Enhancing Science Learning for Diverse Learners at Iligan City National School of Fisheries: An Action Research Study

This action research investigated the effectiveness of targeted instructional strategies in enhancing science learning among diverse learners at Iligan City National School of Fisheries, a technical-vocational secondary school. Sixty Grade 9 students with varied linguistic, cultural, and academic backgrounds participated. The study implemented differentiated instruction, active learning, culturally responsive teaching, and technology-enhanced lessons to create an inclusive learning environment. A mixed-methods design was employed, including pre- and post-tests (validated and reliable, Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.82), student surveys (α ≥ 0.85), classroom observations, and informal interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed for mean improvement and effect sizes, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results indicated statistically and educationally significant gains, with large effect sizes in scientific knowledge (d = 1.05), engagement (d = 0.85), and attitudes toward science (d = 0.80). Students demonstrated enhanced conceptual understanding, active participation, and more positive attitudes toward science learning. Key barriers included limited English proficiency, cultural-linguistic differences, and resource constraints, which were mitigated through culturally responsive teaching and scaffolded supports. Findings suggest that inclusive, learner-centered strategies can significantly improve science performance, engagement, and equity, offering practical insights for technical-vocational education.

science education, diverse learners, differentiated instruction

1. Adams, J., & Brown, S. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of active learning strategies in science education. Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 123–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aguilar, R., & Cruz, M. (2017). The impact of active learning activities on student motivation and self-efficacy in science education. Philippine Journal of Education, 146(3), 45–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. American Chemical Society. (2017). Guidelines for chemical laboratory safety in secondary schools. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/resources/highschool/chemlaboratory-safety-guidelines.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Anderson, J., & Green, M. (2015). The role of teacher facilitation in guided discovery learning. Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Aquino, M., & Reyes, L. (2021). Exploring student perceptions and experiences with active learning in science education: A qualitative study in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 98(2), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brown, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Enhancing critical thinking and problem-solving skills through active learning activities. Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 321–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brown, A., Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2016). Meta-analysis of active learning in science education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Santos, A., & Magbanua, M. (2015). Enhancing students’ laboratory performance through active learning approaches: A systematic review. Philippine Journal of Science, 145(2), 93–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Santos, A., Rodriguez, B., & Lopez, C. (2015). The impact of active learning activities on student academic achievement and laboratory proficiency in science subjects. Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 45–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Calcium Oxide Nanoparticles from Pigeon Eggshells for Cement Composites
• Needs Analysis: Development of an Interactive Digital Storybook in Teaching Mixtures and their Characteristics among Grade 6 Learners
• Thickness Dependent Structural, Optical, Electrical and Gas Sensing properties of ZnO thin film
• Forensic Chemistry Laboratory Works from Home: Challenges Encountered by Criminology Students During the Conduct of their Laboratory Activities at Home
• The Concept of Wellness Club and How it Differs from the Present Gym?