Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
“You cannot teach what you do not know, you cannot give what you do not have.” Iris(2015) It has been relatively believed that one cannot give what he does not have. As a matter of possession, knowledge must have a deeper sense of ownership.
According to Iris (2015), the teacher helps the students to learn the things that are very essential. He cannot be a teacher if there are a lot of things that he does not know and does not have enough knowledge and skills are needed to be a teacher. He must be ready enough and very skillful so that he will be able to do the job as a teacher. It is not just about lecturing basic knowledge with the students, it is about touching each student’s life to be a better person. Teachers are the lights that lead the students in the right path, letting them discover what they want and guide them to know the important things in life.
According to Rahman (2011), teaching can be learned with different levels of competence. The teachers play a key role in the educational process. The teachers influence the future personal, social and economic lives of people. The demands on them are significant and these can be met only by creating a scientifically based profession, which is supported by a body of theoretical and practical knowledge. In the 21st century, all fields of life have experienced changes due to knowledge and information explosion. Teacher Education sub sector has also experienced new diversities such as teaching styles, teaching methodologies, intelligence, learning styles, learning techniques, learning disabilities, emerging technologies and cognition etc.

Philippine Education ranked a poor seventh among nine Southeast Asian nations in the area of education and innovation. Luz, co-chairman of the National Competitiveness Council (NCC), presented a forum on Innovation and Entrepreneurship for a Globally Competitive Philippines, reported on the disturbing results of the 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum which showed that the Philippines only fared better than Cambodia, among the eight Southeast Asian countries that were surveyed in the fields of education, science and technology and innovation.
In the area of primary education, the Philippines ranked 99th out of 138 economies. The Philippines ranked 69th in educational system, 112th in science and math and 76th on Internet access. In all categories, the Philippines was falling behind Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. But the NCC remains confident the country can immediately make a strong headway if academe and the private sector could get their acts together and focus on a few doubles. These speak of the need to identify specific determinants of students’ poor performance in mathematical and Science problem solving. One solution is to measure the specific cognitive skills and metacognitive dimensions of the students (De Leon 2011).
The results of the National Secondary Achievement Test (NSAT) in the last four years showed that the students achieved mean percentage scores of only about 50%. The lowest scores were recorded in Science and mathematics which indicate that these are the most difficult subjects for the students (The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum Primer).
Seo (2012) stated that the quality of Philippine education has declined few years ago due to poor results from standard entrance tests conducted among elementary and secondary students, as well as the tertiary levels. Poor teacher performances, have greatly affected the quality of education in the Philippines. In addition, there are also several difficulties encountered by teachers. Hines et al.(2015) stated that skills and strategies of teachers are needed to identify and enhance a Science curriculum featuring virtual and physical Science activities. Chavan (2015), also stated that majority of the science teachers have difficulties in understanding some science concepts.
Aside from some difficulties and issues faced by the researcher, he also considers some legal bases regarding the enhancement of the Science education in the Philippines. According to 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14, Section 10. Science and Technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant.
Furthermore, the Department of Education’s K to 12 Program, DepEd Order No.31, s.2012, Implementing Guidelines of Grades 1 to 10 to Enhanced Basic Education Curriculum, has set the desired outcomes of Grades 1 to 10 programs are defined in terms of expectancies as articulated in the learning standards. In general terms, students are expected at the end of Grade 10 to demonstrate communicative competence; think intelligently, critically and creatively in life situations; make informed and values-based decisions; perform their civic duties; use resources sustainably; and participate actively in artistic and cultural activities and in the promotion of wellness and lifelong fitness. Students are expected to know (knowledge: facts and information), what they should be able to do (process or skills) with what they know, and the meanings or understandings that they construct or make as they process the facts and information. Thus, the content standards answer the question: “what do students want to know, be able to do, and understand?”
The content standards are stated in broad terms, i.e., “students are expected to demonstrate understanding of…” so that teachers, on the one hand, can differentiate how students will manifest their understanding, and students, on the other hand, can have the option to express their understanding in their own way. Thus, students are not just expected to understand, but they are able to demonstrate or provide evidence of that understanding.
Evidence –based understanding, therefore, makes the content standards measurable. The standard of transfer of learning indicates that the performance standard defines the expected proficiency level which is expressed in two ways: students should be able to use their own learning or understanding in real-life situations; and they should be able to do this on their own. Students are expected to produce products and/or performances as evidence that they can transfer or use their learning in real-life situation. The performance standards answer the question: “What do we want students to do with their learning or understanding?” and “How do we want them to use their learning or understanding?”
Science and Technology plays a very vital role in the economic development of the country. Therefore, it is necessary that education today must be geared to the study of modern Science and Technology. (Zarate, The Modern Teacher, July 2003).
Bazar (2012) says that metacognitive strategies are the techniques that could increase the awareness of an individual’s thought processes while completing the task. It also enhances the scientific and cognitive thinking skills of every individual. Eventually, some of the objectives of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14, Section 10 and K to 12 Program, DepEd Order number 31 could be achieved through the metacognitive strategies. Metacognition is regarded as an integral part of effective learning instruction (Israel, 2007). On the other hand, Bai (2010), stated that limited research had been done regarding metacognitive strategies.
Learning is a process developed within a single individual throughout life. However, in order to be successful learners, reflection, feed-back and an awareness of one’s knowledge is essential. If one is not aware of, or understands one’s learning process and studying strategies, it becomes difficult to handle and take control of one’s learning. This awareness can be referred to as metacognition. (Gassner, 2009)
Culaste (2011) explained that the capacity to examine and control one’s own thoughts or self–monitoring is known as metacognition. It is essential for any extended activity, especially problem solving, because the problem solver needs to be aware of the current activity, of the overall goal, the strategies used to attain the goal and the effectiveness of those strategies. Metacognitive processes can operate consciously or unconsciously and they can be accurate or inaccurate. They can also fail to be activated when needed, and can fail to have adaptive or beneficial effect. They can also help the individual make meaning and discover behavioral implications of metacognitive experiences.
Learners must be exposed to more experienced and competent teachers for them to acquire more activities and experiences that would stimulate creative thinking of the learners to increase their level of metacognitive strategies. Assessment of the metacognitive stategies of the teachers must also be conducted to find out the corresponding trainings needed by the teachers and that appropriate teaching materials should be written.
Metacognition can improve classroom communication and facilitate academic performance. Metacognitive teaching not only benefits students, but also increases the teacher’s own learning and motivation. (Rahman, 2011)
Jayapabra (2013), stated that metacognition is the awareness one has about his or her thinking process and how he or she is able to control these processes. Today, one of the main goals of education is to make the students gain the thinking skills and strategies which they will use throughout their lives, rather than storing information. A good education should be able to show the students how to learn, how to remember, how to motivate themselves and how to control their own learning, so that they can teach how to learn. For all these reasons, to investigate the process of the metacognitive skills of students is quite important.
Lamport, et al.,(2011), described metacognition as the orchestration of implementing, monitoring, and reflecting on one’s thinking. The use of metacognition facilitates a framework under which meaningful discourse can more fully occur in secondary science classrooms. Students and teachers need to engage in the components and practices of metacognition. Doing so deepens the meaning of learning opportunities and facilitates a greater likelihood that concept transfer to discrete and novel learning will occur. Making unconscious metacognitive processes conscious allows for their purposeful and strategic application, although not all attempts at teaching metacognition have been successful.
The research of Lamport, et al. (2011), shows that the inclusion of metacognitive strategies in the science classroom improves student achievement when they are (1) pervasively imbedded in the educational structure, (2) part of an appropriately rigorous and relevant curriculum, (3) supported by ‘metacognitive friendly’ teaching strategies, (4) explicitly practiced by students and teachers, and (5) dedicated to enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning. These value-added practices promote resiliency and persistence in the face of frustration or lack of knowledge. Teaching students these enduring thinking strategies is a gift that will empower them to advocate for their own learning needs throughout their education and beyond.

Magno (2009) stated that contemporary education perspective explains that students become aware of their own learning and eventually control their learning process which leads to better performance. Given this perspective, teachers do not only teach the content but the process on how to learn the content as well. When students are taught to apply the strategies on how to learn effectively, they engage in a process called metacognition. Metacognition is a valuable construct in studies about learning.

