abstract - global scientific journal · dubbed as the "watershed cradle of northern luzon”,...

ABSTRACT

Title: Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSP): Essential Support to

Coordinated and Integrated Access to Disaster and Risk Reduction Management in

the Cordillera Administrative Region CIA-DRRM, 2017

Researcher:

Ethielyn E. Taqued – Team Leader Evangeline P. Malag

Office: DepED CAR- Regional Office Date: December 06, 2017

Ancestral Domain is life to the Indigenous Peoples of Cordillera and the IKSPs are directly related to the preservation and protection of the AD. This paper aims to interface Indigenous People’s Knowledge to disaster and risk reduction management undertaken by the Mountain Province and Ifugao Divisions with Risk Reduction Plans and organized School Disaster Risk Reduction Group. The results disclosed that respondent schools need to improve Implementation of the Disaster Risk Reduction Measures and organization of Incident Command System that can be activated in times of emergency.

Major organizational functions as Logistics, Finance and Strike Teams has to be undertaken and instructional areas such as Barangay Halls and makeshifts rooms as alternative Instructional venues be reinforced. Access to Distance Learning Modules for Secondary should be improved in both provinces.

The respondents revealed plans on Preparedness and Mitigation and shall enhance response action and rehabilitation efforts. The study further revealed that the IKSPs on Disaster Risk Reduction Preparation/ Management Modules particularly on Water - Soil Management have caused significant increase in information to learners. The DAYNEK,

LUTAK and LEGLEG learning modules of Mountain Province proved Very Significant Learning among Grade 1 and Grade 7.

The Water/ Soil management Indigenous Systems of Ifugao like PAYO and TUPING for Grade 1 and Grade 7 proved Significant improvement, while module on UMA proved No Significant difference in learning among Grade 7 learners but has proven Significant among Grade 1. The findings promote further enhancement in curriculum contextualization and strengthening the Disaster Risk Reduction Implementation in both Provinces.

Keywords: Ancestral Domain; IKSPs; Risk Reduction Group; Cordillera

GSJ: Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 ISSN 2320-9186

299

GSJ© 2018 www.globalscientificjournal.com

ashish

Typewritten Text

ashish

Typewritten Text

GSJ: Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018, Online: ISSN 2320-9186 www.globalscientificjournal.com

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices

(IKSP): Essential Support to Coordinated and Integrated

Access to Disaster and Risk Reduction Management in the Cordillera Administrative

Region CIA-DRRM

I. INTRODUCTION

Dubbed as the "Watershed Cradle of Northern Luzon”, the Cordillera

Administrative Region has a mountainous topography characterized by towering peaks,

plateaus and intermittent patches of valleys. Almost 71 percent of the region's land area

has slopes of 30 percent and above. The Region has a long history and rich diversity of

indigenous knowledge covering all aspects of life including community practices,

institutions, relationships and rituals. It is the basis for agriculture, food preparation,

healthcare, education and training, and environmental conservation. Its Indigenous

knowledge is conserved and is put to good use in development practices, through its

utilization of cost-effective and sustainable strategies that may help the Cordilleran in

their daily struggle for survival and existence. (Damasab ,M. et al.)

The Cordillera is not exempted to the natural hazard in a warming world. The

natural variability and/or processes beyond human control and natural hazards cannot be

avoided. Yet we can help mitigate the possible havoc and turning into disasters effects on

the economic growth and social cohesion by effectively managing its effect through

prevention and proper education. Climate change will likely lead to more intense and, in

cases of some hazards, more frequent climate extremes. Disaster Prevention and Risk

Reduction is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of

disaster. It aims to reduce socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster as well as dealing

with the environmental and other hazards that trigger them. To the Indigenous Peoples of

Cordillera, Ancestral Domain (AD) is life and the Indigenous Knowledge and Practices of


300


the IPs are directly related to the preservation and protection of the Ancestral Domain.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) in CAR includes the consideration of the Ancestral Domain.

The starting point for reducing disaster risk lies in the knowledge of the hazards and the

physical, social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities and of the ways in which

hazards and vulnerabilities are changing in the short and long term, followed by action

taken on the basis of that knowledge.” The study stands on the principle that DRRM in

CAR lies in the practice of the IKSPs of the community and the passing of that

knowledge to the future generations through education. The advent of the culture based

K to 12 curriculum will also pave the realization that the IKSPs will help protect and

preserve the Ancestral domain and this effort is supported by the implementation of the

IP Education in CAR.

This paper aims to interface Indigenous People’s Knowledge in the Cordilleras on

disaster and risk reduction management. An IKSP module that focuses on DRRM is seen

as an intervention for the cognitive enhancement and appreciation of the cultural practices

to risk management. Strategic options and policy directions on environmental

communication and education will also be drawn from these findings aiming in conserving

the Cordilleran Indigenous Knowledge and System as Essential Support to Coordinated

and Integrated Access to Disaster and Risk Reduction Management.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The Philippine archipelago is one of the most disaster-prone areas of the world,

with a wide span of different hazards like tropical cyclones, accompanied by strong winds,

intense rainfall and flooding, storm surges, flash floods, droughts caused by El Niño,

earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Due to the location of the Philippines, there is an

increasing risk from the impacts of more frequent and extreme climate-related events,

such as severe storms, flooding or drought. The Philippines as middle income country is

characterized by a widening gap between rich and poor and has an actual poverty rate of

26.5 %. The nation is hazard, disaster prone and vulnerable to risks, seen is a weak


301


institutional capacities and poor social protection which led to demographic growth and

rapid urbanization resulting in a large number of informal settlements highly vulnerable to

natural disasters. Its coping capabilities, the Philippine Government and at the level of

local governments units has a low disaster risk reduction management, thus, crafted a

plan to enforce a comprehensive legal framework on DRR and its general the capacity.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities,

making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world.(CNN Philippines 2015) The

Philippines is hit by the highest number of disasters over the past 20 years.

(Montenegro,GMA News Nov. 25, 2015) A total of 274 disasters were recorded in the

Philippines from 1995-2015 trailing the United States with 472, China with 441 and India

with 288 from the Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters from 1995 to 2015 research.

The Philippines is also among the top ten countries with the highest absolute number of

affected people with 130 million recorded. The report found that 90% of major disasters

were caused by weather-related events. (UNISDR, 2015)

According to “ The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”, a study conducted by

the Geneva-based United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and the

Belgian-based Centre on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) there are 606,000 people

who died and 4.1 billion people were injured or left homeless of the major disasters from

the period between 1995 and 2015.According to Margareta Wahlström, head of UNISDR

“Weather and climate are major drivers of disaster risk and this report demonstrates that

the world is paying a high price in lives lost, Economic losses are a major development

challenge for many least developed countries battling climate change and poverty”. He

further emphasized that the country’s existing laws on climate change and disaster risk

reduction can provide a “strong legal and policy framework. The full implementation entails

at all levels strong political will, cooperation and coordination among agencies and

stakeholders concerned, resources as well as resourcefulness of local leaders.

“Convergence of actions is key to reducing effectively climate and disaster risks in our local

communities," (De Guzman 2015)


302


The report noted that while there was no way to establish how much of the rise in such

disasters was caused by climate change, the link between the planet's changing climate

and extreme weather was clear. Given the correlation between climate change and

extreme weather, the planet will "witness a continued upward trend in weather-related

disasters in the decades ahead," the report warned. (Excerpt from a report of Jam

Sisante and Agence France-Presse/JST/NB, GMA). There are Geophysical factors which

go beyond administrative boundaries yet vulnerability to types of disasters example of

which is the risk to earthquakes. Since 1968, PHIVOLCS has recorded twelve destructive

earthquakes in the Philippines. This record includes the infamous July 16, 1990 Luzon

earthquake which caused innumerable injuries and at least 1,100 deaths. Seismicity

(geographic and historical distribution of earthquake events) is all over the country except

in the Palawan region. The top ten provinces that are at risk to earthquakes are:Surigao

Del Sur,La Union, Benguet, Pangasinan, Pampanga, Tarlac, Ifugao, Davao Oriental,

Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija, La Union and Pangasinan are prone to earthquakes and from

the aforementioned provinces two provinces are from the Cordillera, Benguet and Ifugao.

