Learning Resources Acquisition, Management, and Utilization Practices of select IPED and Non-IPED Schools Divisions in Mimaropa Region: Basis for the Proposed Learning Resource Service Model

Abstract

The study determined the practices of select IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions in terms of learning resources acquisition, management, and utilization. It also aimed to identify the extent of practices, its compliance with the DepEd guidelines, the significant differences between the IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions’ extent of practices and compliance with the DepEd guidelines, as well as the gaps and some major issues encountered in terms of learning resources acquisition, management, and utilization. Data analysis revealed that in terms of the mode of acquisition of learning resources, both small, medium, and large as well as mega schools in IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions’ primary source of learning resources acquisition is the school Maintenance and Other Operation Expenses (MOOE) or DepEd fund. All schools also depended on the DepEd-delivered learning resources, while others were from foreign funded program. As support funds, schools were also supported by the Local Government Units (LGUs), Private Institutions, PTA, alumni, and other stakeholders. On the other hand, in terms of learning resources acquisition, management and utilization practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions have the same practices employed. As to the extent of practices in learning resources management of both small, medium, large and mega schools, both IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions have an excellent rating with a rating ranging from 4.53 – 5.0 in terms of needs assessment, planning, selecting, purchasing, distributing, inventory controlling, storage and disposal. In terms of the frequency of utilization of all learning resources available, both small, medium, and large as well as mega schools in IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions often use all available learning resources. There is only a bit difference in the frequency of utilization of Math and Science Equipment, Library Resources, Sports, MAPEH, TLE and ICT equipment and they are sometimes utilized by small and medium schools in IPEd schools division. In terms of adequacy in the maintenance activities of learning resources, small, medium, large, as well as mega schools in both IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions have applied all the practices in the maintenance of all learning resources. There are no significant differences in terms of learning resources acquisition, management and utilization practices as employed by both IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions. In light of the preceding findings of the study, the researcher proposes a service model for the acquisition, management, and utilization of learning resources for more effective implementation and to sustain their learning resources acquisition, management, and utilization practices.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Learning resources play a significant role in the teaching-learning process and in carrying out the objectives of the educational system. Successful implementation of our educational system depends on the acquisition, management, and utilization of all these learning resources; thus, school and community learning centers must be resourceful enough to acquire such learning resources needed if not available and provided by the Department of Education.

Based on the Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution," the Department of Education is mandated to provide free elementary and secondary education, including rent-free learner's materials to public schools. In line with this mandate, DepEd has been providing learner's materials and other instructional materials to public schools since 1976.

In developing the Basic Education Curriculum, also known as the K to12 Program under Republic Act 10533, DepEd shall produce and develop learning materials (Section 10.3). The production and development of locally- produced teaching and learning materials shall be encouraged. The approval of these materials shall be devolved to the regional and division education unit by national policies and standards. In support of the upholding and goals of the Department, the Bureau of Learning Resources assures the provision of Science and Mathematics Equipment to all Public Elementary, Junior, and Senior High Schools across the country for the betterment of Science and Mathematics Education. Learning resources are not only for those learning inside the classroom but also for those in the community learning centers. These learning resources could be contextualized or localized based on the needs of the learners in the community, like the Indigenous Peoples (IPs). IP education is one of the DepEd priorities.

In response to the distinct educational needs of IP communities, DepEd has earlier issued DepEd Order No. 42, s.2004 ("Permit to Operate Primary Schools for Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Communities") and DepEd Order No. 101, s.2010 ("The Alternative Learning System (ALS) Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples (IPs) Education"). DepEd ensures universal and equitable access of all IPs to quality and relevant basic education services towards functional literacy and shall provide adequate and culturally appropriate learning resources and environment for IP learners. As a result, all learners can access high-quality and good basic education programs that lead to functional literacy. Aside from ensuring that textbooks and other materials are properly selected and developed supplemental learning resources are offered to IP students, the Department of Education (DepEd) should establish a policy that encourages creating and maintaining culture-responsive organizations, infrastructures, learning environments, and places in education. 