Before teachers can instruct students on the use of metacognition, teachers themselves need to be competent users. Teacher intervention and modeling is needed as students begin to grasp metacognitive processes. Hobson (2008) says: "Students who received direct instruction, modeling of processes and guided practice of comprehension monitoring were able to independently apply these skills later on.
"Metacognitive strategy instruction also produces students who make better progress in metacognitive knowledge. The implications of this study are powerful. Teachers can provide experiences for students to engage metacognitively. They can model metacognition for students, and help them to develop the self-efficacy required to engage in metacognition when tasks become more difficult. Teachers also need to recognize that learners can come to the same conclusions for very different reasons based on their individual differences and mental models (Hartman, 2001c). Therefore, teachers need to become adept at ferreting out students' reasoning, especially through think-aloud strategies.
As Cetin (2015) commented, teachers should have information on their own learning processes, become good role models to the learners, and undertake a role in teaching how to learn. A teacher with high metacognitive skills would use strategies, methods, and techniques appropriate for fostering metacognitive skills in the classroom environment. Al, (2015), stated that teachers being the focal figure in education must be competent and knowledgeable in order to impart the knowledge they could give to their students. Good teaching is a very personal manner. Effective teaching is concerned with the student as a person and with his general development. The teacher must recognize individual differences among his/her students and adjust instructions that best suit to the learners. It is always a fact that as educators, we play varied and vital roles in the classroom.
Science teachers often reflect on the content they are going to teach, and they need to look at the extent to wish they think reflectively about the pedagogy they use to teach specific scientific concepts and skills. To teach science successfully, teachers can use their metacognitive or high level thinking about what, why and how they teach in order to manage and regulate their teaching so that it meets the needs of their students.
In addition, to help students learn science effectively, teachers can develop their students’ use of metacognition as they gain awareness and control over themselves as learners. Every individual engages in metacognitive activities every day. Metacognition enables an individual to be successful learners. It refers to the highest order thinking which involves active control over the cognitive processes engaged in learning. Activities such as planning how to approach a given learning task, monitoring comprehension, and evaluating progress toward the completion of a task are metacognitive in nature.
Metacognition plays a critical role in successful learning, it is important to study metacognitive activity and development to determine how students can be taught to better apply their cognitive resources through metacognitive control.
In teaching Biology, teachers have experiences relating to metacognition in teaching and students’ learning science. The level of teachers’ ability to facilitate learning was assessed in terms of setting the learning environment, activating prior knowledge, reinforcing the learning using a variety of approaches, and engaging learners in a dialogue. The students’ level of cognition was determined in terms of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. (Bienvenida, 2014)
“One of the other metacognitive strategies is concept mapping. It is described as a “metacognitive tool” that allows students to think their understanding reflectively by visual representation of their concept meanings and relationships ” French (2006). According to Lovette (2008), metacognitive strategies are critically important, yet often overlooked component of learning. Effective learning involves planning and goal-setting, monitoring one's progress, and adapting as needed. All of these activities are metacognitive in nature. By teaching students these skills - all of which can be learned, student’s learning can be improved.
Metacognition enables teachers to regulate their teaching activities according to students, goals and situation. It helps the teachers to plan, monitor and evaluate thinking processes and products, and it also equip the teachers about what information/skills they have, when, why and how to use them. Teachers need to think metacognitively to effectively run teaching and use instructional techniques strategically. (Hartman, 2001).
According to Bai (2010), teacher should have a pedagogical understanding about metacognitive strategies. Pedagogical understanding, in general, refers to the teaching strategies and/or instructional techniques that will be implemented in particular situations to achieve the teaching goal. Detailed study of teachers’ pedagogical understanding of metacognition requires teachers to have declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is a teachers’ knowledge of what they should teach. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how a teacher teaches something. Conditional knowledge is the understanding that the teaching of metacognitive strategies is dependent on the situation and that particular situations require the use of particular strategies. The pedagogical understanding of metacognition refers to teachers’ understanding of what is necessary for the teaching of metacognition.
Kramarski et.al (2004) found that different metacognitive strategies can be employed to help low ability students to improve achievement, as well as those who had difficulties making success in the traditional classroom. In general, metacognitive strategies can be said to lead to the promotion of critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving behavior (Sheila 1999; Lippman,2005; Coutinbo,2007).
Persons without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction and ability to review their progress, accomplishments and future learning directions. Metacognitive strategies are essential for successful language learning. Strategies like organizing, setting goals and objectives, considering the purpose, and planning for a language task help learners arrange and plan for their language learning in an efficient way. The students without metacognitive strategies will never become autonomous learners because they do not know how to arrange, regulate, and evaluate their learning activities. (Balcikanli, 2011) It is the desire of the researcher to study about metacognition in teaching Science and students’ learning in the subject. The researcher has been teaching for four years and has been looking for the effective teaching strategies to enhance his teaching. Because of the problems in strategies to teach science, the researcher conducted a study about the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in order to enhance the teaching strategies in teaching Science.

Conceptual Framework

This study anchored to the study of Gassner (2009). Metacognition refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s learning. Previous accounts of metacognition have distinguished between two major components, including knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge about cognition includes three subprocessess that facilitate the reflective aspect of metacognition: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. Regulation of cognition includes a number of subprocesses that facilitate the control caused extensively, including planning, information management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation. Declarative knowledge is knowledge about learning and one's cognitive skills and abilities. Procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge about how to use strategies and conditional knowledge is a knowledge about when and why to use strategies. Planning is the process of making plans for something, information management is the collection and management of information monitoring is the ability of a learner to be aware, while reading. Debugging is strategy used to correct performance errors or assumptions about the task or strategy used. And evaluation is analysis of performance and strategy effectiveness.

* Teachers’ Profile * Knowledge of Cognition * Declarative knowledge * Procedural Knowledge * Conditional Knowledge * Regulation of Cognition * Planning * Information Management * Monitoring * Debugging * Evaluation

* Data Gathering * Interview * Questionnaire * Documentary

* Level of metacognitive awareness of secondary teachers in teaching science.

Proposed: * Proposed activity for teachers to enhance the metacognitive strategies in teaching science. *

Figure 1. Research Paradigm
Research Paradigm
According to Georghiades (2006), metacognition is a term introduced in the 1970s by Flavell, it is often defined as one’s knowledge, awareness and control of the domain of cognition or as thinking about one’s own thinking. It entails conscious reflection on what one knows about a given task, and demonstrating ability to describe what he or she is currently doing, talk about his or her feelings about the learning situation in which he or she is engaged, and use this information to monitor and enhance one’s performance.
This study utilized the Input-Process-Output Model as shown in the Research Paradigm, Figure 1. It aims to determine the level of metacognitive strategies in teaching science. The Input consists of teachers’ profile, knowledge of cognition; declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge and regulation of cognition; planning, information management, monitoring, debugging and evaluation. The process includes the gathering data, interview, questionnaire, and documentary. The output includes the answers to the level of metacognitive awareness of secondary teachers in teaching science. It has also a proposed activity for teachers to enhance the metacognitive strategies in teaching science.

Statement of the Problem This study determined the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies in teaching science of private secondary schools. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: 1. How may the profile of the science teachers in private secondary schools be described in terms of: 2.1 age; 2.2 sex; 2.3 civil status; 2.4 educational attainment; 2.5 specialization; 2.6 subject taught; 2.7 number of subject preparation; 2.8 average class per section; 2.9 length of teaching science; and 2.10 trainings attended?

2. How may the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science among private secondary schools be described in terms of: 3.11 knowledge of cognition; 3.12.1 declarative knowledge; 3.12.2 procedural knowledge; 3.12.3 conditional knowledge; 3.12 regulation of cognition; 3.13.4 planning; 3.13.5 information management; 3.13.6 monitoring; 3.13.7 debugging and 3.13.8 evaluation

3. Is there a significant relationship between the profile variables of the teachers and the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science?

4. Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and learners to the level of metacognitive awareness?

