Novelyn Chapter1-5 (Body)

Saint Mary’s University
School of Graduate Studies
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Rationale
Quality education is very much dependent on the quality of the teacher. For Roxas
(2005), the teacher determines to a large extent what is taught, how it is taught and how
learning is measured. But, no teacher can impart what he/she does not know.
The word competence as used in education circles today refers to one’s ability
and measure of one’s performance. It can be defined in terms of one’s knowledge, skills
and behaviors. Teaching competence is about how a teacher or a professor carries his/her
job effectively by possessing professional skills and dispositions (Spilkova, 2001).
In all educational systems, the performance of teachers is one of a handful of
factors which determine school effectiveness and learning outcomes. Teachers are the
most critical component of any system of education. How well they teach depends on
motivation, qualification, experience, training, aptitude and a mass of other factors, not
the least of these being the environment and management structures within which they
perform their role. Teachers must be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem
(Nair, 2017).
Teachers are encouraged to make their mathematics lessons more learner-centered
by encouraging learners to contribute to the lesson. To achieve this kind of approach to
teaching, schools need quality teachers who have the appropriate knowledge about the art
of teaching. Without doubt, teachers are one of the most powerful influences on students’
engagement with mathematics (Attard, 2011). Such teachers, according to Tanner,
1
Bottoms, Bottoms, Feagin, and Bearman (2003), “create experiences that help students
make sense of the knowledge and skills being studied”. According to Turnuklu and
Yesildere (2007), “… although a number of factors may influence the effective teaching
of a particular subject, teachers play an important role in that success”. Good teachers,
Attard (2011) claims, can achieve high and consistent levels of engagement and effective
learning. Contrary to common belief in society that a teacher who knows a particular
subject very well is best suited to teach such a subject, research has shown that this belief
is not necessarily true. Various researchers such as Hill, Rowan and Ball (2005) and
Etkina (2010) emphasize that “teachers of a specific subject should possess special
understandings and abilities that integrate their knowledge of the content of the subject
that they are teaching as well as having knowledge of the learners who are learning the
content”. Also, number of years in teaching a certain subject should be taken into
consideration, teachers with a longer length of teaching a particular subject could make
them more competent in terms of content knowledge and more confident in teaching the
subject (Mateo, 2000).
Aside from the teaching competency of the teachers, another factor to consider to
develop the education system of the Philippines is the curriculum. Hence, in the school
year 2012-2013, the education system of the Philippines was enhanced from the ten years
of basic education to a 12-year program through an initiative called the K-12 Education
Plan sponsored by the Department of Education. The K-12 program offers a decongested
12-year program that gives students sufficient time to master skills and absorb basic
competencies. The K-12 program accelerates mutual recognition of Filipino graduates
and professionals in other countries (Official Gazette, 2015).
2
Article XIV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states that the
State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system
relevant to the needs of the people and the society. This stipulation in the country’s
highest law is one of the legal bases of the Republic Act 10533, also known as the
Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 which paved the way for upgrading the 10 – year
basic education to a 12 – year program. It introduced Senior High School which is from
Grade 11 to Grade 12 in the country (Herrera & Dio, 2016).
Senior High School students have to take two compulsory Mathematics subjects
in Grade 11. These subjects are General Mathematics which is offered in the first
semester, and Statistics and Probability, offered in the second semester. The Department
of Education Curriculum Guide lists the following as the covered topics under General
Mathematics, namely functions, rational functions, exponential, inverse and logarithmic
functions, basic business mathematics, and logic (Herrera & Dio, 2016).
Herrera and Dio (2016) studied the readiness of the Grade 10 students in the
general mathematics of senior high school where competencies of the said respondents
were determined in the different areas of general mathematics in senior high school.
Their study reveals that among the topics in General Mathematics, it was in logic where
students were not yet ready.
Competencies of students depend much on competencies of teachers. This is the
reason why a study on the competencies of teachers on logic was necessary.
Logic is often used, but not always in its technical sense. According to Bayot and
Damayon (2010), logic was introduced by Zeno, the founder of the Stoic School and is
3
derived from the Greek word logike which means “systematized and intelligible”.
Something is systematized when it is orderly and well-organized and something is
intelligible when it is clear and easily understood. As defined also by Andrew Bachhuber
(1957 as cited by Bayot & Damayon, 2010), logic is the science and art of correct
thinking.
Logic in Senior High School exposes learners to symbolic forms of propositions
(or statements) and arguments. Through the use of symbolic logic, learners should be
able to recognize equivalent propositions, identify fallacies, and judge the validity of
arguments. The culminating lesson is an application of the rules of symbolic logic, as
learners are taught to write their own justifications to mathematical and real-life
statements (Department of Education, 2013).
Objectives of the Study
This study attempted to analyze the competency level of the senior high school
teachers relative to the content standards of logic in general mathematics. Specifically, it
aimed to:
1. Describe the Senior High School mathematics teachers in terms of the following
variables in teaching logic:
(a) content knowledge
(b) confidence
(c) difficulties
(d) factors that limit the competence
(e) strategies
4
2. Determine the significant relationship between years of teaching and
(a) teachers’ content knowledge on logic
(b) teachers’ confidence in teaching logic
3. Propose supplementary activities in teaching logic
Statement of the Null Hypotheses
From the objectives stated above, the null hypotheses below are tested:
1. There is no significant correlation between the teachers’ number of years in
teaching logic and their content knowledge.
2. There is no significant correlation between the teachers’ number of years in
teaching logic and their confidence in teaching logic.
Significance of the Study
The results of the study could give a picture of the current status of senior high
school math teachers’ level of knowledgeability of the content standards in logic and
could point the specific least mastered competencies in logic. Result of the study could
also prove useful in predicting the performance and achievement of Grade 11 students
specifically in their general mathematics subject.
Particularly, the findings of the study are useful to the following:
DepED Curriculum Planners. With this study, they can plan and implement
reforms for more effective and relevant logic instruction in the senior high school or they
can even include logic in the curriculum as early as in the junior high school.
Educational Leaders or School Administrators. They will be provided with the
information regarding the current competencies of senior high school math teachers
5
which they can use as their basis for effective planning and implementing program in the
development of their school. They will use this information in formulating their policies
on teacher recruitment, retention and promotion.
Senior High School Mathematics Teachers. This study will provide them
awareness on their competency level on the different content standards in logic. Result of
the study could make them reflect on their current performance on the content standards
in logic on the general mathematics of senior high school. This will form a basis in
equipping themselves to become more competent in teaching logic.
Senior High School Students. They will be highly benefited from the improved
competency of their teachers. Their level of achievement in general mathematics
specifically in logic will be higher as a result of the awareness of their teachers on their
competency level.
Book Publishers. This study may guide them in publishing valuable resources
about the different competencies in Logic for the teachers and students to improve their
mathematical achievement level.
Future Researchers. It may serve as basis on areas allied to the problems of this
research. Also, with this study, they may have a basis for further investigation as they
explore many variables or factors that may affect the competency level of the
respondents.
Scope and Delimitation
The study was centered on the teaching competency of senior high school math
teachers which includes their content knowledge, confidence, difficulties, factors that
limit their competence, and strategies they have used in teaching the 11 learning
6
competencies included in the content standard of logic in the General Mathematics of
Grade 11 allotted for four weeks equivalent to 16 hours. The competencies include key
concepts of propositional logic, syllogisms and fallacies; and appropriate application of
methods of proof and disproof in real-life situations. The study involved all senior high
school math teachers in the nine (9) public national high schools in the Division of
Quirino in SY 2017-2018. The content knowledge was measured using a researcher-made
achievement test on logic and the factors on teaching logic were measured through an
assessment on teaching logic. The difficulties of the teachers were the basis of the content
of modules on the supplementary activities on logic. Also, it determined if there is a
correlation of the number of years of teaching with content knowledge and with teachers’
confidence in teaching logic.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 shows the research paradigm of the study.
Teaching Competency
1. The Senior High School Mathematics
Content Knowledge on Logic Teachers in terms of:
• key concepts of (a) confidence
propositional logic; (b) difficulties
(c) factors that limit the competence
syllogisms and fallacies.
(d) strategies
• Appropriately apply a 2. Relationship between number of years
method of proof and and
disproof in real- life (a) teachers’ content knowledge
situations (b) teachers’ confidence in teaching
Supplementary Activities in Logic
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
7
The teaching competency of the teachers in the content-related standards included
in the logic of Grade 11 senior high school was determined. The following have been
described: content knowledge, confidence, difficulties, factors limiting the competence of
the respondents, and strategies used in teaching. The learning competencies in which the
teacher respondents were found to be poor were the bases in developing the
supplementary activities to be used in teaching logic. The content knowledge on logic
and confidence in teaching logic were correlated with the number of years of teaching
logic. The difficulties of the teachers were the basis of the content of modules on the
supplementary activities on logic.
The Science and Education Institute of the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST-SEI) together with the Philippine Council of Mathematics Teacher
Education (MATHTED), Inc. have established principles in teaching and learning the K
to 12 curriculum specifically on mathematics program which are as follows: being
mathematically competent means more than having the ability to compute and perform
algorithms and mathematical procedures; the physical and social dimensions of a
mathematical environment contribute to one’s success in learning mathematics;
mathematics is best learned when students are actively engaged; a thorough