Learning Resources for public elementary and secondary learners include IPEd, ALS, and Madrasah learners, who usually pass through quality assurance processes in which they are evaluated or assessed, tested, and validated before they are finalized, published, and reproduced. They could also be referred to or classified as any digital or non-digital educational resource with a learning purpose.

Public elementary and secondary schools, including IPEd schools, follow guidelines in acquiring, utilizing, and managing all available learning resources. Their practices depend on the policy guidelines set by the Department of Education through the Bureau of Learning Resources. They conducted an annual inventory of all existing learning resources, commonly listing all available learning resources in school and community learning centers. It also serves as the catalog of school-owned properties provided by the Department of Education to all public schools. It also includes those learning resources which are locally developed or designed by teachers or those contextualized learning resources.

Another source of learning resources is the DepEd LR Portal, which contains quality-assured materials printed for use in home-based activities, and the DepEd Commons, which is currently populated with interactive e-books that provide weekly lessons for use in home-based activities.

IPEd is a program that supports our public schools and other education programs that the government runs. In designing a culturally suitable curriculum, DepEd use a culturally responsive resources for learning. This Program Support Fund (PSF) will be used for activities relating to three thematic focus areas: curriculum and learning resource development, which includes, but is not limited to, sessions on curricular contextualization and learning resource building, but they are not limited to them. Consultations and workshops with IP elders, leaders, cultural bearers, community representatives, and other critical stakeholders by school and division officials. Production of learning products containing content that is relevant to IP communities have been thoroughly evaluated, as well as learning products including those that relevant IP communities have been thoroughly assessed that have Quality Control performed; adequacy and sufficiency of all these learning resource materials is always the primary consideration in the attainment of the DepEd goals and objectives, Natividad, 2019. It is, therefore, essential to consider that an inventory of learning resources also leads to proper acquisition to address the insufficiency of learning resources in every classroom. The acquisition is always part of the inventory reporting of learning resources. It is the process of purchasing learning resources needed to address some issues in the scarcity of resources. On the other hand, if schools ever need to purchase learning resources required, they should ensure that these materials are of quality and could address the inadequacy of learning resources and, most of all, the needs of the present K to 12 curricula.  Since the creation of the Learning Resource Management Section (LRMS) under the Curriculum Implementation Division in every Schools Division brought by the Rationalization Plan (DM 82 s. 2017), all concerning the acquisition, management and utilization of learning resources are being monitored by the School LR team headed by the School Head through the School Property Custodian, designated School Librarian and teachers. There is an existing guideline regarding the acquisition, utilization, and management of learning resources by the Department of Education. The school must be resourceful enough to practice proper acquisition, management, and utilization of the existing learning resources to address the scarcity and sustain their availability in both the IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. It tempted the researcher to study some practices employed by the select IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions in the MIMAROPA Region regarding the acquisition, management, and utilization of learning resources to serve as  basis for the proposed learning resource model.

This research employed the IPO or the INPUT, PROCESS, and OUTPUT, wherein; the input focuses on the existing condition in terms of practices in the acquisition, utilization, and management of learning resources based on the Learning Resource management guidelines and standard procedures, whereas, the research processes involved are through the utilization of web-based questionnaire and validation through an online interview or via video conferencing.

Practices in acquiring, managing, and utilizing learning resources were then identified in both IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. The output is the actual status of practices and the proposed Learning Resource Service Model to improve the said practices further.

It used One Sample T-Test and Paired T-Test to determine the gaps in learning resource acquisition, management, and utilization practices of small, medium, large and mega schools in IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. As an OUTPUT of the process, gaps were identified in all practices employed.

The respondents also give possible suggestions to address the gaps. Therefore, the expectation that 100% of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions will have the same practices employed within the standards was met. To close the gap and improve the learning resource acquisition, management, and utilization practices of both IPEd and Non-IPed Schools Divisions, a model called the AMULeRs Model was proposed the researcher.

