Authors : Talita, Mary Rose T.; Ong, Kevin Clyde A.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/342v27wc

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5djwe3pc

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26May619

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : As climate change reshapes our world, it is increasingly important to ground science education in the local context, transforming abstracts risks like biodiversity loss into tangible realities for Filipino students. This study focused on the development and validation of the Panag-on Eco Book, a localized instructional material designed to enhance the environmental literacy of Grade 11 learners. Utilizing research and development design, the study employed the Analysis, Design, Development, and Evaluation (ADDE) Model reinforced with Taba’s Grassroot Approach, ensuring that the instructional material was built upon the actual classroom needs and local environmental realities of the province. The study revealed that while learners have a basic awareness of environmental issues, there is a demand for improvement particularly on the analysis of specific biological impacts on local ecosystems. Moreover, instructional objectives were mapped on the new curriculum guide for General Science specifically for competencies that covers Philippine Ecosystem and use ADDE model as the framework for creating instructional material. The material was contextualized through the selection of localized environmental contexts specific to a certain province. Expert evaluation using the DepEd Learning Resource Evaluation Tool resulted in “Excellent” ratings across content quality and organizational flow. The result confirms that the Panag-on Eco Book is a highly valid resource, effectively bridging the gap between global scientific theories and local ecological conservation. This research highlights the effectiveness of learner-centered and localized innovation in enhancing learner engagement and environmental stewardship.

Keywords : Science Education, Panag-on Eco Book, Climate change, ADDE Model, Developmental Research Design, Central Philippines.

References :