This is due to the Manila Trench while Surigaodel Sur and Davao Oriental have earthquake

hazards due to Philippine Trench and nearby active faults. Frequency of shallow and left-

lateral strike-slip earthquakes in Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija, Eastern Pangasinan,

Benguet and La Union can be attributed to its location along the Philippine Fault Zone.

Another factor to consider is risk to earthquake-induced Landslides. Most of the

provinces, except Palawan, are susceptible to landslide hazards. The top ten provinces

that are at risk to earthquake-induced shallow landslides are, Ifugao, Lanao Del Sur,

Sarangani, Benguet, Mountain Province, Bukidnon, Aurora, Davao del Sur, Davao

Oriental, Rizal, Ifugao, Lanao del Sur and Sarangani ranked high because of their high

vulnerability to disasters while Rizal ranked the lowest. Benguet, despite its low

vulnerability, ranked four because of its high exposure factor or population density. Aurora

ranked higher than Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental despite its low vulnerability


303


http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/archives/authors/jamsisante


compared with the other two provinces. This is due to the fact that the whole of Aurora is

more susceptible to landslide than the other two provinces.

However, Ifugao, despite having less earthquake occurrences is at risk because of its very

high vulnerability to disasters.

(http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/545760/scitech/weather/philippines-4th-most-

disaster-prone-country-in-the-world-un-reportdownloaded April 2015)

From September to October 2009, two typhoons hit the Philippines and caused

massive floods and landslides. A study conducted by Takashi Inokuchi, et al (2011) said

that the unprecedented amount of rainfall, and social factors, such as the unregulated

overbuilding of houses on steep slopes, also contributed largely to the damage. Typhoon

Pepeng made landfall in Luzon October 2 and brought massive rains while it traversed

from east to west, but as it exited the northwest of Luzon, it changed its course due to the

Fujiwara effect brought by its interaction with typhoon Ondoy. (Sato 2011) The rainfall

from October 6 to 8 was recorder at 260, 267, and 685 mm, for a total of 1,200 mm with

200 people. According to reports from the Baguio City government, there were around

100 areas within Baguio City that experienced landslides as well as 58 casualties and 5

missing persons. The construction of houses along risk steep slopes that accompanied

the rapid growth the city’s population had exacerbated the damage brought about by the

disaster. Nakasu (2011) pointed out that rapid population growth as an important factor in

this disaster.

The table below presents the comparison of the effect of the three typhoons that

visited CAR in 2015.

Name of Typhoons

Date School Damaged

Damaged Classroom

Classrooms with Major Damaged

Classroom with Minor Damaged

Damaged Learning Materials

Damaged Computers

Kabayan

(least intensity)

August 2015

3 0 0 31 No record No record

Lando

(Highest rainfall)

October 2015

48 25 52 157 1,384 116


304


Ineng

(Average)

July 2015

44 37 86 210 204 21

Total 95 62 138 398 1,588 137

The above data evidenced the major effect of typhoons to the Cordilleras leaving

damaged on the physical facilities of the schools and the Learning Materials. The extent of

damaged has increased as the intensity of typhoon increased showing the vulnerability of

the Region.

One can always recall the tragic incident that happened on 8 November 2013 Typhoon

Haiyan (or Yolanda by its local name), although did not directly hit Cordillera it is one of

the strongest typhoons ever recorded, made landfall devastating parts of the central

Philippines, affecting 14 million people overall and proving once more that the Philippines

is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. As stated in the DRRM Act

10121, it will be the policy of the State to uphold the people's constitutional rights to life

and property by addressing the root causes of vulnerabilities to disasters, strengthening

the country's institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction and management and

building the resilience of local communities to disasters including climate change impacts.

In terms of decentralization, local governments and communities are mandated by the

DRRM Act to enforce DRR measures to address their respective risks. The NDRRMP

2011 to 2028 serves as a national guide for sustainable development. It aims at building

the adaptive capacities of communities, increasing the resilience of vulnerable sectors;

and optimizing disaster mitigation opportunities. The plan includes 4 Priority Areas with

Long Term Goals, 14 Objectives, 24 Outcomes, 56 Outputs and 93 Activities. It also

maintains systematic links with the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan’s Goals, the

National Climate Change Plan and the HFA. Furthermore the NDRRMP highlights, among

other things, the importance of mainstreaming DRRM and CCA in the development

processes such as policy formulation, socio-economic development planning, budgeting

and governance particularly in the areas of environment, agriculture, water, energy,

health, education, poverty reduction, land-use and urban planning and public


305


infrastructure and housing. The NDRRMP also outlines activities aimed at strengthening

the capacity of the national government and the local government units (LGUs) to build the

disaster resilience of communities and to institutionalize arrangements and measures for

reducing disaster risks, including projected climate risks and enhancing disaster

preparedness and response capabilities at all levels. The DRRM Act (RA 10121) is

complimented by its twin law on Climate Change (RA 9729 or Climate Change Act of

2009).They are also working together with the Development Academy of the Philippines

DAP and PDCC just like what they did in Albay. Among the precaution conducted in the

place is the creation of the inter-agency project READY, implemented together with other

programs with the technical assistance from UNDP, has laid important foundations for risk

mapping and early warning systems in the country. UNDP has also supported, together

with the EC the NEDA in the elaboration of the Guidelines Mainstreaming Disaster Risk

Reduction in sub-national Development and Land Use/ Physical Planning in the

Philippines launched in July 2009. Another is the Comprehensive Development Plans and

investment program includes a community-based diagnosis of vulnerabilities and enacting

appropriate ordinances/policies/ instruments that reduce risks, e.g., settlement/housing,

building standards.

The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in 2012 launched the

Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards program or NOAH with the aim to use

advanced technology for timely and accurate hazard information through various media

and communication platforms, thus improving the early warning system and the disaster

management capacities of Local Governments. The project NOAH website

www.noah.dost.gov.ph is one of the platforms designed by the Government to mitigate

and prevent disasters by conveying critical, reliable, authoritative, understandable and

timely information to communities and LGUs. The website includes hazard maps,

weather forecasts, flood warnings and is closely linked with PAGASA and PHIVOLCS. A

Community-based Early Warning System (CBEWS) has also been included as second


306


component in the READY project. From the reviews done, there was No mention of

modules infused with Indigenous Knowledge and Practices to be used in the schools to

educate learners and community in general on Risk reduction and Disaster Mitigation

Practices.

So far there are several recommendations of recovery projects at local level.

Among these are the following: Co-ordinate programs, projects activities with other actors

and exchange information with them on a regular basis in order to take advantage of

possible synergies/ avoid duplication, Assess quality of local risk management capacity

thoroughly/make reality check, Strengthen institutional set up at local level by adopting

DRM measures, Emergency shelters and emergency response centers should be re-

assessed with regard to their location and their exposure to all potential hazards,

Integrate Build-Back-Better approach into the projects, instead of solely re-establish the

situation before the disaster.

