Alipato 2

Effects of Manipulative Game-

Based Learning on Students’
Achievement in Chemistry
Edwin B. Conel

This study aimed to determine the effects of

Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL) on
students’ achievement in Periodic Trends in
Chemistry. The study involved 62 ninth graders from
two sections of the Science, Technology, and
Engineering (STE) track in a public high school in
Quezon City. One section was used as the control
group with a traditional teaching approach while the
experimental group was taught using games and
concrete manipulatives. The questionnaire was
developed, pilot tested and validated by experts.
The pretest and post-test scores were gathered,
tabulated, and analyzed. Using an independent
sample mean and paired t-test, results revealed that
there was a significant difference in the post-test
mean scores of the students who underwent
Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL).
The findings indicate that MGBL helped improve the
knowledge and conceptual understanding of the
learners. This is further supported by the
respondents’ feedback that they became active in
class, showed more interest in the lesson, and
created meaningful knowledge from the lessons.
Researchers may explore using the MGBL in other
topics of Science and discipline in different groups.
Succeeding studies may tap on more variables and
cover a large sample size to improve the study.

Keywords: manipulatives, manipulative game-based

learning, periodic trends, students’ achievement,
traditional teaching
45 Alipato

Introduction the periodic trends’ abstract ideas, technical terms,

and content that are difficult to grasp (Salame et al.,
Nowadays, students are preoccupied with social 2011).
media applications containing various contents for Educators are finding ways to make the topics
entertainment rather than providing knowledge for simpler by splicing each topic and giving the
learning. The time spent on social media students different analogies to aid their
applications of students increases while they understanding. One promising strategy to develop
become demotivated to focus on studying modules 21st-century skills is through game-based learning.
and learning materials leading to the imbalance of Educational games, considered as one of the most
task breakdown between online and academic useful pedagogical designs, are injected into
activity, sacrificing the latter (Rithika & Selvaraj, classroom learning over the years (Ferreira et al.,
2013). Aside from social media, unequal access to 2016). Game-based learning is defined as the games
educational gadgets, shortage of instructional and their elements containing the content, subject,
materials, and classroom inadequacy are some of and images often integrated into the process of
the basic education challenges in student learning. learning. The game elements are incorporated in
These circumstances pose a threat to students’ the learning process known as gamification (Ge &
learning in science education and related fields. Ifenthaler, 2018). Gamification is an innovation that
Teachers need to be creative in delivering is still being developed. It promotes student
lessons to capture learners’ engagement and assess engagement when applied in the classroom setting
the knowledge and understanding of the content. (Al-Azawi et al., 2016; Cozar-Gutierrez & Saez-
Innovative approaches in education are essential to Lopez, 2016). Game-based learning can be in a
support and assess the learning of the students, digital form that uses computer-mediated devices
especially since nowadays educational literacy is an or non-digital forms such as manipulative materials
indicator of a country’s success in economy, like board games, cards, and other tangible
technology, and development. Based on the result materials in the classroom.
of Trends in International Mathematics and Science There are studies that argue that manipulatives
Study (TIMSS) in 2019, the country obtained the have no clear edge over traditional teaching (Grupe
lowest position of 58 out of 58 in primary science et al., 1996; Uttal et al., 1997). Other studies
with no participation in high school science (Mullis indicate that students take time to acquire the
et al., 2020). This is consistent with the data of the concept and thorough application is needed for the
Programme for International Student Assessment manipulatives to be effective (Ball, 1992; Fuson &
(PISA) in 2018, where the Philippines ranked second Briars, 1990). While the use of concrete
lowest in science among the 79 countries (Paris, manipulatives has significantly helped students in
2019). achieving mastery in Mathematics, only relatively
Critical learning, being creative, and problem- few studies are conducted in science conceptual
solving are important 21st-century skills that understanding (Kabel et al., 2021; Pratt & Eddy,
students need to hone for better retention and 2017). As Hadji Abas and Marasigan (2020) point
learning. These skills are honed for the students to out, the lack of science equipment and the
adapt and cope with upward changes in knowledge of using them and shortage of learning
mathematics and science education. In Chemistry materials remain a challenge in conducting science
alone, most topics are considered by most students laboratory activities in school. Thus, in this study,
as difficult to learn. According to Cardellini (2012), the use of games and concrete manipulatives is
the students do not learn Chemistry because the considered a potential approach in science teaching.
subject is seen as complex, symbolic, and abstract. Since game-based manipulatives are tangible,
The most common students’ misconceptions about durable, and ready to use, they are preferred by
the subject are the arrangement of atomic radii in teachers. Additionally, the use of game-based
the periodic table and the group trends because of manipulatives allows the teacher to be flexible in
 Alipato 46

