Research Paper Math

Republic of the Philippines
SURIGAO DEL SUR STATE UNIVERSITY

Cantilan Campus
Cantilan, Surigao del Sur
Factors and Mathematics Performance of BSEd – Math 4 Students
By:
Ropol, Mechiel A.
Ramos, Emeline S.
Cantilan Campus
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEMS AND ITS SCOPE
Introduction
Mathematics is considered as the mother of all learning in both arts and
sciences. It is essential in almost every field: measurement in fashion, angles in sports,
technology and economics. This perspective on Mathematics has gained more attention
with the rapid advances of information and communication. Mathematics is not just
computation but a tool for understanding structures, relationships and patterns to
produce solutions for complex real life problems. It is a necessity for people of all ages
to be successful in life. Despite the usefulness of mathematics in daily life, there are
factors that adversely affect the students’ ability to understand and apply mathematics
concepts (Andaya, 2014).
Mathematics education is one of the subjects recognized as a major factor in
development, causing national agenda to focus in this area (Ogena, 2010).
Performance of schools in all levels, the kind of teacher quality and its teaching output
became a national priority in addressing the quality of education learners receive.
Evaluation of educational attainment using standardized high-stakes testing was
administered, and the poor result was unforgiving. Low achievements in many areas are
now the concern for all academic and government institutions (Cave and Brown,
Cantilan Campus
2010).Therefore, revisiting how the way students learned and the way students’
achievement was performed is an effort worthwhile to consider. However, failure to
meet the standards of proficiency is a complex matter to pin point the blame even to the
learners. There are many variables like teacher quality, financial resources of the
school, quality of instruction, and many more are out of their control (McGuire, 2000).
Aquino (2003) pointed out that study skills can be taught effectively only after
identifying students’ areas of weakness and levels of achievement is appropriate to their
grade level can be provided with development for enrichment exercises, which will
enable them to become more proficient in the skills they have already acquired or which
will help them learn new ideas.
College students are not exempted from the problem in learning and mastering
mathematics. Tests in Mathematics reveal low performance of students of Surigao del
Sur State University (SDSSU). Aware of the importance and relevance the problem in
Mathematics pose, this study is conducted. A growing body of research finding indicates
that demographic, individual, instructional; classroom management and evaluation
factors have an impact on the Mathematical Achievement of the students. Identifying
factors that affect Mathematics Achievement is important to effectively educate
students. Success in study does not depend on ability and hard work but also on
effective methods of study. Individualized method of studying is adopted by every
individual student.
Cantilan Campus
Conceptual Framework
The major concept of this study is focused on factors affecting Mathematics
Performance of BSED – math 4 students at Surigao del Sur State University- Cantilan
Campus Academic Year 2018-2019.
A conceptual paradigm showing the relationship of students’ mathematics
performance in the profile of the students, student- related factors, teacher- related
factors.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Profile of the respondents in

terms of:
 Family Background  Data

Gathering
Factors:
 Data Analysis
Intervention
Student-related Factors  Data
Program
Interpretation
 Study Habits
Teacher-related Factors
 Personality Traits
 Teaching Skills
 Instructional Materials
Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of the Research

Cantilan Campus
Figure 1 shows the relationships of input variables which contain the profile of the
students in terms of family background, student – related factors and teacher – related
factors While in the process contains the data gathering, data analysis, and data
interpretation. In the output variables contains the Intervention Program that will be used
to alleviate the most common factors encountered by the respondents.

Cantilan Campus
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study is to determine the factors of Mathematics Performance
by the BSED – Math 4 students of SDSSU-Cantilan Campus, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur
Academic Year 2018- 2019.
To clarify the main problem further, the following inquiries will be addressed:
1. What is the Family Background of the students in terms of:
1.1 Educational Attainment
1.2 Parents’ Occupation
1.3 Family Income
1.4 Family owned Educational Materials
1.5 Study Assistance
2. What is the level of the mathematics performance of the respondents?
3. What is the extent of the student – related factors in terms of Study Habits?
4. What is the extent of the teacher – related factors in terms of:
4.1 Personality Traits
4.2 Teaching Skills
4.3 Instructional Materials
5. Is there a significant relationship between the mathematics performance of the
students and:
5.1 Family Background

Cantilan Campus
5.2 Student – Related Factors
5.3 Teacher – Related Factors
6. What intervention activities can be proposed based on the result of the study?
Hypothesis of the Study
There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and
the profile of the family background of the students.
There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and
the student – related factors.
There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and the
teacher – related factors.

Cantilan Campus
Significance of the Study
The outcome of this study is important as contribution to the educational system.
School Administration – the result of this study could serve as a baseline data to
improve programs for school advancement.
Instructors – the findings may help the instructor to be aware of the most common
factors encountered by the students.
Students – this study will help the students to develop their interest towards
Mathematics and appreciate the importance of Mathematics in their daily lives.
Future Researcher – the outcome of this study will surely benefit the future
researchers related to the study.
Parents – the findings may help the parents know what are the factors encountered by
their children.
Guidance Counselors – this study will help develop the guidance program in line with
individual needs and abilities of the students.