5. What metacognitive strategies may be proposed to enhance the teaching of science?

Null Hypothesis 1. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the teachers and level of awareness on metacogntive strategies in teaching science among secondary schools.
Significance of the Study
This study of level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science among private secondary schools will benefit the following:
Learners; will be aware with their own skills and they will learn how to use their skills to solve a problem. They will also be motivated to learn and participate in studying science.
Science Teachers; may serve as a model to choose the most appropriate teaching strategies that will arouse and hold the interest of the students, thus making learning an enjoyable experience for them.
School Administrators; will have quality science teaching, productive and effective science teachers and will enhance learners’ performance.
Parents; will lead their children to the right path of quality education as well as to develop their children’s scientific skills.
Future Researchers; this study wishes to lure interest among future researches and for them to have a guide towards improving such types of study.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study will focus on the level of awareness of teachers on metacogntive strategies in teaching science of private secondary schools. The study will be conducted in all private schools in Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija for the academic year 2015-2016.
The study looked into the enhancement of teaching strategies in science through the level of awareness of metacognitive strategies of private secondary schools of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
Definition of Terms
For clarity, the following terms are defined operationally and conceptually.
Administrators are the department heads or the area coordinators of the high school department in Sta. Rosa District.
Conditional knowledge is the understanding that the teaching of metacognitive strategies is dependent on the situation and that particular situations require the use of particular strategies.
Declarative knowledge is a teachers’ knowledge of what they should teach.
Evaluation is the process used by the teacher to determine the condition of learners inside the classroom.
Open-mindedness it is receptiveness to new ideas. Relates to the way in which teachers approach the views and knowledge of others.
Metacognition is all about knowledge on how and when to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving.
Method is an established, habitual, logical, or prescribed practice or systematic process of achieving certain ends with accuracy and efficiency, usually in an ordered sequence of fixed steps that can be used in metacognitive strategies.
Pedagogical understanding refers to the teaching strategies and/or instructional techniques that will be implemented in particular situations to achieve a teaching goal.
Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how a teacher teaches something.
Skill is the learned ability to carry out a task with pre-determined results often within a given amount of time, energy, or both.
Strategies are methods or plans chosen by a teacher to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to…a problem.
Survey is a general view, examination, or description of the teachers’ awareness regarding metacognitive strategies.
Techniques are ways where a teacher performs basic physical movements or skills.
Chapter II
Research Methodology This chapter presents how the study conducted. It also covers the description of the respondents, instruments that used the procedures and statistical treatment that utilized in analyzing and gathering data.
Research Method This study used descriptive research. As defined by Simon (2012) it involves description of similarities with other phenomena. The purpose of descriptive research is to study primarily “what is.” The methods involve the questionnaire, interview or observation and documentation.

Research Locale
Santa Rosa is a first class municipality in the province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines. According to the 2010 census, it has a population of 64,503 people and 33 barangays. It is considered as a suburban municipality of Metropolitan Cabanatuan.
The municipality has five private secondary schools; St. Rose of Lima Catholic School, Holy Cross College, St. Christopher Montessori School, Rose of Sharon Christian and Center for Positive Future High School. The private secondary schools in the municipality are members of Nueva Ecija Private Secondary School Administrators Association. NEPRISSAA is an association of private schools in Nueva Ecija wherein they create programs for the common good of each member school towards their objective to have quality education. They actively participate in different activities such as sports, academics and the like. They form learners not only academically but also in all aspects of learning.
St. Rose of Lima Catholic School is located at barangay Rizal, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. The school is under the Cabanatuan Catholic Educational System, with the supervision of Diocesan Schools Superintendent: Rev. Fr. Michael Feliciano I. Veneracion while Mrs. Glenda E. Annang is currently the Directress of the school. Its mission is to transform lives of every individual person for God and society. It also develops the learners academically and spiritually. The science teachers are aiming for the enhancement of their teaching strategies. Thus they could help to enhance the thinking skills of their learners.
St. Christopher Montessori School is located at San Gregorio, Sta. Rosa. Mr. Christopher G. Faller is the current School Principal and owner of the said school. The school is currently preparing for the Fund for Assistance to Private School or FAPE Recertification due academic year 2015-2016. Thus, the school has aimed to enhance the quality of its education for their learners.
Rose of Sharon is located at Barangay Valenzuela, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. The school’s administrators are Ms. Marieta G. Bonite and Rev. Many De Jesus. Its secondary school level was just established few years ago. However, the school keeps on enhancing the quality of education for their learners and trying to increase the population of their secondary level so they could continue offering quality education. RSCS is the only Christian secondary school in the municipality.
Center for Positive Future High School was organized as a high school in January 2001. The school was established by parents whose goal was to provide alternative and relevant education for their children. The school aims to provide special emphasis in instilling an entrepreneurial culture throughout the institution.
Students were initiated to the use of personal tablets. The tablet was introduced as a “family appliance” which parents are encourage to use and share with their child, while allocating adequate time for the student’s learning. Parents were given an enhancement program consisting of computer lessons, enabling them to monitor their child’s progress.
Holy Cross College former Holy Cross Academy was founded by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fernando C. Lansangan. In 1981, the expansion of the school’s curricular program was conceived. During SY 1982 – 1983, the MECS granted permit for the first and second year curriculum of the degree Bachelor of Arts and the first and second year curriculum for the Junior Secretarial Course were offered to the public. Dr. Raquel Tioseco Sta. Ines, is the currently Directress of the said school. In all its 66 years of existence, HCC continues with additional TESDA programs in Restaurant Management, Computer Secretarial, and Electronic and Computer Technology; and six-month courses in Contact Call Center and Medical Transcription.

Schools SRLCS (Saint Rose of Lima Catholic School) HCC (Holy Cross College) RSCS (Rose of Sharon Christian School) SCMS (Saint Christopher Montessori School) CFPF (Center for Positive Future High) School)

Figure 2. Map of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija showing the Research Locale
Respondent of the Study The respondents of the study are science teachers and learners of private secondary schools in Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija during A.Y. 2015-2016. There are only five Grade seven science teachers in all private schools in the District of Sta. Rosa. There are 505 Grade 7 high school learners in the private schools of Sta. Rosa.
Table 1:
Distribution of Respondents School | Learners | Teachers | Overall | | N | % | N | % | N | % | SRLCS | 196 | 33.79 | 1 | 20 | 216 | 36.86 | HCC | 243 | 41.90 | 2 | 33.33 | 245 | 41.81 | SCMS | 103 | 17.76 | 1 | 20 | 104 | 17.75 | RSCS | 15 | 2.59 | 1 | 20 | 16 | 2.73 | CPFHS | 23 | 3.97 | 1 | 20 | 24 | 4.10 | Total | 580 | 100 | 6 | 100 | 586 | 100 |

Statistical Design The data gathering treated with following statistical tools:
1. The frequency, percentage distribution, and ranking of the responses used in order to determine the profile of the respondents. The formula will be used for solving the percentage.
To describe the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies in teaching science of private secondary schools the researcher used weighted mean with the formula:
Description of the Instrument Questionnaire is the main instrument used in this study. Metacognitive Awareness Inventory of Gregory Schraw was the questionnaire used by the researcher.
There are two questionnaires especially designed for the secondary science teachers and learners. These are to determine the level of awareness of teachers on metacogntive strategies in teaching science of private secondary schools. Part I contains data regarding the profile of the teacher-respondents. Part II- the MAI, contains the learners and teachers’ level of awareness on metacognitive strategies.
The level of awareness of the respondents on metacognitive strategies are categorized using the four-point Likert scale as follows: 4- Always 3- Usually True 2- Somewhat True 1- Never The questionnaire measured the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science. It determined the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies in teaching science.
Four point scale used by the researcher with the following weights and ranges for each point as well as the verbal interpretation to determine the level of awareness of metacognitive strategies of science secondary teachers.
Table 2. Four Point Scale Scale | Range of Values | Verbal Interpretation | Description | 4 | 3.25- 4.00 | Always | The statement is true and almost always. | 3 | 2.50- 3.24 | Usually True | The statement is true more than half the time. | 2 | 1.75-2.49 | Somewhat True | The statement is true about half the time. | 1 | 1- 1.74 | Never | The statement is very rarely true. |

Administration of the Questionnaire Permission from the heads of the school secured before the distribution of the questionnaire to the respondents. The respondents informed of the following: the purpose of the researcher in conducting the study, the contents of the questionnaire, and the direction on how to accomplish the questionnaire. They gave enough time to provide all the necessary data in the instrument. The researcher personally collected the questionnaires from the respondents to enable the researcher to give last minute clarification and to ensure 100 % return of the questionnaires.

