| 000 | 09356nam a2201225Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 000 | 07367ntm a2200217 i 4500 | ||
| 001 | 70710 | ||
| 003 | 0 | ||
| 005 | 20250921113155.0 | ||
| 008 | 180122n 000 0 eng d | ||
| 010 |
_z _z _o _a _b |
||
| 015 |
_22 _a |
||
| 016 |
_2 _2 _a _z |
||
| 020 |
_e _e _a _b _z _c _q _x |
||
| 022 |
_y _y _l _a2 |
||
| 024 |
_2 _2 _d _c _a _q |
||
| 028 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 029 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 032 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 035 |
_a _a _b _z _c _q |
||
| 037 |
_n _n _c _a _b |
||
| 040 |
_e _erda _a _d _b _c |
||
| 041 |
_e _e _a _b _g _h _r |
||
| 043 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 045 |
_b _b _a |
||
| 050 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c0 |
||
| 051 |
_c _c _a _b |
||
| 055 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 060 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 070 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 072 |
_2 _2 _d _a _x |
||
| 082 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c |
||
| 084 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 086 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 090 |
_a _a _m _b _q |
||
| 092 |
_f _f _a _b |
||
| 096 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 097 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 100 |
_e _e _aTumambing, Guillermo V. _d _b4 _u _c0 _q16 |
||
| 110 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c _k |
||
| 111 |
_a _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 130 |
_s _s _a _p _f _l _k |
||
| 210 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 222 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 240 |
_s _s _a _m _g _n _f _l _o _p _k |
||
| 245 | 0 |
_a _aAn assessment of the first year implementation of the Bridge Program in Caloocan High School, SY 2004-2005 : _d _bimplications for institutionalization on the school level / _n _cGuillermo V. Tumambing. _h6 _p |
|
| 246 |
_a _a _b _n _i _f6 _p |
||
| 249 |
_i _i _a |
||
| 250 |
_6 _6 _a _b |
||
| 260 |
_e _e _a _b _f _c _g |
||
| 264 |
_3 _3 _a _d _b _c46 |
||
| 300 |
_e _e _c28 cm. _ax, 73 pages _b |
||
| 310 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 321 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 336 |
_b _atext _2rdacontent |
||
| 337 |
_3 _30 _b _aunmediated _2rdamedia |
||
| 338 |
_3 _30 _b _avolume _2rdacarrier |
||
| 340 |
_2 _20 _g _n |
||
| 344 |
_2 _2 _a0 _b |
||
| 347 |
_2 _2 _a0 |
||
| 362 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 385 |
_m _m _a2 |
||
| 410 |
_t _t _b _a _v |
||
| 440 |
_p _p _a _x _v |
||
| 490 |
_a _a _x _v |
||
| 500 |
_a _aThesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2007.;A thesis presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in School Principalship. _d _b _c56 |
||
| 504 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 505 |
_a _a _b _t _g _r |
||
| 506 |
_a _a5 |
||
| 510 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 520 |
_b _b _c _aABSTRACT: The summary of the study such as methodology, results, conclusion and recommendation is presented herein Key Concept : Implementation of the Bridge Program This study is focused on the assessment of the first year implementation of the Bridge Program at Caloocan High School S.Y. 2004-2005 and its implication for institutionalization on the school level. Specifically, following questions were answered: 1. What was the academic performance iof the students in the Bridge program in English, Mathematics, and Science before and after they were mainstreamed? 2. How do the teacher and facilitator respondents perceived the implementation of the Bridge program in terms of: 2.1 Scheme 2.3 Reinforcement 2.2 Remediation 2.4 Evaluation 3. Was there a significant difference in the perception of the respondents in terms of the implementation of the Bridge program according to: 3.1 Scheme 3.3 Reinforcement 3.2 REMEDIATION 3.4 Evaluation 4. Was there a significant difference in the performance of the students in the Bridge program I n the three learning areas before and after they were mainstreamed? 5. What are the implications of the results of the assessment of the Bridge program for institutionalization on the school level in terms of its strength and weaknesses? Methodology : This study used the descriptive method of research. The description and interpretation of the implementation of the Bridge program are its major concerns. The participants included in the study were; 1. 9. Subject area teachers, 2. 9 Makabayan teachers as facilitators, 3. 3 heads of English, Mathematics, Science, and 39 students who underwear the Bridge program at Caloocan High School during the school year 2004-2005 The questionnaire was considered by the researcher to realize the objectives of this study (DepEd memorandum n. 271, s 2004). The draft of the instrument was tried to the heads of the three learning areas: English, Mathematics, and Science for its validity. Problem number three used t - test for independent variable to determine the significant difference in the performance of the students in the Bridge program in the three learning areas before and after they were mainstreamed. Summary of the Findings The following were the findings of the study conducted: 1. There was a decrease in the grades of the majority of the respondents after they have taken the Bridge program in the three subject areas. See Table 1. Page 35. 