ACT MODEL: CHANGING ACTUAL SIZE TO DRAWING SIZE DIMENSION IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
Keywords:
ACT Model, Scaling Architectural Drawings, Technical Drafting, Process Model, Worked Examples, Student Performance ImprovementAbstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of the ACT Model (Analyze, Compute, Take a look) as a strategy for improving the ability of Grade 10 Technical Drafting students to scale architectural drawings. It sought to answer three questions: (1) What is the level of students' performance in scaling before applying the ACT Model? (2) What is their level of performance after utilizing it? and (3) Is there a significant difference between their performances before and after using the model? Using a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design, the study involved 61 Grade 10 Technical Drafting students, drawn from different sections and organized into two groups (sessions). A teacher-made pre-test was administered before the strategy was presented, and a post-test was administered after its utilization. Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were used to determine the level of students' performance before and after applying the ACT Model, and the t-test for two dependent means (paired t-test) was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two sets of scores. Before the intervention, students attained a mean score of 11.28 (SD = 6.89), interpreted as Satisfactory. After the intervention, 58 of the 61 students (95.08 %) obtained Outstanding scores and the remaining three (4.92 %) obtained Very Satisfactory scores, yielding a mean of 18.57 (SD = 1.40), interpreted as Outstanding. The mean gain of 7.29 points was statistically significant (t = 7.07 > critical t = 2.00, df = 60, p < 0.05; 95 % CI of the gain [5.23, 9.35]; d_z = 0.91), and the spread of scores narrowed considerably, as shown by the decrease in standard deviation from 6.89 to 1.40. Because the design had no comparison group and the post-test showed a ceiling effect, these results are best taken as strong preliminary evidence. It is concluded that implementing the ACT Model was associated with a positive effect on students' learning outcomes in scaling. The model is therefore recommended for other Technical Drafting courses or similar fields, and further research could explore its impact on different groups of students or in different contexts beyond Grade 10 Technical Drafting classes.
References
Alde, J. L. (2021). Effectiveness of the teacher-made strategic intervention material in increasing the performance level of Grade 11 Home Economics students. Academic Journal of Digital Economics and Stability, 1, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.51699/ajdes.v1i.23
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/de4c5b7874aeb35de8baf80a50657f03beab51ff
Bakker, A., Cai, J., English, L., Kaiser, G., Mesa, V., & Van Dooren, W. (2019). Beyond small, medium, or large: Points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09908-4
Bakker, A., Groenveld, D., Wijers, M., Akkerman, S. F., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2014). Proportional reasoning in the laboratory: An intervention study in vocational education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9393-y
Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003235712092
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Education. (2016a). DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016: Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/10/do-39-s-2016-adoption-of-the-basic-education-research-agenda/
Department of Education. (2016b). K to 12 curriculum guide: Information and communications technology – Technical drafting (NC II). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Technical-Drafting-NC-II-CG.pdf
Department of Education. (2017a). DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017: Research management guidelines. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/03/20/do-16-s-2017-research-management-guidelines/
Department of Education. (2017b). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017: National adoption and implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DO_s2017_042-1.pdf
Department of Education. (2021). DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2021: Amendment to DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2017 (Research management guidelines).
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Springer.
Exconde, A. S. M., & Briones, E. O. (2023). Strategic intervention material: A tool in improving TLE performance of Grade 7 students. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Education and Technology. https://doi.org/10.54476/apjaet/73699
German, A. D., & Custodio, E. B. (2023). Technical drafting module for Grade-8 students based on the evaluation rubrics of Learning Resources Management and Development System. Lunday: Research Journal of the Graduate School of Bulacan State University, 5(1). https://lunday.bulsu.edu.ph/index.php/lunday/article/view/95
Harris, M. (1983). Modeling: A process method of teaching. College English, 45, 74-84.
Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos, M., & O'Brien, M. (2012). Evaluating middle years students' proportional reasoning. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). MERGA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573239.pdf
Jones, M. G., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). Developing a sense of scale: Looking backward. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20288
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.
Khasawneh, A. A., Al-Barakat, A. A., & Almahmoud, S. A. (2022). The effect of error analysis-based learning on proportional reasoning ability of seventh-grade students. Frontiers in Education, 7, 899288. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.899288
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Loretan, C., Delaval, M., Müller, A., Roch, S., & Weiss, L. (2024). Understanding of size and scale and order-of-magnitude reasoning in secondary science: A teaching experiment with worked examples as educational scaffold [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16480
Manaois, G. Drafting (Vol. 2).
McIlrath, D., & Huitt, W. (1995, December). The teaching-learning process: A discussion of models. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State University.
Mechanical Drafting, Exploratory Course, Grade 7 & 8 Learner's Material.
Olayta, J. A. L. (2022). Worksheets for the improvement of technical drafting skills of electrical installation and maintenance students. International Journal of Research Publications, 104(1), 142–159. https://ijrp.sfo3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/pubjournal/3477/1001041720223498.pdf
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
Sanchez, D. T., Peconcillo, L. B., Jr., Wong, R. L., Peteros, E. D., & Godinez, J. A. T. (2020). Assessing technical drawing proficiency in the Strengthened Technical Vocational Education Program (STVEP). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12A), 7282–7295. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082511
Stewart, G., & Rosemann, M. (2001). Process modeling: A teaching approach for developing generic skills in IT students.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Technical Drafting, Module 1 - Drafting Architectural Layout and Details.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00020739
U.S. Fire Administration. (n.d.). Using engineer and architect scales [Training handout]. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfa/engineer-architect-scales.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Weske, M. (2007). Business process management: Concepts, languages, architectures. Springer.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Statement
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)
All articles published in the Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals (JASDG) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Under this license, users are free to:
-
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
-
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use;
provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.
Authors retain copyright of their work while granting JASDG the right of first publication. The published work remains freely available to readers and may be used, distributed, reproduced, and adapted by others in accordance with the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.
For more information about this license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 2026 The Author(s).
Articles published in the Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals (JASDG) are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited.