Chapter 3
PRSENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
OF DATA

This chapter presents the data gathered which were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.
1. Profile of the teacher- respondents in terms of:
1.1 Age
The teacher- respondents’ age profile is presented below.
Table 3
Distribution of Respondent According to Age

Age | Frequency | Percent | 18-25 | 1 | 16.70 % | 25-above | 5 | 83.30 % | Total | 6 | 100.0 % | Table 3 shows the age range of the respondents. The age 25 years above has a big frequency with 83.30 % whereas the age 18-25 years has only one or 16.70 %. According to Personnel System of Teachers (2011), age 25 to 29 is the fourth highest age of the teachers in year 2011. The ages of 25 to 44 is the stage of career characteristics of entry-level skills building and stabilization through work experience. It means that science teachers have the skills to enhance more the teaching strategies. Super (2012) 1.2 Sex The percent-respondents’ gender is shown in table 4. Table 4 Distribution of Respondents According to Gender Sex | Frequency | Percent | Male | 1 | 16.70 % | Female | 5 | 83.30 % | Total | 6 | 100.0 % | The table presents the frequency and percentage of the six male and female teacher-respondents of the study. Based on the table, there are five or 83.30 % female respondents, and one or 16.70 % male respondents.
According to Rich (2013), across the country, teaching is an overwhelmingly female profession, and in fact has become more so over time. More than three-quarters of all teachers in kindergarten through high school are women, according to Education Department data, up from about two-thirds three decades ago. The disparity is most pronounced in elementary and middle schools, where more than 80 percent of teachers are women.
1.3 Civil Status The respondents’ civil status is shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Distribution of Respondents According to Civil Status

Civil Status | Frequency | Percent | Single | 3 | 50.00 % | Married | 3 | 50.00 % | Total | 6 | 100.0 % | The table presents the civil status of the teacher-respondents of the study. Based on the figure, there are three or 50.00 % single respondents, and three or 50.00 % married respondents.
Marriage improves the teachers’ self-efficacy in classroom management. The married are emotionally stable and can teach more the cognitive skills of learners. Single teachers had a higher self-efficacy than married teacher. The single teachers are always there for the students to learn cognitive skills but the married will be committed family affairs, Odanga (2015). 1.4 Educational Attainment

The teacher-respondents’ educational attainment were classified into those graduated with the Bachelor of Secondary Education, B.S or A.B with 18 units in education, with M.A units and candidates for MA/MS.
The respondents’ educational attainment is shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Distribution of Respondents According to Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment | Frequency | Percent | Bachelor of Secondary Education | 1 | 16.7 % | B.S / A.B with 18 units in Education | 2 | 33.3 % | With MA units | 2 | 33.3 % | Candidate for MA/MS | 1 | 16.7 % | Total | 6 | 100.0 % |

As presented in Table 6, most of the respondents were B.S./ A.B with 18 units in education with two teachers or 33.3 % with M.A units. In addition, only one finished Bachelor of Secondary Education which also equaled to the number of the candidate for M.A/M.S.
B.S or B.A graduates who want to teach science in secondary school have a chance to teach because according to Republic Act 7836 (The LET Law) and with Article II of CMO 30, s.2004 graduates of non-education degrees shall take 18 units of professional education courses, and 12 units of experiential learning courses (Field Study and Practice Teaching) to qualify for the Licensure Examination for Teachers.
Overall, getting a Master’s degree is an excellent way to enrich and advance teaching career. It prepares to be an expert teacher. Further teaching degree also helps the students in many ways, by preparing teacher to be the best teacher, and ensuring that students learned.
Schools need highly qualified, expert teachers to improve the quality of education. Pursuing a Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) or a Master’s of Education (MAEd) can also help a teacher be a better teacher. These degrees focus on teaching somebody how to be a teacher, with heavy emphasis on pedagogy, teaching methods, philosophy of education, and educational technology, (USC University California, 2015).

1.5 Specialization
The teacher-respondents’ specialization were classified into general science, biological science, chemistry, physics and others. The respondents’ baccalaureate degree and specialization is shown in Table 7. Table 7 Distribution of Respondents According to Specialization Majors | Frequency | Percent | General Science | 2 | 33.3 % | Biological Science | 2 | 33.3 % | Chemistry | 2 | 33.3 % | Total | 6 | 100.0 % | The table shows that the respondents’ specialization equal number with two or 33.3 %. Teachers must pursue opportunities to build their understanding of how students with varied interests, abilities, and experiences can be supported and guided. On the other hand, Bachelor in Secondary Education (BSED) program is required to have a major and/or minor in any of the following science subjects: General Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Mathematics. Most of the teachers are taking science major, (University of the Philippines National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development, 2011).
1.6 Number of Subjects Being Taught

The respondents’ number of subjects to be taught is shown in Table 8. Table 8 Distribution of Respondents According to Number of Subject Taught No. of Subjects Taught | Frequency | Percent | 2 | 4 | 66.7% | 3 | 2 | 33.3% | Total | 6 | 100.0% |

Based on the table, there are four or 66. 7 % of teachers with two subjects taught, and there are two or 33.3 % who taught three subjects.
Many teachers have to face the challenge of teaching multiple preparations in a given year at some point during their career. In many schools, new teachers are given their teaching assignments after all the senior teachers have experienced their grade level on subject preference. This means that in most cases the new teachers will not be given prime teaching assignments. Instead, they will have to teach a number of different subjects each day. Experienced teachers who are assigned a new subject will have to move away from their comfort zone as they create lessons for newly assigned subjects, Kelly (2015).

1.7 Class Size

The respondents’ class size is shown in table 10. Table 9 Distribution of Respondents According to Class Size

Class size | Frequency | Percent | 15 | 1 | 16.7% | 25 | 1 | 16.7% | 40 | 3 | 50.0% | 50 | 1 | 16.7% | Total | 6 | 100.0% |

The Table 9 reveals that the class size of 40 is highest class size with frequency of three or 50.0 %. In addition, there are also 15, 25, and 50 class sizes, and they each have lowest frequency of 16.7 %. One major advantage to teaching a large class in secondary school is that classes are usually high energy, fun and exciting; the classes go by quickly and are rarely boring; and most students are willing to participate. Since core lessons take longer to complete, filler lessons that students dislike rarely happen. In addition, students must learn independence and self-motivation because teachers have less time to work one-on-one with students. Students may also learn to work well in groups because group work becomes a necessity in large classrooms, Hatfield (2015).
1.8 Years of Teaching Science

The respondents’ years of teaching Science number to be taught is shown in table 10. Table 10 Distribution of Respondents According to Years of Teaching Science Years of Teaching Science | Frequency | Percent | 1 | 1 | 16.7% | 3 | 2 | 33.3% | 5 | 1 | 16.7% | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | 20 | 1 | 16.7% | Total | 6 | 100.0% |

The table presents the frequency and percentage of the six teacher-respondents’ years of teaching science. Based on the table, the highest frequency of years of teaching science is three with frequency of two or 33.3 %. While, the lowest years of frequency of teaching science are 1, 5, 6, and 20 with frequency of one or 16.7 %.
Many occupations recognize employees’ years of experience as a relevant factor in human resource policies, including compensation systems, benefits packages, and promotion decisions. The idea is that experience, gained over time, enhances the knowledge, skills, and productivity of workers. According to one study using data from North Carolina, elementary school teachers with one or two years of experience are more effective, on average, than teachers with no experience, (Rice, 2010).
1.9 Trainings Attended

The respondents’ number of trainings attended is shown in table 11. Table 11 Distribution of Respondents According to Trainings Attended

Number of Trainings | Frequency | Percent | 1 | 4 | 66.7% | 2 | 1 | 16.7% | 5 | 1 | 16.7% | Total | 6 | 100.0% | Table 11 shows the frequency and percentage of teacher-respondents’ trainings attended. Based on the table, the highest number of frequency is for those who have attended one training with four or 66.7 %, two and five of trainings have equal frequency of one or 16.7 5%. 2. Level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science as Perceived by Teacher-respondents and their respective learners. Table 12 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Knowledge Cognition Declarative Knowledge Statement | | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | Item Number | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I understand my intellectual strengths and weaknesses. | 5 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.31 | Always True | 3.57 | Always True | 2. I know what kind of information is most important to learn. | 10 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.26 | Always True | 3.26 | Always True | 3. I am good at organizing information. | 12 | 3.33 | Always True | 3.01 | Sometimes True | 3.17 | Sometimes True | 4. I know what the student expects me to learn. | 16 | 3.50 | Always True | 3.24 | Sometimes True | 3.37 | Always True | 5. I am good at remembering information. | 17 | 3.17 | Sometimes True | 3.00 | Sometimes True | 3.09 | Sometimes True | 6. I have control over how well I learn. | 20 | 3.50 | Always True | 3.07 | Sometimes True | 3.29 | Always True | 7. I am a good judge of how well I understand something. | 32 | 3.67 | Always True | 2.97 | Sometimes True | 3.32 | Always True | 8. I teach more when I am interested in the topic. | 46 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.44 | Always True | 3.72 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.60 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.38 | Always True | Table 12 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of declarative knowledge. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.60, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.16, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.38, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 8 “I teach more when I am interested in the topic” was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by the teacher-respondents, the same item also has the highest weighted mean for learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.44, and highest in average weighted mean in both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.72, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 5 “I am good at remembering information” received the lowest weighted means from teacher-respondent (3.17) and learner-respondent (3.00) as well and are verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. Same lowest item in average weighted mean in both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.09, is verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”
According to Paul (2013) interest is at once a cognitive state and an affective state. This is what Silvia (2008) calls a “knowledge emotion.” The feelings that characterize interest are overwhelmingly positive: a sense of being energized and invigorated, captivated and enthralled. As for its effects on cognition: interest effectively turbo-chargers thinking. When person is interested in what he is learning, he pays closer attention; he processes the information more efficiently; he employs more effective learning strategies, such as engaging in critical thinking, making connections between old and new knowledge, and attends to deep structure instead of surface features. When one is interested in a task, he works harder and persists longer, bringing more of his self-regulatory skills into play. Interests powerfully influence his academic and professional choices, (Harackiewicz, 2015).