II. METHODOLOGY

This study made use of a descriptive survey design. This is a type of research design in which research is conducted to accurately and systematically describe a particular situation. It is carried out to gain a better knowledge of the current problem, but the results will not be conclusive. This research design aims to provide definitive answers to research questions and investigate and observe to find the appropriate measures. This approach is most suited to find out and gaining an understanding of the learning resource acquisition, management, and utilization practices of select IPEd and Non-IPED Public schools in the Schools Division of Occidental Mindoro and the Schools Division of Marinduque. It adopted the limited aspect of quantitative analysis and presentation of data and adapted the little element of quantitative analysis to present a clear picture of the findings. 

It used a descriptive research design to enable the researcher to develop an in-depth understanding of the topic or subjects in such a type of investigation. In addition, by performing descriptive research, the researcher was able to study participants in a natural setting by involving IPEd and Non-IPEd School Property Custodians, Library Designates, and school heads.

A. Research Locale

The study was conducted in selected Schools Divisions in MIMAROPA Region particularly all Public IPEd schools in the Schools Division of Occidental Mindoro and Public Non-IPEd   schools in the Schools Division of Marinduque.

Table 1: Target Population

 For IPEd Schools Division

Table 1: List of Respondents for IPEd Schools Division

For Non-IPEd Schools Division

Table 2: List of Respondents for Non-IPEd Schools Division

B. Research Instrument

It uses the web-based researcher-made questionnaire for the reliable and fast gathering of data. In the data analysis, a descriptive method that includes survey research was utilized in the study. Frequency, percentage, rank, and mean were employed in the data analysis to determine the similarities and differences in learning resources practices regarding the learning resources acquisition, management, and utilization practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. At the same time, the T-test was also used to find their significant differences.

III. RESULTS

A. PART 1.  Learning Resources Practices Employed by IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions

This section discusses the mode and practices of learning resources acquisition. The data were presented through a table and categorized based on the school sizes in terms of mode and practices in the acquisition, management, and utilization of learning resources.

1. Learning Resources Acquisition

a) Mode of Acquisition

Table 1.1.1 presents the learning resources mode of acquisition for the IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. For IPEd Schools Division,  it could be noticed that the topmost primary source of small, medium and large schools  in the acquisition of learning resources is the school MOOE or DepEd fund. Second to the rank for small school is fund  from other stakeholders such as LGUs, Private Institutions, and alumni;  third is from foreign funded learning resources and last is from Parent, Teachers Association of PTA. For medium schools, next source of fund aside from school MOOE or DepEd fund is from foreign funded learning resources and third is the fund or donations from other stakeholders and last is from Parents-Teachers Association of PTA.  For large schools, all stated modes are their common sources in learning resources acquisition.

On the other hand, for Non-IPEd Schools Divisions, the results reveal that the top 3 primary sources or mode of acquisition of most of the Non-IPEd small schools are through their school Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) or DepEd fund. Second is from other stakeholders such as LGUs, private institutions, and alumni; and third is from foreign fund learning resources; and the  last is from Parents-Teachers Association (PTA). For medium schools, we could also glean that Non-IPEd medium schools’ primary source is the school MOOE or DepEd fund, and second is from other stakeholders and sources from Parents-Teachers Association or PTA. For large and mega schools, their primary source of acquisition is the school MOOE or DepEd fund, as well as the Parents- Teachers Association. They are also supported by other support funds, such as funds from other stakeholders.

b) Learning Resources Acquisition Practices

Table 1.1.2  shows the learning resources acquisition practices of the IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. It could be gleaned that most of the IPEd small, medium, and large schools learning resources were acquired through localization, indigenization, and contextualization with 88.89%, 83.33% and 100% percentage rating respectively. Second to the rank  is through harvesting from the LR Portal with 74.60%, 75% and 100% percentage rating. Selecting and evaluating available learning resources ranked 3rd with 60.32%, 41.67 and 100% percentage rating; while school-based development ranked 4th or last with 38.09%, 25% and 100% percentage rating. This only proves that IPEd schools either small, medium or large are implementing the aforementioned learning resources acquisition practices; however, most of their materials were locally, indigenously, and contextually developed to address the needs of every IPEd learner. On the other hand, in terms of learning resource acquisition practices of the Non-IPEd school’s division, it could be gleaned that most of the Non-IPEd small schools learning resources were acquired through harvesting and downloading from the LR portal with 79.14% percentage rating, selecting and evaluating available learning resources with 76.92% percentage rating ranked second. Next in rank is localizing and contextualizing learning resources with 76.26% percentage rating, while school-based development ranked 4th or last among the given practices of Non-IPEd small schools with 52.52% percentage rating. For medium schools, selecting and evaluating available learning resources ranked 1st with 80% percentage rating, followed by harvesting from the LR portal with 78.33%, next is through localization and contextualization with 63.63%; while the last is through school-based development with 55% mean percentage. For both large and mega schools, all the practices were also applied wherein, they acquired their learning resources through harvesting from the LR portal as well as selecting and evaluating learning resources, localizing and contextualizing as well as school-based development was also evident.