Furthermore, involvement with prevention activities as they are more cost effective DRR or

mainstream DRR in livelihood projects: Ecosystem based DRR can provide win-win

situations (e.g. Mangrove trees can play a vital role as nature’s bio-shields as they absorb

and dissipate much of the energy of the storm surge from a typhoon, by protecting the

mangrove trees, livelihoods and biodiversity can be strengthened and the vulnerability to

disasters can be reduced), Increase the resilience of systems and communities trough the

project activities: In the case of community resettlements of related to “No-Dwelling Zone”

(NDZ) ensure directly or through advocacy at LGU level that fundamental human rights of

dwellers are respected and pay attention to issues such as the maintenance of social

fabric, social infrastructure in resettlement locations and access to employment. Otherwise,

the exposure to hazards will be reduced on cost of increased vulnerability and the overall

risk will remain unchanged, or the potential conflicts and social costs will even be

increased. . (Lucerne, 19.6.2014/updated 8.7.2014 Barbara Rothenberg).

Deped Order No. 27, s. 2015 advocated the Family Earthquake Preparedness to


307


all elementary and secondary schools and instruct all schools to accomplish the family

earthquake preparedness homework for G2 and SPED and G3 to Grade 10 with their

families and submit it to their respective advisers for discussion with students along with

their family responses during the homeroom session. This activity guideline supports the

Prioritizing the Mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in the School

System and Implementation of Programs relative which seek to engage different

education stakeholders, especially learners and their families in disaster prevention and

preparedness. The activity sheets mentioned above shall be used as reference in the

formulation of the Pretest and also in the development of the module to improve

awareness on disaster and risk reduction among learners.

In line with the efforts of the Disaster and Risk Reduction management (DRRM),

the rich diversity of indigenous knowledge covering all aspects of life including community

practices, institutions, relationships and rituals could be an effective source of DRRM

practices as these helped the community to last for a long time in spite of the many

disasters and catastrophes encountered. The culture with its practices is the basis for

agriculture, food preparation, healthcare, education and training, and environmental

conservation. In this Region Indigenous knowledge is conserved and is put to good use

in development, through its utilization of cost-effective and sustainable strategies that

may help the Cordilleran in their daily struggle for survival and existence (Magcale-

Macandog, et al. 2016) thus empower learners to become agents to sustain Mitigation of

risks through the cultural practices. A Learning Modules aiming such learning to mitigate

disaster and in the preservation and conservation of the environment is seen as

intervention to quickly reducing connections to the culture and DRRM.

The key characteristics of Indigenous Learning Systems (ILS) strengthens this

study as these are built on the following: the classroom is the whole area/ territory of the

community, (DepED-IPsEO 2015 on Contextualization), the venue for learning is anywhere

anytime. And since the ancestral domain is their classroom the heart to protect and save it


308


from destruction is essential. An ancestral domain based DRR can provide a win-win

situation. The IPEd curriculum is actually IKSPs in action so to say. The IKSPs involded ibn

this activity are generated and lived by a community and communicated as collective

property ( no one person owns the IKSPs) Concepts and competencies can be related and

discussed from the life experience, perspective of the community, concepts and

competencies can be related to community events and institutions. Integrative teaching can

be the approach used so that learning is more holistic as IKSPs can be integrative theme

across subject areas as this output helps nurtures learners to be culture bearers as the

Elders passed it on to them. Learning is in relation to the dynamics of the ancestral domain

wherein activities that harness observation of and relating with the environment are to be

strengthened. As learning is a collective process it fosters group learning and group work,

not just individual achievement. Learning by doing is one of the dominant teaching-learning

process that has developed, in some communities, their natural giftedness.

On the other hand one of the mandates of the Basic Education Curriculum is to

develop contextualized learning materials needed to develop the skills and competencies

of the learners in the K to 12. In support to IPED former NCIP Commissioner Bridget Pawid

during the 2017 IPED Congress quoted, “ IPED is not “going back” rather, it is a program

based on the recognition of the rights of the IPs to an education that respects their cultures

and identities. The tendency of the past to look at the culture of the IPs as backward and

primitive and their identities as something they should leave behind is a violation of their

cultural rights and to their identity. If Ancestral Domain is life for the IPs then to protect it is

imperative to their system, this premise the support and coherence of the IKSPs to the

DepEd Order No. 37,s 2015 on the Comprehensive DRRM in Education Framework. The

education interventions on DRRM shall be aligned with the Three (3) education outcomes,

ACCES, QUALITY, GOVERNANCE and the four (4) DRRM thematic areas PREVENTION

AND MITIGATION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY AND

REHABILITATION. This is to maintain a learner-centered, rights-based implementation at


309


all levels. The same order, DO 37, 2015 released August 12, 2015 stipulates that DRRM

Interventions in schools will be categorized using the three pillars of Comprehensive

School Safety (CSS) Framework. Safety Learning Facilities, School Disaster Management

and Risk Reduction and Resilience Education. The later refers to the integration of DRRM

in the school curricula and in extra-curricular or school activities as well as providing

necessary material support. This also covers the conduct of orientations, workshops, and

trainings for learners and personnel related to DRRM. The learning module envisioned in

the study will fall under this Risk Reduction and Resilience Education Pillar.

Learning modules, these have evolved as a subsequent technique to programmed

learning. Learning modules contain many of the features of programmed learning that are

considered beneficial to the learners. The module strategy stands to benefit the learners

whether as a class or individualized instructions. They are also flexible and combine many

aspects of modern instruction theory. Concept formation and conceptual models fit

naturally into this instructional medium. The chief characteristics of learning modules are

that they are flexible and use mediated instruction adapted to individual or group learning

situation. Learning Modules is a packet of teaching materials consisting of behavioral

objectives and provisions for evaluation. The objectives are written in behavioral terms, are

specific and embody the accomplishment of microscopic bits of changed behavior based

on learning module theory. The sequence of learning activities is designed to: provide

instant feedback to the learner on his achievement, proceed from lower to higher cognitive

levels. This should contain materials with intrinsic interest for the learner provide optional

and recycling paths to achieve the objective, be self-continuative to the conclusion of the

module and equip the learner to achieve the stated behavioral objective. (Robinson,

Crittenden 1972).

III. Research Question

The study answers the general question on how can a contextualized Learning

Resource Material infused with DRRM thematic areas be effective in the teaching –


310


learning process to enhance knowledge on preparedness, response, and recovery

and rehabilitation among respondent schools?

Specifically it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the degree of awareness and preparedness of the respondent schools on

emergencies in relation to resources, preparedness plan , buffer stock, hazard

mapping and conduct of drills among respondent schools ;

2. What KSPs in Ifugao, and Mountain Province could be Integrated in the IPED

curriculum of Grade 1 and Grade 7 covering the year round competencies that

clearly applies DRRM measures and thematic areas on Prevention and Mitigation,

Response, and Recovery and Rehabilitation?

3. What would be the difference in the learner’s absorption and acceptance of the

contextualized Learning Resources when introduced to Grade 1 and Grade 7

respondents?

IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATION

Development of the module will be limited to the IKSPs that clearly identified the DRRM

principles and practices. This will be developed to the level of six year old in Grade 1 and

twelve year old students of Grade 7. Development stage will be done during the

coordination/interface meeting and writeshop activity as referred to in the Gant Chart of

this proposal. The implementation of the module and respondents of the study were

limited to two divisions out of the eight divisions in CAR on the basis of the Literature

review reflecting Ifugao, Mountain Province and Benguet with the later having

waived their inclusion to the study due to time constraints and hectic activities in

the division. (gmanetwork.com/news/story/545760/scitech/weather/philippines-4th-most-

disaster-prone-country-in-the-world-un-report downloaded April 2015

V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

There were originally three identified provinces of the Cordilleras these are

Benguet, Ifugao and Mt. Province. As mentioned, Benguet waived their inclusion to

the study due to time constraints and hectic activities in the division during the


311


conduct of the study. From each province /SDO four schools were chosen, two

elementary and two secondary schools based on vulnerability to disaster and from each

school ten (10) Pupils from Grade 1 and ten (10) students from Grade 7 were randomly

selected. To every division there were one hundred (100) Grade 1 respondents and one

hundred (100) Grade 7 respondents a total of 200 respondents per SDO to a grand total

of 400 respondents for the study. The intervening modules was output of all the two

SDOs and the regional Office in a collaborative training workshop (Ref: WFP).

