FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STUDENTS’ LEARNING PROGRESS IN THE SCIENCE SPIRAL PROGRESSION CURRICULUM

The study delved into the factors the influence students’ learning progress in the implementation of the science spiral progression curriculum in selected public junior high schools in the Division of Pasig City, Philippines, covering the school year 2017 – 2018. The study used the quantitative approach to research, particularly the descriptive research methodology. The specific descriptive research designs utilized were the correlational and normative surveys. The contextual analysis technique was likewise used. Data were statistically tested with the use of frequency distribution formula, percentage formula, and percentage weighted mean The study concluded that the perspectives of the science teachers in executing the science spiral progression curriculum vary from school to school. The study also found out that several factors influence the students' learning progress and that majority of the Grade 10 students for the School Year 2017 – 2018 of the Division of Pasig City Philippines have “fairly satisfactory” performance.


INTRODUCTION
The old basic education curriculum of the Philippines mandates that Filipino learners should finish their schooling for ten years. This is six years of primary school and four years of secondary school. Primary school is composed of grades 1 to 6, while secondary schooling is composed of 1st year to 4th year. Kindergarten is also not mandatory. The Philippines' Department of Education in the time of the then-president Benigno C. Aquino pushed for the amendments of the basic education curriculum. The president and the department envisioned a 12-year basic education curriculum in addition to a mandatory Kindergarten, hence the birth of the K to 12 basic education curricula in the Philippines.
The implementation of the new K to 12 basic education curricula in the Philippines started in the school year 2012-2013. Preceding this, the Kindergarten Act was implemented in the school year 2011-2012 under Republic Act 10157. With its implementation, a paradigm shift in the basic education system had been implemented. One feature that had changed is the structure of the curriculum. In the area of science, especially in the junior high school level, the spiral progression curriculum has been adopted. This curriculum deviated from the usual practice in which in each grade level, there is a specialized science subject. For instance, integrated science is taken during 1 st year level, biological science in the 2 nd year level, chemistry in the 3 rd year level and physics in the 4 th year level. In the case of the new curriculum, the specialized subjects are merged into one level. This means that in each grade level, students will take the four basic science disciplines in a spiral progression manner. The basic concept of this curriculum is to understand and apply knowledge in science, learn inquiry skills, develop and demonstrate attitudes and beliefs through science (Science Framework for Philippine Basic Education: DOST, 2011).
A spiral progression is an approach that follows the progressive type of curriculum. The approach was anchored from John Dewey's individual total learning experiences (Lafer & Tarman, 2019;Mullins, 2019). Martin (2008) defined progression as students' flights in acquiring, applying, and developing their skills, knowledge in a progressing manner through challenging situations. Based on the definition, the science spiral progression approach of the K to 12 is carried out to have a learner approach in learning such as inquiry-based pedagogy. In 2013, the K to 12 Curriculum Guide of Science in the Philippines states that the science curriculum is tasked to produce citizens with scientific literacy, societal involvement, decision making skills, and scientifically knowledgeable human beings that could impact the environment and society.
The research is based on three theoretical lenses namely, constructivism, progressivism, and social reconstructionism. According to Elliot et al. (2000), constructivism is a learning approach that holds that learners' construct knowledge based on their past experiences. Its focus is on the idea that learning in humans is constructed, that learners based their acquisition of knowledge from previous learnings hence, new knowledge is formed (Phillips, 1995). The Philippine K to 12 curricula as a curriculum embraces the idea of constructivism. The spiral progression curriculum is focused on building knowledge within the context of increased sophistication or complexity. Also, learners develop needed abilities and skills through reflecting on their experiences.
