighted Mean of the Level of Acceptability of Scaffolding Activities in Terms of Usefulness of the Material
Statement Weighted
Mean Descriptive
Rating
Topics are arranged to provide clear sequences for understanding. 3.75 Highly Acceptable
It provides sufficient repetition of learning through illustration to easily understand the concept. 3.75 Highly Acceptable
It is appropriate to the age maturity and experience of the users. 3.60 Highly Acceptable
The material contains ideas and concepts that are well-experienced. 3.35 Highly Acceptable
It gives the concrete ideas of activities. 3.70 Highly Acceptable
Average Weighted Mean 3.63 Highly Acceptable
Table 16 shows the acceptability of scaffolding activities Activity in terms of Usefulness of the Material.
Statement 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have a weighted mean of 3.75, 3.75, 3.60, 3.35, and 3.7, respectively, which fall under “highly acceptable”. The usefulness of the material got an Average Score Mean of 3.63 described as “Highly Acceptable”. This shows that the respondents agree that these activities are arranged to provide clear understanding of the topic and it is appropriate to the age maturity and experience of the users.
Finding shows similarity conducted by Raneses (2012) where the use of material is useful and accurate in carrying out instruction. This also means that the materials are well arranged and can provide learning through example and illustrations appropriate to the users’ needs and to their level of thinking. Ideas and concepts are well-expressed that can relate to the present learning situation on the different topics in physics.
Table 17: Weighted Mean of the Level of Acceptability of Scaffolding Activities in Terms of Appeal to the Target Users
Statement Weighted
Mean Descriptive
Rating
The learning activities material enables the user to develop his/her critical and analytical thinking 3.60 Highly Acceptable
The learning activities material is presented at a pace that allows for the reflection and reviews 3.85 Highly Acceptable
The learning activities material is worthy of time, effort and expense. 3.65 Highly Acceptable
The learning activities material stimulates the user to have interest in the Physics 9. 3.75 Highly Acceptable
Average Weighted Mean 3.71 Highly Acceptable

Table 17 shows the acceptability of scaffolding activities in terms of Appeal to the Target Users.
Statement 2 got the highest weighted mean of 3.70 which fall under “highly acceptable” descriptive rating while statement 1 got the lowest weighted mean of 3.60 but still fall at “highly acceptable” descriptive rating. Statement 3 and 4 got a weighted mean of 3.65 and 3.75 respectively which fall at “highly acceptable” descriptive rating. The acceptability level to appeal to the target user has an average weighted mean 3.71 that fall under “highly acceptable descriptive rating. It indicates that the activities have appeal to the users. This shows that the material enables the reader to develop his/her critical and analytical thinking, captivates the learner’s interest, motivates the learners to have reviews and reflections toward physics, and is worth the time, effort of the readers.
According to Aquino (2008) as cited by Raneses (2012) The learning activities must be presented at a pace that allows for the reflection and reviews of the students. Moreover, it needs to have an appeal to the students so that they are well-motivated and interested. She proved that there is a necessity using instructional material in a class.
Table 18 Weighted Mean of the Level of Acceptability of Scaffolding Activities in Terms of Originality of the Material
Statement Weighted
Mean Descriptive
Rating
The designed and the appearance of the learning activities are exceptionally different from other graphic illustrations. 3.70 Highly Acceptable
The learning activities material serves as the new basic model in teaching and learning Physics 9. 3.80 Highly Acceptable
Average Weighted Mean 3.75 Highly Acceptable

Table 18 shows the acceptability of scaffolding activities in terms of Originality of the Material.
Statement 1 and 2 got a weighted mean of 3.70 and 3.80 respectively which fall under the “highly acceptable”. Statement 2 got the higher weighted mean. The originality of the material got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.80 described as “Highly Acceptable”. This means that the module has the originality of the presentations which is acceptable among the respondents.
The finding also shows similarity on the result of the study according to Nealega (2010) as cited by Raneses (2012) the material serves as the material serves as the new basic model in teaching and learning Physics.
Table 19 Summary of Tables on the Level of Acceptability of Scaffolding Activities
Criteria Weighted
Mean Descriptive Rating
Content of the Material 3.77 Highly Acceptable
Usefulness of the Material 3.63 Highly Acceptable
Appeal to Target Users 3.71 Highly Acceptable
Originality of the Material 3.75 Highly Acceptable
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.72 Highly Acceptable

Table 19 shows the acceptability of scaffolding activities.
The content of the material got an Average Weighted Mean of 3.77, the appeal to the target users got 3.71, the usefulness of the material got 3.63 and the originality of the material got 3.75 which all fall under “highly acceptable” descriptive rating. The scaffolding activities for enhancing the inquiry skills of Grade 9 students got a Grand Weighted Mean of 3.72 described as “Highly Acceptable”.
According to Dapol (2016) teacher must master not only the knowledge of content and theories in various faculties and discipline but also the skill. The teacher is a very important tool in the teaching learning process in a classroom. It is necessary that the teacher has mastered the lesson.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents summary of the study conducted. This also presents the findings derived from the analysis and interpretation of the results. Moreover, this conveys the resulting conclusions and the recommendations for further study.