2. Learning Resources Management Practices

a) Needs Assessment

Table 1.2.1 shows the extent of performance in learning resources management- needs assessment practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. The first indicator, performing gap analysis by looking at the current school situation, has an excellent rating for both small, medium, and large schools, with mean scores of 4.83, 4.75, and 5 respectively. The second indicator, identifying priorities and the importance of determining if the identified needs are real and worth addressing, has also an excellent rating of 5. The third indicator which is identifying the specific problem areas and opportunities on the needed requirements if appropriate solutions are applied has also an excellent ratings of 4.,90, 5, and 5 for small, medium, and large schools; and for the last indicator which is identifying possible solutions, has an excellent rating of 4.97 for small schools and 5 for both medium and large schools. On the other hand, for Non-IPEd Schools Divisions, all the given indicators for needs assessment practices have excellent ratings for both small, medium schools, large and mega schools.

Table 1.3.1 shows the frequency of learning resources utilization in the IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. In IPEd school division, it could be gleaned that for all available Math and Science equipment, both small and medium schools utilize them sometimes, with mean ratings of 3.35 and 3, respectively, while large school utilizes them often. As to available learning resources in the library, both small and medium schools use them sometimes, with 2.88 and 3.38 mean ratings. Large school uses library resources often. In terms of all available teaching and learning materials like Self-Learning Modules (SLMs), Supplementary Reading Materials (SRMs), intervention materials, models, charts, maps, globes, pictures, and others, both small, medium, and large schools use them often with 3.85, 3.85 and 4 mean ratings respectively.

However, in terms of Sports and MAPEH equipment, IPEd small schools sometimes utilize them with 3.05 mean rating, medium schools use them always with 4.31 mean rating and large school often use them with 4 mean rating. All reference books are properly utilized often by both small and large schools, with 3.73 and 4 mean ratings respectively. However, medium schools sometimes utilize reference books in the teaching-learning learning process.

Since textbooks are the primary learning resources, small, medium, and large schools often use them with 4.13, 3.77, and 4 mean ratings. For ICT equipment, small schools sometimes utilize them with a 3.23 mean rating, medium schools always use them with a 4.31 mean rating, and large school often utilizes them with a 4 mean rating. In terms of utilization of TLE equipment, small schools sometimes use them with a 3.18 mean rating, and both medium and large schools use them often with a 4 mean rating, respectively. For contextualized learning materials, schools always use them with a 4.23 mean rating, and medium and large schools often use them with a 4 mean rating.

Self-Learning Modules (SLMs)s and Learning Activity Sheets (LASs) distributed and delivered to learners are often utilized by small and large schools, with 5 and 4 mean ratings. In contrast, those medium schools use them always with a 4.38 mean rating. For other relevant activities, both print and non-print, which were harvested from the LR Portal to supplement the Self-Learning Modules and Learning Activity Sheets, which are aligned with the present MELC, both small, medium, and large schools utilize them often with  4.08, 4  mean ratings.

On the other hand, for  Non-IPEd schools division, we could glean that for all available Math, and Science equipment, both small, large, and mega schools utilize them always with mean ratings of 4.21, 4.57, and 5, respectively, while medium schools utilize them often. Likewise, as to available learning resources in the library, both small, medium, large, and mega schools use them with a mean rating, and both large and mega schools always use them with 4.43 and 5 mean ratings. 