1. Abbass, Kashif & Qasim, Muhammad & Song, Huaming & Murshed, Muntasir & Mahmood, Haider & Younis, Ijaz. (2022). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 29. 42539-42559. 10.1007/s11356-022-19718-6.
2. Agduma, A. R., Dela Cruz, K. C., Tanalgo, K. C., Lidasan, A. K., Edradan, J., Dumayas, R. K. L., Alagdon, J. S., Villaruz, B. D., & Gatoc, G. K. P. (2023). Drivers of extinction risks and shortfalls across terrestrial vertebrates in the Philippine global biodiversity hotspot. Science of The Total Environment, 873, 162235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180274.
3. Alali, M., & Al-Barakat, A. (2025). The role of educational illustrations as cognitive tools in scientific conceptualization. Journal of Science Education Research, 12(1), 45–60.
4. Alejandro, I. R. (2025). Enhancing professional education: Effectiveness of instructional materials in Philippine higher education. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(10), 101–105, 10.69569/jip.2025.572.
5. Andersson, M., Boateng, K., & Abos, P. (2024). Validity and reliability: The extent to which your research findings are accurate and consistent. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384402476.
6. Andriani, R., Safriana, S., Winata, I. W., & Ameliah, I. (2024). The understanding of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) among middle school science teachers in Lhokseumawe, Indonesia. International Conference Proceedings, 17(4), DOI:10.29103/micoms.v4i.898
7. Balbin, S. A., Quendangan, M. M., & Garcia, R. E. (2025). The development and evaluation of a digital review material utilizing mobile application. Scientific and Engineering Journal (SciEnggJ), 18(Supplement), 202–218. https://scienggj.org/2025-special-issue-18/
8. Banzuelo, R. S., & Quiñones, M. T. (2026). Challenges in the localization of science instructional materials in the Philippine senior high school curriculum. Journal of Educational Innovation and Development, 14(2), 112–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.07.01.08.
9. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2019). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.
10. Bello, J. B., Concon, L. S., Polache, M. C. C., Ayaton, M. J. C., Manlicayan, R. D., Campomanes, J. P., & Saro, J. M. (2023). Contextualized and localized science teaching and learning materials and its characteristics to improve students' learning performance. ResearchGate, 10.5281/zenodo.7607686.
11. Bello, J. P., Olayinka, A. R., & Olatoye, R. A. (2023). Impact of localized and contextualized instructional materials on student academic performance in science. International Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 11(4), 215
12. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. (pp. 16-17)
13. Bercasio, R. R. O., Maldo, M. P., & Maldo, G. H. P. (2021). Integrating environmental education in the English education curriculum. BU R&D Journal, 24(3), 1–11, 10.47789/burdj.mbtcbbgs.20212403.1
14. Buendia, J. M. P., Arciaga, M. R., Cortez, J. B., & Dela Cruz, J. M. M. (2025). Inquiry-based learning in science education. Pantao: International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 1256–1261. (p. 1)
15. Bulleri, F., Bruno, J. F., Silliman, B. R., & Stachowicz, J. J. (2018). Facilitation and the organization of plant and animal communities. The Journal of Ecology, 106(2), 382–395.
16. Camuyong, S. C. (2023). Integrating value formation in localized science instructional materials: A holistic approach. Philippine Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 56–70.
17. Chapman, K. (2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), Article 102396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102396.
18. Cruz-Ocampo, M. L. (2025). Barriers to effective climate change education in public secondary schools. Environmental Education Review, 18(3), 201–218.
19. Dorji, T. (2025). Understanding how indigenous knowledge contributes to climate change adaptation and resilience: A systematic literature review. Environmental Management, 76(1), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02032-x.
20. Dumale, C. P., & Gurat, M. G. (2023). Grade 12 students’ retention in statistics and probability amidst Covid-19. American Journal of Educational Research, 11(8), 534–541, DOI:10.12691/education-11-10-6.
21. Duran, M., & Dokme, I. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student's critical thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12), 2887–2908.
22. Fourqurean, J. W., Johnson, M. S., & Duarte, C. M. (2023). Climate change impacts on coastal ecosystems: Mangroves and coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 29(5), 1420–1435.
23. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2019). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
24. Genizera, J. B., Tosino, W., Santacera, E. M., & Moncera, A. M. (2022). Implementation of Department of Education Programs, Projects, and Activities on Mitigating the Impact of Climate Change in the Philippines. Journal of Learning and Development Studies, 2(1), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.32996/jlds.2022.2.1.4
25. Gilead, T. (2026). Resilience and adaptive capacity: Rethinking educational structures in the age of climate crisis. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2026.2636179
26. Hajati, K., & Amaliah, N. (2022). Developing instructional materials through the ADDIE model. Journal of Education and Learning, 16(2), 145–152. (pp. 16-17)
27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2017). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
28. Huang, Q., Muhamad, M. M., & Che Nawi, N. R. (2025). Impact of instructional design on students’ critical thinking and engagement in online English reading classes: Mediating role of motivation and moderating role of language proficiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, (p. 1), 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1644126.
29. Jaya, S., Zaharudin, R., Hashim, S. N. A., Ithnin, M. A., Zaid, S. M., Mapjabil, J., & Nordin, M. N. (2021). Employing design and development research (DDR) approach in designing next generation learning spaces (NGLS) in teachers’ pedagogy and technology tools. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(7), 1237–1246. https://rigeo.org/menu-script/index.php/rigeo/article/view/1831
30. Joshi, B., & Raval, N. (2026). Instructional design models – A review. European Economic Letters, 16(1), 1078–1085 (p. 1).
31. Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2017). Designing, supporting, and monitoring learning opportunities for early-career teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 282–295.
32. Lacanilao, G. D., & Manalastas, R. P. (2023). Alignment of instructional materials with K-12 science competencies: An evaluative study. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 15(1), 88–104.
33. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.