John Dewey's progressivism, on the other hand, talks about individuality, progress, and change as fundamental aspects to one's education, Labaree (2000), said that progressivism is a child-centered instruction. He said that all that is accomplished in the classroom is accomplished to assist and build the student's development, which is also centered on the developmental task of the learners and that learning is constructed based on discovery and experience (Mason, 2019). In the Philippine K to 12 curricula, the curriculum aims to improve learners who are equipped with adequate proficiencies which could be attained by keenly utilizing and employing it in the actual world. Also, in the current Philippine K to 12 curriculum learners are to experience the world; it is, therefore, active not passive in its nature. Brameld (1956) stated that reconstructionism is a philosophy that underscores the tackling of social questions and the pursuit to establish a better society and global democracy. On the current Philippine K to 12 curricula, its goals underline on social reform, which is from a 10-year basic education to a 12-year plan. The traditional perception that a 10 -year basic education is adequate has been transformed to enhance human conditions and will let the students experience and take a social action on real problems. When the Philippines' Department of Education implemented the said curricula, it demanded a lot from the teachers. Science teachers cannot escape this new challenge because the basic concept of this curriculum is the emphasis to produce citizens with scientific literacy, societal involvement, decision making skills, and scientifically knowledgeable human beings that could impact the environment and society (Science Framework for Philippine Basic Education: DOST, 2011). Results of studies have shown that the quality of teacher is one of the most important factors in student performance (OECD, 2005). In a study conducted by Glewwe, Hanushek, Humpage & Ravina in 2011, stated that teacher quality is greatly influenced by teacher training and that it has correlations to student's learning progress. Colclough (2005) said that because of the importance of teachers to learning outcomes, investment of developing countries shifted to expanding access to education with the focus of supporting the improvement of teacher quality. Burila (2012) wrote that concerns have been raised in the communities where poverty is prevalent that the K to 12 curricula will not be viable because of some concerns such as technology accessibility, training of teachers, and personnel salary. Since its implementation in the School Year 2012-2013, the first batch of graduates had walked on the stage in 2018. Hence, this is the best time to assess the curriculum. It is a time to know the factors that influenced learning progress and to know whether the Science teachers make the best out of the new curriculum to teach their students.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The drive of the research was to investigate the factors that influence student's learning progress and to know the teachers' perspective on the implementation of the Science spiral curriculum in the selected public junior high schools in the Division of Pasig City, Philippines during the school year 2017 -2018. Specifically, the study sought to find answers to the following research problems: 1. What is the perspective of the science teachers when executing the new science spiral progression curriculum? 2. What is the progress of the students as measured by their grade 10 individual grade average in science for the school year 2017 -2018? 3. What are the factors that greatly influence students' progress in the science spiral progression curriculum as to: 3.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework as shown in this research illustrates the processes that were undertaken in the conduct of this study. The framework explains that there is a great deal of connection between science teachers and the students. This connection is signified and carried out in the execution of the science spiral progression curriculum.
In the execution of the curriculum, the teacher and the students will encounter factors that can affect students' progress. The factors that could influence these outcomes may come from the teacher themselves, the students, and the schools. To facilitate and to take advantage of these factors, a thorough study should be done to facilitate which of the factors that influence students' progress the most.

RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNS
This research used the quantitative approach as it delved with numerical data relative to the subject of the investigation. Hunter and Leahey (2008) defined quantitative research as an investigation that is systematic and empirical of social phenomena through computational techniques with the use of Statistics and Mathematics. The specific research methodology utilized was descriptive research. This research methodology is focus on recognizing characteristics of an observed event or probing correlations among events.
In any case, descriptive research explores a condition as it is (Leedy & Ormrod, 2014). In this research, the descriptive delves into situations or conditions about the K to 12 science spiral progression curricula through its normative survey design and contextual analysis techniques.

Factors
That Influence Student Learning Progress

Science Teachers
The normative survey design explains and understands "what is" and shows circumstances that exist, practices that prevail or fail, and in attitudes that are held on or not (Estolas & Macaballug, 1995). This design was utilized in this study to generate data on the perceptions of teachers on their execution of the science spiral progression curriculum, on how they handle the progression on factors that influence students' learning outcomes in the spiral progression curriculum and on how they describe themselves in selected personal characteristics.
A total of 195 science teachers were asked to answer the survey instrument. The purposive sampling was used to purposely choose persons and spots to understand and comprehend the fundamental event (Creswell, 2012). The same sampling scheme and standard were applied to the selection of the ten public junior high schools of the Division of Pasig City in the National Capital Region. The ten school participants represented 83.33 percent of the 12 public junior high schools in the Division of Pasig City. The science teachers who participated provided the necessary information required by the study. They were considered as "information-rich". More than 50.0 percent of the grade 10 students from each school were likewise purposively selected to elicit information on the progress of the students in the science spiral progression curriculum. Their science grade averages based on Report Cards and Grading Sheets were used in the study. The sample for each group was very adequate as shown by the sample percentages of more than 50.0 percent for each study population.
The research instrument used in this study is a modified instrument. The instrument was based on the "A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaires" by Paul R. Pintrich, David A.F. Smith, Teresa Garcia, and Wilbert J. McKeachie which was published by "The Regents of the University of Michigan" in 1991. The researcher devised the instrument in relation to the said questionnaire, with modification to suit the local setting in the Philippines, hence it is called a modified instrument. The validation process includes judgments by experts and pilot testing or dry run. The draft of the instrument was shown to the experts. Comments and suggestions were then incorporated in the final draft of the instrument. To strengthen the content validity of the instrument, a dry run was conducted to 15 selected science teachers in a certain secondary public school in the Division of Pasig City, Philippines.
The modified instrument used in this research has two major parts. Part I was concerned with the perspective of the public junior high school science teachers in executing the science spiral progression curriculum and it is composed of 15 item questions. Part II of the instrument gathered information on the factors that influence students' learning outcomes in the spiral progression curriculum in terms of student factor, teacher factor, and school factor. This part of the instrument is composed of 83 item questions distributed across the three variables namely, student factor, teacher factor, and school factor. The behaviors measured by the instrument are the students' learning style, study habits, students' motivation to learn, and teachers' teaching style. The arbitrary ratings of the instrument are as follow: Scale Value Verbal Interpretation 3.26 -4.00 Strongly Agree (SA) 2.51 -3.25 Agree (A) 1.76 -2.50 Disagree (DA) 1.00 -1. 75 Strongly Disagree (SDA) The report cards and the grading sheets were used to get the grade averages of the student respondents. The researcher compared the report cards with the grading sheets to check the accuracy of the data. The description, grading scale, and remarks of the grades are shown in table 1.

DATA ANALYSIS
The data gathered in this research were analyzed through descriptive statistical analysis. Specifically, this research utilized the weighted mean, percentage and frequency distribution, and Likert scaling. The weighted mean was used to compute the mean in the items presented in the instruments used. Each computed weighted mean was then traced to the Likert scaling with the corresponding verbal interpretation shown also in this research. The results were then interpreted and were intertwined with previous literature.

What are the perspectives of the science teachers when executing the Science Spiral Progression Curriculum?
The table below shows the science teachers' perspectives when executing the science spiral progression curriculum in the Division of Pasig City, Philippines, the school year 2017-2018. The table conveys the weighted mean and its verbal interpretation for each item presented to the science teachers during the survey. Agree Agree Based on the findings in table 2, the overall weighted mean for all the selected public junior high school in terms of their perspective when executing the science spiral progression curriculum is 2.84 with a verbal interpretation of "agree". This means that science teachers generally agree on the items presented to them in the survey. Analyzing the results deeper, with an overall weighted mean of 2.66 the science teachers agree that they have less likelihood to agree that they are given enough time to discuss the different topics in a school year while with an overall weighted mean of 3.23, the science teachers have generally agreed that they have a good comprehension on the content of the science spiral progression curriculum in terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that their students should learn got the highest.
These perspectives of the science teachers coincide with what Snider (2004) supposed that the spiral Progression approach has advantages and disadvantages. He said that the approach 3. I'm provided with plenty of resource materials in the execution of the science spiral progression curriculum. 4. I have the opportunities to receive recent or up to date curriculum professional support. 5. I have a sound knowledge of strategies known to be effective for the teaching of the new science spiral progression curriculum. 6. I'm not reluctant to execute the science spiral progression curriculum even though some of the topics included in the curriculum are not my area of specialization. 7. I'm given enough time to discuss the different topics in a school year. 8. I'm provided with a sound understanding of the alternative ways of teaching the science spiral progression curriculum for the students to understand better the scientific ideas included in the curriculum. 9. I have a strong motivation to ensure that the topics in the science spiral progression are taught clearly in my school. 10. I have a strong conviction that the science spiral progression curriculum is solid in bridging the gap of the former congested science curriculum. 11. I have the personal confidence and necessary skills to execute the science spiral progression curriculum competently. 12. I'm provided with the opportunity to undertake professional development to enhance my knowledge in executing the science spiral progression curriculum. 13. I have the confidence that the contents in the science spiral progression curriculum are well organized. 14. I'm supported by the administration in your efforts to execute the science spiral progression curriculum. 15. I'm provided with the necessary equipment to teach the science spiral progression curriculum. in spiral progression dodges disconnections in schooling stages; it makes learners learn concepts based on their intellectual stages; and it reinforces retention and mastery. Similarly, Cobern (2014) stated that an important aspect in teacher education is the acquisition of strategies and methods in content knowledge in teaching science for the understanding of concepts. Also, understanding of the curriculum is a teacher's responsibility as Crawford (2000) expressed that in teaching science, especially in a classroom that is practicing inquiry-based skills, teachers undertake the roles of a persuader, leader, modernizer, transformer, investigator, counsellor and as a learner.