offering variety in instruction. Moreover, the would be simplified and help the students possess
insertion of games and manipulative materials conceptual understanding.
serves as a tool in learning science concepts
(Osman & Sukor, 2013). Manipulative Materials
This research used two sections from Grade 9
consisting of 31 students each. The research Physical manipulatives such as model-making
investigated if there was a difference between the and simulation of physical materials are beneficial
academic achievement scores in the pretest and educational tools as they aid in learning abstract
post-test of the controlled group and the ideas. Manipulatives are interpreted as tactile
experimental group, based on the usage and non- objects used for hands-on teaching and learning
usage of manipulative materials during instruction (Carbonneau et al., 2012). Larkin (2016) has
in a science lesson, specifically in periodic trends. introduced perceptual manipulatives which refer to
This study also aimed to discover the effect of the objects that are concrete and accessible for
manipulative game-based learning (MGBL) on experiential education such as sticks, blocks, chips,
students’ achievement in periodic trends in seeds, or even erasers. These perceptual
Chemistry and to determine whether this form of manipulatives are found to be the most engaging in
educational strategy would be an effective teaching and learning setup (Carbonneau et al.,
instructional method for Filipino learners. 2012).
The use of games and manipulative materials
Literature Review creates excitement and participation of students in
the activity. They develop engagement,
Periodic Trends and Student Learning concentration, and interest. Montessori (1967)
emphasizes that engagement is holistically involved
Chemistry is one of the hardest subjects in in concentration, interest, and enjoyment.
Science because it covers topics such as periodic Concentration acquires depth in cognitive
trends that involve numbers and problem-solving. processing; interest engages the students in certain
Periodic trends are the patterns of elemental data hobbies or subjects; while enjoyment is the positive
in the periodic table of elements (Osman & Sukor, or negative outcome of both. The study of Martin
2013). These topics are presented in graphs and et al. (2014) puts forward that manipulative
charts for easier understanding, but most students materials are advantageous to both students and
lack the ability to read and interpret the data thus teachers. The students are well-engaged in hands-
leading to memorization and confusion of the basic on learning while the teacher implements the
concepts (LeSuer, 2018). As such, periodic trends concepts with ease. In addition, the study of Moch
are relayed and simplified to transfer the (2002, as cited in Berkseth, 2013) reveals that
knowledge to the learners. One study by Hoffman longer exposures of students in manipulatives allow
and Hennessy (2018) implemented a kinesthetic them to remember general facts and personal facts
activity using students as elements in the periodic while improving theory retention.
table and they assert that the attention of students In teaching, there is no perfect formula for
increased, understanding of the lesson deepened, students to learn the lessons effectively. Teachers
and the knowledge on periodic trends is applied to always find a way to include new materials that are
the subject. Moreover, Selco et al. (2013) indicate fun for the students. According to McNeil and
that the use of a tennis ball as representation of a Jarvin (2007, as cited in Berkseth, 2013),
simple atomic model helps the students to manipulative materials assist the students in both
stimulate their visual thinking and clarifies the tactile learning and enhance cognitive thinking
connection of elements location and arrangement skills. Carbonneau et al. (2012) in their study, put
in the periodic table. Thus, periodic trends as a forward that manipulatives improved the
topic, was chosen for this study to see if the lessons achievement of students in problem-solving in
47 Alipato

mathematics. In this manner, the manipulatives together with the students. In using manipulatives,
can be a potential tool if used in problem-solving teachers must be aware of their purpose and
and computation in Science such as Chemistry and objective, mechanics on how to use, and integrate
Physics. the materials to the target subject. The mastery of
the teacher on the manipulatives allows them to
Despite the high praise of manipulatives, some
relay the knowledge to the learners while
studies discuss their unproductivity. One is the
preventing misconceptions in the lessons. Before
collective case study of Puchner et al. (2010) in
implementing the manipulatives, teachers must
which teachers tried to combine the manipulatives
know the developmental abilities of the students,
in the traditional method of teaching. After the
select age-appropriate manipulatives, and offer a
implementation, teachers claimed that lessons
collaborative learning environment to learners
were unsuccessful because of no change in
(Stiegelmeier & Moore, 2019).
students’ scores and the representation of
manipulatives did not translate to students’
learning. Also, Hurst and Linsell (2020) used Station-Rotation Strategy
bundling sticks as manipulatives in arithmetic
operations but found that it did not translate to The learning station rotation strategy used in
mathematical learning. One reason for the the conduct of this research is considered one of
ineffective application of manipulatives indicates the most important strategies that highly
that teachers relayed the manipulatives in a influenced active learning. In this research, the
procedural approach rather than allowing the class was divided into smaller groups and each
students to first explore on their own. Moreover, group worked on three stations where games were
implementers presumed that manipulatives manipulated. Jonse (1997, as cited in Aqel &
created mental representation for students, but Haboush, 2010) describes this teaching method as
they still had difficulty in conveying the knowledge “move and rotate” where every station is provided
and connecting the concept because of their with educational materials and tools for an
dependency on the manipulatives (Hurst & Linsell, educational activity. Students are expected to
2020). move from one station to the next, look at images
printed on paper, or read certain situations in the
Manipulatives, in the form of a game, are a succeeding station. In station rotation, the entire
good element to be included in the science class is divided into small groups and is involved in
classroom (Stiegelmeier & Moore, 2019). There are the activities by completing the tasks alternately.
selected topics in Science especially in Chemistry
which involve models and computations wherein Since the game-based manipulatives need
manipulative materials and visuals are essential so more players and involvement of the group, station
that the representation and the transfer of rotation is used to allow the students to join and
knowledge are easily understood by the students. have the chance to manipulate all the materials.
Manipulative materials such as concrete models Learning experiences in station-rotation are
can be derived based on the science concepts and enhanced in the aspect of seeking help, performing
symbolism that are hard for learners to different learning activities, and having fun while
understand. However, manipulative materials are learning (Truitt and Ku, 2018). It also allows the
only selective and specific to some topics based on students to establish rapport with their teacher
their appropriateness and use. In choosing the and peers while their experiences increase when
manipulative materials, the basic and simpler ones involved in different social activities (Govindaraj &
are better (Laski et al., 2015). Silverajah, 2017). Moreover, station rotation
generates a positive increase in learning as
Delaney (2010, as cited in Hurst & Linsell, different materials are provided for manipulation
2020) argues that manipulatives are effective tools (Gil and Garcia, 2011). Additionally, in the study of
in teaching when the teacher demonstrates them Ceylan and Kesici (2017) among high school
 Alipato 48