In terms of all available teaching and learning materials like Self-Learning Modules (SLMs), Supplementary Reading Materials (SRMs), intervention materials, models, charts, maps, globes, pictures, and others, both small, medium, large, and mega

schools use them always with 4.34, 4.35, 4.57 and 5 mean ratings respectively. For MAPEH equipment, IPEd small, medium and large schools utilize them always with 4.35, 4.28, and 5 mean percentage ratings, while large schools use them often with a 4.14 mean rating. All reference books are often utilized adequately by both small and medium schools, with 3.59 and 3.49 mean ratings, respectively, while large and mega schools always use reference books in the teaching-learning process, with 4.29 and 5 mean ratings. Since textbooks are the primary learning resources, small, medium, large, and mega schools always utilize them with 4.26, 4.21, 4.57, and 5 mean ratings.

For ICT equipment, small, medium, and mega schools always use them with 4.42, 4.47, and 5 mean ratings, while medium schools often utilize them with a 4.14 mean rating. In terms of utilization of TLE equipment, small and medium schools often use them with 4.03 and 3.77 mean ratings, while large and mega schools always use them with 4.29 and 5 mean ratings, respectively. For contextualized learning materials, small and medium schools utilize them often with a 3.9 and 3.77 mean rating, while large and mega schools use them always with 4.71 and 5 mean ratings.

Self-Learning Modules (SLMs) and Learning Activity Sheets (LASs) distributed and delivered to learners during this pandemic are always utilized by small, medium, large and mega schools with 4.62, 4.72, 4.57, and 5 mean ratings. For other relevant activities, both print and non-print, which were harvested from the LR Portal to supplement the Self-Learning Modules and Learning Activity Sheets which are aligned with the present MELC, both small, medium, large and mega schools utilize them always with a 4.39, 4.38, 4.43 and 5 mean ratings. 

Table 1.3.2 shows the adequacy of learning resource maintenance of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. We could glean from the table above that IPEd small, medium, and large schools all agree in most of the indicators except for the other indicators wherein small schools are undecided in terms of maintenance activities, among which are the availability of storage cabinets in every classroom, in the library and in the storage room, old textbooks and other references which are already more than five (5) years are already disposed of, properly compiled digital learning resources and the availability of backups for files safekeeping as well as ensuring that all books and other references have plastic covers. However, we could also glean that among the given indicators, medium schools strongly agree that they have available storage cabinets in the classroom as well as in the library and storage room and digital files of learning resources were also properly compiled with available backups for files safekeeping. On the other hand, for Non-IPEd schools, it could  be gleaned in the table  that small, medium, large and mega schools agree and strongly agree  in most of the indicators wherein most Non-IPEd schools division have adequacy in terms of maintenance of all learning resources available.

B. PART 2. Significant Difference in Learning Resources Practices Employed by IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions by School Size

In terms of Learning Resources Acquisition, Management, and Utilization of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions, there are no significant differences noted in most of the indicators. Whether noted as substantial or not, this will be analyzed in the discussion below.

1) Learning Resources Acquisition Practices

a) Mode of Acquisition

• Through MOOE

Table 2.1.1.a.  Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Mode of Acquisition of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through MOOE

             Table 2.1.1.a shows that there are no significant differences between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools in terms of LR acquisition through the use of MOOE as its mode with 0.000 comparative error and 0.00 discrepancy.

• Through Foreign funded     

Table 2.1.1.b. Results of   T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Mode of Acquisition of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through Foreign Funded

Table 2.1.1.b revealed that there are no significant differences between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools in terms of learning resources mode of acquisition through foreign funds with a comparative error of 24.962981 or with a difference of 6.97 for small schools, 38.094852, with a difference of 26.67 for medium schools,  and 42.435245 or 37.50 difference for large school and with unidentified value for a mega school.

• Through PTA

Table 2.1.1.c. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Mode of Acquisition of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through PTA

                   Table 2.1.1.c shows that there are no significant differences between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools in terms of learning resources mode of acquisition through PTA for small and medium schools, with 27.341451 comparative error and 51.442481 or .76 and 13.33 difference, respectively. However, for large schools, there is a significant difference in learning resources acquisition through PTA between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions with 54.783665 comparative error and a difference of 65.20. Mega schools remain with unidentified value.