Cantilan Campus
Scope and Limitations of the Study
Time Delimitation
The study will cover the 1st semester of academic year 2018-2019.
Place Delimitation
The research study will be conducted at Surigao del Sur State University –
Cantilan Campus.
Definition of Terms
Given below are the terms used in the study and their definitions are based
primarily on how the researcher utilized them.
Factors – a phenomenon that affects the performance of the respondents.
Mathematics Performance – this refers to the grades of all mathematics courses of the
respondents from 1st year to 3rd year.

Cantilan Campus
Students – related Factors – these include the interest and study habits of a certain
students in studying mathematics.
Teacher – related Factors – these involve the personality traits, teaching skills and the
instructional materials that are being use by a teacher.
Study Habits – this refers to the usual form or action of a certain students in studying.
Personality Traits – this refers to the good relationship of the mathematics teachers
with the students.
Teaching Skills – this refers to the skills of teachers in mathematics in terms of
teaching her/his lesson.
Instructional Materials – this refers to the motivating techniques that teaching
materials or equipment used. It can be high technology or simple materials that can use
in learning preferences.
Cantilan Campus
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the related literatures and studies utilized by the researches
which are relevant to the study.
Leongson (2003) reveals that Pilipino students excel in knowledge acquisition but
fare considerably low in lessons requiring higher order thinking skills (HOTS). This
disappointing condition is evident in the performance of students in national and
international surveys on mathematics and science competencies. Performance of pre-
service teachers and mathematics teachers in the Professional Board Examination
reveals the same picture of poor competencies (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1986; Ibe,
1995). The Third International Mathematical Science Study (TIMMS, 2000) examined
patterns of students’ achievement in mathematics and found out that the school
effectiveness and teacher’s competency impact learning and promotes higher level of
achievements (Sullivan, 2011). The quality of instruction and effective instructional

Cantilan Campus
design are necessary to alleviate problems related to teaching and learning
mathematics (Dursun & Dede, 2004).
Hanson, Katherine (2008) stated that an exploration of girls learning styles,
attitudes, and behaviors in math classes that shows the importance of analyzing the
curriculum and attitudes of teachers when attempting to understand girls’ relation to
math. It attempts to discover ways to increase girls’ interest and achievement in math.
Davis- Kean (2000) analyzed how parents’ values and attitudes affect children’s
math performance and later interest, and how these attitudes vary by the child’s gender.
Steinberger & Wagner (2005) distinguishes more simply among three
intelligences; the academic – problem solving; the practical intelligence; and creative
intelligence; all these three have peculiar influence to performance. Study skills when
properly embedded will help students understand their own potentials for intellectual
growth and self-direction.
Richardson et.al (2000) compared college students who are deaf and hard of
hearing in mainstreamed classes with hearing peers. In both studies, the students who
are deaf had comparable study behaviors to those of their hearing peers. Similarly, both
studies employed a survey design that precluded the researchers from obtaining in –
depth knowledge of participants’ skills, and in particular, their use of notes as a study
text. These studies are similar to several others that attempt to survey the study habits
of normal hearing students.

Cantilan Campus
Fielden (2004) states that good study habits help the student in critical reflection
in skills outcomes such as selecting, analyzing, critiquing, and synthesizing.
Rohwes W. Jr. et al. as cited by Sainz (2000) further discussed the teachers
need to find ways of determining whether or not her instruction have been successful.
The procedures and method of determining such success can take the form of test of
various kinds to determine whether students have reached the objectives they set for
them.
Myers and Briggs (2003) developed a personality test based on Jung’s
temperaments called the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI). It has gone and become
the most famous personality test of all time. The traits are seen as opposites, and the
first set is introversion and extraversion. Introversion refers to a tendency to prefer the
world inside oneself. The more obvious aspects of introversion are shyness, distaste for
social functions, and a love of privacy. Extraversion is the tendency to look to the
outside world, especially people, for one’s pleasures.
Woolfolk (2001) describes intrinsic motivation as involving internal, personal
factors such as needs, interest, and enjoyment. A student who is intrinsically motivated
undertakes an activity “for its own sake“, because the activity itself is rewarding. In
contrast is intrinsic motivation, in which the student engages in an activity in order to
obtain a reward or to avoid a punishment.