understanding of mathematics requires a variety of tools for learning; assessment in
mathematics must be valued for the sake of knowing what and how students learn or fail
to learn mathematics; students’ attitudes and beliefs about mathematics affect their
learning; and, mathematics learning needs the support of both parents and other
community groups (SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011).
8
The Rules and Guidelines of R.A. No. 7722, otherwise known as the Higher
Education Act of 1994 in the Philippines stipulate the following competency standards of
the graduates of teacher education program, among others: meaningful and
comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter they will teach; ability to apply a wide
range of teaching process skills including curricular development, lesson planning,
materials development, educational assessment and teaching approaches; and creativity
and innovation in thinking of alternative teaching approaches and ability to evaluate the
effectiveness of such approaches in improving students’ learning (CHED, 2010).
Definition of Terms
For better understanding of the study, the following terms are defined:
Confidence in Teaching Logic as used in this study refers to the teacher’s belief
and perceptions of their knowledge and skill to teach the different learning competencies
included in the content standards in logic.
Content Knowledge refers to the body of knowledge and information that
teachers teach and that students are expected to learn in a given subject or content area. It
generally refers to the facts, concepts, theories, and principles that are taught and learned
in a specific and academic course (Glossary of the Education Reform, 2014). In this
study, it refers to the knowledge of teachers in teaching the content standard on logic in
general mathematics of senior high school.
Content Standard refers to what students should be able to do, should know and
what they should care about. They are broad statements that describe specific content
areas that students should learn at each grade level (Quizlet, Inc., 2016). In this study, it
9
refers to the key concepts of propositional logic, syllogisms and fallacies; and
appropriately applying a method of proof and disproof in real-life situations where senior
high school mathematics teachers should master in order for them to teach well to the
Grade 11 students.
Difficulties Encountered refer to the barriers the teachers have been encountered
in teaching logic.
Factors that Limit the Competence refer to the different reasons that affect the
teaching competence of the teacher respondents.
General Mathematics is a program that extends students’ mathematical skills in
ways that apply to practical problem (Darwin High School, 2016). In this study, it refers
to one of the core subjects required in the first semester subjects Grade 11 senior high
school which includes the following topics: rational functions; exponential, inverse and
logarithmic functions; basic business mathematics; and logic.
Logic is technically defined as the science or study of how to evaluate arguments
and reasoning. It is a discipline that deals with the methods of reasoning (DepEd, 2013).
In this study, it has the content standards: key concepts of propositional logic, syllogisms
and fallacies; and appropriately apply a method of proof and disproof in real-life
situations.
Number of Years in Teaching refers to the number of school years the teacher
respondent has been teaching the logic topics.
Senior High School (SHS) covers the last two years of the K to 12 program and
includes Grades 11 and 12. In SHS, students go through a core curriculum and subjects
under a track of their choice (Official Gazzette, 2015).
10
Strategies as used in the study refers to the different teaching approaches used by
the teachers, also these are the teaching strategies incorporated in their Daily Lesson Log.
Teaching competency is described as the state of having demonstrating skills,
abilities or aptitudes in the satisfactory execution of a learning task (Encyclopedia
Dictionary of Education, 1997). In this study, the teaching competencies refer to the
content knowledge, confidence, and strategies of senior high school mathematics teachers
in teaching logic.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Mathematics Education in the Philippines
Mathematics is very important to every individual regardless of his status in life
such that much emphasis and focus are given to its learning. Mathematics is undoubtedly
one of the subjects most studied, taken up from the Pre-K level to the tertiary level. The
mathematics basic education curriculum in the Philippines has undergone several
revisions over the years. The New Elementary School Curriculum (NESC) was
implemented in 1983, then the New Secondary Education Curriculum (better known as
the Secondary Education Development Program or SEDP Curriculum), was launched in
1988. Curricular reviews that began in 1995 made the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS, now Department of Education) to adopt the Refined Basic Education
Curriculum (RBEC) in 2002 (SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011).
A decade after, a major education reform was introduced in the Philippine
Education System. Republic Act 10533 (RA 10533) also known as the Enhanced Basic
Education Act of 2013 was created and implemented in the school year 2012 – 2013. It
has a purpose of improving the quality of Philippine basic education by providing
sufficient time for mastery of concepts and skills, develop lifelong learners, and prepare
graduates for tertiary education, middle-level skills development, employment and
entrepreneurship (Official Gazette, 2015).
Despite the many changes to the curriculum, the goals of mathematics education
at the basic education level remain more or less the same: “to provide opportunities for
12
individuals to develop skills and attitudes needed for effective participation in everyday
living and prepare them for further education and the world of work so that they make
worthwhile contributions to the society at large” (Pascua, 1993). Mathematics has the
following roles in Philippine Education: facilitating participation in productive life
activities, providing a way of making sense of the world, serving as a means of
communication and operating as a gateway to national progress.
More than just a set of isolated facts and concepts, mathematics provides ways of
knowing, thinking and understanding (Bernardo, 1998). Doing mathematics requires
logical thought and trains students to think both critically and creatively. In school,
students usually encounter specific problems that apply to the topic at hand, in addition,
the thought process that goes into understanding the problem, differentiating what is
essential from what is not, being able to make connections among the given information
to generate a solution and verifying its accuracy is surely something that students can
apply even in non-mathematical settings. Mathematics provides students with the
essential skills in reasoning, decision-making and problem solving to help them make
sense of many aspects of our rapidly changing world (FAPE, 1988). In short,
mathematics is a means of empowerment and understanding that everyone is entitled to.
The Science and Education Institute of the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST-SEI) together with the Philippine Council of Mathematics Teacher
Education (MATHTED), Inc. have established principles in teaching and learning the K
to 12 curriculum specifically on mathematics program which are as follows: being
mathematically competent means more than having the ability to compute and perform
algorithms and mathematical procedures; the physical and social dimensions of a
13
mathematical environment contribute to one’s success in learning mathematics;
mathematics is best learned when students are actively engaged; fourth, a thorough
understanding of mathematics requires a variety of tools for learning; assessment in
mathematics must be valued for the sake of knowing what and how students learn or fail
to learn mathematics; students’ attitudes and beliefs about mathematics affect their
learning; and, mathematics learning needs the support of both parents and other
community groups (SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011).
It is important for the teachers to deeply know the curriculum, however, teachers
must also have some deeper amount of pedagogical content knowledge (Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008).
Teaching Competency
Teachers as the education providers play a vital role in bridging the gap between
the curriculum and the demands of the real world. Hence, teachers should therefore react
to the changing scenario and equip themselves to meet the present need. The theory
being, the more effective the teacher the better prepared the student is for tomorrow’s
challenges (Tewari, 2010; Bakhru, Sanghi, & Medury, 2013).
Spencer and Spencer (1993 cited in Cerinsek & Dolinsek, 2009) define
competency as an underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to
criterion-referenced effective and/or superior performance in a situation. It is an
underlying characteristic which means that competency is a fairly deep and enduring part
of person’s personality. Causally related means that a competency causes or predicts
behavior and performance. Criterion-referenced means that a competency actually
predicts good or poor performance, as measured on a specific standard. When applied to
14
teaching, competency refers to the characteristic of a teacher that includes knowledge and
skills which predicts behavior or performance based on some standard.
Westera (2001) explained that competence is a complex concept which can
further be decomposed into sub-competencies. Also, competence is a highly valued
quality which involves the effective use of knowledge and different skills in different
situations.
Teaching competencies include the acquisition and demonstration of the
composite skills required for student teaching like introducing a lesson, fluency in
questioning, probing questions, explaining, pace of lesson, reinforcement, understanding
child psychology, recognizing behavior, classroom management and giving assignment.
Encyclopedia Dictionary of Education (1997) describes teaching competency as the state
of having demonstrating skills, abilities or aptitudes in the satisfactory execution of a
learning task. The Encyclopedia of Teacher Training and Education (1998) defines
teaching competency as suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge and experience.
Content Knowledge
Understanding of the subject matter or the content of what teachers are teaching
really matters. The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry and
structures of the discipline. Content knowledge is what teachers feel most confident about
upon entering the profession. Connecting that content knowledge to the learner is the
challenge. Collaborating often and deeply with colleagues, from less experienced to more
veteran, is critical for improvement with this standard (Chick, 2007).
15
While a teacher’s content knowledge is crucially important to the improvement of
teaching and learning, attention to its development and study has been uneven. Scant
attention has been given to how teachers need to understand the subjects they teach.
Further, the assumption has often been that advanced study in the subject is what matters.
Debates have focused on how much preparation teachers need in the content strands
rather than on what type of content they need to learn (Baumert & Kunter, 2006).
Mathematical Tasks of Teaching
Putting the mathematical tasks of teaching together will require unique
mathematical understanding and reasoning. These tasks are presenting mathematical
ideas, responding to students’ “why” questions, finding an example to make a specific
mathematical point, recognizing what is involved in using a particular representation,
linking representations to underlying ideas and to other representations, connecting a
topic being taught to topics from prior or future years, explaining mathematical goals and
purposes to parents, appraising and adapting the mathematical content of textbooks,
modifying tasks to be either easier or harder, evaluating the plausibility of students’
claims (often quickly), giving or evaluating mathematical explanations, choosing and