• Through Other Stakeholders

Table 2.1.1.d. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Mode of Acquisition of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through Other Stakeholders (LGUs, Private Institutions, Alumni)

In the above table, we could notice that there are no significant differences in IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions in terms of learning resources mode of acquisition through other stakeholders like LGUs, private institutions and alumni for small, and medium schools with 23.661792 comparative error and 46.772005 or 6.09 and 8.33 difference respectively. However, for large schools, there is a significant difference in terms of learning resources acquisition through other stakeholders (LGUs, Private Institutions, Alumni) between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools division with 54.783665 comparative error and with a difference of 65.20. Mega school remains with unidentified value.

b) Practices of Acquisition

• Through Harvesting and Downloading from LR Portal

Table 2.1.2.a. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Acquisition Practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through Harvesting and Downloading from LR Portal

Table 2.1.2.a shows that there are no significant differences between IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions in terms of learning resources mode of acquisition through other stakeholders like LGUs, private institutions, and alumni for small and medium schools with 14.578443 comparative error and 30.644302 or 6.09 and34.648332 difference respectively. The mega school remains with unidentified value.

• Through Localizing, Indigenizing and Contextualizing

Table 2.1.2.b. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Acquisition Practices of  IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through Localizing, Indigenizing and Contextualizing

                                             Table 2.1.2.b shows the learning resources acquisition practices through localizing, indigenizing, and contextualizing. We could notice that there are significant differences in small schools in  IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions with 11.506454 comparative error and a difference of 12.13, as well as in the large school with a comparative error of 15.114524 and a difference of 34.5. However, there are no significant differences between the medium-sized schools in IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions. Mega schools remain with unidentified value.

• Through Selecting and Evaluating Available Learning Resources

Table 2.1.2.c. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Acquisition Practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through Selecting and Evaluating Available Learning Resources

Table 2.1.2.c shows that when it comes to learning resources acquisition practices through selecting and evaluating learning resources, there is a significant difference in small-sized schools in both IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions with 10.623476 comparative error and a difference of 34.50. However, there are no significant differences in the medium-sized and large-sized schools in both IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Division. Mega schools remain with unidentified value.

• Through School-Based Development

Table 2.1.2.d. Results of T-test in Terms of Learning Resources Acquisition Practices of IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions Through School-Based Development

The above table shows the learning resources acquisition practices through school-based development. It shows that there are no significant differences in small, medium, and large schools in both IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions. The mega school remains with unidentified value.

2) Learning Resources Management Practices

a) Needs Assessment

Conclusion

Considering the study\'s initial findings, the researcher concluded the following: 1) Learning Resources Acquisition ? Budget and fund allocation for small, medium, and large/ mega IPEd and Non-IPEd schools, which came from various sources, play a crucial role in the implementation of all school programs and projects in terms of the acquisition of learning resources in both IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions. Allocating the budget for the said item turned out as the most challenging task among the respondent schools, which resorted them to find support funds from LGUs, PTA, and other stakeholders, particularly from alumni and private institutions and from foreign-funded learning resources. ? Learning resources of both IPEd and Non-IPEd small, medium, large/mega schools are acquired through localizing, indigenizing, contextualizing, selecting, and evaluating all available learning resources, harvesting from the LR Portal, as well as school-based development. Such practices are also based on the standards or guidelines set by the Department of Education through the Bureau of Learning Resources. ? There is no significant difference in learning resources acquisition practices employed by IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions by school size in MIMAROPA Region and therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. 2) Learning resources management practices were excellently performed by IPEd and Non-IPEd schools divisions in MIMAROPA Region in terms of needs assessment, planning, selecting, purchasing, distributing, inventory controlling, storage, and disposal of learning resources. There is no significant difference in learning resources management practices employed by IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions by school size in MIMAROPA Region and therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. 3) The IPEd and Non-IPEd, small, medium, large, and mega schools utilize all available learning resources. Print learning resources such as textbooks and other supplementary learning and reading materials are the most utilize in every school. 4) There is no significant difference in learning resources utilization practices employed by IPEd and Non-IPEd Schools Divisions in MIMAROPA Region and therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.