What is the progress of the students as measured by their grade 10 individual grade average in Science for School Year 2017 -2018?
The data presented in table 3 indicates the student respondents' learning progress as measured by their grade 10 individual grade average in science subject for the school year 2017-2018. These were obtained from the grade reports of the students and grading sheets of the science teachers.  Table 3 displays that 37.0% (3150 student respondents) of the grade 10 students have "fairly satisfactory" performance, followed by "satisfactory" (28.3%, 2406 student respondents), then "very satisfactory" (20.1%, 1715 student respondents), "outstanding" (10.9%, 928 student respondents) and lastly "did not meet expectation" with 3.7% (314 student respondents). Results revealed in the data imply that there were still a lesser number of students who have "outstanding" performance and "very satisfactory" performance compared to the total number of students who have performances classified as "satisfactory", "fairly satisfactory" and "did not meet expectation". This suggests that the result still conforms to the findings of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and from the private sectors that mathematics and science performance of students is at disturbing stage (Lumaque, Sarraga & Jumawan, 2005). Also, based on the United Nations Development Report 2009, the Philippines is one of the countries that has high literacy rate of 93.4 % in 2008, however, Filipino students fail to perform in Mathematics and Science internationally (Ombra, 2016). With its maiden implementation, fixed results have yet to come if the new K to 12 curricula will help improve the science performance of Filipino students. In the Philippine K to 12 Curriculum Guide of Science 2013, its goal is to produce citizens that are scientific, informed, can make decisions, and can relate to scientific knowledge.

What are the factors that influence the students' progress in the Science Spiral Progression Curriculum?
The following results below focus on the factors that influence students' progress in the science spiral progression curriculum as answered by the science teachers. It is divided into three factors namely, student factor, teacher factor, and school factor. In each factor, it is likewise divided into three variables. First, variables under the student factor are learning style, study habits, and motivation to learn. Second, variables under the teacher factor are teachers' specialization, teacher training, and teaching style. Lastly, variables under the school factor are school facilities, learning materials, and support for teacher training. 3. Students to make a list of important terms for the course and memorize the lists. 4. Students pull together information from different sources, such as lectures, readings, and discussions. 5. Students to write summaries of the main ideas from readings and the concepts from the lectures. 6. Students to make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help them organize course materials. 7. Students find themselves questioning things that they hear or read in the subject to decide if they find it convincing. 8. Students to play around with ideas of their own related to what they are learning in the subject. 9. Students to apply ideas from course readings in other class activities such as lectures and discussion. 10. Students study the subject in a way that they try to go over their class notes and make an outline of important concepts.  Table 5: Weighted Means of the Factors Affecting Students' Progress as to Study Habits Table 5 reveals that generally the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 2.95 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to study habits. With a weighted mean of 3.09, item 2 got the highest; it denotes that participating proactively during group work affect students' progress relative to the execution of the spiral Progression curriculum. With progressivism as one of the basic theories encapsulated in the K to 12 curricula, thus, group work or practical works would help students to learn science. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2008) conveyed that in schools, teachers utilize group work to help students perform better. Accordingly, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith in their meta-analysis study about cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 2014) found that greater performance is achieved in cooperative learning than individualistic and competitive learning. Item 3 in table 5 deals with students doing their assignment got the lowest weighted mean with 2.80. This means that there is a lesser likelihood that the science teachers "agree" that assignments could be a factor that affects students' progress. This conforms also to the Department of Education's memorandum encouraging teachers to lessen the assignments given to students, which according to Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006), that giving homework might give benefits in learning, it might also affect family ties. Accordingly, Fernandez, Suarez, and Muniz (2015) found out that homework can make students to have poorer academic performance. On a lighter note, in 2006, Darling-Hammond and Ifill-Lynch detailed homework must not be eliminated but make it realistic, communicative, and interesting. Exhibited in table 6 that generally the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.14 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to motivation to learn. Item 10 of table 6 talks about making students feel confident that they comprehend the most composite material offered by the teacher of the subject got the highest weighted mean of 3.19. This implies that because of the complexity of topics in the progression as it progressed, teachers must have the ability to motivate students to make them believe that they can still understand the lessons presented to them. Delong and Dale (2002) indicated that motivation intrinsically is long term and satisfying. This kind of motivation can promote student learning better because it focuses on performance rather than penalties or prizes. With the lowest weighted mean of 3.09, there is much less possibility that the science teacher "agree" on item 3, which talks about making students realize that getting good grades in the subject is the most satisfying thing. However, Kumar, Gheen, and Kaplan (2002) argue that academic struggle might be a result of goals in performance. Similarly, Midgley (2002) points out that when grades are the motivating factors, there is a decrease in mastery and quality of learning.