A. Methodological Framework and Sampling

Conceptual Framework

The SIX-stage approachwill be used in the process

1. Coordination meeting – was conducted to trail blazed the direction of the

study through coordinated planning. This was participated by Director/ARD,

IPED focal persons (Region and Divisions), Chief of the CLMD and ESSD,

proponents of the study and EPS per learning area in the CLMD.

2. Development of the Module –a writeshop and interface activity conducted

INPUT

IKSPS Six Stage Collaborative Approach BERF Fund

PROCESS

Coordination Meeting

Development

Production

Implementation including QA

Post- Implementation

Dissemination

OUTPUT

IKSP –DRRM infused Modules for G1 and G7

300 G1

DRRM Infused Modules

300 G7

DRRM Infused Modules


312


on the contextualization of the DRRM principles and practices aligned to the

IKSPs and the K to 12 competencies. Specifically on the agriculture-farming,

weather, land, air indigenous knowledge and learning systems. This process

includes the Quality assurance of the modules using the LRMDS QA Tools

and consent seeking with the ICCs.

3. Production of the modules – the approved and QA modules were

reproduced into three hundred copies to fulfill the sampling technique of 100

per division identified and with the assumption of ten copies per respondent

school.

4. Implementation Proper – Four identified schools from each of the identified

SDOs making a total Eight respondent schools. The list was based on

statics and on the frequently of affected schools in the province. A situational

analysis is the pre-requisite to support the list.

5. Post- Implementation Meeting/ Conference – To further analyze and

interpret the data a collaborative and a brain storming activity in planning the

presentation of results was conducted.

6. Dissemination and Advocacy – Regional level dissemination activity to

present the findings and policy direction of the study to concerned people in

authority.

A. Data Collection

B.1.Coordinated and Integrated Access to Disaster and Risk Reduction

Management (CIADRRM) Forms based from the 2016 validated tools of Disaster

and Risk Management Agency of the Philippines.

a. CIADRRM Form 1 –– Situational analysis of the school respondents.

b. CIADRRM Form 2 –- Interface Observation Template for

Contextualization of the Education resource

c. CIADRRM Form 3 - Questionnaires for Division offices on Basic Program

Component in terms of :


313


i. Preparedness

ii. Response Effectiveness

iii. Relief and Rehabilitation

B.2. Quality Assurance of the LR– to account for sustainable implementation

by regular monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the

Learning Resources. The following are the National QA tools which could be

used to QA the outputs before utilization to the SDOs.

A.LRMDS Tool Form 1 - IPR Evaluation Report- provides legal compliance

and IP requirements.

b. LRMDS Tool Form 2 - Educational Soundness General Evaluation

Checklist– based on the holistic approach to education that gives

emphasis on the underlying principles that each person finds identity,

meaning and purpose in life through connections to the community, to the

natural world and to spiritual values such as compassion and peace.

(LRMDS Assessment and Evaluation Vol. 2, 2010)

c. LRMDS Tool Form 3 - Evaluation Rating Sheet for Print and Off Print

Resources– technical compliance on format, file size, authoring, software

interoperability, plug-ins, assures usability by range of teachers and

students.

d. LRMDS Tool Form 4 - Social Content Guideline Tool- To ensure that

text, art, and photos// illustrations of textbooks and teachers’ manuals and

other instructional materials teach social values as Government’s

educational thrust.

e. LRMDS Tool Form 5 - Evaluation Tool for the contextualization of

Cultural and Curriculum Standards.

The development of the CIADRRM Module was done in the Writeshop on

Contextualizing K to 12 competencies with DRRM practices and principles

aligned to the thematic areas.


314


The collection of data was done using float and retrieval method of the tools

used. Pre-post assessment and performance standards of the learners were

utilized to test the hypothesis. The collected information was interpreted using

Likert scale, Central tendencies and regression technique. T-test correlated

were employed to interpret the pre-post assessment.

B. Ethical Issues

There are essential understanding in the Fundamental Relationships of Cultural

Communities some are presented in this proposal: ( IPsEO 2015)

a. Relationship with the place- This is vital to community life since all activities of

the human community are one way or another related to the environment. It is

by relating with the place that a community is able to grow and develop.

b. Relationship with the human community and cultural standards - This has to

be nurtured and maintained expressed in conflict resolution practices, justice

system of communities, self-help practices and the like. These are also seen

in how communities have ways to make sure that their sense of unity,

collective action and oneness are sustained.

c. Relationship with the sacred/spiritual- Values, relating with the Creator, of

important and shared perspectives that have been handed down from one

generation to another, of our relationship with the elders, these concerns are

related to the spiritual dimensions of human life. This dimension is crucial for

a community to survive since it guides the two relationships of the place and

human community. Without the spiritual dimension, the community’s moral

and spiritual anchorage will weaken which could entail grave consequence.

Each cultural community, particularly IP has a way of expressing these

fundamental relationships. The expression of these three relationships is

seen in IP communities and these will be respected in the light of the

expression in the development of the contextualized DRRM modules in

Grade 1 and Grade 7 through the consultation with the Indigenous Elders in


315


the community where the IKSP belongs. (Contextualization Writeshop NEAP-

CAR 2016)

C. Data Analysis

a. To answer the question on “what is the degree of awareness and preparedness

of the respondent schools on preparedness for emergencies in relation to

resources, preparedness plan, buffer stock, hazard mapping and conduct of

drills among respondent schools? The following CIADRMM Forms 1-5 tools

were utilized.

Data revealed the following findings: Disaster Risk Reduction Preparation

undertaken by the school respondents showed that the eight respondent

schools from Mountain Province and Ifugao Divisions have Risk

Reduction Plans and organized School Disaster Risk Reduction Group.

However, poor Implementation of the Disaster Risk Reduction Measures

and no organized Incident Command System that can be activated in

times of emergency were noted. Major organizational functions as

Logistics, Finance and Strike Teams were not undertaken. The respondent

schools have no available instructional venue and rely solely on Barangay

Halls as possible Instructional venue. Some schools constructed

makeshift structures and made available in case of disaster. Distance

Learning Modules for Secondary were NOT noted, none ADM materials for

Elementary Schools and less ADM/FLO materials in the Secondary

schools were also observed in the study. The respondents have plans on

Preparedness and Mitigation but less on response action and

rehabilitation.

b. To answer the question “what possible IKSPs could be Integrated IPED

curriculum that clearly applies DRRM measures and thematic areas on

Prevention and Mitigation, Response, and Recovery and Rehabilitation?


316


In Mountain Province the Soil Management Indigenous System was

looked into with the following Indigenous practices as DAYNEK, LUTAK

and LEGLEG, while, in Ifugao Division similar SOIL/ Water Management

System with the following Indigenous Practices on PAYO, TUPING and

UMA.

c. To answer the problem on What would be the difference in the learner’s

absorption and acceptance of the contextualized Learning Resources used with

IKSPs wth DRRM Thematic Areas when introduced to Grade 1 and Grade 7

respondents?