students, the use of station-rotation has a strong taken with caution. According to Kim (1995, as
influence on the academic achievement of students cited in Afari et al., 2012), games are somewhat
in the comparison group. Similarly, Alsalhi et al. perceived as for fun alone and learning is not
(2019) find out that it strongly influenced the strengthened. Although, it is argued that games
science test scores of high school students. could tap both fun and learning when incorporated
into the subject simultaneously.
Station rotation learning has benefits to both
teachers and learners. It provides a wide array of According to Bragg (2007, as cited in Afari
materials to aid teachers during class discussion, et al., 2012), most studies agree that games allow
thus, teachers can tap differentiated instruction students to be more engaged and involved in
among learners. Moreover, it offers flexibility so activities. Through games, students enjoy
students can learn at their own pace (Mahalli et al., competition and challenges with each other while
2019). Staker and Horn (2012, as cited in Truitt & having fun. Studies have demonstrated that
Ku, 2018) reiterate that station rotation enhances learning motivation and efficiency can be enhanced
cooperative learning in a small group of learners. through educational games (Knight et al., 2010; Liu
& Chen, 2013). Educational models such as game-
However, learning stations have their
based learning can enhance students’ confidence
limitations. One, they require ample time for
and participation towards the subject matter and
planning. Second, they are costly. Third, they
learning achievement. Burguillo (2010) claims that
require close supervision of the class as they may
game playing and group competition help increase
cause unexpected chaos during implementation.
the learning effectiveness of pupils. They also result
in high motivation of pupils to learn the subject
Game-Based Learning and Student Achievement given to them. Ramani and Siegler (2011) compare
the effectiveness of board games containing
The game becomes educational when it serves numbers played by students from the low-income
its purpose in enhancing knowledge in subject and middle-class brackets. Results show that both
areas or is used in training for cognitive thinking. groups achieved better performance in counting
Some of the core subjects that can benefit from the numbers and arithmetic. Furthermore, Bayir (2014)
use of the manipulative game-based learning asserts that high school students and teachers who
(MGBL) approach are science and mathematics played board and card games gained knowledge in
subjects. In teaching science courses, utilizing elements, compounds, and the periodic table of
educational models or assessment strategies that elements.
promote inquiry, collaborative, and cooperative
learning is believed to be useful and operative. Locally, the study of Makalintal and Malaluan
(2019) focuses on game-based learning activities
Game-based learning and leisure have different for science educators. Based on their findings,
goals in achieving their purpose. Game-based science educators highly agreed that game-based
learning has an end purpose which enables the learning activities are best implemented in the
learners to assess how they learned from the game application process after the lesson is discussed
while leisure focuses on engagement and fun but is and learned by students. Another study on
less concerned with the transfer of knowledge. gamified learning using the digital form as a
Games are widely used as a learning tool of teaching strategy reveals that the group of students
education and have been proven effective in the belonging to the gamified class was found to be
process (Annetta et al., 2010; Paraskeva et al., more motivated and driven in learning the subject
2010). Games have the advantage of attracting (Malahito and Quimbo, 2020). Gamified learning
students to participate in class discussion, aiding also garnered positive feedback in instructional
teachers in delivering the lesson with ease and materials and tasking. Moreover, Pornel (2011)
creativity, and offering a new episode of class developed an educational board game for
interaction occasionally. However, games must be Mathematics and Statistics classes for young adults
49 Alipato

at the University of the Philippines-Visayas Campus. Conceptual Framework

Based on the findings, 85% of the students who
played the game once have enjoyed the game; 52% This research investigated the use of a
enjoyed playing more than once, and 14% were manipulative game-based learning approach as an
bored or uninterested. He also states that wordy alternative approach in teaching periodic trends in
instructions and limited variations of the game Chemistry. Figure 1 shows the conceptual
decreased the interest of students in playing the framework of the study.
game.
Figure 1
Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Based on the literature, manipulative and game
learning provide both promising and unfavorable
results. The manipulatives and games are widely
implemented in Mathematics to aid in counting,
solving problems, and other number-related themes
(Hurst & Linsell, 2020). Previous studies show that
the use of manipulatives and games in Math In this study, the manipulative game-based
improves test scores of learners and their mastery learning approach was tested as an alternative
of concepts, and is effective in motivation (Hurst & instruction in Science, specifically the periodic
Linsell, 2020; Laski et al., 2015). As the dynamics of trends topic in Chemistry. It was assumed that
the curriculum in the Philippines change, core manipulative game-based learning would have a
subjects like Mathematics and Science are positive influence on the academic scores of
integrated based on their similarities on themes like students. The framework shows variables that were
problem-solving and computation. In the local examined in this study. The independent variable
setting, only a few studies on the use and was the method known as the manipulative game-
effectiveness of manipulatives and games in based learning approach (MGBL). The manipulative
science-related topics and themes can be found. game-based learning consists of three
sub-instructional parts: presentation of the concept,
In this study, manipulatives and games are
rotation-station activity, and discussion.
fused to create manipulative game-based learning
Presentation of concepts involves the content and
as a tool applied in Science to help the students
knowledge of the topic in the class. Rotation-station
improve and gain knowledge in periodic trends in
activity utilizes the use of games and concrete
Chemistry. Periodic trends, as a topic of interest, are
manipulatives. Discussion highlights the student-led
chosen because most students cannot identify
activity and sharing of knowledge regarding the
patterns and arrangement of elements based on its
topic. On the other hand, traditional teaching
data. They are struggling with the relationship on
consists of lectures and note-taking. The lecture
the increase or decrease of the atomic size of
involves the teacher and students interacting in the
elements, they often lack the literacy to understand
classroom with a focus on the content of the
figures and bar charts in the textbook, and a
textbooks. Students receive the information as
majority of them have a shallow understanding of
discussed and obtained from the source while doing
the concepts of periodic trends (LeSuer, 2018;
notetaking. The dependent variable of this study
Osman & Sukor, 2013). Moreover, manipulative
was the scores of students in periodic trends in
game-based learning is implemented in high school
Chemistry.
to prepare the students for the fundamentals of
learning in Chemistry before they begin the tertiary
level.
 Alipato 50

Statement of the Problem The research design is represented as follows:

MGBL A1 X1 A1’
Generally, this study aimed to examine the
effect of manipulative game-based learning on TL A1 X2 A1’
students’ achievement in periodic trends in
Where: A1 = Pretest
Chemistry. Specifically, it sought to answer the
A1’ = Post-test
following questions:
X1 = Manipulative Game-Based Learning
1. Do students exposed to the Manipulative (MGBL)
Game-Based Learning approach (MGBL) have X2 = Traditional Learning (TL)
higher achievement scores in Chemistry
compared to those who were exposed to the Research Sample
Traditional Learning approach (TL)?
2. Are games and manipulative materials useful The respondents of this study consisted of sixty-
tools in supporting students’ learning of the two (62) Grade 9 students enrolled in a public high
periodic trends in Chemistry? school in Quezon City, Philippines. Two sections
were used as samples. All came from the Science,
Technology, and Engineering (STE) track. They were
Hypotheses of the study
chosen as the subjects of this study because
selected topics in Chemistry were included in their
1. The achievement scores of the group exposed curriculum. The test was developed by the
to the Manipulative Game-Based Learning researcher and validated by experts. Before the
approach (MGBL) are significantly higher than intervention, the test was administered to the two
the group exposed to the Traditional Learning sections, and analyses using two-tailed independent
approach (TL). samples t-test revealed that there was no significant
2. Games and manipulative materials are useful difference between their means scores, signifying
tools in supporting students’ learning of the that these groups had comparable knowledge in
periodic trends in Chemistry. periodic trends before the implementation of the
intervention. Through a toss coin, one group was
Method chosen as the control group while the other was
assigned to be the experimental group.
Research Design
Instruments
This research employed a quasi-experimental
method. This method involves the recording, For the quantitative data, a 15-item multiple-
analysis, and interpretation of the present nature, choice test (see Appendix A) which served as the
composition, or processes of data gathered. pretest and post-test assessment was used.
It determines the effect of the intervention before It tested students’ knowledge of periodic trends in
and after the conduct of the study (Loewen & Chemistry, specifically atomic radius, ionization
Plonsky, 2016). This study also used descriptive energy, and electronegativity. The said test was
statistics to obtain the mean scores or weighted developed by the researcher, validated by experts in
mean to analyze the students’ academic the field of Chemistry, and pilot tested to grade 10
performance. students. The experts verified whether the items
matched the knowledge and performance
There were two intact classes involved in this standards suited for the grade level and the
study; one group was exposed to Traditional curriculum. The test was piloted to the 10th graders
Learning (TL), the other group was exposed to of the same school since they had prior knowledge
Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL). of the topic. The test results from pilot testing were
51 Alipato

run using the Cronbach alpha formula and the items terms as encountered. If the terms were new to the
were trimmed down to 15 containing five for each class, students were guided by the teacher by giving
topic in atomic radius, ionization energy, and them context clues.
electronegativity. The test was used by the
After the concepts were introduced, rotation-
researcher to determine the effect of the
station activities were performed in small groups.
manipulative game-based learning approach on the
The rotation stations consisted of a variety of games
learning of students of the periodic trends in
and allowed the students to move from one station
Chemistry. The reliability of the instrument
to another which were stationed in or outside the
obtained a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.605.
classroom. First, the room was divided into different
The Cronbach alpha value that ranges from 0.60 to
learning stations. Next, the teacher gave the overall
0.80 is moderate and acceptable (Daud et al., 2018).
instruction per learning station. Third, each group of
This is similar to the study of Saadati et al. (2010)
students was assigned to a specific learning station.
which interprets the reliability coefficient ranging
Fourth, the students accomplished the task in their
from <.50 as low reliability, .50 - .70 as moderate
first station. Fifth, at the signal of the teacher, the
reliability, and .70 as high reliability. The alpha
groups transferred to the next station. The activity
coefficient values indicate that the instrument is
was done once all the groups visited all stations.
acceptable. Obtaining a higher score on the test
Each learning station could be done individually, by
denotes an increase in the students’ knowledge of
pair, or by group with the facilitation of the teacher
the periodic trends in Chemistry. Item scores were
if questions or clarifications arose.
added up to compute the total score for each
student. Some of the games with manipulative materials
are snakes and ladders, pin and chips, and modified
Two instruments were used to gather
BINGO cards for integrative topics of atomic size,
qualitative data. A five-item survey was given to the
ionization energy, and electronegativity. The snakes
MGBL students to evaluate the use of games and
and ladders covered the topics of atomic size, pin
manipulative materials. To gain a better
and chips was for the ionization energy and
understanding of the students’ experience in
electronegativity topics, and the modified BINGO
learning periodic trends using MGBL, a written
game was used for the atomic size, ionization
interview was conducted. They were asked three
energy, and electronegativity topics. An overall
open-ended questions (see Appendix B) which were
review game for the class was also conducted which
given on the same day of their post-test.
served as a review summary of all the lessons
covered.
Manipulative Game-Based Learning
In the snakes and ladders game, each group was
This research involved the intervention known divided into two. Each member rolled the dice and
as Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL) the group with the highest total number started the
which consisted of three sub-instructional parts: game. Each group took turns navigating the game.
presentation of the concept, rotation-station The first group to answer the question correctly
activity, and discussion. started the game using a token. Questions were
categorized into three: easy for snakes, medium for
The study lasted for twelve sessions which regular moves, and hard for a ladder. The set of
included the administration of the pretest, the questions was organized and placed in an envelope.
lessons on periodic trends, and the administration A member who landed exactly at the bottom of the
of post-test, written interview, and short survey ladder climbed up if they answered the question
questionnaires. Each lesson lasted for fifty minutes correctly. The next person who landed on the same
including the review of previous lessons, the spot had the chance to answer the previous
introduction of the topic, activity proper, and question that was not answered. If the member
practice exercise. The concepts under the topics landed on the top of a snake, the member
were introduced through recalling and linking the proceeded if they answered the question correctly;
 Alipato 52

an incorrect answer meant sliding down. The next corresponding symbol, the corresponding
person who landed on the same spot had the electronegativity of each element, and questions
chance to answer the previous question. If the related to the lessons. If the student matched the
person was on a spot without a ladder or snake, the corresponding terms or questions, they covered the
person answered a regular question to proceed with card using chips or an erasable marker. If the
the game. The winner was declared once a player student covered it diagonally, across a row or a
reached the exact end number. column, they shouted BINGO. The facilitator double-
checked and verified the winner of the game.
In the pin and chips game, a set of chips with
written elements was given to each group. The chips During the discussion stage, each group was
were shuffled and the players were asked to given five to ten minutes to discuss the activity and
arrange them correctly. The periodic table of how they incorporated the games into the lesson.
elements served as the map to find the clue for the This stage served as a sharing part to determine the
next mission. This game was timed, so failing to feedback of students and room for improvement
figure out the answer meant that the game was regarding the lesson.
over.
Table 1 shows the comparison between the
In the modified BINGO game, each member of Traditional Learning Approach and the Manipulative
the group had a bingo card. The facilitator called out Game-Based Learning Approach.
the terms, name of the element, and its

Table 1

Comparison between Traditional Learning Approach and Manipulative Game-Based Learning Approach

Sessions Traditional Learning (TL) group Manipulative Game-Based Learning

(MGBL) group

Session 1 Pilot testing with the 10th graders and Pilot testing with the 10th graders and
building rapport with ninth-grade building rapport with ninth-grade classes
classes