developing useable definitions, using mathematical notation and language and critiquing
its use, asking productive mathematical questions, selecting representations for particular
purposes, and inspecting equivalencies. Teaching requires knowledge beyond that being
taught to students. Teaching involves the use of decompressed mathematical knowledge
that might be taught directly to students as they develop understanding (Ball et al., 2008).
16
According to Cancino (2016), teachers’ background content knowledge, teaching
practices, beliefs and attitudes are essential in analyzing, understanding and improving
the educational process. Content knowledge is the knowledge of the actual subject matter
to be discussed by teachers which in turn are expected to be learned by their students.
Teachers should be able to know and understand the subject they teach and they should
have in-depth knowledge and facts that are not only limited on concepts, procedures, and
theories about the subject they are handling.
Angel (2000 as cited by Guiaoan, 2010) stated that the learning and teaching of
math and science involves working with students in frequently related areas, namely:
concept, skills, and application. Math teachers must be thoroughly grounded in the
subject matter of math and science well beyond the level of any material which he is
expected to teach in order that he may inspire the confidence and respect of his/her
students. Angel further stressed that teachers play a very important role in developing the
mathematical concepts and skills of the learners, therefore, he/she must be guided with
these commandments: know your subject matter, know your learners, master your lesson,
and know where you are bound to.
Confidence in Teaching
Self-confidence towards teaching different topics in mathematics specifically
logic is an important part to succeed in mathematics achievement. Zan and Di Martino
(2014) mentioned that if the self-confidence toward mathematics is low it will defeat the
purpose of learning in mathematics.
According to Kenny (2010) and Kind (2009), three major variables that can
contribute in enhancing and strengthening confidence for teachers are increasing
17
subject matter knowledge, enhancing the readiness and preparation, and engaging
teachers in various professional development opportunities to build their confidence.
A confident teacher would have a positive impact on his or her students’
achievement, attitude, affective and even socio-emotional growth. A confident teacher
helps to improve the schooling experience of low progress learners. Teachers’ confidence
can be one of the few characteristics that can reliably predict students’ learning outcomes.
Confident teachers know how to perceive, approach and teach their students (Wang,
2016).
Teaching Strategies
According to the American Psychological Association (1995), learning is most
effective when students are treated as individuals with different learning strategies,
approaches and capabilities. A teacher should have a variety of classroom measures to
make his/her lesson interesting in order to decrease learning problems such as boredom,
and slow learning.
Teaching strategies vary from one age group to another and on the learning style
of the learners. No one method or strategy is the best. Teacher must understand that the
amount of students’ learning in a class also depends on their native ability of cognition
and as well as their prior preparation (Jalbani, 2014).
According to Sadler (2013), content knowledge, teaching skills and experience in
teaching are related to each other. Content knowledge and teaching skills are related to
feelings of self-confidence and experience by having many years of teaching as a key
factor in the teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skills.
18
Related Studies
Result of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) in 2003 where Philippines was ranked 42nd out of 46 participating countries
in mathematics showed that Filipino Grade 8 (equivalently Second Year High School)
students performed low probably because they could not go beyond simple recall. They
could not also fully comprehend the questions thus leading to a wrong answer (Villaver,
2014).
Howie and Plomp (2005) reported in their study that the competence of a teacher
is the most important factor in the educational process as a teacher can make up the
deficiencies in the curriculum and other educational contexts.
Teachers’ professional competence has an influence on students’ achievement
(Kunter, Kleickmann, Klusmann, & Richter, 2013). Steyn (1999) confirms the
relationship between quality of pupil performances and competence of teacher. Bothe and
Hite (2000) suggest that a competent teacher focuses on predetermined outcomes that are
to be achieved as a result of learning process. Therefore, to access competence of
teachers, students’ learning outcomes can be taken as a basis.
In the study of Ramos (2015), discussion was the most frequently used strategy
used by the teachers. He then recommended that teachers should be encouraged to
explore and view other effective teaching strategies, find more ways to entice students to
challenge themselves to create their own strategies to use in the field ,and to become
more global in perspective.
Llano (2000 as cited by Campo, 2010) stressed that teachers’ content knowledge
is very important in their effectiveness as teachers. Teachers teaching their major of
19
specification had higher student performance than teachers who teach subject which is
not their field.
Campo’s (2010) study on pedagogical content knowledge in exponents and
logarithms of high school mathematics teachers in the Catholic schools of the Diocese of
San Jose reveals that mathematics teachers have a poor performance on the said topics in
mathematics, being low in terms of content knowledgeability.
The study conducted by Abao (2014) reveals that teachers’ instructional
competence is highly instrumental in the development of students’ comprehension skills
and critical thinking as these would eventually lead them to function effectively in
society.
Sharma (1984) found that mere academic qualification cannot be considered as
the criteria for the success of a teacher. An effective teacher would go extraordinary
lengths to understand their student and they put the relationship between teacher and
students at the center of effective teaching.
In all educational systems, the performance of teachers is one of a handful of
factors determining school effectiveness and learning outcomes. As cited by Ball et al.
(2008), teaching requires knowledge beyond that being taught to students. Teaching
involves the use of decompressed mathematical knowledge that might be taught directly
to students as they develop understanding and other different aspects to consider factors
affecting the competence of the teacher in order to have a successful achievement not
only on specific area like logic but in mathematics as a whole.
Jayaramanna (2001) conducted a study on teacher effectiveness giving priority to
personal, professional, intellectual, teaching strategies and social aspects of teacher
20
effectiveness. All the above-mentioned factors were found to strongly influence teacher
effectiveness, teacher effectiveness influence academic achievement of student, and that
work orientation and teacher effectiveness were positively correlated.
The relationship between teacher effectiveness and classroom experience of
teachers was investigated by Lopez (1995) and concluded that six to seven years of
classroom experience is required for the development of teaching skills and teacher attain
maximum effectiveness after 18 to 19 years of teaching. The study conducted by Mateo
(2000) revealed that teachers with a longer period of teaching a particular subject could
make them more competent in terms of content knowledge. Similarly, Sadler (2013)
found that having more years of teaching a specific course or a topic makes one more
confident in teaching that certain topic. For exercising to teach a certain topic makes you
develop teaching style which will boost self-confidence.
Koundinya (1999) conducted a study of professional competency and found that
male teachers are professionally more competent than female teachers; teachers with high
educational qualification and high designation are highly competent; age, locality and
teaching experience do not influence professional competency; and a high positive
relationship exists between professional competency and professional pleasure.
Farah (2001) compared the teaching competencies of teachers trained through the
formal studies and those through distance education and concluded that teachers
formally-trained have significantly better subject matter knowledge whereas teachers
trained through distance education had better attitude towards teaching. In another study,
Raudenbush (1993) recommended that to improve teacher competencies, in-service
training and regular classroom supervision should be regularly implemented. Grossman
21
(1995) reported that teachers’ knowledge has direct link to the teachers’ competencies.
Teachers’ knowledge includes subject matter knowledge and general pedagogy and lack
of professional training would affect the level of teacher competence.
Synthesis
As related studies and literature are carefully reviewed, the researcher came to
arrive at the following similar aspects to the present study: (a) teachers’ content
knowledge is very important in their effectiveness as teachers, Llano (2000 as cited by
Campo, 2010); (b) performance of mathematics teacher is low in terms of content
knowledgeability (Campo, 2010); (c) more number of years in teaching a certain topic
could lead to a more confident and skillful teacher (Lopez, 1995); (d) suitable or
sufficient skill, knowledge and experience are needed to be competent (Encyclopedia of
teacher, 1998); (e) one aspect to consider are the factors like content knowledge,
confidence and strategies used affecting the competence of the teacher in order to have a
successful achievement not only on specific area like logic but in mathematics as a whole
(Ball et al., 2008).
However, this study is different from the cited studies since it only considered the
content knowledge, confidence in teaching, difficulties, limiting factors, and strategies
used in teaching in determining the teaching competency while other studies considered
other variables like demographic variables (Bibi, 2005), personal, professional,
intellectual, and social aspects (Jayaramanna, 2001), and general pedagogy (Grossman,
1995).
22
Moreover, the present study determined and correlated the content knowledge and
confidence in teaching to number of years in teaching logic of the respondents. It
presumed that the result and findings would enhance the readiness and performance of
the senior high school students in logic.
23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used the descriptive-correlational method of study. It was descriptive
because it described the teaching competency of the senior high school mathematics
teachers through different variables particularly content knowledge, confidence,
difficulties, factors limiting their competence, and strategies used in teaching. The study
was also correlational as it determined the relationship of the number of years of teaching
logic with teachers’ content knowledge on logic, and teachers’ confidence in teaching
logic.
Research Environment
Nine (9) public national high schools in the Schools Division of Quirino
participated in this study. These were Aglipay High School (AHS), Cabarroguis National
School of Arts and Trades (CNSAT), Diffun National High School (DNHS), Maddela
Comprehensive High School (MCHS), Magsaysay National High School (MNHS) in
Diffun, Nagtipunan National High School (NNHS), Pinaripad National High School
(PNHS) in Aglipay, Quirino General High School (QGHS) in Cabarroguis, and Saguday
National High School (SNHS). All of these schools offer senior high school curriculum.
The locations of the schools are shown in the map in Figure 2.
24
Figure 2. Map of Quirino Province
Research Respondents
Respondents included all senior high school mathematics teachers of the nine
national and comprehensive high schools in the Schools DIvision of Quirino. The table
below shows the distribution of the teachers in the different schools.
Table 1. Frequency and Percent Distribution of Respondents by School
Number of SHS Percent