A ten item test for Grade 1 and twenty item for Grade 7 pre-post test were

utilized to determine the degree of difference in the learning of the and

student respondents after exposed to the module. On the IKSPs on Disaster

Risk Reduction Preparation/ Management Modules, the intervention has

caused significant information learnt by learners on Soil Management as

Indigenous System. DAYNEK, LUTAK and LEGLEG modules has proved Very

Significant Difference among Grade 1 and Grade 7 learners with t-stat values

greater than α critical values prompted to accept Ha that Post –test is greater

that Pre-test and reject Ho. Signified by their high rated outputs the

indigenous practices in the modules were learned by the Grades 1 and 7

learners. In Ifugao, Province the water/ Soil management Indigenous System

was in focused wherein the PAYO and TUPING for Grade 1 and Grade 7 and

UMA for grade 7 modules proved No significant difference among Grades 1

and 7 learners with t-stat values lower than the α critical values prompted to

reject Ha that Post –test is greater that Pre-test and accept Ho. However, the

Indigenous System UMA has made a significant difference among learners in

Grade 1 with stat-value greater than α critical value that led to accept Ha and

Reject Ho. It is implied that Soil Management is familiar and very much


317


observed by the learners in their community while the Water management

Indigenous Practices are not familiar among student respondents.

VI. The result of the study provided the policy directions/ next steps of the region

regarding contextualization relative to DRMM.

VII. Time Table/ Gant Chart

Activity/ies Objective/s Target Participants Target Date/ Time

1. Coordination meeting Plan and coordinate the proposal for the development and implementation of the study

ORD -2 CLMD – 11 SDOS – 8 HRDD- 2 QUAD – 2

September 2016

2. Development of the Module

Develop a contextualized module interfaced with IKSPs and aligned to the DRRM thematic areas

ORD -2 CLMD – 11 SDOS – 24 with ICCs HRDD- 2 QUAD – 2

October - November,

2016

3. Reproduction of Modules Reproduce modules for the respondent Divisions

ORD -2 CLMD – 10 SDOS – 8

November to December

2016 4. Implementation Proper Implement the modules ICA

DFRRM modules to the identified respondents

ORD -2 CLMD – 11 SDOS – 24 HRDD- 2 QUAD – 2 Schools – 30

December 2016 to January

2017

5. Post- Implementation Meeting

Analysis, Interpretation and next steps

ORD -2 CLMD – 11 SDOS – 8 HRDD- 2 QUAD – 2

January to February

2017

6. Dissemination Conference/ Advocacy

Disseminate the results and policy direction ( next steps)

ORD -2 CLMD – 11 SDOS – 24 HRDD- 2 QUAD – 2 Schools - 30

Half day within

January 2017

The study targeted September 2016 to February 2017 with a given a

tolerance of two months as extension to April 2017 anticipating unscheduled yet

relevant activities reflected in the OPCR and IPCR of the proponents and any

downloaded mandates from the central office.

Table 1. Time Table


318


Recommendation:

The findings promote:

1. Revitalize the process of contextualizing the curriculum on the Indigenous

practices not explored in the study like LAPAT, UBOBO, SINGA, SIPAT for

Mountain Province. MUNLOBA, MUNGAUD,MUNCONTOK, HOGOP for

Ifugao;

2. Strengthen the Disaster Risk Reduction Implementation particularly the land

and water management through advocacy together with the support of

LGU particularly on how it is practiced in the community;

3. Sustain integration of IKSP to the curriculum to enhance competencies;

4. Strengthen Response Action Teams and rehabilitation programs in school

and community;

5. Revitalize commitment to observe and sustain the indigenous practices to

coordinate Risk Reduction and Mitigation practices.

VIII. Dissemination and Advocacy

The research Congress in the region was conducted in December 2017, and was an

avenue to present the findings of the study. Publication to a journal is seen as an

opportunity to advocate IKSPs to the Disaster Risk Reduction Program in the Philippines.


319


IX. References/ Bibliography

1. Calliari,E.&Mysiak,J. (2013) Center on Climate Change CATALYST Online Training Module for Practitioners

2. Damasab ,M and Macandog, E. (2015) Understanding and Conserving Indigenous Knowledge on Sustainable Natural Resource Management in the Cordillera Administrative Region of the Philippines.

3. IPsEO (2016) Contextualization of Lesson Plans and Learning Modules

4. Jump up to:a b "Regional Profile: Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)". CountrySTAT Philippines. Retrieved 18 September 2014.

5. National Statistics Office(2010) Population and Annual Growth Rates for The

Philippines and Its Regions, Provinces, and Highly Urbanized

Cities" (PDF). Census and Housing Population. Retrieved 9 August 2013.

6. http://www.slideshare.net/xamteody/car-region-philippines 2016

7. Robinson, J.W. and Crittenden, W.B.(1972) Hournal of Extension: Winter

8. Santos, E., CNN Philippines (2016) Philippines among World's most disaster-

prone Countries

9. Sisante ,J. and France-Presse, A. (2015) /JST/NB, GMA ).

10. https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zhEVYSL6jZeo.kda7RLWI_U2E .

downloaded April 8, 2016


320


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordillera_Administrative_Region#cite_ref-CountrySTAT_2-0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordillera_Administrative_Region#cite_ref-CountrySTAT_2-1

http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=14

http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=14

http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/Population%20and%20Annual%20Growth%20Rates%20for%20The%20Philippines%20and%20Its%20Regions%2C%20Provinces%2C%20and%20Highly%20Urbanized%20Cities%20Based%20on%201990%2C%202000%2C%20and%202010%20Censuses.pdf



http://www.slideshare.net/xamteody/car-region-philippines


Appendix:


321



322



323



324



325



326



327



328



329



330



331



332



333



334



335



336



337



338



339



340



341



342



343



344


TROPICAL STORM KABAYAN

Region

Division

Count of ID

Sum of Total Schools with Report

Sum of Schools with Reported Damages

Sum of Totally Damaged Classrooms

Sum of Partially Damaged Classrooms (Major)

Sum of Partially Damaged Classrooms (Minor)

Sum of Temporary Learning Spaces needed

Sum of Number of Deceased DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Injured DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Missing DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Displaced DepEd Personnel

Sum of Total Classrooms used as Evacuation Center

Sum of Number of damaged school furnitures

Sum of Number of damaged learning materials

Sum of Number of damaged computer equipment

CAR - Cordillera Administrative Region

1,819

1,723

44

37

86

210

55

-

-

-

-

25

330

204

21

Abra

310

310

9

4

16

27

6

-

-

-

-

9

-

-

-

Division

Count of ID

Sum of Total Schools with Report

Sum of Schools with Reported Damages

Sum of Totally Damaged Classrooms

Sum of Partially Damaged Classrooms (Major)

Sum of Partially Damaged Classrooms (Minor)

Sum of Temporary Learning Spaces needed

Sum of Number of Deceased DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Injured DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Missing DepEd Personnel

Sum of Number of Displaced DepEd Personnel

Sum of Total Classrooms used as Evacuation Center

1,017

997

3

-

10

31

5

-

-

-

-

15

Baguio City

66

66

-

-

-

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benguet

426

406

2

-

9

22

5

-

-

-

-

9

Ifugao 261

261

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

6

Mt. Province

264

264

1

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

TROPICAL STORM INENG 2015


345


Apayao

201

142

3

1

4

10

2

-

-

-

-

1

165

60

-

Baguio City

66

66

6

4

10

76

2

-

-

-

-

-

115

134

8

Benguet

426

426

12

15

31

80

41

-

-

-

-

9

-

-

-

Ifugao

261

261

3

7

5

8

-

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

1

Kalinga

190

153

6

2

11

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12

Mt. Province

264

264

5

4

9

9

3

-

-

-

-

-

50

10

-

Tabuk City

101

101

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

TROPICAL STORM - LANDO OCTOBER 2016

Region

Division

Count of ID

Sum of

Enrollment (December

2014)