Sessions 2-3 Pretest administration, groupings, Pretest administration, groupings,

introduction of the topic outline and introduction of topic outline and lesson
lesson

Sessions 4-5 Motivation activity, introduction of the Motivation activity, introduction of the
concept in atomic size, note-taking, concept in atomic size, use of snakes and
lecture, and discussion ladders

Sessions 6-8 Review of the previous lesson, Review of the previous lesson, introduction
introduction of the concept in of the concept in ionization energy, use of
ionization energy, note-taking, lecture, pin and chips
and discussion

Sessions 9-11 Review of the lesson, introduction of Review of the lesson, introduction of the
the concept in electronegativity, concept in electronegativity, use of modified
note-taking, lecture, and discussion BINGO

Session 12 Post-test administration Post-test administration and answering the

short survey and written interview
53 Alipato

Data Analysis This implies that the two groups were comparable
prior to the intervention.
The data collected were treated and analyzed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Science Table 3
(SPSS) software. All the hypotheses of this study Independent Sample t-test of Post-Test Mean Scores
were set at a 0.05 level of significance. The 0.05 is of TL and MGBL Groups in Periodic Trends
the threshold and reasonable value, set on the level
of significance to determine whether the hypothesis p (one-
Measure Group Mean SD N t tailed)
of the study is accepted or rejected (Wasserstein &
Lazar, 2016). Inferential statistics such as t-test of TL 52.7097 15.0890
independence and paired sample t-test were used Post-test 62 4.274 .000***
MGBL 67.5806 12.1512
in this study. A two-tailed independent sample
t-test was used for analyzing the pretest scores of
***p < .001
the control and experimental group. A one-tailed
independent sample t-test was used for analyzing As presented in Table 3, the results of the
the post-test scores of the control and experimental samples t-test showed a significant difference
group to determine the changes between the mean between the post-test mean scores of the TL and
scores of the two independent groups (Wasserstein MGBL group, in favor of the latter. Students who
& Lazar, 2016). Paired sample t-test was used for underwent manipulative game-based learning had
analyzing the pretest and post-test mean scores higher post-test scores (M = 67.580, SD = 12.1512)
within the group. Lastly, qualitative data analysis of than the students in the TL group in general,
the students’ responses to the short survey and the t(62) = 4.274, p = .000. The result indicates that the
written interview was done to further shed light on intervention group showed an increase in scores
the quantitative data. after the test was administered during the conduct
of the study. This implies that after the intervention,
Discussion of Data and Results the MGBL group showed an increase in scores over
the course period of the study.
Effect of Manipulative Game-Based Learning on This result suggests that the intervention aided
Students’ Achievement in Periodic Trends in the students to perform well in periodic trends.
Chemistry One of the explanations given by the students for
their improved understanding was their ability to
Table 2 contextualize the concepts of the lessons through
manipulative game-based learning. Additionally, the
Independent Sample t-test of Pretest Mean Scores of
students reported that lessons become relatable if
TL and MGBL Groups in Periodic Trends in Chemistry
they were able to experience it firsthand as the
p (one- teacher demonstrated it. Moreover, students
Measure Group Mean SD N t tailed) became creative in taking part in the learning and
TL 31.4194 8.6670 the game, while enhancing competition between
Pretest 62 -.682 .498 and among them as they looked for ways on how to
MGBL 29.2581 15.3752 win the game. This result is supported by the
findings of Salame et al. (2011) that indicate that
Table 2 presents the samples t-test of pretest when the learners form their realization, they
mean scores of TL and MGBL group. Results showed understand the concepts more. Sabourin and Lester
no significant difference between the pretest mean (2014) also claim that in an environment where
scores of the TL and MGBL group, t(62) = -.682, game-based learning is present, students’ learning
p = .498. As shown in the table, the MGBL group is engaged and enhanced. Likewise, Admiraal et al.
had a lower pretest mean score (M = 29.2581), (2011) assert that the students learned more if they
close to the pretest mean score of TL (M = 31.4194). were engaged in group games and activities.
 Alipato 54

Comparability of Within-Group Scores of Students’ Knowledge of Periodic Trends in Chemistry

Table 4
Paired Sample t-test of Traditional Learning (TL) Group and Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL)
Group in Pretest and Post-Test Mean Scores in Periodic Trends in Chemistry

Mean p (one-
Group Measure Mean SD N t
Difference tailed)
Pretest 31.4194 8.6671
TL 21.2903 31 -6.237 .000***
Post-test 52.7097 15.0890
Pretest 29.2581 15.3752
MGBL 38.3225 31 -13.323 .000***
Post-test 67.5806 12.1512

***p < .001

Table 4 displays the pretest and post-test mean t = -13.323, p = .000. This result suggests that the
scores in periodic trends in Chemistry of the knowledge of students in periodic trends exposed
participants before and after the intervention to the Manipulative Game-Based Learning group
period. As shown in the table, TL has a higher post- improved.
test mean score (M = 52.7097) than its pretest
Comparing the two groups in terms of mean
mean score (M = 31.4194). The result also indicates
difference, it is noticeable that the MGBL group’s
that the mean difference between the two paired
mean difference (M = 38.3225) was almost two
samples of TL is (M = 21.2903). These figures show
times higher than that of the TL group
that the TL group had an increase in score in their
(M = 21.2903). In addition to that, by looking at the
post-test after the intervention period.
mean scores of TL and MGBL in their post-test
The statistical analysis showed that there is a highly
scores, findings suggest that both groups had a
significant difference between these mean scores
positive change in their knowledge of periodic
t = -6.237, p = .000. This result suggests that the
trends in Chemistry. The significant changes show
knowledge of students in periodic trends who were
that students from the Traditional Learning group
exposed to Traditional Learning significantly
and Manipulative Game-Based Learning group both
improved.
attained higher post-test mean scores.
Comparably, the Manipulative Game-Based
Similarly, considering the p-value, the results of
Learning group showed almost the same trend in
both groups were significant and there was strong
terms of scores with the Traditional Learning group.
evidence that those who had undergone the
It can be observed that the MGBL group had a
intervention had higher post-test scores. This means
higher post-test mean score (M = 67.5806) than the
that the difference in mean scores is significant
pretest mean score (M = 29.2581). The result also
enough to prove that there was a change after the
indicates that the mean difference between the two
intervention.
paired samples of MGBL is (M = 38.3225).
As presented in the table, the MGBL group showed Relating to the abovementioned result, Lin et al.
an increase in score in their post-test which was (2012) agree that manipulative game-based
administered after the intervention period. materials support the process of learning inside the
The statistical analysis shows that there is a highly classroom. Manipulative materials also enhance
significant difference between these mean scores cooperative learning and friendly competition
55 Alipato