Items
Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation 1. Use course materials that challenge the students so that they can learn new things. 2. Make students think that what they will learn in the subject could be used to understand other subjects. 3. Make students realize that getting good grades in the subject is the most satisfying thing for them. 4. Let students be confident that they can learn the basic concepts taught in the course. 5. Use course material that can arouse their curiosity, even if the subject is difficult to learn. 6. Make Students realize that the most satisfying thing for the students is to try to understand the content of the subject as thoroughly as possible. 7. Encourage students that they can master the skills being taught in the subject. 8. Make students participate in class because they need to show their abilities, to their families, friends, and others. 9. Make students think that the course materials on the subject are useful for them to learn. 10. Make the students feel confident that they can understand the most complex material presented by the teacher of the subject.  Table 7 shows largely that the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.09 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to teachers' specialization. With a weighted mean of 3.21 item 1 of table 7 got the highest. The statement focuses on the difficulty of teachers in preparing students for the examination. This may be due to a more sophisticated process of assessment processes under the K to 12 curricula as it seeks to make teachers teach according to standards. A critical evidence of learning must come therefore from the successful accomplishment of standards relative to students' performance (DepEd Order No. 31, 2012). Tordecillas (2014) as cited by Orbe, Espinoza, and Datukan (2018) pointed out that K to 12 teachers must be able to assess students based on the DepEd's assessment criteria and other concepts related to it. Additionally, they must have a constructive point of view of it. However, it will not guarantee that when teachers have a positive view of the assessment, it will result to an ease of assessment construction. Items 6 and 10 got the lowest weighted mean of 3.01. This implies that the science teacher respondents were less likely to "agree" that they have difficulty in creating a rubric that can be used effectively to assess the students and keeping students on task in the classroom and sparking their imaginations. This implies that science teachers are good at making rubrics to effectively assess their students. This might be because even before the implementation of the K to 12 science spiral progression curricula, they are already used to using rubrics to assess their students. According to Glickman-Bond and Rose (2006) argues that rubrics are important aspects of evaluation of students' performances as it will help in guiding students' learning, instruction of teachers, and officials' program statements. Rubrics are used to measure and answer questions about effective outcomes of assessment (Glenn, 2005).