Sum of Teaching

Sum of Non-teaching

Sum of Total Schools with

Report

Sum of Schools with

Reported Damages

Sum of Totally Da

maged Classrooms

Sum of Partially Da

maged Classrooms (Major)

Sum of Partially Da

maged Classrooms (Minor)

Sum of Temporar

y Learnin

g Spaces needed

Sum of Number of Deceased DepEd

Personnel

Sum of Number of

Injured DepEd

Personnel

Sum of Number of

Missing

DepEd

Personnel

Sum of Number of

Displaced DepEd

Personnel

Sum of Total

Classrooms used as Evacuation Center

Sum of Number of damaged

school furnitures

Sum of Number of damaged

learning materials

Sum of Number of damaged computer equipment

CAR - Cordillera Administrative Region

1,819

338,908

13,266

946

1,819

48

25

52

157

16

-

-

-

-

46

375

1,384

116

Abra

310

48,316

2,080

145

310

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Apayao

201

28,546

1,076

77

201

1

-

-

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

36

9

Baguio City

66

59,043

1,912

82

66

6

-

3

35

-

-

-

-

-

-

54

408

38

Benguet

426

74,333

2,959

203

426

15

4

15

76

1

-

-

-

-

45

61

-

14

Ifugao

261

42,818

1,625

177

261

8

9

13

2

1

-

-

-

-

-

8

260

1

Kalinga

19

25,378

973

73

190

11

2

10

24

8

-

-

-

-

-

106

376

45


346


0

Mt. Province

264

35,819

1,776

128

264

2

2

2

6

2

-

-

-

-

1

4

4

2

Tabuk City

101

24,655

865

61

101

5

8

9

6

4

-

-

-

-

-

140

300

7


347


DAYNEK Pre Post

Grade 1 DATA Elem School

1 3 3

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

2 2 3

3 0 3

Variable 1 Variable 2

4 2 3

Mean 2.09375 2.90625

5 1 3

Variance 0.474798387 0.087701613

6 3 3

Observations 32 32

7 2 3

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

8 2 3

Df 42

9 2 3

t Stat -6.12825877

10 3 3

P(T<=t) one-tail 1.29842E-07

11 2 3

t Critical one-tail 1.681952358

12 2 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 2.59683E-07

13 2 3

t Critical two-tail 2.018081679

14 3 3

15 3 3

Ha Post test greater than Pre Test

16 2 3

Significant values Reject Ho accept Ha

17 3 3

18 3 3

19 2 3

20 2 2

21 3 3

22 2 3

23 2 3

24 2 2

25 2 2

26 2 3

27 2 3

28 2 3

29 2 3

30 2 3

31 1 3

32 1 3

T 67 93


348


Tadian MP TUE Elem School

Daynek

G1 1 0 3

2 2 3

3 2 3


4 2 3

5 2 3


6 2 2

Mean 1.631578947 2.947368421

7 1 3

Variance 0.356725146 0.052631579

8 1 3

Observations 19 19

9 1 3


10 1 3

df 23

11 1 3

t Stat -8.96421457

12 2 3

P(T<=t) one-tail 2.88464E-09

13 2 3


14 2 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 5.76927E-09

15 2 3


16 2 3

17 2 3

Ha: Post test greater than Pre test

18 2 3

Reject Ho

19 2 3

T 31 56


349


LUTAK PRE POST

Grade 1 DATA Elem School

1 2 3

2 1 3


3 2 3

4 2 3


5 1 3

Mean 1.607142857 2.857142857

6 2 3

Variance 0.395502646 0.126984127

7 2 3

Observations 28 28

8 2 3


9 2 3

df 43

10 2 3

t Stat -9.150638077

11 2 3

P(T<=t) one-tail 5.94531E-12

12 1 3


13 2 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 1.18906E-11

14 2 3


15 2 3

16 1 3

Ha: Post Test Greater than Pre Test

17 1 3

Significant values: Reject Ho

18 1 2

19 2 3

20 2 3

21 1 3

22 1 2

23 0 2

24 2 3

25 1 3

26 1 2

27 2 3

28 3 3

T 45 80


350


LUTAK PRE POST

Grade 7

1 4 5

2 3 4


3 4 4

4 4 5


5 4 5

Mean 3.363636364 4.5

6 2 4

Variance 0.813852814 0.452380952

7 4 5

Observations 22 22

8 4 5


9 2 5

df 39

10 4 5

t Stat -4.736654667

11 4 4

P(T<=t) one-tail 1.43223E-05

12 2 3

t Critical one-tail 1.684875122 13 4 5

P(T<=t) two-tail 2.86446E-05

14 2 5


15 3 4

16 4 5

Ha: Post test greater than pre test

17 4 5

Significant Values: Reject Ho

18 3 4

19 2 5

20 3 3

21 5 5

22 3 4


351


Lutak G1

TUE Elem School

pre post


1 2 3

2 2 3


3 2 3

Mean 2.052631579

2.842105263

4 2 3

Variance 0.608187135

0.140350877

5 2 3

Observations 19 19

6 2 3


7 1 3

df 26

8 1 3

t Stat

-3.977475644

9 1 2

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000247888

10 1 3


11 1 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000495775

12 3 3


13 3 3

14 3 3

Ha: Post test greater than pre test

15 3 3

Reject Ho

16 3 3

17 2 2

18 2 2

19 3 3

T 39 54


352


BALAOA NHS LUTAK G7 1 0 4


2 0 5

3 4 5


4 4 3

Mean 3 4.375

5 3 5

Variance 2.8 0.383333333

6 4 4

Observations 16 16

7 3 5


8 2 4

df 19

9 3 5

t Stat -3.082631636

10 0 4

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003063841

11 4 4


12 4 5

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006127683

13 4 4


14 5 5

15 3 4

Ha: Postest greater than Pretest

16 5 4

Reject Ho

DAYNEK BALAOA NHS

Tadian MP 1 1 1

2 2 2


3 2 2

4 2 2


5 3 2

Mean 1.625 2.5

6 2 4

Variance 0.65 0.933333333

7 2 2

Observations 16 16

8 2 3


9 2 2

df 29

10 2 4

t Stat -2.78151795

11 1 2

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.004705374

12 1 4


13 2 2

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.009410749

14 2 4


15 0 2

Ha: Pretest greater than Posttest

16 0 2

Reject Ho


353


Daynek PRE POST

Grade 7

1 1 3

2 2 3


3 1 3

4 2 3


5 0 2

Mean 2.318181818 3.636363636

6 3 3

Variance 1.655844156 0.909090909

7 4 5

Observations 22 22

8 2 3


9 2 3

df 39

10 3 4

t Stat -3.860543675

11 3 3

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000207267

12 3 3


13 2 4

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000414533

14 4 5


15 2 5

16 3 5

Ha: Pre test greater than post test

17 2 3

Significant values. Reject Ho

18 2 5

19 4 4

20 1 3

21 5 5

22 0 3


354


Namatec NHS

Daynek Grade 7

Student Pre Post

1 3 4

2 1 3

3 0 2

4 0 3


5 1 2

6 4 2


7 1 4

Mean 1.740740741 3.333333333

8 1 2

Variance 1.660968661 0.846153846

9 0 2

Observations 27 27

10 4 3


11 1 4

df 47

12 1 3

t Stat -5.226353674

13 0 4

P(T<=t) one-tail 1.94886E-06

14 4 5


15 2 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 3.89773E-06

16 2 4


17 1 4

18 3 4

Ha: Post test is greater than Pre test

19 4 5

Significant Values Reject Ho