Name of School
Math Teachers
Aglipay High School 1 5.88
Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades 2 11.76
Diffun National High School 2 11.76
Maddela Comprehensive High School 6 35.29
Magsaysay National High School 1 5.88
Nagtipunan National High School 1 5.88
Pinaripad National High School 1 5.88
Quirino General High School 2 11.76
Saguday National High School 1 5.88
Total 17 100.00
25
As shown in Table 1, Maddela Comprehensive High School has six (35.29%)
SHS math teachers, the greatest in the province of Quirino, followed by Cabarroguis
National School of Arts and Trades, Diffun National High School, and Quirino General
High School having two teachers each (11.76%) and the rest of the schools have one
math teacher each (5.88%).
Table 2 presents the profile of the teacher respondents in terms of sex, age, and
the length of service as a teacher in logic.
Table 2. Distribution of the Respondents in terms of the Profile Variables
Profile Categories Frequency Percent

Female 5 29.4
Sex Male 12 70.6
Total 17 100
23 – 29 5 29.4
30 – 34 5 29.4
35 – 39 3 17.6
Age
40 – 48 4 23.5
Min = 23, Max = 48, Mean = 34.35, SD = 7.15
Total 17 100
1 2 11.8
2 8 47.1
3 5 29.4
No. of Years in Teaching
5 1 5.9
Logic
7 1 5.9
Total 17 100
Min = 1, Max = 7, Mean = 2.65, SD = 1.46
Among the 17 respondents, 70.6% were males and 29.4% were females. This
discloses that the females were outnumbered by male respondents.
Five respondents constituting 29.4% were under the age bracket of 23 – 29 and
another 29.4% are 30 – 34 years old, 23.5% belonged to age bracket 40 – 48 years, and
26
17.6% belonged to age bracket 35 – 39 years. The youngest respondent was 23 years old
and the oldest was 48 years old, while the mean age was 34.35 (SD = 7.15).
In terms of number of years in teaching, 8 or almost half (47.1%) of the teachers
have been teaching logic for 2 years, 3 teachers (29.4%) have taught for 3 years, 2
(11.8%) for 1 year only and 1 (5.9%) have been teaching logic for 5 and 7 years,
respectively. The teachers have been teaching for an average period of 2.65 or almost 3
years (SD=1.46). It can be noted that respondents have taught mathematics since the
implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education Program, while others got their
experience in teaching logic in their past teaching experience in college.
Research Instruments
To gather pertinent data and information for this study, the researcher used a
survey questionnaire and an assessment test.
Part I of the instrument included the level of knowledgeability, confidence level
in teaching, factors affecting the competence level of the respondents in teaching the
different content standards with the different learning competencies in logic in the
general mathematics of senior high school, and appropriate teaching strategy for each
learning competency they have incorporated in their Daily Lesson Log.
Part II is a researcher-made test covering all learning competencies included in
the content standard in logic which is cited in the senior high school core curriculum
guide. A total of 50 items were used in the original form. A pilot test was conducted to
senior high school math teachers at Saint Mary’s University Senior High School and
three schools in Santiago City namely, Patria Sable Corpus College, Sagana Integrated
High School, and Santiago City National High School.
27
After pilot testing of the instrument, an item analysis was conducted where items
which were found to be moderately difficult or difficult and with satisfactory or highly
satisfactory discrimination were retained, items found to be poorly discriminating were
discarded and items which were moderately difficult and poorly discriminating were
revised. The test was also subjected to reliability testing. The obtained Cronbach alpha
coefficient is 0.857 which implies good internal consistency. (See Appendix B for the
results). The final assessment test includes 35 items that composed of two types, multiple
choice and supply test. The test is found in Appendix A and the Table of Specifications
of the test is in Appendix B.
Data Gathering Procedure
Data were gathered through the different steps shown in Figure 2.
Preparation of the Instrument
Pilot Testing
Item Analysis
Seeking of Permission From Schools

Division Superintendent and School
Principals
Administration of the Tool
Follow-up Interview
Analysis and Interpretation
Figure 3. Steps in Gathering Data
28
The researcher prepared the needed instruments for gathering of data. The adviser
and the panel members examined and checked the prepared tools for finalization.
After the finalization of the tool, the assessment test part was pilot tested to senior
high school math teachers at Saint Mary’s University, Patria Sable Corpus College,
Sagana Integrated High School, Senior High Department, and Santiago City National
High School, the last three located at Santiago City.
Permission was sought from the Schools Division Superintendent of Quirino and
the school principals before the administration of the tool to the teacher respondents. The
researcher asked the respondents an hour to finish answering the tool. The gathered data
were then encoded and analyzed. Due to some unclear answers, a follow-up interview
was conducted.
Treatment of Data
In descriptively analyzing the data in this study, mean, standard deviation and
Pearson r were computed. The level of knowledgeability on the different content
standards in logic was measured from the ratings made by the respondents on the items
and was described as outstanding, very satisfactory, satisfactory, fair and poor. The result
of the assessment test was interpreted using the table below:
Table 3. Level of Content Knowledge in Logic
Mean Percent Score Level