Items
Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation 1. Preparing students for examinations. 2. Giving students a positive outlook on the content that I'm teaching. 3. Choosing the right or appropriate outside readings and materials. 4. Changing the mindset of the learners to jump to the next topic. 5. Changing the nature of the concept of the topic at hand based on recent discoveries or recent developments in science. 6. In creating a rubric that can be used effectively to assess the students. 7. Managing the time devoted to a particular topic. 8. Tailoring class plans, activities, and scientific language for students to understand me better. 9. Motivating me to teach the topic. 10. Keeping students on task in the classroom and sparking their imaginations. As shown table 8, essentially the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.01 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to teachers' training. Item 5 in this table got the highest weighted mean of 3.10. Science teacher respondents are more likely to "agree" that the new science curriculum demands them to have a faculty mentoring program for the out of field subjects being taught by them in the curriculum. This might be because, in the case of the new curriculum, the specialized subjects are merged into one level. This means that in each grade level, students will take the four basic science disciplines, namely Earth Science, Biological Science, Chemistry, and Physics in a spiral Progression manner. This implies that science teachers will now teach the four basic disciplines even though it is not their area of specialization. Science teachers cannot escape this new challenge because the basic concept of this curriculum is to emphasize the integration of scientific knowledge in the society (Science Framework for Philippine Basic Education: DOST, 2011). With the lowest weighted mean of 2.85 is item 3, this implies that there is a much lesser possibility that the science teacher will "agree" that the curriculum demands them to have available scholarship grants for continuing education. Witnessing the latest trend in continuing education, teachers now are aware of the importance of getting a higher degree whether it is for professional and personal growth or promotion. It is now an initiative coming from the teachers because of the stiff competition in the academic world, thus, they now go to graduate schools with or without a scholarship program. It is revealed in table 9 that fundamentally the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.17 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to teaching styles. Correspondingly, Datu (2016) said that the curriculum must be able to build learners with enough capabilities acquired through real world learning of concepts and ideas. It is disclosed in table 10 that primarily the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.20 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that 5. Adapt learning experiences to the learners according to their developmental level. 6. Maintain eye contact to all corners of the room. 7. Adopt a reasonable and adjustable pace that balances content coverage and student understanding. 8. Make connections of the topics to current events and everyday phenomena. 9. Move around, but not so much that of a distraction. 10. Avoid direct repetition of material in a textbook so that it remains a useful alternative resource. 3. The site and the building should be well landscape. 4. The location of the facilities should enhance the learning climate of the school. 5. Floor plans should direct student movement and minimize student disruptions 6. The lighting system that provides proper intensity, diffusion, and distribution of illumination. 7. Sound control of the classroom that can provide a balanced distribution of sound. 8. Classroom windows that the passage of air so that students wouldn't be feeling being choke. 9. Classroom and laboratory furniture that is functionally sound and facially attractive. 10. School facilities are both excellent cosmetically and structurally. 3.20 AGREE affect students' progress as to school facilities. Largely, the science teachers agree that classroom and laboratory furniture that is functionally sound and facially attractive influences students' progress, as this is the item that garnered the highest weighted mean of 3.20. This might be because, in teaching science, the laboratory is one of the basic needs of students to learn the concepts in science in a real-world scenario. Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman (2007) suggested that in science education, experiences in the laboratory must be given focus, because of its benefits. Item 1 in table 10 got the lowest weighted mean of 3.06. The lesser likelihood exists in this item that science teachers would agree that the overall design of a school in terms of aesthetic values for learning and appropriateness for the age of the students. This implies that science teachers believe that the overall aesthetic of the school is not much of a concern, as long as the school is clean and peaceful, and students can learn the lessons in the best possible way. Also, this might be because schools in the Philippines are built not by age level but by the design appropriate for the whole grade levels, notwithstanding the political intervention of the politicians.  Table 11 reveals that predominantly the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.11 on items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to learning materials.

School Factor as to Learning Materials
With a weighted mean of 3.22, item 9 in table 11 got the highest. More likely, the teachers would agree that the adequacy of books given to every student influences their progress. This issue must have come into place because, in the Philippines, students were not given the chance