20 2 4

21 2 3

22 1 4

23 1 2

24 2 3

25 2 3

26 1 4

27 3 4

T 47 90


355


Tadian MP TUE ES "LEGLEG" Student Pre Post

1 0 3

2 0 3


3 0 3

4 0 3

Variable 1

Variable 2

5 0 3

Mean 1.631578947 3

6 1 3

Variance 4.912280702 0

7 9 3

Observations 19 19

8 3 3


9 2 3

df 18

10 2 3

t Stat

-2.691255681

11 3 3

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00746309

12 0 3


13 3 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.01492618

14 0 3


15 2 3

16 0 3


17 0 3

Reject Ho

18 3 3

19 3 3

T 31 57


356


IFUGAO

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE PAYO-GRADE 7

Rufino Chungalao NHS

# Pre Post

1 1 1

2 1 2


3 2 4

4 2 3


5 2 3

Mean 1.851851852 2.14814815

6 2 3

Variance 1.823361823 1.28490028

7 3 2

Observations 27 27

8 3 2


9 1 2

df 50

10 3 3

t Stat -0.873271502

11 1 1

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.193344973

12 0 2


13 1 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.386689945

14 2 2


15 1 0

16 5 4


17 1 0

Accept Ho: No significant Difference

18 1 2

19 1 1

20 1 1

21 0 2

22 4 3

23 4 4

24 4 1

25 0 1

26 3 3

27 1 3


357



Caragasan NHS

PRE-TEST POST TEST

1 1 3

2 2 3


3 2 2

4 2 3


5 1 3

Mean 2 2.2

6 4 1

Variance 1.529411765 1.341176471

7 1 0

Observations 35 35

8 2 2


9 1 3

df 68

10 3 0

t Stat -0.698358732

11 1 0

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.24366717

12 1 3


13 2 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.487334339

14 1 4


15 4 2

1 0 2


2 0 4

Accept Ho

3 4 1

4 2 2

5 3 2

6 2 2

7 2 0

8 1 1

9 3 1

10 3 4

11 5 3

12 4 2

13 2 2

14 1 3

15 1 2

16 1 2

17 1 3

18 3 3

19 3 4

20 1 2


358



Rufino chunaglao

Pre Post

1 1 1

2 1 2

3 2 4


4 2 3

5 2 3


6 2 3

Mean 1.875 1.916667

7 3 2

Variance 1.940217391 1.297101

8 3 2

Observations 24 24

9 1 2


10 3 3

df 44

11 1 1

t Stat -0.113449253

12 0 1

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.455095231

13 2 2


14 1 0

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.910190462

15 5 4


16 1 0

17 1 2


18 1 1

Reject Ho

19 1 1

20 0 1

21 4 3

22 4 3

23 4 1

24 0 1

T 45 46


359


Water Management PAYO UBAO NHS

# Pre Post 1 0 2 2 0 4 3 4 1

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 4 2 2

5 3 2

Variable 1 Variable 2 6 2 2

Mean 2.1 2.25

7 2 0

Variance 1.884210526 1.144736842 8 1 1

Observations 20 20

9 3 1

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 10 3 4

df 36

11 5 3

t Stat -0.385443205 12 4 2

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.351088642

13 2 2

t Critical one-tail 1.688297694 14 1 3

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.702177284

15 1 2

t Critical two-tail 2.028093987 16 1 2

17 1 3

Ha: Post test greater than Pre test 18 3 3

Accept Ho

19 3 4 20 1 2 T 42 45


360


CARAGASAN NHS - TUPING

PRE-TEST

POST TEST

1 1 2 2 2 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

3 2 1 4 2 2 Variable 1 Variable 2

5 1 2 Mean 2.166666667 1.470588 6 2 2 Variance 1.088235294 1.014706 7 2 1 Observations 18 17 8

4 4 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

9 2 0 df 33 10 3 1 t Stat 2.008183259 11 2 0 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.026433294 12 3 1 t Critical one-tail 1.692360258 13 2 2 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.052866588 14 3 2 t Critical two-tail 2.034515287

15 1 2 16 3 2 Ha: Post test greater than Pre test

17 4 0 Accept Ho 18 0 1

39 26


361


RUFINO CHUNGALAO SHS TUPING

1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 6 2 3 7 2 3 8 2 4 9 2 4 10 4 4 11 2 2 12 2 3 13 2 3 14 4 4 15 0 3 16 3 3 17 3 4 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances


20 1 3 Mean 2.5 2.476190476

21 2 0 Variance 1.37804878 1.572590012

22 4 3 Observations 42 42

23 4 0 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

24 4 1 df 82 25 2 1 t Stat 0.089829158 26 2 1 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.464321014 27 4 0 t Critical one-tail 1.663649185 28 4 3 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.928642028 29 3 4 t Critical two-tail 1.989318521


32 4 2 Accept Ho 33 2 2

34 1 3 35 4 2 36 3 3 37 2 4 38 4 4 39 4 2 40 4 1 41 1 2 42 3 3


362


UMA PRE-TEST POST TEST

1 0 4 2 0 4 3 0 4 4 1 4 5 0 4 6 1 4 7 1 2 8 0 4 9 1 4 10 0 4 11 3 0 12 1 4 13 1 4 14 1 3 15 1 1 16 2 4 17 3 4 18 1 4 19 2 3 20 2 4 21 1 4 22 2 4 23 2 0 24 0 3 25 1 3 26 2 4 27 1 0 28 3 0 29 2 2 30 2 2 31 0 4 32 1 1 33 0 4 34 1 4 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances


37 3 1 Mean 1.339285714 2.982142857 38 1 0 Variance 1.137337662 1.981493506 39 1 2 Observations 56 56



363


41 1 4 df 102 42 3 2 t Stat -6.96142071 43 3 4 P(T<=t) one-tail 1.67148E-10 44 2 4 t Critical one-tail 1.659929976 45 0 2 P(T<=t) two-tail 3.34296E-10 46 2 4 t Critical two-tail 1.983495205


49 1 4 Reject Ho 50 1 4

51 2 1 52 2 4 53 2 4 54 1 1 55 1 4 56 4 4

PRE-TEST

POST TEST

1 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 2 1 5 2 2 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances


8 0 1 Mean 1.871794872 2.307692308

9 2 3 Variance 1.114709852 1.218623482

10 2 3 Observations 39 39


12 2 4 df 76 13 4 4 t Stat -1.782084222 14 2 1 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.039364869 15 1 1 t Critical one-tail 1.665151354 16 1 2 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.078729739 17 3 2 t Critical two-tail 1.991672579


20 2 3 Accept Ho 21 2 2

22 3 2


364


23 2 2 24 3 0 25 3 3 26 1 3 27 2 2 28 0 1 29 2 4 30 2 1 31 3 4 32 1 1 33 2 2 34 0 3 35 4 1 36 2 2 37 0 3 38 2 2 39 2 3

AMGANAD ES 1 8 8

2 7 8 3 7 8 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

4 7 8

5 6 7 Variable

1 Variable

2 6 6 8 Mean 7 7.823529 7 8 8 Variance 0.375 0.154412 8 8 8 Observations 17 17


10 7 8 df 27 11 7 7 t Stat -4.66667 12 7 7 P(T<=t) one-tail 3.73E-05 13 7 8 t Critical one-tail 1.703288 14 6 8 P(T<=t) two-tail 7.46E-05 15 7 8 t Critical two-tail 2.05183

16 7 8 Ha : Post test greater than Pretest 17 7 8 Reject Ho


365


Summary of Results:

Grade level Division School Practice IKSNo. of

Respondents

t-stat

valuecritical value Decision Anaysis

1 Grade 1 MP 1 Daynek Soil Management 32 6.12 2.01 Reject Ho Significant difference

2 Grade 1 MP 2 Daynek Soil Management 19 8.9 2.06 Reject Ho Significant difference

3 Grade 1 MP 3 Lutak Soil Management 28 9.15 2.01 Reject Ho Significant difference

4 Grade 1 MP 4 Lutak Soil Management 19 3.9 2.05 Reject Ho Significant difference

5 Grade 1 MP 5 Legleg Soil Management 19 2.69 2.1 Reject Ho Significant difference

6 Grade7 MP 1 Lutak Soil Management 16 3.08 2.09 Reject Ho Significant difference

7 Grade7 MP 2 Lutak Soil Management 22 4.73 2.02 Reject Ho Significant difference

8 Grade7 MP 3 Daynek Soil Management 16 2.78 2.04 Reject Ho Significant difference



1 Grade 7 Ifugao 1 Payo Water Managment 27 0.87 2.00 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

2 Grade 7 Ifugao 2 Tuping Water Managment 35 0.69 1.99 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

3 Grade 7 Ifugao 3 Payo Water Managment 24 0.11 2.01 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

4 Grade 7 Ifugao 4 Uma Water Managment 20 0.35 2.02 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

5 Grade 7 Ifugao 5 Payo Water Managment 18 2 2.03 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

6 Grade 1 Ifugao 1 Tuping Water/Soil Managment 42 0.09 1.99 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

7 Grade 1 Ifugao 2 Uma Water/Soil Managment 56 6.96 1.98 Reject Ho Significant Difference

8 Grade1 Ifugao 3 Payo Water/Soil Management 21 1.78 1.99 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

9 Grade1 Ifugao 4 Uma Water/Soil Mangement 17 4.67 2.05 Reject Ho Significant Difference

10 Grade 1 Ifugao 5 Tuping Water/Soil Management 27 0.87 2 Accept Ho No Significant Difference

DRRM FORM A

Checklist on the Disaster Risk Reduction Preparations Undertaken by the School Elementary Secondary

A. Alternative Learning Value

Provided Available Instructional Venue such as

0 Tents

1 / Makeshift Classroom

2 // Covered Court

4 //// Barangay hall

2 // Social Action Center

2 // Other Alternative Safe and Adequate Structures (Kubo-Kubo /makeshift)

B. Alternative Delivery of formal education

Elementary Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM) Instructional Materials at the District/Division/Regional Office for the use of the Pupils

1 / Books/ Manuals/ Instructional Materials

1 / Alternative Learning System(ALS) Modules for pupils

2 // Day care services for pre-school

Other modes of delivery system

Secondary

2 // Effective and Alternative Secondary Education Modukes (EASE)

0 Distance Learning Modules

1 / Textbooks in all Learning Areas

2 // Alternative Learning System Modules (ALS)

1 / Other modes of delivery system

C. Implementation

1 Preparedness and Mitigation

5 ///// Prepared an Implementation Plan focused on the aklternative formal delievry instruction

4 //// Prepared an inventory of existing or available alternative materials in his/ her learning areas upon request for reproduction

2 // Possessed information of existing alternative materials in the district/school upon request through school heads/distict supervisor

2 // Other mode of delivery system

2 Response

4 //// Identified learning competencies/to be covered in the event of class disruptions

4 //// Knew where to borrow/secure adequate copies of instructional materials for affected pupils/students

5 ///// Oriented pupils/students, parents on what,when,why, how to use alternative materials

3 /// Monitored progress of pupils/students during those periods when classes are disrupted

3 /// Coordinated closely with parents and other teachers to ensure a continuous instructional guidance

3 Rehabilitation

4 //// Conducted an inventory of damaged textbooks/equipment for possible replacement and/or procurement

4 //// Conducted an assessment to determine the baseline of pupils/students' progress, the results of which serve as starting point for the continuation of the lesson.

3 /// Assessed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the materials being used by pupils/students during those period of time.

1 / Returned borrowed materials to the Division Office for the use of other schools when need arise


366


FORM B

No. of

Respons

es

A On the prepration of the Disaster Risk Reduction Plan

4 //// a. Considered the risk assessment information (baseline and background data of the school and the community in relation to the different hazards ( school mapping information)

6 ////// b. Assessed the conditions of thr school buildings and other structures/classroom of the schools

6 ////// c. Assessed the personnel and material resources of the school and community to undertake disaster risk reduction measures

6 ////// d.Assessed the needs of the faculty and community in planning for the training on disaster risk reduction

6 ////// e. Involved the teachers, community and other stakeholders in the preparation of the Disaster Risk Reduction Plan

4 //// f. Coordinated with NGOs,INGOs, agencies and other stekeholders to assist in developing the Disaster Risk Reduction Program

5 ///// g. Clearly identified in the school and community map safe places where the school and the community can go in case of particular emerencies such as flood, earthquake, typhoons, fire, bombings,etc

6 ////// h.Clearly identifiedthe persons and agencies to call for assistance in case of emergencies and how to contact them and who to contact

6 ////// i. Clearly deffined the roles of the teachers and members of the organized Disaster Risk Reduction Group in case of emergencies

5 ///// j.Included the general guidelines of what to do before,during and after the different kinds of hazard impacts experienced in the location.

4 //// k. Included in the plan the schedule of activities, like training,drills,reinforcing buildings,repairs,etc to prepare the school and the community for any eventuality

4 //// l. Disseminated the Disaster Risk Reduction Plan to the school, community and other stakeholders

B

4 //// a.Assessed the leadership qualities, training and expertise of the teachers designated to form the team on:

security Fire Brigade / Relief and Rehabili9tation

supply / Rescue / Damage control

transportation Medical

Communication and warning / Evacuation

2 // b. Organized an Incident Command System in the school that can be activated in times of emergency with major organizational functions such as

Incident Command Planning Finance/ Administration

Operations Logistics Strike Team

5 /////

6 ///// d.Defined the roles and functions of each team and its members

2 // e. Conducted capability trainings to all memebers of the DRRG

5 ///// f.Identified the persons responsible to coordinate with the NGOs,INGOS, agencies and other stakeholders in times of emergency

C

3 /// a. Followed the guidelines for mitigation and preparedness (before), response(during) and relief and rehabilitation (after) measures

5 ///// b. Adapted the assessment and reporting forms and surveys to the problems and needs of the school and the locality relative to disasters

6 ////// c. Sought the assistance of local government, the parents,NGOs,INGOs and other stakeholders in preparing the schools to withstand disasters

4 //// d. Establsihed and maintained standing agreements with the NGOs,INGOs, communications, transportation and agencies that can give assistance before, during and after disasters

2 // e. Documented and filed all the chronological events a during a calamity for future reference.

2 // f. Equipped with survival kits,equipment,materials and supplies needed in times of calamities.

3 /// g. Operated on the "quick response" standards

5 ///// h. Identifies exits and evacuation sites known to the school community

2 // i.Undertaken provisions to ensure continuity of instruction

6 ////// j.Exerted efforts to protect DeEd Properties ( buildings,fixtures and equipment and records)

On Organization of the School Disaster Risk Reduction Group

On the Implementation of the Disaster Risk Reduction Measures

c. Formed the Disaster Assessment and Needs Analysis Team, Search and Rescue Team, Fire

Suppression Team, Relief and Evacuation Team and response Ten supported by the Auxiliary

and Volunteer Groups of the NGOs and INGOs

Disater Risk Reduction Preparation Undertaken by the School

Implementation Assessment Checklist (Elementary and Secondary)


367


abstract - global scientific journal · dubbed as the "watershed cradle of northern luzon”,...

Documents