Table 13 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Procedural Knowledge Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I try to use strategies that have worked in the past. | 3 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | 2. I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use. | 14 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.05 | Sometimes True | 3.44 | Always True | 3. I am aware of what strategies I use when I teach. | 27 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.20 | Sometimes True | 3.44 | Always True | 4. I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically. | 33 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.11 | Sometimes True | 3.47 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.75 | Always True | 3.13 | Sometimes True | 3.44 | Always True |

Table 13 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of procedural knowledge, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the procedural. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.75, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.13, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.44, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 2 “I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use” and item 4 “I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically” were the items with the highest weighted mean of 3.83 by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Item 3 “I am aware of what strategies I use when I teach (learn)” was the highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.20, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, item 4 “ I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically” is the item with average weighted mean of 3.47 by both teacher- and learner-respondents, verbally described as “Always True”. Item 1 “I try to use strategies that have worked in the past” and item 3 “I am aware of what strategies I use when I teach” were the items by teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3. 67, verbally described as “Always True”, while the item 2 “I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use” was the item with lowest weighted mean of learner-respondents with 3.05, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item 1 was also the lowest item with average of 3.41 weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents, verbally described as “Always True”
According to Osewalt (2014), good teachers know the best teaching strategies. Teachers are most likely already having a print-rich environment in classroom. All teachers, whether they are new to the profession or seasoned veterans, continue to look for suggestions and tweak their skills so they are better able to help their students. (The Regents of the University of Michigan, 2015)
The fundamental importance of teaching strategies is to make it easier to implement a variety of teaching methods and techniques. The key is to create learning environments that are more interactive, to integrate technology where applicable into the learning experience, and to use collaborative learning strategies when appropriate. (Montana State University, 2014)

Table 14 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Conditional Knowledge Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I teach best when I know something about the topic. | 15 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.36 | Always True | 3.68 | Always True | 2. I use different learning strategies depending on the situation. | 18 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.07 | Sometimes True | 3.37 | Always True | 3. I can motivate myself to learn when I need to. | 26 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.19 | Sometimes True | 3.60 | Always True | 4. I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weaknesses. | 29 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.04 | Sometimes True | 3.36 | Always True | 5. I know when each strategy I use will be most effective. | 35 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.08 | Sometimes True | 3.38 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.80 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.48 | Always True |

Table 14 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of conditional knowledge, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the conditional knowledge. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.80, verbally described as “Always True”. The average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.15, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.48, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 1 “I teach best when I know something about the topic” and item 3 “I can motivate myself to learn when I need to” were the items with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent. Whereas item 1 also had highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.36 and highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore item 2 “I use different learning strategies depending on the situation”, item 4 “I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weakness” and item 5 “I know when each strategy I use will be most effective” were the items with lowest weighted mean of 3. 67, verbally described as “Always True”. While item 4 “I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weakness” had the with lowest weighted mean for 3.04 learner-respondents verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item 1 “I use my intellectual compensate for my weakness” was the lowest item in average weighted mean in both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”.
Most people are familiar with learning through books or in classes. The best test of whether or not people really understand a concept is to try to teach it to someone else. Teaching calls for complete understanding of the concept. Teacher cannot just “kind of get it” or “know it just well enough” to get by on a test, teaching calls for complete understanding of the concept. Rusczyk (2015)
Teachers give motivation that can build confidence (Novani Lieadi, 2010). Motivation is an invisible, inner, natural, and compelling urge to attain a desired goal and to excel in whatever that one is involved in doing. It is a psychological feature which arouses, sustains and regulates human behavior to accomplish a set objective. It is an intuitive feeling, an emotional characteristic inherent in a human being, and cannot be easily measured, if at all. But still one can speak of intensity, a level or a degree of motivation, at lease in a qualitative way. Kolar (2012)

Table 15 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Regulation of Cognition Planning Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I pace myself while teaching in order to have enough time. | 4 | 3.67 | Always True | 2.93 | Sometimes True | 3.30 | Always True | 2. I think about what my learners really need to learn before I begin a task. | 6 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.34 | Always True | 3.59 | Always True | 3. I set specific goals before I begin a task. | 8 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.20 | Sometimes True | 3.52 | Always True | 4. I ask myself questions about the material before I begin. | 22 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.18 | Sometimes True | 3.51 | Always True | 5. I think of several ways to solve a problem and choose the best one. | 23 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.29 | Always True | 3.48 | Always True | 6. I read instructions carefully before I begin a task. | 42 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.46 | Always True | 3.73 | Always True | 7. I organize my time to best accomplish my goals. | 45 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.19 | Sometimes True | 3.51 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.81 | Always True | 3.23 | Sometimes True | 3.52 | Always True | Table 15 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of regulation of cognition, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the regulation of cognition. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.81, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.23, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.52, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 6 “I read instructions carefully before I begin a task” was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent. The same item was also the highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.46. Moreover, item 6 is still the highest in average weighted mean for both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.73 and they were verbally described as “Always True”. On the other hand, item 1 “I pace myself while teaching in order to have enough time”, was the item with the lowest mean of 3.67 by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Item 1 is also item with the lowest mean of 2.93 by learner-respondent, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. The same item was rated by both teacher- and learner respondents with average weighted mean of 3.30, verbally described as “Always True”. It is important to read and follow directions because learners will never know or understand what they are working at or the objective given in a situation, especially if it is everyday life-related, school-related, or job-related. Batts (2014). Murray (2014), also stated that it is important to follow instructions because a person does not want to go back and do the task again when he could follow direction and get it done right the first time. Table 16 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Information Management Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I slow down when my learners encounter important information. | 9 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.12 | Sometimes True | 3.40 | Always True | 2. I consciously focus my attention on important information. | 13 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.37 | Always True | 3.52 | Always True | 3. I focus on the meaning and significance of new information. | 30 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.23 | Sometimes True | 3.53 | Always True | 4. I create my own examples to make information more meaningful. | 31 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.17 | Sometimes True | 3.50 | Always True | 5. I draw pictures or diagrams to help my learners to understand while teaching. | 37 | 3.83 | Always True | 2.96 | Sometimes True | 3.40 | Always True | 6. I try to translate new information into my own words. | 39 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.58 | Always True | 7. I use the organizational structure of the text to help me teach. | 41 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.07 | Sometimes True | 3.37 | Always True | 8. I ask myself if what I'm reading is related to what I already know. | 43 | 3.50 | Always True | 3.17 | Sometimes True | 3.34 | Always True | 9. I try to break teaching down into smaller steps. | 47 | 3.67 | Always True | 2.88 | Sometimes True | 3.28 | Always True | 10. I focus on overall meaning rather than specifics. | 48 | 3.33 | Always True | 3.04 | Sometimes True | 3.19 | Sometimes True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.70 | Always True | 3.12 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | Table 16 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of information management, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the information management. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.70, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.12, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. The average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.41, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 6 “I try to translate new information into my own words” was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent, item 1 also has the highest weighted mean of learner-respondents with weighted mean by 3.36, and highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore item 2 “I use different learning strategies depending on the situation”, item 4 “I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weakness” and item 5 “I know when each strategy I use will be most effective” were the items that teacher-respondent rated lowest, with weighted mean of 3. 67, verbally described as “Always True”. While item 4 “I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weakness” was the item with lowest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.04, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item 1 “I use my intellectual compensate for my weakness” was the item with lowest average weighted mean for both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”
According to Oxford University Press ELT (2011), translation is surely a natural and obvious was teaching someone a new language. It has lots of good effects. It can be used to aid learning, practice what has been learned, diagnose problems, and test proficiency.
In addition, it allows learners to relate new knowledge to existing knowledge (as recommended by many learning theories), promotes noticing and language awareness, and highlights the differences and similarities between the new and existing language. Many people also find the tackling of translation problems intellectually stimulating and aesthetically satisfying. In addition, it helps create and maintain good relations between teacher and learner, facilitates classroom management and control.