0.00 – 64.99 Poor
65.00 – 74.99 Fair
75.00 – 84.99 Satisfactory
85.00 – 94.99 Very Satisfactory
95.00 – 100.00 Outstanding
Source: Modified from Mangawil (2007)
29
The respondents’ level of confidence in teaching the content standards in logic
was based on the ratings on the items as very confident, confident, moderately confident,
slightly confident, not confident and extremely not confident as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Level of Confidence in Teaching Logic
Rating Level
1.00 – 1.49 Extremely Not Confident
1.50 – 2.49 Not Confident
2.50 – 3.49 Slightly Confident
3.50 – 4.49 Moderately confident
4.50 – 5.59 Confident
5.50 – 6.00 Very Confident
The extent by which the different content standards put limit on their competence
as logic teachers may be described as to almost none, small extent, some extent, moderate
extent, large extent and very large extent. The level and the corresponding rating are
reflected in Table 5.
Table 5. Extent of Limit on the Competence in Teaching Logic
Rating Level
1.00 – 1.49 Almost None
1.50 – 2.49 Small Extent
2.50 – 3.49 Some Extent
3.50 – 4.49 Moderate Extent
4.50 – 5.49 Large Extent
5.50 – 6.00 Very Large Extent
The Pearson moment coefficient of correlation r was used to relate the teachers’
number of years of teaching with content knowledge and confidence in teaching logic.
30
The topics covered in the proposed supplementary materials in teaching logic
were based on the competencies in which the respondents performed poorly in the
assessment test.
31
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Section 1. Profile of the Senior High School Mathematics Teachers
A. Content Knowledge of the Teacher Respondents
Table 6 shows the level of content knowledge of the respondents as revealed by
the result of the assessment test in logic.
Table 6. Level of Content Knowledge in the Different Learning Competencies
Level of
Content Standards Learning Competencies Mean SD Content
Knowledge
Key concepts of 1. Illustrates a proposition 74.51 18.74 Fair
propositional logic; 2. Symbolizes propositions 60.79 21.20 Poor
syllogisms and 3. Distinguishes between simple and 94.12 16.61 Very
fallacies compound propositions Satisfactory
4. Performs the different types of 94.12 10.93 Very
operations on propositions Satisfactory
5. Determines the truth values of 77.65 17.15 Satisfactory
propositions
6. Illustrates the different forms of 77.13 14.42 Satisfactory
conditional propositions
7. Illustrates different types of tautologies 54.90 15.33 Poor
and fallacies
8. Determines the validity of categorical 52.94 26.51 Poor
syllogisms
9. Establishes the validity and falsity of 16.18 9.65 Poor
real-life arguments using logical
propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies.
Appropriately apply 10. Illustrates the different methods of 37.65 20.94 Poor
a method of proof proof (direct and indirect) and disproof
and disproof in real- (indirect and counterexample).
life situations 11. Justifies mathematical and real-life 44.12 22.65 Poor
statements using the different methods
of proof and disproof
Overall 54.07 11.68 Poor
Legend: Poor: 1.00 – 64.99, Fair: 65.00 – 74.99, Satisfactory: 75.00 – 84.99, Very Satisfactory: 85.00 –
94.99, Outstanding: 95.00 – 100
32
Table 6 reveals that the teacher-respondents are very satisfactory on
distinguishing simple and compound propositions and on performing different types of
operations on propositions; satisfactory on determining the truth value and on illustrating
different forms of conditional propositions; fair on illustrating propositions; and poor in
symbolizing propositions, illustrating different types of tautologies and fallacies,
determining the validity of categorical syllogisms, establishing the validity and falsity of
real-life arguments using logical propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies, illustrating the
different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof (indirect and
counterexample) and in justifying mathematical and real-life statements using the
different methods of proof and disproof.
It is for the reason that three modules were prepared in Section 3 to address the
following content difficulties shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Content of Proposed Supplementary Materials in Logic
Content Module
Symbolizing Propositions 1
Logical Fallacies, Tautologies, Contradiction and Contingency
2
Validity of categorical syllogisms
Different Methods of Proof and Disproof 3
Based from their answer sheets, many of the respondents did not have answers on
the proving part of the assessment which resulted to their poor performance on the
methods part of the content standard in logic. In the study of Herrera and Dio (2016),
writing proofs is the least mastered competency.
Sample of items where respondents were found to be poor are as follows:
LC 2: Symbolizes propositions
33
Table 8. Item 7 and the Respondents’ Answers
7. Prices are going up but wages are not.

A. p → ∼q
B. p ʌ ∼q
C. p v ∼ q
D. ∼p v q
A. 0 B. * 8 (47.06%) C. 9 (52.94%) D. 0
*correct answer
It can be gleaned from the answers that the respondents got confused on the right
symbol for but. They were in a quandary as to the type of statement is the given –
whether a conjunction (and) or a disjunction (or). For item number 7, most of the
respondents (52.94%) answered letter C instead of the correct answer which is letter B
chosen by a little less than half (47.06%).
LC 7. Illustrates different types of tautologies and fallacies
Table 9. Item 22 and the Respondents’ Answers
22. Which of the following illustrates a tautology?

A. (p → q) ʌ (p →∼ q)
B. (∼p ʌ q)→q
C. (∼p v q) ⊕ (p→q)
D. (p → q)↔ (∼p → ∼q)
A. 3 (17.65%) B. * 4 (23.53%) C. 9 (52.94%) D. 1 (5.88%)
*correct answer
For item number 22, majority (9 or 52.94%) of the teachers answered letter C
which includes the symbol  not usually used in logic and 3 (17.65%) answered letter A
which is an example of a disjunction. Four (23.53%) chose letter B which is the correct
answer since it is a tautology and 1 (5.88%) chose letter D which is a misleading
contrapositive. Maybe the respondents forgot or were not aware that a tautology is always
a true statement.
34
Figure 4 shows an item with two varied answers.
24. Nobody has ever proved

that there is God;
therefore,
__________________.
Figure 4. Item 24 and Samples of Respondents’ Answers
There were only two respondents who answered item number 24 correctly, others
just left it blank and others just wrote “no idea”. Respondents were confused on the
fallacy argument given. Those two who got the correct answer wrote “Nobody has ever
proved that there is God; therefore, there is no God.”
LC 8: Determines the validity of categorical syllogisms
Table 10. Item 19 and the Respondents’ answers
19. Determine the validity of the syllogism:

P: Nothing is better than God.
p: Having a lobster is better than having nothing.
C: Lobsters are better than God.
Invalid – 6 (35.29%)* Valid – 11 (64.71%)
*correct answer
There were six (35.29%) who answered that the syllogism is invalid and 11
(64.71%) who answered it is valid. The teachers did not justify their answers which was
required for them to do. It is invalid for it violates one of the rules indicated in the
categorical syllogisms. Major term is “God” since it is the predicate of the conclusion and
“Lobsters” is the minor term since it is the predicate.
LC 9: Establishes the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using logical
propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies
35
23. Establish the validity of the argument:

“All health professionals are health-conscious
people. But some health-conscious people are
elites. Therefore, some elites are health
professionals.”
For item number 23, there were seven who simply answered “invalid” with no
further justification as what was given in the direction while some left it blank, and others
wrote “no idea”. It is not valid for the conclusion is not logically true.
LC 10: Illustrates the different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof
(indirect and counterexample)
30. Prove by indirect method:

“If n2 is an odd integer then
n is an odd integer.”
For item number 30, there was one who answered correctly but the solution was
not complete. Others just left it blank for they said that they do not know how to answer
the item and some just wrote “no idea”. Some of the respondents revealed during the
follow-up interview that it was hard for them to answer the proving part because they
36
could no longer remember how to do so. The answers indicate that the teachers are poor
in proving.
LC 11: Justifying mathematical and real-life statements using the different
methods of proof and disproof
32. Prove or disprove by

mathematical induction that
the sum of the first n
positive integers is given by
the formula ∑𝑛𝑖=1(2𝑖 − 1) =
𝑛².
For item number 30, there is one who got the item number 32 correctly while
others had no answer and one wrote “no idea”. For almost all respondents, they could not
recall how to prove mathematical statements.
Poor performance of the respondents is probably because of the country’s fresh
implementation of the K to 12 program where teachers as well as students are still in the
process of adjusting.
According to Syanhputra and Suhartini (2014, cited by Pascua, 2017), learning
mathematics is a mental activity to understand the concepts in mathematics which is then
applied to other situations. Thus, learning mathematics is also a process of careful
37
activity to gain a new knowledge linking symbols and connecting structures to gain
understanding and application of concepts in real situations. From this, it is very
important for a teacher to be knowledgeable in all basic concepts in order for him/her to
prove mathematical arguments. The study of Campo (2010) also reveals that poor
performance of mathematics teachers is due to their low content knowledgeability.
Table 11 shows the overall rating of the content knowledge of the respondents
derived from the result of their assessment in logic.
Table 11. Over-all Level of Content Knowledge
Percent Score Level of Content Knowledge Frequency Percent

0.00 – 64.99 Poor 13 76.5
65.00 – 74.99 Fair 2 11.8
75.00 – 84.99 Satisfactory 2 11.8
Total 17 100
Mean=54.07, SD=11.68, Level: Poor
Legend:
Poor: 0.00 – 64.99, Fair: 65.00 – 74.99, Satisfactory: 75.00 – 84.99, Very Satisfactory: 85.00 –
94.99, Outstanding: 95.00 – 100
Table 11 reveals that 76.5% of the respondents were poor and an equal percent of
11.8% of the respondents have fair and satisfactory ratings. Many of the respondents did
not have answers on the proving part of the assessment. The overall rating of 54.07%
indicates that the respondents are generally poor in terms of their content knowledge in
logic.
Teachers who have inadequate meaningful mathematical content knowledge
and/or poor attitudes toward the subject often exacerbate the problems that students
experience in learning (Dullas, 2003).
38
B. Confidence in Teaching Logic
Table 12 below shows the level of confidence of the respondents in teaching the
different learning competencies in logic.
Table 12. Confidence in Teaching Logic in the Different Learning Competencies
Content Standards Learning Competencies Mean SD Level of