among peers. To reinforce the learning and Games and Manipulative Materials as Useful Tool
engagement of students in a subject matter, in Learning
teachers must integrate interactive materials. Hurst
and Linselll (2020) indicate that manipulatives are Based on the responses to the written
sufficient in developing conceptual understanding interview, among the three topics covered on
regardless of the subject. Enki (2014) reiterates that periodic trends in Chemistry, MGBL students found
student enjoyment is different when they are ionization energy as a topic in periodic trends that
engaged in games and hands-on experiences. When was confusing and difficult to understand. Hence,
the students enjoy the classroom activity, it directly aid was needed for them to learn the topics.
affects their overall academic success positively Additionally, students were asked which way they
with the proper facilitation and assistance of the learned and understood the topics well.
teacher. In general, most of the research has shown They responded that the game-based approach and
evidence that proper usage of manipulative manipulative materials stimulated and encouraged
materials brings a positive effect on students’ them to learn. They said that playing manipulative
academic performance. materials such as cards and board games made the
lesson fun and enjoyable to learn.

Table 5
Responses of Students on the Evaluation regarding the Use of Games and Manipulative Materials

Statement Strongly Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly

Agree (SA) Disagree (SD)

F % F % F % F %

1. The activity/game was fun. 13 52.0 12 48.0 0 0.00 0 0.00

2. The instructions were direct and

clear. 13 52.0 12 48.0 0 0.00 0 0.00

3. The content was well-supported

by manipulative materials. 15 60.0 10 40.0 0 0.00 0 0.00

4. The materials provided were

helpful in comprehending the 17 68.0 8 32.0 0 0.00 0 0.00
topic.

5. The lesson became easily

understandable with the use of 15 60.0 10 40.0 0 0.00 0 0.00
manipulative materials.

(N = 25)
Table 5 shows the frequency of responses of The reflected sample size was based on the
students to the survey questions relating to games student’s discretion to participate in the survey.
and manipulative materials. Twenty-five students Based on the result, the highest frequency is item 4
from the experimental group answered the survey with 68%, followed by items 3 and 5 with 60%, and
questionnaire. The survey was only given to the lastly, items 1 and 2 got the lowest frequency of
experimental group to assess the intervention. 52%. This implies that most of the students strongly
 Alipato 56

agreed that manipulative materials aided in learning showed more interest in the lesson, and
the lesson on periodic trends. Also, lesson content created meaningful knowledge in the lesson.
became stimulating and easily remembered when it This proves that the use of manipulative
was incorporated with games and manipulative materials had a positive effect on students’
materials. This is consistent with the study of Enki academic achievement.
(2014) and Berkseth (2013) which maintain that
students who were assisted with manipulatives Recommendations
were motivated to learn on their own and their
attitude towards the subject was enhanced. Based on the results and conclusion of the
study, the following recommendations are put
Implications forward:
1. Larger sample size may be used to improve
The use of manipulative game-based learning
the research for more valid and reliable data
has implications for both learners and teachers. As it
and the test could also be improved by
focuses on experiential learning, the manipulative
adding more items.
game-based strategy/teaching is helpful in providing
active processes and enhancing learning in Science. 2. Manipulative Game-Based Learning (MGBL)
For learners, manipulative game-based instruction can be used in selected topics in other
provides a learning space for students to explore subject areas in elementary or high school.
hands-on activities, construct ideas on the topics,
strengthen competition among peers, and have fun 3. Future researchers may carry out a study of
while learning. For teachers and educators, it allows game-based manipulatives in elementary
them to adjust the pace of learning, it gives them school Science.
the will to present visuals in the topic discussion, 4. Future researchers may tap on the
and provides supplemental materials for lesson comparative study between physical
enhancement. manipulatives and virtual manipulatives in
science teaching.
Conclusion
5. Future researchers may conduct a study on
the combination of physical manipulatives
Based on the results of the study, it could be
and virtual manipulatives using blended
concluded that:
learning instruction.
1. There is a significant difference in the pretest
and post-test mean scores in the Periodic References
Trends achievement test of students after
being exposed to the Manipulative Game- Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2011).
Based Learning (MGBL). As a result of The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning.
periodic trends instruction using Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185-1194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.013
manipulative materials, the experimental
group improved their scores and showed Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2012). Effectiveness of
more interest and enjoyment while learning. using games in tertiary-level mathematics classrooms.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics
They also had a higher mean difference than
Education, 10, 1369-1392.
the Traditional Learning group. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9340-5
2. The implementation of Manipulative Game- Al-Azawi, R., Al-Faliti, F., & Al-Blushi, M. (2016). Educational
Based Learning (MGBL) is a useful tool in gamification vs. game-based learning: Comparative study.
aiding students’ learning of Periodic Trends International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, 7(4), 132-136.
in Chemistry. The report of students showed
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.659
that they were visibly more active in class,
57 Alipato

Alsalhi, N. R., Eltahir, M. E., & Al-Qatawneh, S. S. (2019). Daud, K. A. M., Khidzir, N. Z., Ismail, A. R., & Abdullah, F. A.
The effect of blended learning on the achievement of (2018). Validity and reliability of instrument to measure
ninth-grade students in science and their attitudes social media skills among small and medium
towards its use. Heliyon, 5(9), 02424. entrepreneurs at Pengkalan Datu River. International
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02424 Journal of Development and sustainability, 7(3), 1026-
1037. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v7n3-15.pdf
Annetta, L. A., Cheng, M.-T., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing
twenty-first century skills through a teacher-created Enki, K. (2014). Effects of using manipulatives on seventh
video game for high school biology students. Research in grade students’ achievement in transformation geometry
Science and Technological Education, 28, 101-114. and orthogonal views of geometric figures. Thesis.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635141003748358 Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Middle
East Technical University.
Aqel, M., & Haboush, S. (2010). The impact of learning stations http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12617286/index.pdf
strategy on developing technology concepts among sixth
grade female students. International Journal of Academic Ferreira, S. M., Gouin-Vallerand, C., & Hotte, R. (2016,
Research in Progressive Education and Development, September). Game based learning: a case study on
6(1), 65-66. https://iugspace.iugaza.edu.ps/ designing an educational game for children in developing
handle/20.500.12358/26662 countries. In 2016 8th International Conference on
Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications
Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform (VS-GAMES) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
of math education. American Educator, 16, 14-I8. https://doi.org/10.1109/vs-games.2016.7590350