Table 17 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Monitoring Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals. | 1 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.06 | Sometimes True | 3.45 | Always True | 2. I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer. | 2 | 4.00 | Always True | 3.18 | Sometimes True | 3.59 | Always True | 3. I ask myself if I have considered all options when solving a problem. | 11 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.07 | Sometimes True | 3.45 | Always True | 4. I periodically review to help me understand important relationships. | 21 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | 5. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I teach. | 28 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.14 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | 6. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension. | 34 | 3.33 | Always True | 2.93 | Sometimes True | 3.13 | Sometimes True | 7. I ask myself questions about how well I am doing when my learners learned something new. | 49 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.49 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.74 | Always True | 3.10 | Sometimes True | 3.42 | Always True | Table 17 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies by teaching science in terms of monitoring, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the monitoring. The average weighted mean by teacher-respondent is 3.74, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean by learner-respondent is 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. The average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.42, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 2 “I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer”, was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore, item 2 also has the highest weighted mean of learner-respondents with weighted mean by 3.18, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. The highest in average weighted mean for both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.59, were verbally described as “Always True”. In addition item 6 “I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension”, was the item by teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3.33, verbally described as “Always True”. Same item was with lowest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.14 was verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. The same item got the lowest weighted mean with 3.13 by both teacher- and learner respondents by both teacher- and learner respondents, verbally described as “Sometimes True”.
Multiple alternatives can significantly and once the value of the final solution. Once the team or individual has decided the “what should be” model, this target standard becomes the basis for developing a road map for investigating alternatives. Brainstorming and team problem-solving techniques are both useful tools in this stage of problem solving (American Society for Quality,2011) Table 18 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Debugging Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I ask others for help when I don't understand something. | 25 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.33 | Always True | 3.58 | Always True | 2. I change strategies when my learners fail to understand. | 40 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.19 | Sometimes True | 3.51 | Always True | 3. I re-evaluate my assumptions when I get confused. | 44 | 3.83 | Always True | 2.98 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | 4. I stop and go back over new information that is not clear. | 51 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.10 | Sometimes True | 3.47 | Always True | 5. I stop and reread when I get confused. | 52 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.14 | Sometimes True | 3.49 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.83 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.49 | Always True | Table 18 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of debugging, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the debugging. The average weighted mean by teacher-respondent is 3.83, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean by learner-respondent is 3.12, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. The average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.49, verbally described as “Always True”.
All items rated by teacher-respondent have the same weighted mean of 3.38 and verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore, there was no lowest item by teacher-respondent. Item 4 “I stop and go back over new information that is not clear”, was the item by learner-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. And item 3 “I re-evaluate my assumptions when I get confused” was the lowest average weighted men by both teacher- and learner- respondents with3.41, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Every individual person learns by asking questions. It is the simplest and most effective way of learning. People who think that they know it all no longer ask questions—why should they? Brilliant thinkers never stop asking questions because they know that this is the best way to gain deeper insights (Innovation Tools, 2013). Creating a great ask (and learning the ability to say no) are two skills that successful people learn how to do really well (Peck, 2013). Each learner is different in terms of learning ability, academic standards, classroom learning and academic performance. Each has his own way in learning. Teachers can provide learning activities and practical experiences to students according to their abilities and needs (Education Bureau, 2013).
Reevaluation collects feedback for teaching improvement, developing a portfolio for job applications, or gathering data as part of personnel decisions, such as reappointment or promotion and tenure. It also offers suggestions for ensuring that student ratings are not the only source of evidence used to assess instructional effectiveness, an approach consistent with research (The Regents of the University of Michigan, 2015).
When the teacher fully understands information (at all cognitive levels), he is better able to remember information. By using elaboration strategies such as summarizing, questioning, and using visual organizers, he "deep process" information in a way that assists and insures understanding. As a result, he is better able to appropriately "file" and to retrieve information, and thus, assure memory of the information (Keely, 2011).
When learners read through the whole text two or three times, they will find that their own comprehension of the text improves, especially if their goal is to find how information is presented or arranged in that text—how it is sequenced and weighted. Such assessments help readers take a further analytic step. Readers start identifying ways a text's structure or semantics can suggest a point of view (positive, negative, dismissive, laudatory, impartial, incomplete, etc.) or an approach typical or atypical for the text's genre (Center for Open Education Resource and Language Learning, 2010). Table 19 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of Evaluating Statement | Item Number | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish a task. | 7 | 3.5 | Always True | 3.18 | Sometimes True | 3.34 | Always True | 2. I summarize what I've learned after I finish. | 19 | 3.5 | Always True | 3.19 | Sometimes True | 3.35 | Always True | 3. I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals once I'm finished. | 24 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.50 | Always True | 4. I ask myself if I have considered all options after I solve a problem. | 36 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.50 | Always True | 5. I ask myself if I taught as much as I could have once I finish a task. | 38 | 3.83 | Always True | 3.10 | Sometimes True | 3.47 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | 50 | 3.67 | Always True | 3.20 | Sometimes True | 3.44 | Always True | Average Weighted Mean | | 3.69 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.43 | Always True |

Table 19 shows the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science in terms of evaluating, both teacher- and learner-respondents rated the evaluating. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.39, verbally interpreted as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.16, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Additionally the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.43, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item 3 “I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals once I’m finished”, item 4 “I ask myself if I have considered all options after I solve a problem” and item 5 “I ask myself if I taught as much as I could have once I finish a task”, were the items with the highest weighted mean of 3.83 of teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Whereas item 2 “I summarize what I’ve learned after I finish” was the highest weighted mean of learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.19, verbally described as “Sometime True”. Furthermore item 3 “I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals once I’m finished” and item 4 “I ask myself if I have considered all options after I solve a problem”, were the items with highest weighted mean of 3.50 in both teacher- and learner respondents and verbally described as “Always True”. Item 1 “I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish a task”, and item 2 “I summarize what I’ve learned after I finish” were the items by teacher-respondent with the lowest weighted mean of 3. 50, thus verbally described as “Always True”. While item 5 “I ask myself if I taught as much as I could have once I finish a task” has the lowest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item 1 “I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish a task” was the lowest item by average weighted mean in both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.34, was verbally described as “Always True”
Evaluating teachers’ own teaching is a way to identify the strong aspects of their practice, as well as their weaknesses which may need to be changed and improved. Teachers should take initiatives and responsibility to evaluate their teaching and make improvements over time. It is important to understand that evaluating one’s teaching does not mean he is a bad teacher, in fact, it means quite the opposite (Assessment Resources at University of Hong Kong, 2010).
Getting to a decision normally includes coming up with loads of ideas in a creative session and choosing a number of options before agreeing on a final way forward. If the decision is important and relates to strategy then this activity could take some time. It is important to get things right (Harrin, 2015) Teachers have many things to do and think. That is why teaching can be so stressful. But that is normal in world of teachers, (Julian VM, 2011). Critical thinking is a skill that a teacher will undeniably need and exercise to do a task. Person needs to obtain, understand, and analyze information on a much more efficient scale. The job of educators is to equip the students with the strategies and skills they need to think critically in order to cope with these tech problems and obstacles they face elsewhere (Cox, 2015).
The total average weighted mean by teacher-respondents in metacognitive awareness inventory is 3.69, verbally described as “Always True”. Learner-respondents got 3.16, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. The general weighted mean response of both teacher and learner-respondents is 3.43, verbally described as “Always True”.