Confidence
Key concepts of Illustrates a proposition 5.47 .800 Confident
propositional logic; Symbolizes propositions 5.00 .707 Confident
syllogisms and Distinguishes between simple and 4.76 .664 Confident
fallacies compound propositions
Performs the different types of 4.65 .493 Confident
operations on propositions
Determines the truth values of 4.53 .800 Confident
propositions
Illustrates the different forms of 4.35 .996 Moderately
conditional propositions Confident
Illustrates different types of 4.00 4.00 Moderately
tautologies and fallacies Confident
Determines the validity of 3.88 1.453 Moderately
categorical syllogisms Confident
Establishes the validity and falsity 3.35 1.618 Slightly
of real-life arguments using logical Confident
propositions, syllogisms, and
fallacies.
Appropriately apply Illustrates the different methods of 2.41 1.543 Not
a method of proof proof (direct and indirect) and Confident
and disproof in real- disproof (indirect and
life situations counterexample).
Justifies mathematical and real-life 2.41 1.543 Not
statements using the different Confident
methods of proof and disproof
Overall 4.07 1.33 Moderately
Confident
Legend:
Not Very Confident: 1.00 – 1.49, Not Confident: 1.50 – 2.49, Slightly Confident: 2.50 – 3.49, Moderately
Confident: 3.50 – 4.49, Confident: 4.50 – 5.59, Very Confident: 5.50 – 6.00
Table 12 reveals that the overall level of confidence of the senior high school
Mathematics teachers in teaching the learning competencies included in the content
standard of logic in the general mathematics subject is moderate. In terms of the specific
39
learning competencies, they are confident in teaching propositions, symbolizing
propositions, distinguishing simple and compound propositions, performing different
types of operations in propositions and determining truth values of a given proposition;
moderately confident in teaching how to illustrate different forms of conditional
propositions, illustrating different forms of conditional propositions, different types of
tautologies and fallacies and determining the validity of categorical syllogisms; slightly
confident in teaching how to establish the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using
logical propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies; lastly, they are not confident in teaching
how to illustrate the different methods of proof and disproof and on how to justify
mathematical and real-life statements using the different methods of proof and disproof.
The frequency distribution of the respondents according to the level of confidence
in teaching logic is reflected in Table 13.
Table 13. Overall Level of Confidence in Teaching Logic
Level of Confidence Frequency Percent

Slightly Confident 3 17.6
Moderately Confident 9 52.9
Confident 5 29.4
Total 17 100
Mean = 4.07; SD = .75, Level: Moderately confident
Legend:
Extremely Not Confident: 1.00 – 1.49, Not Confident: 1.50 – 2.49,
Slightly Confident: 2.50 – 3.49, Moderately confident: 3.50 – 4.49,
Confident: 4.50 – 5.59, Very Confident: 5.50 – 6.00
Table 13 reveals that that more than half (9 or 52.9%) of the respondents are
moderately confident in teaching logic and followed respectively by 5 (29.4%) of them
who are confident, and 3 (17.6%) who are slightly confident. It has a mean of 4.07
(SD=.75) corresponding to an overall moderately confident.
40
The over-all confidence level of the respondents in teaching logic is moderate.
This may be attributed to the relatively low number of years of teaching experience in
logic. There is a need for the teachers to strengthen their confidence by gaining additional
knowledge and skills to confidently teach the topic.
Self-confidence towards teaching different topics in mathematics specifically
logic is an important part to successes in mathematics achievement. Zan and Di Martino
(2014) mentioned that low self-confidence toward mathematics defeats the purpose of
learning in mathematics.
According to Kenny (2010) and Kind (2009), three major variables that
contribute to enhancing and strengthening confidence for teachers are increasing
subject matter knowledge, enhancing the readiness and preparation, and engaging
teachers in various professional development opportunities to build their confidence.
41
C. Difficulties Encountered in Teaching Logic
Table 14 shows the frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of the
different difficulties they have encountered in teaching logic.
Table 14. Frequency Distribution in terms of the Difficulties Encountered in

Teaching Logic
Difficulties Frequency Percent

Did not have time to discuss the topic logic at all. 9 52.9
There is not much time to further discuss the different 5 29.4
learning competencies.
Lack of time due to many seminars/professional development 2 11.8
activities attended by the teachers.
Find difficulty in teaching the last competency which is to 1 5.9
justify mathematical and real-life statements using different
methods of proof and disproof.
Total 17 100
Most of the respondents (9 or 52.9%) listed that their difficulty is that, they did
not have time to discuss the topic logic at all while five of them indicated that there is no
plenty of time to further discuss the different learning competencies. It can be inferred
that the 11 learning competencies on logic may be too many to be accomplished for a
period of 16 hours or 4 weeks.
Two of the respondents stated that their difficulty arises from the lack of time due
to many seminars they have attended and lastly, one of them expressed that she found it
difficult to teach the last competency which is to justify mathematical and real life
statements using different methods of proof and disproof.
As can be seen from the answers of the respondents, insufficient time to discuss
topics in logic is a main difficulty arising from disruptions of classes due to their
attendance to seminars and other professional development activities. The follow-up
42
interview revealed that the disruptions or suspensions of classes are also caused by
typhoons, town and provincial fiestas, and sports activities like provincial meet.
From DepEd Order 25, s. 2017 on the implementing guidelines on the calendar of
activities which enable the schools effectively and efficiently implement the school
events and activities, schools may observe national and local celebrations/activities and
holidays other than those indicated by the office, provided that the activities are
beneficial to the teaching-learning process, and that the total number of class days shall
not be compromised. Make-up classes are recommended in lieu of class cancellations due
to celebrations and holidays, as well as natural and man-made causes. The schools were
not compliant to this DepEd Order.
D. Factors that Limit the Competence in Teaching Logic
Table 15 shows the extent to which the cited factors put limits on the competence
of the respondents.
Table 15. Extent of the Factors Affecting Competence in Teaching Logic
Factor Mean SD Extent of Limit

1. Deficiency in knowledge of logic 3.18 1.629 Some Extent
2. Inability to motivate students 3.18 1.590 Some Extent
3. Difficulty in disciplining students 4.06 1.298 Moderate Extent
4. Difficulty in explaining and communicating to 3.76 1.200 Moderate Extent
students
5. Inability to engage students in class activities 3.82 1.286 Moderate Extent
6. Poor ability in managing time 4.94 0.748 Large Extent
7. Limited teaching strategies 2.76 1.300 Some Extent
8. Shortage of other instructional materials for 4.88 0.600 Large Extent
students’ use
9. Inadequate library facilities 4.82 0.636 Large Extent
10. Inadequate time to perform lesson plans and 4.94 0.772 Large Extent
teaching aids
43
Factor Mean SD Extent of Limit

11. High student/teacher ratio 4.88 0.600 Large Extent
12. Assessing students’ needs, interest and 3.82 1.015 Moderate Extent
difficulties
13. No knowledgeable co-teacher to seek help 3.47 1.419 Some Extent
14. Too much paper work 5.24 0.562 Large Extent
15. Unreasonable demands from school 4.12 0.697 Moderate Extent
administrators/ coordinators
16. Dealing with parents of students 3.94 1.029 Moderate Extent
17. Students who come from a wide range of 4.35 0.702 Moderate Extent
backgrounds
18. Heavy teaching load 4.88 0.697 Large Extent
19. Inability to relate with other co-teachers in 3.00 1.00 Some Extent
school
Overall 4.11 0.988 Moderate Extent
Legend:
Almost None: 1.00 – 1.49, Small Extent: 1.50 – 2.49, Some Extent: 2.50 – 3.49,
Moderate Extent: 3.50 – 4.49, Large Extent: 4.50 – 5.49, Very Large Extent: 5.50 – 6.00
There are a number of factors that influence the performance of the teachers. As
shown in Table 15, too much paper work, poor ability in managing time, shortage of
other instructional materials for students’ use, inadequate library facilities, inadequate
time to perform lesson plans and teaching aids, high student/teacher ratio, heavy teaching
load put a limit on their competence in handling logic to a large extent; while difficulty in
disciplining students, difficulty in explaining and communicating to students, inability to
engage students in class activities, assessing students’ needs, interest and difficulties,
unreasonable demands from school administrators/ coordinators, dealing with parents of
students, students who come from a wide range of backgrounds limit the respondents to a
moderate extent; and lastly, deficiency in knowledge of logic, inability to motivate
students, limited teaching strategies, no knowledgeable co-teacher to seek help, inability
to relate with other co-teachers in school put a limit on their competency to some extent.
44
Factors cited above involve students (inability to motivate students, difficulty in
disciplining, in explaining and communicating to students, inability to engage students in
class activities, assessing students’ needs, interest and difficulties, and students who come
from a wide range of backgrounds; teacher (limited teaching strategies, no
knowledgeable co-teacher to seek help, and inability to relate with other co-teacher in
school), time, facilities/physical resources (shortage of other instructional materials for
students’ use and inadequate library facilities), school system/administrators (high
student/teacher ratio, too much paper work, heavy teaching load and unreasonable
demands from school administrators/coordinators), and lastly, the parents of students.
Teacher competence is one aspect that affects the educational quality in many
countries all over the world and it can be affected by some factors. Competent and
professional teachers are teachers who are skilled in performing their duties, but they are
influenced by many factors. Some are the expectations of the community, the particular
school system in which the teacher is employed, the school itself the grade policies
(paper works), the parents and the students, the individual teacher’s beliefs about how
children learn most effectively, how to teach in particular discipline or key learning area.
The match between in individual teacher’s beliefs about best teaching practice and
whether they can personally meet these demands in the classroom is crucial. A teacher’s
own preferred ways of thinking, acting and seeing the world, learners and learning will
also be affected by the availability of resources both human and physical (Hasan, 2004).
The evaluation study conducted by Bibi (2005) reveals that one of the reasons for
weak competencies is the excess of periods being taught, ineffective teaching methods
45
and habit of imposing their own views and ideas to students which are similar to this
study.
E. Teaching Strategies in Logic
Table 16 shows the frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of the
different strategies they have used in the different learning competencies included in the
content standards of logic in the general mathematics.
Table 16. Strategies Used in Teaching the Different Learning Competencies
Learning Competency Strategies Frequency Percent