Cantilan Campus
Tomlinson (1999) stated that teachers can differentiate content, process, and/or
product for students. Different of content refers to a change in the material being
learned by a student. For example, if the classroom objective is for all students to
subtract using renaming, some of the students may learn to subtract two-digit numbers,
while others may learn to subtract larger numbers in the context of word problems.
Differentiation of process refers to the way in which a student accesses material. One
student may explore a learning center, while another student collects information from
the web. Differentiation of product refers to the way in which a student shows what he or
she has learned. For example, to demonstrate understanding of a geometric concept,
one student may solve a problem set, while another builds a model.
Authentic assessment, cooperative learning, inclusion – discover a vast range of
current articles about teaching methodologies, ideal for all grades. Diversify your
teaching strategies by implementing service-learning projects and integrating
technology in your classroom. These resources will help gain the experience and
expertise you need to become a successful teacher, whether you’re a new teacher or
have been teaching for many years (Swanson, H.L., 1999).
According to Bloom’s Taxonomy teachers frequently spend a great deal of
classroom time testing students through questions. In fact, observations of teachers at
all levels of education reveal that most spend more that 90 percent of their instructional
time testing students (through questioning).

Cantilan Campus
Rhodes and Bellamy (1999) stated that a teacher tells, a facilitator asks: a
teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator supports from the back: a teacher gives
answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides guidelines and creates the
environment for the learners arrive at his or her own conclusions; a teacher mostly gives
a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners.
Siemens (2002) stated that instructional design can be defined as “the
systematic process of translating principles of learning and instructional into plans for
instructional materials and activities”. However, there are many different definitions for
instructional design and all of them are an expression of underlying philosophies and
viewpoints of what is involved in the learning process
Heinz, Aiso (2008) stated that development of an individual student’s
achievement depends on the level of the specific classroom and therefore on the
specific mathematics achievment. Moreover, he suggests that the students show hardly
any fear of mathematics independent of their achievement level.
Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) stated that learning technologies should shift
their role from being conveyors of information to a means for engaging students in
thinking. More specifically, technologies should be used ro pose problem to students,
provide related cases and information resources, a social medium to support learning
through collaboration, interaction and intellectual partners to support learning by
reflecting.
Cantilan Campus
Biggs (1989) conceptualizes the learning process which is an interaction of three
variables. He called this learning process as 3P model which consist of learning
environment and student characteristics (Presage), students’ approach to learning
(Process), and learning outcomes (Product). This model applies the idea that the
learning environment which is the situational characteristics mention by Lizzio et. Al.
(2002) affects the learning process of the desired learning outcomes. Whether or not
the kind of learning environment the student has affect the learning process and the
learning outcomes depends on the students’ perception that identify the situational
factors characteristic in influencing the motivation of students to learn. Lizzio et
al.(2002) strongly affirms that students perception on the current environments were a
strong predictor on learning outcomes.
Another study of Quimbo (2003) suggest that by effectively providing materials in
school can improve achievement in mathematics and the home learning environment
such as parental education have significant effect on students’ performance. The mere
presence of learning materials such as books, charts, visual aids and others affect the
learning outcomes. Another consideration is the home as the learning environment.
Students whose parents are highly educated out-performed their peers whose parents
have low educational achievement. The influence of the parents in the meta-cognitive
trainings like study habits, achievement pressure can be considered as elements behind
school performance (Quimbo, 2003).

Cantilan Campus
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter described the research design, respondents, research environment,

data gathering procedures, and statistical instrument that will be employed in the study.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study utilizes the descriptive method of research. It describes the significant
relationship between the factors and the mathematics performance of BSEd – Math 4th
year students of Surigao del Sur State University (SDSSU).
RESPONDENTS OF THE STUDY
The respondents of this study were the BSED – Math 4 students of Surigao del
Sur State University ( SDSSU ) Cantilan Campus, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Academic
Year 2018-2019.
Cantilan Campus
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
This study used a survey instrument, which will be adapted and modified to a
survey with a similar research topic. Was adopted from More……………………..
A survey questionnaire was adopted for this study. It is composed of 28 items which
focuses on the respondents’ background. Part I is about the Family Background of the
respondents which composed of 5 items. Part II is all about the Student – related
Factors that is composed of the study habits of the students with 8 items. Part III is all
about the Teacher – related Factors that is composed of the Teacher Personality Traits,
Teaching Skills and the Instructional Materials.
DATA GATHERING
The researcher asked permission from the Campus Director, Assistant Dean of
CEBM and the bonifide students to answer the survey questionnaire. The answered
questionnaire were coded and subjected to the appropriate omputations.
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
The researcher asked permission from the Campus Director of Surigao del Sur
State University (SDSSU) and to the head of Registrar to utilize the grades from 1st year
to 3rd year of BSED Math 4 students as the respondents of the study. The researchers
also asked the students’ consent for the utilization of their time that will be used in
Cantilan Campus
administering the survey questionnaire to gather data to support our study. The
questionnaires were administered to the BSED Math 4th year students of Surigao del
Sur State University. Respondents were given enough time to answer the
questionnaire.
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA
The statistical tools used in this study were the weighted mean to determine
which factors mostly affect the students’ performance. The simple percentage to test the
family background. To test the significant relationship between students’ mathematics
performance and the family background chi-square is being used while for the
significant relationship between mathematics relationship and the factors Pearson
Product Correlation will be use.