Summary
The main objective of the study is to enhance the inquiry skills through the use of scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model on selected topics in grade 9 physics. Specifically, it sought to accomplish the following objectives: (1) Assess the level of science inquiry-skills of grade 9 students. (2) Develop scaffolding activities utilizing 5E’s instructional model in Physics 9. (3) Determine if there is significant difference in inquiry skills of grade 9 students after utilization of the product. (4) Determine the level of acceptability of the developed scaffolding activity in terms of: content of the material, usefulness of the material, appeal to target users and originality of the material. This study was conducted in Pagbilao Grande Island National High School for the School Year 2017-2018 utilizing the descriptive type of research. The respondents were composed of 80 Grade 9 students chosen purposively. Test and Questionnaires were the main tool of the study. The checklist type of questionnaire was used to assess the level of inquiry-skills, through weighted mean the least learned skills were identified. The pre-test and post-test were administered to find out if there is significant difference in scores of the respondents to after the use of developed scaffolding activities. T-test was used to determine the significance difference of the developed scaffolding activities in enhancing inquiry skills in physics while weighted mean to find out the level of acceptability of the scaffolding activities.
Findings
Based from the results, it was found out that:
Among the thirteen (13) science inquiry skills, the least learned are Comparing, Inferring, and Recognizing Variables.
Scaffolding Activities Embedding 5E’s Instructional Model was constructed as a tool in enhancing the inquiry skills of Grade 9 students.
There is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test through the utilization of the product with 0.00 p-value that is less than 0.05 significant level. Therefore, the hypothesis were rejected.
It was found out that the acceptability of the Scaffolding Activities Embedding 5E’s Instructional Model falls under the descriptive rating of “highly acceptable” in terms of the following results: the content of the materials it falls under the scale of description of highly acceptable; the usefulness of the material falls under scale description of highly acceptable. As to appeal to target users and originality of the material fall under the scale description of highly acceptable.

Conclusions
Based on the finding, the following conclusions were drawn:
The inquiry-based science scaffolding activities could help in enhancing science inquiry skills of students.
The inquiry-based science scaffolding activities is valid because of the significant difference in the pretest and post test after the utilization of the product.
The inquiry-based science scaffolding activities is acceptable and appropriate to use.

Recommendations
In the light of the finding and conclusions, the researcher recommended the following:
(1) The valid and accepted inquiry-based science scaffolding activities embedding 5E’s instructional model serves as a new guide and way of teaching Physics especially in laboratory and formative activities that require the application of inquiry-skills of the lessons being taught.
(2) The administrators can conduct seminars to uplift the capabilities of the teachers in adapting new strategies in teaching.
(3) Similar studies can be conducted in other science topics and other fields.

REFERENCES CITED

BOOKS
Brenda B. Corpuz, Gloria G. Salandanan (2015) Principles of teaching 2 (with TLE) Quezon City, Metro Manila: Lorimar Publishing
Erin Marie Furtak (2008) Guidance, Conceptual Understanding, and Student Learning: Enactment of an Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum 5th Edition
Eva Trnova, Josef Trna, (2013) Hands-On Experimental Activities in Inquiry- Based Science Education. Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Publishing
?smet Ergin (2012) Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability Instructional Physics. Turkish Military Academy, Bakanl?klar 06654 Ankara, Turkey. ISSN 1870-9095. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2012
Rodger W. Bybee (2009) The BSCS 5e Instructional Model And 21st Century Skills the National Academies Board on Science Education 6th Edition

PUBLISHED AND E-JOURNALS
Current Challenges in Basic Science Education Published by: UNESCO Education Sector 7, Place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP, France. Retrieved from: 10/01/2017 unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/191425e.pdf
Early Learning in Math and Science (2017) Science Process Skills Early Childhood p.1-2
Framework for Philippine Science Teacher Education Science Education (2011) Published by: Institute Department of Science Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines p. 1
Instruction and FSU (2011) Using Active Learning in the Classroom. University: A Handbook, Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from: 10/01/2017
K-12 Capacity Building Series (2013) ISSN: 1913 8490 (Online). Retrieved from: 09/26/17,www.edu.gov.literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_InquiryBased.pdf
K-12 Science Curriculum Guide (2016) Department of Education Basic Education Curriculum Conceptual Framework p. 2
Lutheran Education Queensland (2009) Approaches to Learning Inquiry Based Learning Retrieved from: 09/27/17 http://www.teachinquiry.com/index/Introduction.html
Nurturing Critical and Creative and Thinkers through Inquiry-based Teaching and Learning (2016) pg. 66-67
Journal of Education and Instructional Studies in the World (2014) Retrieved: 09/27/18 www.wjeis.org/FileUpload/ds217232/File/2014.4._wjeis.pdf
Tze Jiun, Lee (2014) Inquiry in Learning Science International Journal of Technical Research and Applications e-ISSN: 2320-8163, retrieved from: 09/27/17 www.ijtra.com/special-issue-view/inquiry-in-learning-science.pdf
Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools (2016) www.eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Guide_Measurement_456.pdf