Watch and learn! 1 6.3
Illustrates a proposition Lecture 14 87.5
Think-pair-share 1 6.3
Show me 1 6.3
Lecture 8 50.0
Games/Drills 4 25.0
Symbolizes propositions
Flash cards 1 6.3
Active learning 1 6.3
Number heads 1 6.3
Pick, Read and 1 6.3
Distinguishes between Tell
simple and compound Lecture 13 81.3
propositions Active learning 1 6.3
Number heads 1 6.3
Task cards 1 6.3
Lecture 10 62.5
Performs the different types Games/Drills 2 12.5
of operations on propositions Active learning 2 12.5
Lecture with 1 6.3
drills
Determines the truth values Lecture 14 87.5
of propositions Active learning 2 12.5
Illustrates the different forms Lecture 14 87.5
46
Learning Competency Strategies Frequency Percent

of conditional propositions Think and write 1 6.3
the form
Lecture 14 87.5
Illustrates different types of 1
Think-pair-share 6.3
tautologies and fallacies
Lecture 13 81.3
Determines the validity of Show and Tell 1 6.3
categorical syllogisms Problem solving 1 6.3
Establishes the validity and Lecture 11 68.8
falsity of real-life arguments Case method 2 12.5
using logical propositions, 3
Problem solving 18.8
syllogisms, and fallacies
Lecture 12 75.0
Illustrates the different Think-pair-share 1 6.3
methods of proof (direct and Games/Drills 1 6.3
indirect) and disproof Student Board 1 6.3
(indirect and work
counterexample) Lecture with 1 6.3
drills
Lecture 8 50.0
Collaborative/ 3 18.8
Justifies mathematical and Cooperative
real-life statements using the Learning
different methods of proof Games/Drills 1 6.3
and disproof Student Board 3 18.8
work
Problem solving 1 6.3
Total 16 100
Active learning strategies help to initiate learners into effective ways to help them
engage in activities based on ideas about how people learn. One teacher shared, “In active
learning, I facilitate the classroom discussion by asking questions on what they have
learned and listen to their responses with further justification.”
47
Another teacher said, “Sa active learning, binibigyan ko ng pagkakataon na
magkaroon ng peer teaching ang aking mga estudyante habang ako ay nag’oobserba”.
(In active learning, I gave them (students) a chance to have their peer teaching while I’m
observing).
Think-pair-share was used by one of the teachers, in which students will work in
pairs, collaborating their ideas and sharing what they have discovered or learned about
the topic that was given by the teacher. As quoted from one of the teachers “I made use of
think-pair-share in illustrating proposition by asking two students to work in pairs, one
who will give a sentence and the other one will determine whether the sentence given is
an example of a proposition or not, then they share it to the class.”
Number heads is a strategy where every student is assigned a respective number
and if the teacher calls a number, the student whose number is called will be the one to
give the answer for the problem to be given by the teacher. According to one teacher,
“Bawat estudyante ay may kanya-kanyang numero kung saan sila ang kailangang
tumayo at sumagot kapag natawag at kung sakaling hindi sila makasagot, ipapasa nila
ang tanong sa iba nilang kaklase sa pamamagitan ng pagbanggit ng ibang numero
hanggang sa may makasagot ng tama.” (Each student is assigned a number and if a
certain number is called, a student with the corresponding number called will be the one
to answer. If they cannot answer, they call another number until one gives the correct
answer.)
Collaborative/Cooperative learning was used by the respondents in justifying
mathematical and real-life arguments. This process forces students to think individually
and then allows them to analyze and clarify their response collaboratively. “I will give a
48
problem where they will work in a group to come up with the proper proving”, stated one
of the respondents.
Student board work allows other students to see and analyze answers of their
classmates. As what one teacher said, “Student board work was used by letting the
students write their answer on proving and through this, nalalaman din nating mga
teacher kung ano ang alam na nila at kung ano pa ang kailangang isupply (We will
know, as teachers, what the students already know and what else they need to know).
Games/Drills were used in order for the students to have fun and, at the same
time, to learn. “Math Bingo is what I usually use in my class like on symbolizing
propositions where symbolic forms of sentences are written in the cards.”
Show me strategy was used in symbolizing propositions as what a teacher says “I
will give a compound proposition then I will call a student who will come to the board
and show/write the symbolic form of the sentence I have given.”
The use of case method allows students to apply the concepts learned in class to real-
life situations. As quoted from one of the respondents “Case method is used by posing a
single argument to the class, to generate a discussion about how the students would
prove or disprove the argument, during which students will discuss and analyze the
argument given by applying the different rules they have learned then the students will
present their findings to the class in a group.”
Watch and learn has been used by one of the teachers where students will watch a
video clip illustrating what a proposition is and explain their learning based on the video.
In the use of the strategy Think and write the form, one of the respondents shared
that “Sa pag-illustrate ng conditional propositions, gumagamit ako ng think and write
49
form sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ko ng sentence at pagkatapos ay gagawan nila ng
iba’t ibang form of conditional propositions, converse, inverse at contrapositive.”(In
illustrating conditional propositions, I make use of the think and write form by giving a
sentence and what the students will do is to make different conditional propositions,
converse, inverse and contrapositive.
In illustrating propositions, 14 out of 16 (87.5%) SHS math teachers use lecture
method, one of them uses watch and learn and another one uses think-pair-share. In
symbolizing propositions, eight of them use lecture, four use games/drills, one uses the
strategy show me. Another teacher makes use of flash cards, one employs active learning
and one uses number heads. In distinguishing between simple and compound
propositions, 13 of them utilize lecture, and the rest use pick, read, and tell, active
learning and number heads. In performing the different types of operations on
propositions, lecture method is used by 10 of them, the others use games/drills, active
learning, task card, and lecture with drills strategy. In determining the truth values of
propositions, 14 use lecture method and the others use active learning. In illustrating the
different forms of conditional propositions, 14 of them use lecture, the rest employ active
learning and think and write the form. In illustrating different types of tautologies and
fallacies, 14 use lecture, the rest use think-pair-share and active learning. In determining
the validity of categorical syllogisms, 13 use lecture, and other strategies include show
and tell, problem solving and active learning.
For establishing the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using logical
propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies, the lecture, problem solving, and case method are
used. In illustrating the different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof
50
(indirect and counterexample) competency, majority (12) apply lecture, and the rest use
think-pair-share, games/drills, boardwork and lecture with drills. For the last learning
competency which is to justify mathematical and real-life statements using the different
methods of proof and disproof, the lecture, collaborative/cooperative learning, board
work, games/drills, and problem solving are utilized.
It is evident that the lecture method is employed by majority of the teachers.
Other strategies being used are active learning, think-pair-share, number heads,
collaborative/cooperative learning, board work, problem solving, games/drills, lecture
with drills, show and tell, case method, watch and learn, the use of flash cards, pick, read
and tell, and think and write the form.
Below is a sample of Daily Lesson Log given by one of the teacher respondents.
GRADE 11 School Grade 11
DAILY LESSON LOG Teacher Learning Area GENERAL
MATHEMATICS
Teaching Week 17 Grading 1ST SEMESTER, 2ND
Date Period QUARTER
DATE Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