Cantilan Campus
QUESTIONNAIRES
The aim of this questionnaire is to establish the students‘ attitudes towards
mathematics, teachers behavior, teaching skills. The results will be treated as highly
confidential and are for research purposes only.
Name:________________________________(Optional)
PART I (Family Background)
1. Parents’ highest educational attainment Father Mother
1 No formal education ( ) ( )
2 Elementary level/graduated ( ) ( )
3 High school level/graduated ( ) ( )
4 College level/graduated ( ) ( )
2. Occupation of the parents
1- Farmer, laborer, house keeper ( ) ( )
2- Office worker (like secretary, clerk, etc.) ( ) ( )
3- Businessman, OFW ( ) ( )
4- Professional workers (like teachers, nurse) ( ) ( )

Cantilan Campus
3. Combined family monthly income
1- ₱ 10,000 and below ( )
2- ₱ 10,001.00 to ₱ 25,000.00 ( )
3- ₱ 25,001.00 to ₱ 45,000.00 ( )
4- ₱ 45,001.00 and above ( )
4. Family owned educational materials and media to strengthen your studies
1- Radio ( )
2- Textbooks, novels,newspaper and magazines ( )
3- Encyclopedia, reference book and Television ( )
4- Computer / Internet ( )
( smartphones, ipod, tablet )
5. Who supported you in your studies?
1- Self – supporting ( )
2- Neighbors / friends ( )
3- Relatives ( )
4- Parents ( )
Cantilan Campus
PART II ( Student – Related Factors )
Below are the list of desirable study habits. Please check the appropriate box
according to what you actually do. Please be guided by the scale that follows.
Scale Verbal Interpretation
5 Always
4 Often
3 Sometimes
2 Rarely
1 Never
STUDY HABITS 5 4 3 2 1
1. I make myself prepared by keeping a daily time
schedule
2. I listen attentively to the lecture of my math teacher.
3. I actively participate in the discussion answering
exercises and/or clarifying things I did not
understand.
4. I do my assignments regularly.
5. I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments.
6. I spend my vacant time in doing assignments or

Cantilan Campus
studying my lessons.
7. I study the lessons I missed if I was absent from the
class.
8. I study and prepare for summative tests.
Part III ( Teacher – Related Factors )
Below are the list of desirable teacher personality traits, teaching skills, and
instructional materials that are being used by your teacher. Please check the
appropriate box according to what you actually do. Please be guided by the scale that
follows.
Scale Verbal Interpretation
5 Always
4 Often
3 Sometimes
2 Rarely
1 Never
PERSONALITY TRAITS 5 4 3 2 1
1. Has a good relationship with the students and teachers.
2. Shows smartness, confidence, and firmness in making decisions.

Cantilan Campus
3. Imposes proper discipline and is not lenient in following the
precribed rules.
4. Has an appealing personality with good sense of humor.
5. Is open to suggestions and opinions and is worthy of praise.
TEACHING SKILLS
1. Explains the objective of the lesson clearly at the start of each
period.
2. Has mastery of the subject matter.
3. Is organized in presenting subject matters by systematically
following course outline.
4. Is updated with the present trends, relevant to the subject matter.
5. Uses various stategies, teaching aids/devices, and techniques in
the teaching – learning process.
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
1. Uses chalk and blackboard/whitebooard in explaining the lessons.
2. Uses workbooks/textbooks/articles/modules to aid instruction.
3. Uses instructional materials (such as audio/video materials,
computer-aided instructions, etc.) to reinforce learning processes.
4. Provides other supplemental resources to facilitate teaching
learning activities.
Cantilan Campus
5. Uses varied teaching materials that enhances student’s learning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
 BILBAO, PURITA P. PhD, CORPUZ, BRENDA B. PhD, LLAGAS, AVELLINA T.
PhD. 2006. The teaching profession. Lorimar publishing Co.Inc.
 CALDERON, JOSE F. 1998. Foundation of Education. 1998
 CORPUZ, BRENDA B. PhD and SALANDANAN, GLORIA G. PhD. 2003,
Principles and Strategies of Teaching. Lorimar Publishing Co.Inc.
 SALANDANAN, GLORIA G. PhD and CORPUZ, BRENDA B. PhD. 2007.
Principles of Teaching. Lorimar Publishing Co.Inc.
 EYSENK, HANS. The Structure of Human Personality. London Methuen. 1970.
RELATED STUDIES
Cantilan Campus
 BAGAYANA, ERLINDA B. 2006. Performance in the Different Learning Areas
and in Mathematics of the Fourth Year Students in Cluster III of Diocesan
Catholic School System. Unpublished M.A Thesis.
 CHECA, MARY ROSE ANN A. 2007. Determinants of Academic Performances
in English, Mathematics, Science and Selected Elementary School in District of
Lumban, Laguna. Unpublished M.A Thesis
 EDLAGAN, MICHELLE LOVERNA and PEROL JUDYLYN MERLE.2008.
Mathematics Performance of Third Year High School Stduents from Private and
Public Schools in Paete, Laguna S.Y 2006-20017. Unpublished Thesis
 SAINZ, ANGELINA A. May 2000. Mathematical Performance of Third Year High
School Students: Basic for Policy Formulation. Unpublishe Thesis
 SAMANEGO, ROBERT C. May 2002. Factors Influencing Interest of Students in
Physical Education Subjects at the Laguna State Polytechnic College.
Unpublished M.A Thesis
 TUALA, RICHARD IGNACIO and JIMENEZ ARIANE BUENO,2008. Mathematics
Ability as Affected by English Proficiency of Fourth Year Secondary Students at
Laguna State Polytechnic University School Year 2007-2008. Unpublished
Thesis
 VILLAMOR, ROWENA E. 2008. Prediction of Students’ Performance in
Mathematics at the Laguna State University. Unpublished M.A Thesis