UNPUBLISHED THESES
Angelica S. Raneses (2012) Module as Learning tool in selected topics in Physics. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Lucban, Quezon. Southern Luzon State University.
Dapol (2016) Localized Learning Resource Material in Araling Panlipunan 2 Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Lucban, Quezon. Southern Luzon State University.
E. Calvendra (2012) Scaffolding Activities in Selected Topics in Physics Based From The Multiple Intelligences Of Senior High School Students. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Lucban, Quezon. Southern Luzon State University.
R. De La Torre (2012) Level of Science Process skills of Grade VI pupils: Basis for Enrichment Activities in problem solving 2012.Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Lucban, Quezon. Graduate School-Southern Luzon State University.

ELECTRONIC DEVICES
A.H. Zeidan, & M.R Jayosi (2015) Science Process Skills and Attitudes toward Science among Secondary School Students Retrieved from 09/17/17 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158460.pdf
Ali Abdi (2014) The Effect of Inquiry-based Learning Method on Students’ Academic Achievement in Science Course. Retrieved from: 09/27/17 files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1053967.pdf
Anderson and Smith 2007 Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula: Handbook of research on science education Retrieved from: 09/27/17 www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/download.pdf
Atkinson (2017) Social Studies: Using Inference Skills with Graphics and Source Texts Retrieved:09/16/2017https://www.gedtestingservice.com/…/files/5fb6b9c221c747 3bbecad2b1b75381c6.pdf
Campbell (2012) The Effects Of The 5e Learning Cycle Model On Students’ Understanding Of Force And Motion Concepts Retrieved from: 09/27/2017 stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=etd
E. Peffer, L. Beckler, et. Al (2015) Science Classroom Inquiry (SCI) Simulations: A Novel Method to Scaffold Science Learning. Retrieved from DOI:10.1371/ journal.pone.0120638
Elvan Akar (2007) Effectiveness Of 5e Learning Cycle Model on Students’ Understanding Of Acid-Base Concepts. Retrieved from: 09/26/17, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.630.530;rep=rep1…pdf
Eva Trnova, Josef Trna,(2013) Hands-On Experimental Activities In Inquiry- Based Science Retrieved from:09/26/2017www.cen.uni.wroc.pl/Pliki/Wydawnicza/19_w
ybrane_teksty/10_trna.pdf
Friesen (2013) Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature Paper prepared for Alberta Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: 09/10/17 galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf
Hermes B. Lynn (2012) Guided Inquiry Using The 5e Instructional Model With High School Physics. Retrieved from: 09/26/17 http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC /Scaffolding.html
Hmelo, Silver, Duncan ;Chinn (2007) Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Retrieved from: 09/27/17 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25786245
J. Warner, E. Myers (2008) Implementing Inquiry-Based Teaching Methods. Retrieved from: 09/26/17 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC07600.pd
Jale Kalemku?, Fatih Kalemku? (2016) Determining and Comparing the Science Process Skills Level of 5th and 8th Grade Retrieved: 07/27/17 dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/332239
K. Camiling (2017) The Flipped Classroom: Teaching the Basic Science Process Skills to High Performing 2nd Grade Students of Miriam College Lower School. Retrieved from:09/26/17,iafor.org/archives/journals/iafor-journal-.5.si.10.pdf.
Kate Crotty (2012) Educational Theory of Constructivism Retrieved from: 9/27/17 www.waterfordwomenscentre.com/…/Educational%20Theory%20Constructivism
Kelly Dolan (2009) Methods for Teaching Elementary School Science PART1: Inquiring Minds in the Classroom. Retrieved from: 09/27/17 https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/1/3/5/0135031508.pdf
Miner, Levy, And Century (2009) Inquiry-Based Science Instruction—What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002 Retrieved: 09/17/17 DOI 10.1002/tea.20347
Orleans (2007) The Condition of Secondary School Physics Education in the Philippines: Recent Developments and Remaining Challenges for Substantive Improvements Retrieved from 09/26/17 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ766603.pdf
Sibel AçÕúOÕ a*, Sema Altun YalçÕn a, Ümit Turgut (2011): An Evaluation of Activities Designed in Accordance With The 5E Model By Would-Be Science Teachers. Volume 15, 2011, Pages 708-711. Retrieved 09/27/17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.169
Tanner (2010) Order Matters: Using the 5E Model to Align Teaching with How People Learn. Retrieved from:09/27/2017 10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082

x

Hi!
I'm Dora

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out
x

Hi!
I'm Barry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out