Table 20 Perception of Teachers and Learners on the Metacognitive Strategies in terms of
Summary Table of the Level of Awareness

Components of Metacognitive Strategies | Teachers | Learners | AveWM | | WM | VI | WM | VI | WM | VI | 1. knowledge of cognition | | | | | | | 2.1. declarative knowledge | 3.69 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.43 | Always True | 2.2. procedural knowledge; | 3.75 | Always True | 3.13 | Sometimes True | 3.44 | Always True | 2.3. conditional knowledge | 3.80 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.48 | Always True | 2. regulation of cognition | | | | | | | 2.1. planning | 3.81 | Always True | 3.23 | Sometimes True | 3.52 | Always True | 2.2. information management | 3.70 | Always True | 3.12 | Sometimes True | 3.41 | Always True | 2.3. monitoring | 3.74 | Always True | 3.10 | Sometimes True | 3.42 | Always True | 2.4. debugging | 3.83 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.49 | Always True | 2.5. evaluating | 3.69 | Always True | 3.16 | Sometimes True | 3.43 | Always True | Grand Weighted Mean | 3.75 | Always True | 3.15 | Sometimes True | 3.45 | Always True |

The table 20 presents the summary of the level of awareness of teacher- and learner respondents on metacognitive strategies. The grand weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.75, verbally described as “Always True”. While the grand weighted mean by learner-respondent is 3.15, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. As a result the average grand weighted mean by both teacher-and learner respondents is 3.45, verbally described as “Always True”.
Component of metacognitive strategies 2.4 debugging is the highest areas with weighted mean by teacher-respondent with 3.83, verbally described as “Always True”. Area 2.1 Planning is the highest area with weighted mean by learner-respondent with 3.23, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Same area has the highest weighted mean by both teacher- and learner respondents with 3.52, was verbally described as “Always True”.
Component of metacognitive strategies 1.1 declarative knowledge and 2.5 evaluating have the lowest areas by teacher-respondent with weighted mean of 3.69 and verbally described as “Always True”. While area 2.3 monitoring is the lowest area by learner-respondent with weighted mean of 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True". Lastly area 2.2 information management has the lowest area by both teacher- and learner respondents with average weighted mean of 3.41, verbally interpreted as “Always True”. 2. Relationship between Profile Variables of the Teacher-respondents and their Perceived Level of Awareness

Table 21
Result of Correlation Analysis between Profile Variables of the Teacher-Respondents and their Perceived Level of Metacognitive Awareness Teachers’ Profile | Correlation Coefficient | Level of awareness | Age | Correlation Coefficient | -.131 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .805 | | N | 6 | Gender | Correlation Coefficient | -.131 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .805 | | N | 6 | Civil Status | Correlation Coefficient | .683 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .135 | | N | 6 | Highest Education | Correlation Coefficient | .147 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .781 | | N | 6 | Major | Correlation Coefficient | .837* | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .038 | | N | 6 | Subject being taught | Correlation Coefficient | -.414 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .414 | | N | 6 | Number of subject preparation | Correlation Coefficient | .679 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .138 | | N | 6 | Average Class per section | Correlation Coefficient | .030 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .954 | | N | 6 | Length of teaching Science | Correlation Coefficient | .812* | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .050 | | N | 6 | Training(s) Attended | Correlation Coefficient | .034 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .949 | | N | 6 |

It is shown on Table 21 showed the relationship between profile variables of the teacher-respondents and their percseived level of awareness. Among profile variables, there are only two variables, namely: majors and length of teaching have coefficients that resulted to a significance level less than 0.05. There is evidence found to reject the hypothesis of the study. Therefore, there is a significant relationship between the two profile variables: majors and length of teaching and their perceived level of metacognitive awareness.
According to Rice (2010), teachers with more experience can distinguish valuable ideas from passing fads. But experience can bring humility, good judgment, and an ability to see and hear the larger story.
Science teachers should definitely consider General Science, because it offers a broader selection of science courses for most undergraduate degree programs. The General Science curriculum enables students to develop skills that relate to a wider variety of topics, ideas, and experiences. The program is multi-disciplinary (requires basic mastery of several sciences beyond the introductory level) and quite flexible, so that the General Science major can design his/her academic program to meet specific goals, (Student Guide to GS Major, 2012). 3. Difference between the Perceptions of Teachers and Learners on the Level of Metacognitive Awareness of the Teachers.

Table 22
Result of t-test Analysis between the Perceptions of Teachers and Learners on the Level of Metacognitive Awareness of the Teachers

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances | | Teachers | Learners | Mean | 3.75 | 3.15 | Variance | 0.00 | 0.00 | Observations | 8 | 8 | Pooled Variance | 0.00 | | Hypothesized Mean Difference | 0 | | Df | 14 | | t Stat | 24.89 | | P(T<=t) two-tail | 0.00 | | t Critical two-tail | 2.14 | |

It can be seen from Table 22, the result of t-test between the perceptions of science teachers and their learners on the former’s level of metacognitive awareness. The computed t (24.89) at degrees of freedom = 14 is higher than the critical value at 0.05 level of significance. There is enough evidence found to reject the hypothesis of the study. Thus, there is a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and learners on the level of metacognitive awareness.
Teacher-respondents have high perceptions on level of awareness on metacognitive strategies.
5./Based on the results of this study, the researcher has proposed activities for teachers to enhance the metacognitive strategies in teaching science.

CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter presents the summary of findings of all the data presented, analyzed and interpreted in Chapter III, the conclusions and recommendation of the researcher. 1. Profile of the Parent-Respondents a. Age. The group aged one was the largest group with 1 respondent or 16.70%, whereas the group aged two respondents with five respondents or 83.30%. b. Sex. There were five female teacher-respondents or 83.30%, and one male-respondent or 16.70%. c. Civil Status. In terms of civil status, there were three or 50.00 % single respondents, and three or 50.00 % married respondents. d. Educational Attainment. In educational attainment profile, there was one teacher-respondent or 16.7% who finished Bachelor of Secondary Education, two teacher-respondents or 33.3% took B.S or A.B with 18 units in education, 2 teacher respondents or 33.3% took M.A units and 1 teacher-respondent or 16.7% e. Specialization. There were two teacher-respondents or 33.3% who took general science, two teacher-respondents or 33.3% took biological science and two teacher-respondents took chemistry. f. Years of Teaching Science. There was one teacher-respondent or 50.00% who had been teaching science for 1 year, two teacher-respondents or 33.3% had been teaching science for 3 years, one or 16.7% each had been teaching science for 5 years, one or 16.7% had been teaching science and 1 or 16.7% had been teaching science for 20 years. g. Trainings Attended. In terms of trainings attended there were 4 or 66.7% teacher-respondents who had training, only one or 16.7% teacher-respondent had 2 numbers of trainings, and one or 16.7% teacher-respondent had five trainings. h. Number of Subjects to be Taught. There were four teacher-respondents who taught two subjects and two teacher-respondents who taught three subjects. i. Number of Preparations. There are three or 50.0% teacher-respondents who had two numbers of preparations, one or 16.7% numbers who had three preparation and two or 33.3% who had seven preparation. j. Class Size. The highest class size of fifty belongs to one or 16.7% teacher-respondent, forty class size belongs to three or 50.0% teacher-respondents, twenty class size belongs to one or 16.7% teacher-respondents and the lowest class size is fifteen taught one teacher-respondents.

2. Level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies of teaching science as Perceived by Teacher-respondents and their respective learners in terms of knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition.