Cantilan Campus
 Peter Sullivan, (2011). Teaching Mathematics: Using Research-informed
Strategies.
( https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=aer).
 Swanson, H.L. (1999). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
(https://www.teachervision.com/teaching-strategies/effective-teaching-strategies).
 Olive Joy F. Andaya, (2014). Factors that Affect Mathematics Achievements of
Students of Philippine Normal University – Isabela Campus.
(http://www.researchersworld.com/vol5/issue4/Paper_09.pdf).
 Ester B. Ogena, Ph.D, (2010). Performance of Philippine High Schools with
Special Curriculum in the 2008 Trends in Interntional Mathematics and Science
Study (Timss-Advanced).
(http://nap.psa.gov.ph/ncs/11thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-
07/01_Performance%20of%20Philippine%20High%20School ).
 Brown, M., Brown, P., & Bibby, T. (2008). “I would rather die”: Reasons given by
16-year-olds for not continuing their study of mathematics. Research in
Mathematics Education, 10(1), 3-18.
 Agnes Cave, PhD & Carole Williams Brown, EdD, (2010). When Learning is at
Stake: Exploration of the Role of Teacher Training and Professional
Development Schools on Elementary Students’ Math Achievement.
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Cave,%20Agn
Cantilan Campus
es%20When%20Learning%20is%20at%20Stake%20NFTEJ%20V20%20N3%20
2010.pdf
 Jaime A. Leongson, (2003). Assessing The Mathematics Achievement Of
College Freshmen Using Piaget’s Logical Operations.
http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/limjap.pdf
 Bed Raj Acharya, (2017). Factors Affecting Difficulties in Learning Mathematics

by Mathematics Learners International Journal of Elementary Education. Vol. 6,
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijeedu
Chapter IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTEPRETATION OF DATA ]
This chapter presents, analyzes, and interprets the data from the study. The data
presented were numbered based on the sequence of the specific problems. Number
one deals with the profile of the Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Mathematics
based on their family bakground. Number two
1.1 BSEd - Math 4 Mathematics Performance

Cantilan Campus
As shown in table , the BSEd – Math 4 includes eighteen mathematics subjects.
The table also show the ratings ranging 3.0-below to 1.0 and qualitatively ranged from
“excellent” to “failed” performance.
The following subjects are:
Fundamentals of Mathematics. The performance was “good” with a mean of
2.1 and eighty percent of the respondents have grades ranging 2.0-2.5.
College Algebra. The performance was also “good” with a mean of 2.1. seventy
– two percent of the respondents’ grades range from 2.0-2.5 and twenty – eight percent
range from 1.4-1.9.
Contemporary Mathemtics. The performance was “very good” with a mean of
1.9. Fifty – six percent of the respondents have grades ranging from 1.4-1.9 and forty –
four percent range from 2.0-2.5.
Advanced Algebra. Fifty – six percent of the grades range from 2.0-2.5 and forty
– four percent ranges from 1.4-1.9. The perfromance was also “very good” with a mean
of 1.9.
Number Theory. Seventy – six percent of the grades ranges from 2.0-2.5 and
twenty – four percent ranges from 1.4-1.9. The performance was “good” with a mean of
2.1.
Cantilan Campus
Trigonometry. The performance was “good” with a mean of 2.0. Sixty percent of
the respondents’ grades range from1.4-1.9 and forty percent ranges from 2.0-2.5.
Plane Geometry. The performance was also “good” with a mean of 2.1. Ninety-
two percent of the reapondents’ grades range from 2.0-2.5 and only two percent got a
“very good” discriptive rating.
Linear Algebra. The performance was “very good” with a mean of 1.9. fifty – two
percent of the grades range from 2.0-2.5, thirty – two percent ranges from 1.4-1.9 and
only sixteen percent got an “excellent” descriptive rating.
History of Mathematics. The performance was also “very good” with a mean of
1.9. Eighty percents of the respondents’ grades range from 2.0-2.5 and twenty percent
range from 1.4-1.9.
Introduction to Statistics. Sixty – eight percent of the respondents’ grades
range from 1.4-1.9, twenty – four percent ranges from 1.0-1.3 and eight percent range
from 2.0-2.5. The perfromance was “very good” with a mean of 1.6.
Analytic Geometry. The performance was “very good” with a mean of 1.7.
Eighty-eight percent of the respondents’ grades range from 1.4-1.9 and twelve percent
range from 2.0-2.5.
Modern Geometry. One hundred percent of the respondents’ grades range from
1.4-1.9 and the mean performance was 1.6, which has a “very good” deescriptive rating.
Cantilan Campus
Action Research. Eighty percent of the respondents grades range from 1.4-1.9
and twenty percent range from 2.0-2.5. The mean performance was 1.7 which has a
“very good” descriptive rating.
Instrumentation in Mathematics. Eighty percent of the ratings ranges from 1.4-
1.9 and only five of the respondents out of 25 got an”excellent” rating. The mean
perormance was 1.4 with a “very good” descriptive rating.
Probability. One hundred perent of the rating ranges from 2.0-2.5. nobody got
an “excellent” and a “very good” grade and the mean performance was 2.2 with a
“good” descriptive rating.
Calculus. The mean performance was 2.0 with a “good” descriptive rating. Both
twelve percent ranges from 1.4-1.9 and 2.0-2.5, only one of the respondents got an
excellent rating with a grade of 1.3.
Solid Geometry. One hundred percent of the respondents’ grades range from
1.4-1.9. Nobody got an excellent grade and the mean performance was 1.5, which has
a “very good” descriptive rating.
Abstract Algebra. Fourteen percent got a “very good” performance and eleven
percent were “good” performers. The mean performance was 1.9 with a “very good”
descriptive rating.
Cantilan Campus
Instrumentation in Mathematics has the highest mean with 1.4 while the
Probability got the lowest mean with 2.2. The overall perfromance of the respondents of
BSEd – Math 4 was descriptively “very good” with a mean of 1.9. Sixty-one percent
range from 1.4-1.9, thirty-nine percent ranges from 2.0-2.5 and nobody got an
“excellent” grade point average rating.
The result can be interpreted further that Instrumentation in Mathematics are less
complicated and easier compared to Probability.