Bayir, E. (2014). Developing and playing chemistry games to Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks
learn about elements, compounds, and the periodic learning/teaching approach for first and second grade
table: Elemental periodica, compoundica, and groupica. place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction.
Journal of Chemical Education, 91(4), 531-535. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180-
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4002249 206. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.21.3.0180

Berkseth, H. A. (2013). "The effectiveness of manipulatives in Ge, X., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Designing engaging educational
the elementary school classroom". Honors College games and assessing engagement in game-based
Theses. 10. learning. In Gamification in Education: Breakthroughs in
https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/10 Research and Practice, pp. 1-19. IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5198-0.ch0 01
Burguillo, C. J. (2010). Using game theory and competition-
based learning to stimulate student motivation and Gil, P. O., & García, F. A. (2011). Blended learning revisited:
performance. Computers & Education, 55(2), 566-575. How it brought engagement and interaction into and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018 beyond the classroom. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended
learning across disciplines: Models for implementation
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). (pp. 58-72). Information Science.
A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics htpps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-479-0.ch004
with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(2), 380-400. Govindaraj, A., & Silverajah, V. S. G. (2017). Blending flipped
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084 classroom and station rotation models in enhancing
students’ learning of physics. Proceedings of the 2017 9th
Cardellini, L. (2012) Chemistry: Why the subject is difficult? International Conference on Education Technology and
Educacion Quimica, 23(2), 305-310. Computers, 73-78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(17)30158-1 https://doi.org/10.1145/3175536.3175543
Ceylan, V. K., & Kesici, A. E. (2017). Effect of blended learning Grupe, L. A., Huffian, L. F. & Bray, N. W. (1996, March 14).
to academic achievement. J. Hum. Sci., 14(1), 308-320. Addition strategies in kindergarten children [Paper
https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/ presentation]. Conference on Human Development,
article/view/4141 Birmingham, AL.
Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2016). Game-based Hadji Abas, H., & Marasigan, A. (2020). Readiness of science
learning and gamification in initial teacher training in the laboratory facilities of the public junior high school in
social sciences: An experiment with MinecraftEdu. Lanao Del Sur, Philippines. IOER International
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(2), 12-20.
Education, 13(1), 2. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3606078
https://doi.org/10. 1186/s41239-016-0003-4
 Alipato 58

Hoffman, A., & Hennessy, M. (2018). The people periodic Malahito, J. A. I., & Quimbo, M. A. T. (2020). Creating g-class: A
table: A framework for engaging introductory chemistry gamified learning environment for freshman students.
students. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(2), 281-285. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(2), 94-110.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2042753019899805

Hurst, C., & Linsell, C. (2020). Manipulatives and multiplicative Martin, S. F., Shaw, E. L., & Daughenbaugh, L. (2014). Using
thinking. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 04. smart boards and manipulatives in the elementary
https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5808 science classroom. Tech Trends, 58(3), 90-96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0756-3
Kabel, M., Hwang, J., & Hwang, J. (2021). Lessons learned from
a rural classroom study: Transitioning from concrete to Montessori, M. (1967). The discovery of the child. Ballantine
virtual manipulatives to teach math fact fluency to Books.
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Curriculum
Studies Research, 3(1), 42-68. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B.
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.7 (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics
and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International
Knight, J. F., Carley, S., Tregunna, B., Jarvis, S., Smithies, R., Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/
de Freitas, S., & Mackway-Jones, K. (2010). Serious international-results/
gaming technology in major incident triage training:
A pragmatic controlled trial. Resuscitation, 81(9), 1175-9. Osman, K., & Sukor, N. S. (2013). Conceptual understanding in
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.042. secondary school chemistry: A discussion of the
difficulties experienced by students. Am. J. Appl. Sci.,
Larkin, K. (2016). Mathematics education and manipulatives. 10(5), 433-441.
Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 12-17.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096471.pdf Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010).
Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing
Laski, E., Jor’dan, J. R., Daoust, C., & Murray, A. K. (2015). new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54,
What makes mathematics manipulatives effective? 498-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.001
Lessons from cognitive science and Montessori
education. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589588 Paris, J. (2019, December 4). Philippines ranks among lowest in
reading, math and science in 2018 PISA study. Rappler.
LeSuer, R. J. (2018). Incorporating tactile learning into periodic https://www.rappler.com/nation/246422-philippines-
trend analysis using three-dimensional printing. Journal ranking-reading-math-science-pisa-study-2018
of Chemical Education. acs.jchemed.8b00592–
.doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00592 Pornel, J. B. (2011). Factors that make educational games
engaging to students. Philippine Journal of Social Sciences
Lin, C.-P., Wong, L.-H., & Shao, Y.-J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and Humanities, 16(2), 1-9. https://www.researchgate.
and 1: MCSCL environment for collaborative concept net/publication/301632011_Factors_that_Make_
mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 99- Educational_Games_Engaging_to_Students
113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x
Pratt, S. S., & Eddy, C. M. (2017). Selecting tools to model
Liu, E. Z. F., & Chen, P. K. (2013). Effect of game-based integer and binomial multiplication. Journal of
Learning on students’ learning performance in science Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 8(2), 31-40.
learning—A case of “convergence go”. Procedia-Social https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v8i2.595
and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1044-1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.430 Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O’Donnell, B., & Fick, K. (2010). Teacher
learning and mathematics manipulatives: A collective
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An a–z of applied linguistics case study about teacher use of manipulatives in
research methods. Red Globe Press. elementary and middle school mathematics lessons.
School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 313-325.
Mahalli, Nurkamto, J., Mujiyanto, J., & Yuliasri, I. (2019). The https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17844.x
implementation of station rotation and flipped classroom
models of blended learning in EFL learning. Canadian Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2011). Reducing the gap in
Center of Science and Education, 12(12), 23-29. numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n12p23 preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32, 146-159.
Makalintal, J. D., & Malaluan, N. E. (2019). Game-based https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.005
learning activities in teaching grade 7 science.
International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah, 7(5).
https:/doi.org/10.29121granthaalayah.v7.i5.2019.845
59 Alipato