34. Macalikod, R., & Simpal, E. A. (2025). Development and validation of Science Instructional Materials (SIMs) for the least learned competencies. Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education, 5(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.35912/jshe.v5i3.2735
35. Macasinag, M. L. M. (2021). Assessment of environmental education materials for professional education courses in the teacher education curriculum. BU R&D Journal, 24(3), 77–90. 0.47789/burdj.mbtcbbgs.20212403.7
36. Mallillin, L. L. D., Mallillin, J. B., Ampongan, Y. D., Lipayon, I. C., Mejica, M. M., & Burabo, J. Z. (2023). Instructional design for effective classroom pedagogy of teaching. Eureka: Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 41–52 (p. 1), https://doi.org/10.56773/ejer.v1i2.6
37. Mediana Jr., B., Funa, A. A., & Dio, R. V. (2025). Developing inquiry-based and localized instructional materials in science education. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 45–58. (pp. 6, 36)
38. Nacionales Jr., N. P. (2025). Design, development, and validation of a strategic intervention material in chemical reaction. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2(12), 520-528.
39. Nelson, B. (2025). Iterative instructional design: A dynamic process of feedback and evaluation. eLearning Doc. https://elearningdoc.com/iterative-instructional-design-process/
40. Oknaryana, O., Putri, D. H., & Ahda, Y. (2025). Effectiveness of context-based instructional materials in improving student engagement. Journal of Biological Education, 10(1), 32–47.
41. Oktaviani, A., & Masjud, Y. I. (2024). Nature based solution to climate change: Ecosystem based adaptation: How effective for climate change strategies? Journal of Earth Kingdom, 1(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.61511/jek.v1i2.2024.576
42. Olumorin, C. O., Yusuf, M. O., Ajidagba, U. A., & Jekayinfa, A. A. (2022). Development of instructional materials using the ADDE model. Journal of Instructional Technology, 15(3), 201–215. (pp. 4, 8, 16)
43. Ong, K. C. A., & Bonganciso, R. T. (2024). Pedagogical well-being of teachers in different modalities: Input to HyFlex pedagogical wellness model. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science-Social Sciences, 15(2), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.15.2.3022.2025
44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Trends shaping education 2025. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/trends-shaping-education-2025_ee6587fd-en.html
45. Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 6–36.
46. Palorma, L. B. (2025). Assessing the durability and usability of printed learning resources in public high schools. Journal of Educational Technology and Systems, 22(4), 310–325.
47. Pan, T., et al. (2023). Climate education for sustainable futures: A cross-country study of India and the Philippines. Education International. https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/31738:climate-education-for-sustainable-futures-a-cross-country-study-of-india-and-philippines
48. Pitchay, L. M., & Torrentira, M. C. (2022). Governance challenges and knowledge management gaps in Philippine biodiversity conservation. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 66(1), 45–62.
49. Portana, A. M. (2021). Visual presentation and organization of instructional materials: Enhancing learner comprehension. Philippine Journal of Basic Education, 5(2), 15–29.
50. Rahmah, S., & Risnani, L. (2023). Enhancing student engagement and comprehension through contextualized science materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(4), 580–595.
51. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2019). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge.
52. Safitri, W. D., Halim, A., & Ibrahim. (2025). The impact of culturally responsive materials on student motivation and language learning outcomes. Curricula: Journal of Curriculum Development, 4(2), 1107-1122. https://doi.org/10.17509/curricula.v4i2.86915
53. Salacayan, M. H., Malayao, S., Jr., Nabua, E., & Adamat, L. (2024). Utilization of develop contextualized learning module on climate change for Grade 9 learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(4), 1398–1405, https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804104.
54. Sales, G. C., Ramos, J. L., & Santos, D. M. (2022). Integration of Philippine biodiversity concepts in the senior high school curriculum. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 25(2), 89–104.
55. Samilo, K. J. (2025). Evaluation of the strengthened senior high school science curriculum: A transition study. Educational Reform Journal, 12(1), 77–92.
56. Samilo, P. J. E. (2025). Creating and evaluating instructional materials to foster purposeful communication in Filipino language learning. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, (45), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.54963/jqre.i45.1904
57. Sari, P. K., Ramli, M., & Rinanto, Y. (2022). Readability and visual integration of biology textbooks: Impact on student learning outcomes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1842(1), 012025.
58. Senadheera, V. V., Ediriweera, D. S., & Rupasinghe, T. P. (2024). Instructional design models for digital learning in higher education — A scoping review. Journal of Learning for Development, 11(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v11i1.973
59. Suharyati, H., et al. (2024). Applying constructivist learning theory to enhance student learning outcomes in elementary schools. International Journal of Sustainable Development & Future Society, 2(2), 62–69, 10.62157/ijsdfs.v2i2.73.
60. Sulatra, I. K. (2022). Designing higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) based instructional materials in science. Journal of Education and Learning, 16(3), 334–342.
61. Sumardi, Wahyudiati, D., & Rispawati. (2025). The effect of culturally-integrated TEE model teaching materials on students’ critical thinking and cultural literacy. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1-15, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1720212.
62. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
63. Tatari, F., Ebrahimi, M., & Tadayon, H. (2025). Design, implementation, and evaluation of faculty member evaluation process using electronic 360-degree method. BMC Medical Education, 25(941), 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07384-4.
64. Tlili, A., Zhao, J., Yang, K., Wang, Y., Bozkurt, A., Huang, R., & Ashraf, M. A. (2024). Going beyond books to using e-books in education: a systematic literature review of empirical studies. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(5), 2207–2231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2141786
65. Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in instructional design? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199. (p. 10)