Cantilan Campus
MEA
101 102 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309
N
1 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8
2 2.1 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.9
3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.7
4 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.8
5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.0
6 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9
7 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.8
8 2.4 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.0
9 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.5 2.0 1.8
10 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.7
11 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.3 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.8
12 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.7
13 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.0
14 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.9
15 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9
16 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.0 2.0
17 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.8
18 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.8
19 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.4 2.5 1.6 1.9 2.0
20 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.9
21 2.1 2.5 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 5.0 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.5 2.1 2.1
22 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 1.9
23 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.9
24 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.4 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.9
25 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.4 1.6 1.9 1.8
MEAN 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.9 1.9
Cantilan Campus
MATH 101 – Fundamentals of Mathematics 1.0 – 1.3 ( Excellent )
MATH 102 – College Algebra 1.4 – 1.9 ( Very Good )
MATH 201 – Contemporary Mathematics 2.0 – 2.5 ( Good )
MATH 202 – Advanced Algebra 2.6 – 2.9 ( Fair )
MATH 203 – Number Theory 3.0 – below ( Failed )
MATH 204 – Trigonometry
MATH 205 – Plane Geometry
MATH 206 – Linear Algebra
MATH 207 – History of Mathematics
MATH 301 – Introduction to Statistics
MATH 302 – Analytic Geometry
MATH 303 – Modern Geometry
MATH 304 – Action Research
MATH 305 – Instrumentation in Mathematics
MATH 306 – Probability
MATH 307 – Calculus
MATH 308 – Solid Geometry
MATH 309 – Abstract Algebra

Cantilan Campus
Extent of Student – related Factors in terms of Study Habits
Table 2 shows the lists of eight (8) items about situational/action statements used
in the data gathering and the corresponding weighted means of the respondents ranked
from the highest to lowest weighted mean together with the verbal interpretation. The
criteria in obtaining students’ level of study habits were based on their personal
tendency or pattern of action in studying when they are in school days.
Table 2. Extent of Study Habits as Perceived by the Students
Weighted Rank Verbal
Mean Interpretation
1. I make myself prepared by keeping a daily time 3.64 3 Often
schedule.
2. I listen attentively to the lecture of my math teacher. 4 1 Often
3. I actively participate in the discussion answering 3.36 6 Sometimes
exercises and/or clarifying things I did not
understand.
4. I do my assignments regularly. 3.56 4 Often
5. I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments. 3.52 5 Often
6. I spend my vacant time doing assignments or 3.12 7 Sometimes
studying my lessons.
Cantilan Campus
7. I study the lessons I missed if I was absent from the 3.52 5 Often
class.
8. I study and prepare for summative tests. 3.76 2 Often
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.56 Often
Overall, the extent of study habits as perceived by the respondents themselves gained
an “often” result with an overall weighted mean of 3.56. Among each situational/action
statements or items given, the item “I listen attentively to the lecture of my math
teacher.” ranked first with a weighted mean of 4 but the item “I spend my vacant time
doing assignments or studying my lessons.” got the lowest extent of study habits in
mathematics.
Extent of Teachers’ Personality Traits
Table 3 shows the data on the extent of personality traits of the teachers with the
computed weighted mean, rank and interpretation. Extent of teachers’ personality traits
were ranked based on their relationship with the students, their smartness, confidence
and firmness in making decisions, their imposing proper discipline and not lenient in
following the prescribed rules, their personality with good sense of humor and their
appreciation to suggestions and opinions and their worthy of praise.