a. Declarative. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.60, verbally interpreted as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.16. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.38, verbally interpreted as “Always True”.
Item eight is the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by both teacher- and learner-respondent, and item 5 is the highest of 3.72 of average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.72.
Item five is the lowest weighted means by teacher-respondent (3.17) and learner-respondent (3.00), verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. Same lowest item of average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.09, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. b. Procedural Knowledge. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.75, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean by learner-respondent is 3.13, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.44, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item two with 3.83 is the highest weighted mean by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”, while item eight with 3.20 is the highest weighted mean by learner-respondent, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. In addition, item four with 3.47 is the highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner- respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Item one with 3. 67 is the lowest weighted mean by teacher-respondent, verbally “Always True”, while item two with 3.05 is the lowest weighted mean by learner-respondent, verbally described as “ Sometimes True”. Item one had lowest average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.41, verbally described as “Always True” c. Conditional Knowledge. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.80, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.15, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.48, verbally interpreted as “Always True”.
Item one and item three were the items with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent. And item one was also highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.36, and highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore item two item four and item five were the items by teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3. 67, verbally described as “Always True”, while the item 4 was the lowest weighted mean of learner-respondents with 3.04, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item one was the lowest item in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally interpreted as “Always True”. d. Regulation of Cognition. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent is 3.81, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.23, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. In addition, the average weighted mean of both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.52, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item six was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent. The same item was also highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.46. Item 6 is still the highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.73, verbally described as “Always True”. On the other hand item one was the item with the lowest mean of 3.67 by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. The item one is also the lowest item in learner-respondent with weighted mean of 2.93, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. The same lowest item by both teacher- and learner respondents with average weighted mean of 3.30, verbally described as “Always True”. e. Information management. The average weighted mean by teacher-respondent is 3.70, verbally described as “Always True”. While the average weighted mean of learner-respondent is 3.12, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Additionally the average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.41, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item six was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 by teacher-respondent. And item one was also highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.36, and highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore item two and item four and item five were the items by teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3. 67, verbally interpreted as “Always True”, while the item 4 was the lowest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.04, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item one was the lowest item in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68, verbally described as “Always True” f. Monitoring. The average weighted mean by teacher-respondent is 3.74, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean by learner-respondent is 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Additionally the average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents is 3.42, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item two was the item with the highest weighted mean of 4.00 of teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. Furthermore item two was also highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.18, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. And the highest in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.59, verbally interpreted as “Always True”. In addition item six was the item in teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3.33, verbally described as “Always True”. Same item with lowest weighted mean of learner-respondents with 3.14, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. Lastly, same item by both teacher- and learner respondents with lowest weighted mean of 3.13, verbally described as “Sometimes True”.
g. Debugging. The average weighted mean of teacher-respondent was 3.83, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean by learner-respondent was 3.12, verbally interpreted as “Sometimes True”. The average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents was 3.49, verbally described as “Always True”.
All items by teacher-respondent have the same weighted mean of 3.38 and verbally described as “Always True”. Thus, there is no lowest item in teacher-respondent. Further more item two, item four and item five were the items by teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3.67, verbally described as “Always True”, while the item 4 was the lowest weighted mean of learner-respondents with 3.04, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item one was the lowest item in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.68,verbally interpreted as “Always True”.
h./Evaluating. The average weighted mean by teacher-respondent was 3.39, verbally described as “Always True”, while the average weighted mean of learner-respondent was 3.16, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Additionally the average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents was 3.43, verbally described as “Always True”.
Item three, item four and item five were the items with the highest weighted mean of 3.83 by teacher-respondent, verbally described as “Always True”. And item two was the highest weighted mean by learner-respondents with weighted mean of 3.19, verbally described as “Sometime True”. Furthermore item three and item four were the items with highest weighted mean of 3.50 by both teacher- and learner respondents, verbally described as “Always True”. While item one and item two were the items in teacher-respondent with lowest weighted mean of 3. 50, verbally described as “Always True”, while the item five was the lowest weighted mean by learner-respondents with 3.10, verbally described as “Sometimes True”. Furthermore item one was the lowest item in average weighted mean by both teacher- and learner-respondents with 3.34, verbally described as “Always True”.
3., Relationship between Profile Variables of the Teacher-respondents and their Perceived Level of Awareness

Among profile variables, there were only two variables, namely: majors and length of teaching have coefficients that resulted to a significance level less than 0.05. There is evidence found to reject the hypothesis of the study. Therefore there is a significant relationship between two profile variables: majors and length of teaching and their perceived level of metacognitive awareness.

4. Difference between the Perceptions of Teachers and Learners to the Level of Metacognitive Awareness of the Teachers
Analysis reveals that there is enough evidence found to reject the hypothesis of the study. Thus there is a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and learners on the level of metacognitive awareness.
Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the researcher arrived at the following conclusions: 1. The teacher-respondents were between the ages of 25 and above, mostly female, three single teachers and three married teachers, have B/S or A.B units in Education and with M.A units, mostly have baccalaureate degree and specialization general science, biological science and chemistry, majority have three years length of teaching science, one training attended, two subjects taught, two preparation and have class size of 40.

2. Debugging is the component of metacognitive strategies with highest weighted mean by teacher-respondent. Planning is the component of metacognitive strategies with highest weighted mean of learner-respondent. And planning is also the highest component of metacognitive strategies by both teacher- and learner respondents.
Declarative knowledge and evaluating were the lowest components of metacognitive strategies by teacher-respondent. Monitoring is the lowest in learner-respondent. And information management is the lowest in both teacher- and learner respondents.

3. There are two variables, namely: majors and length of teaching that there is a significant relationship in perceived level of metacognitive awareness.

4. There is significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and learners on the level of metacognitive awareness.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are given to:

1. For the schools to provide activities to: 1. teachers on metacognitive strategy’s components; declarative knowledge and evaluating to enhance the metaconitive strategies in teaching Science.

2. Further studies may be conducted particularly—
2.a studies using larger samples which can be drawn from the other schools so that the results may be generalized for all teachers and learners in the district of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.

2.b longitudinal studies may be conducted to help reveal level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science. This will help examine and validate the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies of teachers in teaching science.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Introduction . . . . . . . . 1 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . 19
Research Paradigm . . . . . . . 21
Statement of the Problem . . . . . 23 Significance of the Study . . . . . 25 Scope and Delimitation of the Study . . . 26 Definition of Terms . . . . . . 26 II RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Method . . . . . . . 29 Research Locale . . . . . . . 30
Respondents . . . . . . . 35
Statistical Design . . . . . . 36
Description of the Instrument . . . . 36
Administration of Questionnaire . . . . 38

III PRSENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF 39
DATA

IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

List of References
Appendices
Curriculum Vitae

Researcher asked a permission to Dr.Schraw to use the Metaciognitive Awareness Inventory through email.

Acknowledgments

God has a reason for allowing things to happen. We may never understand His wisdom, but we simply have to trust His will.

The researcher is very grateful to God Almighty for without His graces and blessings, this study would not have been possible.

Immeasurable appreciation and deepest gratitude for the help and support are extended to the following persons who in one way or another have contributed in making this study possible.

Mrs. Ma. Minisa A. Cabual, adviser, for her support, advices, guidance, valuable comments, suggestions, and provision that benefited her much in the completion and success of this study; who gave her love, care in doing this research. And giving an endless helped to finish this manuscript. The researcher is very thankful for having such adviser like her.

Dr. Rosalita Licup, statistician, for sharing her knowledge, technical know-how and helped in the analysis of data and statistical computation.

Dr. Teresita Diaz, English critic, whose enduring patience to go over the researcher’s work and constructive criticism.

Dr. Reynaldo Cabual, Dean, for his support and words of encouragement and also giving a long period of time to depend this manuscript.

Dr. Almario Garcia, for guiding and helping the researcher in order to make the study a well done achievement

Deepen thanks and appreciation is also extended to all researchers’ friends for prayers and undying love and support.

And to researcher’s parents, Mrs. Jocelyn Pablo and Mr. Wilfredo Pablo who are always by his side when times he needed their most and helped him a lot in making this study.

JCP

LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF TEACHERS ON METACOGNITIVE
STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENCE OF
PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

A Thesis Proposal
Presented To
The Faculty of the Graduate School
College of the Immaculate Conception
Cabanatuan City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Education
Major in General Science Education

By
JOWEL C. PABLO
March 2016

Abstract
Title: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF TEACHERS ON METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENCE OF PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Researcher: Jowel C. Pablo
Degree: Master of Arts
Major: General Science Education
Adviser: Prof.Ma.Minisa A. Cabual
School: College of the Immaculate Conception, Cabanatuan City

Background/ Rationale
Metacognition refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s learning. Previous accounts of metacognition have distinguished between two major components, including knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge about cognition includes three subprocessess that facilitate the reflective aspect of metacognition: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. Regulation of cognition includes a number of subprocesses that facilitate the control caused extensively, including planning, information management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation. Declarative knowledge is knowledge about learning and one's cognitive skills and abilities. Procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge about how to use strategies and conditional knowledge is a knowledge about when and why to use strategies. Planning is the process of making plans for something, information management is the collection and management of information monitoring is the ability of a learner to be aware, while reading. Debugging is strategy used to correct performance errors or assumptions about the task or strategy used. And evaluation is analysis of performance and strategy effectiveness. Gassner (2009).
The purpose of the study was to determine the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies in teaching science of private secondary schools. The teachers’ profile as to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, specialization, subject taught, number of subject preparation, average class per section, length of teaching science and training attended were being collected to be used as indicator of determining the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies with the components of metacognitive strategies, knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Under the knowledge of cognition, there are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. In regulation of cognition, there are planning, information management, monitoring, debugging and evaluation.
The study also aims to answer if there is a significant relationship between the profile variables of the teachers and the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science. It is used also to identify if there is a significant relationship between the profile variables of the teachers and the level of awareness on metacognitive strategies in teaching science. And what metacognitive strategies may be proposed to enhance the teaching of science? The study includes all Grade seven learners of the five private Secondary schools of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, to determine the level of awareness of teachers on metacognitive strategies in teaching science. The study used descriptive method and used questionnaire as data gathering information.