Rithika, M., & Selvaraj, S. (2013). Impact of social media on

student’s academic performance. International Journal of
Logistics and Supply Chain Management Perspectives,
2(4), 636-640. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/288516435_IMPACT_OF_SOCIAL_MEDIA_ON
_STUDENT%27S_ACADEMIC_PERFORMANCE

Saadati, F., Tarmizi, R. A., & Bayat, S. (2010). Assessing critical

thinking of postgraduate students. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 8, 543-548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.075

Sabourin, J. L., & Lester, J. C. (2014). Affect and engagement in

game-based learning environments. Affective Computing,
5(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2013.27

Salame, I. I., Sarowar, S., Begum, S., & Krauss, D. (2011).

Students’ alternative conceptions about atomic
properties and the periodic table. Chem. Educator, 16,
190-194.

Selco, J., Bruno, M., & Chan, S. (2013). Discovering periodicity:

Hands-on, minds-on organization of the Periodic Table by
visualizing the unseen. Journal of Chemical Education,
90(8), 995-1002. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300623b

Stiegelmeier, T., & Moore, J. (2019). Effective mathematics

instruction for native American elementary students:
Strategies for using manipulatives. Journal of Teacher
Action Research, 5(3), 99-111. http://web.b.ebscohost.
com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=50d4ec48-
c2ad-46ac-81ad-02be4a857df4%40sessionmgr102

Truitt, A. A., & Ku, H. Y. (2018). A case study of third grade

students’ perceptions of the station rotation blended
learning model in the United States. Educational Media
International, 55(2), 153-169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1484042

Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S.

(1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on
the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1),
37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7

Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement

on p-values: Context, process, and purpose.
The American Statistician, 70(2), 129-133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
 Alipato 60

Appendix A

Periodic Trends Test

Name: __________________________________________ Score: ____________

Grade & Section: __________________________________ Date: _____________

Direction: Read and analyze each question carefully. Write the CAPITAL LETTER of your answer in the
space provided. (15 points)

___1. What is electronegativity?

A. how large an atom is
B. the total negative charge of the electrons in an atom
C. how much energy is needed to take an electron away from an atom
D. how strongly an atom pulls electrons to itself when it is bonded to other atoms

___2. Which of the following best explains why ionization energy decreases down a group?
A. Ionization energy increases because electrons are closer to the nucleus.
B. Ionization energy decreases because electrons are closer and require more energy to
remove.
C. Ionization energy decreases because electrons are further away and require less energy to
remove.
D. None of the above

___3. Which has the largest atomic radius?

A. K B. K+ C. Rb D. Rb+

___4. Which has the largest atomic radius?

A. fluorine B. chlorine C. bromine D. a bromine anion with a charge of 1-

___5. Which has the lowest ionization energy?

A. beryllium (Be) B. strontium (Sr) C. calcium (Ca) D. magnesium (Mg)

___6. Which has the highest ionization energy?

A. phosphorus B. sulfur C. chlorine D. argon

___7. Which has the highest electronegativity?

A. Na B. Al C. S D. Cl

___8. Which has the lowest electronegativity?

A. F B. I C. Br D. Cl

___9. Element X belongs to Group 1. Which of the following best describes element X ?
A. high electronegativity
B. high ionization energy
C. low electronegativity
D. a non-metallic element
61 Alipato

For numbers 10–14, use the periodic table below.

___10. In period 3, what is the best interpretation in the given data?

A. Atomic size increases from left to right within the period.
B. Ionization energy increases from left to right but atomic size decreases.
C. Ionization energy decreases from left to right but atomic size increases.
D. Ionization energy increases from left to right but atomic size also increases.

___11. Which element has the smallest atomic size?

A. Ar C. F
B. Cu D. H

___12. Which of the following elements have the greatest ionization energy?
A. Ar C. Cu
B. Cr D. Si

___13. Which of the following elements have the highest electronegativity?

A. Be C. F
B. C D. H

___14. Which of the following shows the correct trends of increasing atomic size?
A. Cr – Cu – Si – Ar
B. Ar – Si - Cu - Cr
C. H –Be – Cr – Rb
D. C – F – Cr – Cu

___15. What is the correct order of the elements in DECREASING ionization energy, given the set of
elements: Na, S, Al, F, K, O?
A. Al, O, K, F, S, Na
B. F, O, S, Al, Na, K
C. K, Na, Al, S, O, F
D. Na, S, F, K, O, Al
 Alipato 62

Appendix B

Written Interview Questions for the MGBL Group

Explain your answer in 2-3 sentences.

1. Which among the topics in periodic trends do you like the most? Why?
(Aling paksa sa periodic trends ang pinakagusto mong pag-aralan? Bakit?)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

2. Which among the topic(s) in periodic trends is/are not clear to you? Why?
(Aling paksa sa periodic trends ang hindi pa malinaw sa iyo? Bakit?)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
3. In what ways have you learned and understood the topics in periodic trends (very well)?
(Sa paanong paraan mo mas natutunan at naiintindihan ang mga paksa sa periodic trends?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
63 Alipato

About the Author

Edwin B. Conel obtained his bachelor’s degree in
Mathematics and Science Teaching (major in
Biology) at the University of the Philippines-
Los Baños. He received his master’s degree in
General Science from the Philippine Normal
University-Manila. He is a faculty member under the
Department of Science of UP Integrated School
(UPIS) where he currently teaches elementary and
high school science subjects. His field of interest in
research includes general science, biology, and
environmental education. He has been involved in
seminar-workshops and in-service training in
science education as a speaker and facilitator.
He has intensive involvement in creating science
instructional materials such as electronic
assessment modules, test items, and contents.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Edwin B. Conel at
ebconel@up.edu.ph.