Cantilan Campus
Table 3. Extent Teachers’ Personality Traits as Perceived by the Students
Personality Traits Weighted Rank Verbal
Mean Interpretation
1. Has a good relationship with the students and 4.48 2 Always
teachers.
2. Shows smartness, confidence, and firmness in 4.32 4 Often
making decisions.
3. Imposes proper discipline and is not lenient in 4.24 5 Often
following the prescribed rules.
4. Has an appealing personality with good sense of 4.4 3 Often
humor.
5. Is open to suggestions and opinions and is 4.52 1 Always
worthy of praise.
Average Weighted Mean 4.39 Often
The table reveals that the item number 5 ranked first with a weighted mean of
4.52 and interpreted as “always” which means that the teacher is always open to
suggestions and opinions and is worthy of praise to the students. The item number 1
ranked second with a weighted mean of 4.48 also interpreted as “always” which means
that the teacher always has a good relationship with the students. Items 2,3, and 4
Cantilan Campus
interpreted as ”often” with the weighted means of 4.4, 4.32, and 4.24 for ranks 3,4, and
5 respectively.
Extent of Teaching Skills
Table 4 presents the extent of teaching skills acquired by the teachers in
Mathematics as perceived by the students.
Table 3. Extent Teaching Skills as Perceived by the Students
Teaching Skills Weighted Rank Verbal
Mean Interpretation
1. Explains the objective of the lesson clearly at the 4.24 5 Often
start of each period.
2. Has mastery of the subject matter. 4.64 1 Always
3. Is organized in presenting subject matters by 4.4 4 Often
systematically following course outline.
4. Is updated with the present trends, relevant to 4.52 3 Always
the subject matter.
5. Uses various strategies, teaching aids/devices, 4.6 2 Always
and techniques in the teaching- learning process.
Average Weighted Mean 4.48 Always

Cantilan Campus
Looking closely at the table item per item, it was observed that the “The teacher
has mastery of the subject matter.” has the highest weighted mean among the five
items and interpreted as “always” followed by the item “The teacher uses various
strategies, teaching aids/devices, and techniques in the teaching- learning process.”
also interpreted as “always”. Item “The teacher is updated with the present trends,
relevant to the subject matter.” ranked 3 and also interpreted as “always”. Items “The
teacher is organized in presenting subject matters by systematically following course
outline.” and “The teacher explains the objective of the lesson clearly at the start of
each period.” both interpreted as “often” with the weighted means of 4.4 and 4.24 for
ranks 4 and 5 respectively.
Extent of Instructional Materials
Table 5 presents the extent of instructional materials used by the teachers in
mathematics as perceived by the students.

Cantilan Campus
Table 3. Extent Instructional Materials as Perceived by the Students
Instructional Materials Weighted Rank Verbal
Mean Interpretation
1. Uses chalk and blackboard/whiteboard in explaining 4.56 1 Always
the lessons.
2. Uses workbooks/textbooks/articles/modules to aid 4.52 2 Always
instruction.
3. Uses instructional materials (such as audio/video 4.44 3 Often
materials, computer – aided instructions, etc.) to
reinforce learning processes.
4. Provides other supplemental resources to facilitate 4.2 4 Often
teaching learning activities.
5. Uses varied teaching materials that enhances 4.44 3 Often
student’s learning.
Average Weighted Mean 4.43 Often
The overall extent of instructional materials used by the math teachers as
perceived by the students gained “often” resuts with an over al average weighted mean
Cantilan Campus
of 4.43. This means that the teacher often uses instructional material in teaching
mathematics subject.
Siignificant Relationship between Mathematics Performance and the Family
Background, Study Habits and Teacher – Related Factors
Table 6 presents the significant relationship of the Factors and Mathematics
Performance of BSEd – Math 4 in Surigao del Sur State University. As seen on the
table, the Pearson r of the Family Background, Study Habits, Personality Traits,
Teaching Skills and Instructional Materials
Variables Df T – Computed T – Value Interpretation
Family Background
 Educational Attainment
 Parents’ Occupation
 Family Income 24
 Family Owned Educational Materials
 Study Assistance
Student – related Factors
 Study Habits 24 -0.0012 .996 Not Significant
Teacher – related Factors