References

[1] Rose Chelangat (2019) Utilization of Teaching and Learning Resources in Social Studies Instruction: A Case of Private Primary Teachers’ Training Colleges in Nakuru County, Kenya, Moi University [2] Kigwilu and Akala (2017) Resource Utilization and Curriculum Implementation in Community Colleges School of Education, University of Nairobi, Kikuyu, Kenya International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET) Vol. 4, Issue 4, December 2017 [3] Tezera D, Yadesa D (2017) Assessment of Material Resource Utilization Practices and Its Challenges: The Case of Wollega University [4] Usen, Onodiong Mfreke (2016) Teachers’ Utilization of School Facilities and Academic Achievement of Student Nurses in Human Biology in Schools of Nursing in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria by Institute of Education, University of Uyo [5] Usman, Yunusa Dangara (2016), Educational Resources: An Integral Component for Effective School Administration in Nigeria [6] Onche, A. (2014). Meeting the Challenge of Accessibility and Utilization of Modern Instructional Materials in Rural Secondary Schools in Nigeria. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies [7] Defaru Mengistu (2014) The Current Practices of Educational Materials Management and Utilization in Secondary Schools of Jimma Town, Jimma University, Ethiopia [8] Ampa, Basri, Andriani (2013) The Development of Contextual Learning Materials for the English Speaking Skills, International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 9 September 2013 [9] Kangethe, David Muhungi, (2011) Challenges of teaching and learning materials in public secondary schools in Tana River District, Kenya, Kenyatta University [10] Jeptanui. (2011). Efficiency in the use of Instructional Materials. A case study of Kapseret Zone Waring District. Unpublished project. Kenyatta University. [11] Owoeye, J. S. (2011). School Facilities and Academic Achievement of Secondary [12] School Agricultural Science in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Kampala: Kampala [13] International University. [14] Kangethe (2011). Challenges of Teaching and Learning Materials in Public Secondary Schools in Tana River District. Unpublished project. Kenyatta University Afolabi and Adeleke (2010) Assessment of Resources and Instructional Materials Status in the Teaching of Mathematics in South Western Nigerian [15] Kaaria (2009) Availability, acquisition, and utilization of teaching-learning resources of English language in primary schools in Bururi division of Imenti North District, Kenya, Kenyatta University [16] Other sources: Mark Anthony Llego, 2020 https://www.teacherph.com/deped-learning-materials/ https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=H6AM-RhmoAC;pg=PA24;hl=en#v=onepage;q;f=falsehttp://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/online-store-and-retail/basics-inventory- [17] Mark Anthony Llego 2011 https://www.teacherph.com/national-indigenous-peoples-education-policy-framework/ [18] managementhttp://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/inventory-control-systems.htmlhttp://www.studymode.com/essays/Chapter-1-Inventory-System-612578.htmlhttp://erply.com/effective-inventory- [19] management/http://www.studymode.com/essays/Computer-Based-Inventory-System-401903.htmlhttp://docslide.us/documents/chapter-ii limdocx.htmlhttp://www.technotrice.com/what-is-spiral-model-software-engineering/ [20] https://fedena.com/blog/2018/11/benefits-of-managing-school-inventory-using-school-management-software.html [21] International Journal of Education and Research, Vol. 1 No. 9 September 2013 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com [22] Beth Lewis, July 2019 https://www.thoughtco.com/tlm-teaching-learning-materials-2081658 [23] Akande, Samson Oyeniyi, \"Knowledge, Perception, and Attitudes of Library Personnel towards Preservation of Information Resources in Nigerian Federal University Libraries\" (2009). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 303. [24] Merlina Hernando Malipot , 2019. https://mb.com.ph/2019/01/02/deped-releases-guidelines-on-science-math-tech-voc-learning-tools/ [25] Deped,gov.ph. 2010 Educational Facilities Manual Deped.gov.ph.Resources and Issuances What Is TQM? Total Quality Management Explained – BMC Software | Blogs

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Mariam B. Rivamonte. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.