2. There is no significant difference in the academic performance of the students in the three learning program before and after the intervention. The percentage was used in determining the number of students who belong to the highest and lowest percentage of academic performance. 3. For the Teacher and Facilitator respondents' perceptions on the implementation of the Bridge program in terms of: Scheme, Remediation, Reinforcement and Evaluation, the following were revealed in the study: 3.1 The weighted mean of the Teacher - Respondent perception in terms of scheme ranges from 3.22 to 4.89 having an average weighted mean of 4.21 which is extremely implemented (EI). In terms of Remediation, the weighted mean ranges from 2.78 to 4.89 having an average mean of 3.49 which implies that it is oftenly implemented )OI). For Reinforcement, the weighted mean ranges from 3:00 to 5:00 with an average mean of 3.78 and its implies that is is also oftenly implemented (OI). With regard to Evaluation, the weighted mean ranges from 2.33 to 4.33 with the average weighted mean of 3.29 which is interpreted as implemented(I). The Teacher - Respondents claimed that they rated oftenly implemented (OI), because the first hour of the class was interaction with the learning area teachers who previewed the lesson and provided the direction for the teaching - learning process. 3.2 Facilitator - Respondent perception is consistently oftenly implementing (OI) the Bridge Program in terms of the given variables; the scheme, the weighted mean ranges from3:00 to 4.89 with an average weighted mean of 3.78; the remediation, the weighted mean ranges from 2.78 to 4.89 with an average weighted mean of 3.49; the reinforcement, the weighted mean ranges from 2.89 to 4.56 with an average weighted mean of 3.60; and Evaluation mean ranges from 3.22 to 4.22 with an average weighted mean of 4.02. Based on the data gathered, the Facilitator - Respondent oftenly implementing the Bridge program on the second phase or the second hour of the period during which learners worked individually of performed group activities to enhance learning how - to - skills. Conclusion: From the foregoing findings, the researcher drew the following : There was a significant difference in the performance of the student before and after they were mainstreamed which could mean there was no improvement on their grades when they were mainstreamed. The results of these assessments can be of help or useful, as revealed in the study that there were identified weaknesses on the delivery of the program as well as in the evaluation process. The Teacher and Facilitator respondents perceived the four valuables ; Scheme, Remediation, Reinforcement and Evaluation differently. It is explained differently. It is explained from the fact that the task give to area teacher is different from the facilitator who is non-major of that learning are. Recommendations: To institutionalize the Bridge program on the school level, the following should be considered: The scheme which is the delivery of the instruction should be reviewed or revised for a better teaching learning process. The teacher and the facilitator must attend rigid seminar-workshop to develop better their skills and strategies before handling a Bridge program. Synchronization of Teacher and Facilitator while implementing the learning skills, so that they will use. The mentor assigned to handle the Bridge program must be teacher of the learning are and the facilitator must be also teacher of the same learning are so that there will be a smooth delivery of the subject matter. _u |
||
| 521 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 533 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 540 |
_c _c _a5 |
||
| 542 |
_g _g _f |
||
| 546 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 583 |
_5 _5 _k _c _a _b |
||
| 590 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 600 |
_b _b _v _t _c2 _q _a _x0 _z _d _y |
||
| 610 |
_b _b _v _t2 _x _a _k0 _p _z _d6 _y |
||
| 611 |
_a _a _d _n2 _c0 _v |
||
| 630 |
_x _x _a _d _p20 _v |
||
| 648 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 650 |
_x _x _a _d _b _z _y20 _v |
||
| 651 |
_x _x _a _y20 _v _z |
||
| 655 |
_0 _0 _a _y2 _z |
||
| 700 |
_i _i _t _c _b _s1 _q _f _k40 _p _d _e _a _l _n6 |
||
| 710 |
_b _b _t _c _e _f _k40 _p _d5 _l _n6 _a |
||
| 711 |
_a _a _d _b _n _t _c |
||
| 730 |
_s _s _a _d _n _p _f _l _k |
||
| 740 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c6 |
||
| 753 |
_c _c _a |
||
| 767 |
_t _t _w |
||
| 770 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 773 |
_a _a _d _g _m _t _b _v _i _p |
||
| 775 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 776 |
_s _s _a _d _b _z _i _t _x _h _c _w |
||
| 780 |
_x _x _a _g _t _w |
||
| 785 |
_t _t _w _a _x |
||
| 787 |
_x _x _d _g _i _t _w |
||
| 800 |
_a _a _d _l _f _t0 _q _v |
||
| 810 |
_a _a _b _f _t _q _v |
||
| 830 |
_x _x _a _p _n _l0 _v |
||
| 942 |
_a _alcc _cBK |
||
| 999 |
_c35336 _d35336 |
||