Cantilan Campus
 Personality Traits -.121 .563 Not Significant
 Teaching Skills 24 -.205 .325 Not Significant
 Instructional Materials -.171 .414 Not Significant
The table reveals that the family background, study habits, personality traits,
teaching skills and instructional materials
Chapter V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings; conclusions made and the
recommendations offered.
Summary
Cantilan Campus
This study was conducted in Surigao del Sur State University – Cantilan Campus
with a total of twenty-five (25) respondents of BSed-Math 4. Descriptive method was
used in this study. The researcher used a checklist-questionnaire method in order to
reveal the relationship of the variables.
The special problem was conducted to determine the factors and mathematics
performance of BSed-Math 4 at Surigao del Sur State University-Cantilan Campus
Academc Year 2018-2019. It aims to find ou the appropriate answers to the following
questions: What is the Family Background of the students in terms of Educational
Attainment, Parents’ Occupation, Family Income, Family owned Educational Materials,
and Study Assistance? What is the level of the mathematics performance of the
respondents? What is the extent of the student – related factors in terms of Study
Habits? What is the extent of the teacher – related factors as evaluated by the students
in terms of Personality Traits, Teaching Skills, and Instructional Materials? Is there a
significant relationship between the mathematics performance of the students and
Family Background? Is there a significant relationship between the mathematics
performance of the students and Student – Related Factors? Is there a significant
relationship between the mathematics performance of the students and Teacher –
Related Factors? What intervention activities can be proposed based on the result of
the study?
Through this problem stated, the researcher came up with the following
hypothesis: 𝐻𝑂 There is no significant relationship between the mathematics

Cantilan Campus
performance and the profile of the family background of the students. 𝐻𝑂 There is no
significant relationship between the mathematics performance and the student – related
factors. 𝐻𝑂 There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance
and the teacher – related factors.
After administering the questionnaire, the researcher used a weighted mean and
rank to determine the extent of student – related factors in terms of study habits: extent
of teacher – related factors in terms of personality traits teaching skills and instructional
materials. The simple percentage used to test the family background. To test the
significant relationship between students’ mathematics performance and the family
background chi-square is being used and to test the significant relationship between
mathematics relationship and the factors, Pearson Product Correlation were used.
Conclusions
Based on the data gathered,the overall weighted
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions made: the following recommendations are given:
 That a more concentrated research on relationship to Mathematics be made by
the future researchers to determine a more focused result on the relationship;

Cantilan Campus
 That teacher should use more interactive teaching techniques that would boost
interest in mathematics;
 That a more thorough research on study habits be made by the future
researchers to determine its effect on students’ performance.

Research Paper Math

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Research Paper Math

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Republic of the Philippines

SURIGAO DEL SUR STATE UNIVERSITY

Factors and Mathematics Performance of BSEd – Math 4 Students

THE PROBLEMS AND ITS SCOPE

Mathematics is considered as the mother of all learning in both arts and

sciences. It is essential in almost every field: measurement in fashion, angles in sports,

computation but a tool for understanding structures, relationships and patterns to

concepts (Andaya, 2014).

Mathematics education is one of the subjects recognized as a major factor in

development, causing national agenda to focus in this area (Ogena, 2010).

became a national priority in addressing the quality of education learners receive.

Evaluation of educational attainment using standardized high-stakes testing was

achievement was performed is an effort worthwhile to consider. However, failure to

identifying students’ areas of weakness and levels of achievement is appropriate to their

will help them learn new ideas.

mathematics. Tests in Mathematics reveal low performance of students of Surigao del

that demographic, individual, instructional; classroom management and evaluation

factors have an impact on the Mathematical Achievement of the students. Identifying

factors that affect Mathematics Achievement is important to effectively educate

effective methods of study. Individualized method of studying is adopted by every

The major concept of this study is focused on factors affecting Mathematics

Campus Academic Year 2018-2019.

A conceptual paradigm showing the relationship of students’ mathematics

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of the respondents in

 Family Background  Data

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of the Research

to alleviate the most common factors encountered by the respondents.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of the study is to determine the factors of Mathematics Performance

Academic Year 2018- 2019.

1. What is the Family Background of the students in terms of:

1.1 Educational Attainment

1.2 Parents’ Occupation

1.3 Family Income

1.4 Family owned Educational Materials

1.5 Study Assistance

2. What is the level of the mathematics performance of the respondents?

4. What is the extent of the teacher – related factors in terms of:

4.1 Personality Traits

4.2 Teaching Skills

4.3 Instructional Materials

5. Is there a significant relationship between the mathematics performance of the

5.1 Family Background

5.2 Student – Related Factors

5.3 Teacher – Related Factors

Hypothesis of the Study

There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and

the profile of the family background of the students.

There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and

the student – related factors.

There is no significant relationship between the mathematics performance and the

teacher – related factors.

Significance of the Study

The outcome of this study is important as contribution to the educational system.

improve programs for school advancement.

factors encountered by the students.

Mathematics and appreciate the importance of Mathematics in their daily lives.

researchers related to the study.

individual needs and abilities of the students.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

primarily on how the researcher utilized them.

Factors – a phenomenon that affects the performance of the respondents.

respondents from 1st year to 3rd year.