Items
Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation 1. Capacity and resources in the library are adequate for the number of students in the school. 2. Adequacy of tables and chairs in the classroom. 3. Adequacy of equipment in the laboratory to be used in teaching science concepts. 4. Sufficiency of the number of teachers' guides in the school. 5. Availability of resources such as manila papers, chalk, models, charts, and other teaching paraphernalia. 6. The use of field trips/excursions in the school to explore science concepts. 7. Availability of teaching soft wares in science and the use of computers in teaching and learning science concepts. 8. The rigidity of procedures of acquiring the materials for learning. 9. Adequacy of books given to every student. 10. Sufficiency of visual resources such as videos, PowerPoint presentations, and the like in teaching science concepts. to have a one is to one supply of textbooks. Critics in the Philippines suggest that this issue came form the inclination of the government to not address the basic problems of the educational system such as books and classroom shortage (PIDS, 2009). Item 6 got the lowest weighted mean of 2.99, which implies that there is a lesser likelihood that the science teachers agree that the use of field trips/excursions in the school to explore science concepts influences students' progress. This might be because science teachers believed that mastery of science concepts can be done already in the school as long as there is an adequacy of materials needed in teaching the subject and there is the availability of laboratory to perform experimental activities in teaching the subject. However, Behrendt and Franklin (2014) have a different perspective; they said that to develop students' interest experiential activities such as field trips must be done. Also, Lei (2010) argues that field trip experiences are different from classroom experiences as field trips take students to unique locations. She added that field trips make students create meaningful experiences through natural setting that is not feasible in the classroom.
School Factor as to Support to Teacher Training It is disclosed in table 12 that chiefly the science teachers "agree" with an overall weighted mean of 3.28 on the items presented to them in the questionnaire in terms of the factors that affect students' progress as to support teacher training. With a weighted mean of 3.40, item 4 got the highest. There is a great agreement from the science teachers that a full-fledged training and development department in the school must be built and must be manned with competent professionals that influences students' progress. Studies have shown that the quality of teacher

Items Weighted Mean
Verbal Interpretation 1. Having a training and development policy applicable to all teachers. 2. Intensifying echoing program of seminars and training attended. 3. Intensifying linkage in from stakeholders for training and development. 4. A full-fledged training and development department in the school must be built and must be manned with competent professionals. 5. Coordinators help teachers set realistic goals for performing their work as a result of their training. 6. Schools make sure that teachers have the opportunity to use their training immediately. 7. Schools must make it a point that the equipment used in training is similar to the equipment found in real teaching scenarios. 8. Teachers who use their training are given preference for new assignments. is one of the most important aspects in students' achievement (OECD, 2005). As Colclough (2005) added that countries are now shifting their investment in teacher training to improve teacher quality. Also, in a study that measures teacher quality, they found out that student learning is directly proportional to teacher training (Glewwe, Hanushek, Humpage & Ravina, 2011).

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings from this study, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) The perspectives of the science teachers foster a positive understanding of the science spiral progression curriculum as to the content, strategies, and confidence in implementing the curriculum; (2) The public junior high school grade ten students of Pasig City profess "fairly satisfactory" academic performance or progress in science; and (3) There are many factors that may influence students' learning progress in the science spiral progression curriculum as seen in the results of this research.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are drawn based on the findings of the study: (1) The Department of Education of the Philippines and its implementing arms may integrate plans in providing more concrete programs to support teachers' training in relation to the science spiral progression curriculum; (2) Principals in the public junior high schools may develop motivational plans that would encourage science teachers to continue to learn and to persuade graduate studies to enhance their knowledge on the disciplines of science that are not their area of specialization; (3) Principals in the public junior high schools may devise concrete and serious faculty development programs to be conducted as timely as possible not only on strategies on how to teach the science spiral progression curriculum but also the understanding of the content of each discipline in the science curriculum for the benefit of the science teachers who are teaching the science disciplines which are not their area of specialization; (4) Administration of each public junior high school may establish school-based training or cluster-based training program if there are financial constraints in sending teachers to big training events; (5) School administrators in the Department of Education may revisit the implementation of the science spiral progression curriculum and this research may guide them to trace immediate problems regarding the implementation of the curriculum; (6) Future researchers may conduct future researches in relation with this research on the following aspects: (a) effects of the scheme of implementation (disciplinal or not disciplinal) of the science spiral progression curriculum in the academic performance of the students (b) phenomenological plight that teachers are experiencing on executing the spiral progression curriculum (c) students' progress focusing on the individual disciplines in the science progression and (d) correlates of the academic performance of students in science in terms of their demographic profiles.