I. OBJECTIVE
A. Content Standards The learner demonstrates understanding of key concepts of propositional
logic; syllogisms and fallacies
B. Performance The learner is able to judiciously apply logic in real-life arguments.
Standards
C. Learning M11GM-IIg-1 M11GM-IIg-4 M11GM-IIh-2 M11GM-IIi-1 M11GM-IIi-2
Competencies M11GM-IIg-2 M11GM-IIh-1
M11GM-IIg-3
II. CONTENT LOGIC
III. LEARNING RESOURCE
References
1. Teacher’s Guide SHS General Mathematics Teaching Guide
pages
2. Learner’s Material Worksheet/Activity Sheets and Module
Pages
3. Teaching Strategy Think-Pair-Share, Active Learning, Number Heads, Discussion,
Collaborative Learning
4. Integration Social Sciences, Computer Science
Figure 8. Sample Daily Lesson Log
51
The above lesson log reveals that to address the competencies on logic, the
teacher uses think-pair-share, active learning, number heads, discussion, and
collaborative learning.
The study of Mangawil (2007) about the pedagogical content knowledge and
praxis in subject matter, curriculum and teaching of pre-service biology teachers, lecture
was the predominant strategy employed by the respondents.
Teaching strategies vary from one age group to another and on the learning style
of the learners. No one method or strategy is the best. Teacher must understand that the
amount of students’ learning in a class also depends on their native ability of cognition
and as well as their prior preparation (Jalbani, 2014).
Section 2. Correlation between Number of Years in Teaching Logic and Content
Knowledge and Confidence in Teaching Logic
A. Number of Years in Teaching Logic and Content Knowledge
Table 17 shows the correlations on number of years in teaching logic with content
knowledge on the concepts and with methods included in the relative standards in logic
of general mathematics of the Senior High School Grade 11.
Table 17. Correlations between Number of Years in Teaching Logic and

Content Knowledge on Logic
Content Knowledge Content Knowledge

(Concepts) (Methods)
Pearson r .467 .219
Number of Years in
Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .399
Teaching Logic
N 17 17
52
As shown in Table 17, the Pearson r for the respondents’ content knowledge in
logic and number of years in teaching is 0.467 (p-value = 0.059) for concepts and 0.219
(p-value = 0.399) for methods which both indicate positive correlation. These suggest
that if a teacher has a greater number of years in teaching logic, the higher content
knowledge he/she will have in logic concepts and methods. However, the p-values show
that the correlations are not significant.
These findings are contrary to those of Lopez (1995), Mateo (2000), and Sadler
(2013) who found that teachers with a longer period of teaching a particular subject are
them more competent in terms of content knowledge.
B. Number of Years in Teaching Logic and Confidence in Teaching Logic
Table 18 shows the correlations on number of years in teaching logic and
teacher’s confidence in teaching the concepts and methods included in the relative
standards in logic of general mathematics of the Senior High School Grade 11.
Table 18. Correlations between Number of Years in Teaching Logic and Teacher’s
Confidence in Teaching Logic
Teacher’s Confidence Teacher’s Confidence in

in Teaching (Concepts) Teaching (Methods)
Pearson r .424 .291
Number of Years in
Sig. (2-tailed) .090 .257
Teaching Logic
N 17 17
As shown in Table 18, the Pearson r for the respondents’ confidence in teaching
logic and number of years in teaching is 0.424 (p-value = 0.090) for concepts and .291
(p-value = 0.257) which both indicate positive correlation. These values indicate that if a
teacher has a greater number of years in teaching logic, the more confidence he/she will
53
have in teaching logic concepts and methods. The more practice, the more mastery the
teacher will have. If a teacher already knows exactly what he is about to teach then he has
the confidence to teach the certain topic either it could be a concept or a method.
However, the correlations are not significant.
From the study of Sadler (2013), experience in teaching by having years of
teaching a specific course or a topic makes one more confident in teaching that certain
topic. For exercising to teach a certain topic makes you develop teaching style which will
boost self-confidence.
54
Section 3. Supplementary Activities in Teaching Logic
Three modules were prepared to address the following content difficulties of the
teachers namely, symbolize propositions; logical fallacies, tautologies, contradiction and
contingency, validity of categorical syllogisms; and the different methods of proof and
disproof.
Introduction
Logic is a language for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use in doing
logical reasoning. Human reasoning has been observed over centuries from at least the
time of the Greeks, and patterns appearing in reasoning have been extracted, abstracted,
and streamlined.
In logic, we are interested in true or false statements, and how the truth/falsehood
of a statement can be determined from other statements.
55
Module 1
Symbolizing Propositions
Logic in the Senior High School Curriculum exposes learners to symbolic forms
of propositions (or statements) and arguments. Through the use of symbolic logic,
learners should be able to recognize equivalent propositions, identify fallacies, and judge
the validity of arguments. The following lesson is an application of the rules of symbolic
logic, as learners are taught to write their own justifications to mathematical and real-life
statements (SHS Teaching Guide in General Mathematics, 2013).
Learning Outcome: At the end of the lesson, the learner is able to:
• illustrate and symbolize propositions - Code: M11GM-Iig-1
Lesson Outline:
Symbolizing proposition
If a proposition is compound, then it can be any of the following: negation,
conjunction, disjunction, conditional, and biconditional.
The following examples are given:
p: Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines. (T)
q: Five is a prime number. (T)
r: Rhombuses are squares. (F)
56
s: 10 + 4 = 14 (T)
• Negation of a proposition p is denoted by ~p, where ~ symbolizes “not”.
Examples: ~p: Baguio is not the summer capital of the Philippines.
~q: Five is not a prime number.
• Conjunction of propositions p and q, called conjuncts is denoted by p ˄ q (read as
p and q), where ˄ symbolizes “and”. Some of the words used to denote
conjunctions, aside from “and” are, “but”, “yet”, “while”, and “even though”.
Examples: p ˄ s: Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines
and 10 + 4 = 14.
q ˄ r: Five is a prime number and rhombuses are squares.
• Disjunction of propositions p or q is the compound proposition “p ˅ q” (read as p
or q), where ˅ symbolize “or”. In ordinary language, the word “or” has several
meanings. In logic, there is inclusive disjunction (inclusive or) and exclusive
disjunction (exclusive or). Unless stated, a disjunction is considered inclusive by
default.
Examples: p ˅ q: Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines or
five is a prime number.
r ˅ s: Rhombuses are squares or 10 + 4 = 14.
57
• Conditional (implication) of propositions p and q is compound proposition “if p
then q.” Symbolically, p → q, where → means “if then”, p is called hypothesis (or
antecedent or premise) and q is called conclusion (or consequent or consequence).
Examples: p → q: If Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines,
then five is a prime number.
s → r: If 10 + 4 = 14 then rhombuses are squares.
• Biconditional proposition is a compound which is derived from two conditional
propositions. It denoted by p ↔ q which is read as “p if and only if q”.
Examples: p ↔ q: Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines if
and only if five is a prime number.
p ↔ s: Baguio is the summer capital of the Philippines if
and only if 10 + 4 = 14.
Let’s Warm Up
Vocabulary and Concepts
Directions: Match each proposition in Column A to its respective symbol in Column B.

A B
1. Biconditional a. ∧
2. Negation b. →
3. Conjunction (and) c. ∨
4. Disjunction (or) d. ↔
5. Conditional e. +
f. ∼
58
Let’s Do This!
A. Directions: Given the propositions below, write each of the following
statements in symbolic form.

p: Mathematics is a challenging subject.
q: Manila is the capital of the Philippines.
r: 11 is a prime number.
1. If Manila is the capital of the Philippines, then Mathematics is a challenging
subject.
2. It is not the case that Mathematics is a challenging subject.
3. Mathematics is not a challenging subject if and only if 11 is a prime number.
4. Manila is not the capital of the Philippines or Mathematics is not a challenging
subject.
5. Mathematics is a challenging subject and Manila is the capital of the Philippines.
6. If 11 is a prime number then Mathematics is a challenging subject.
7. 11 is not a prime number.
8. Manila is the capital of the Philippines or Mathematics is a challenging subject.
9. If 11 is prime number and Mathematics is a challenging subject then Manila is the
capital of the Philippines.
10. It is not the case that 11 is a prime number and Mathematics is a challenging
subject.
59
B. Directions: Given the following propositions below, write each of the following
statements in words.
p: Aristotle is a Philosopher.
q: Square is a rhombus.
r: 0 is an even number.
1. p ∧ r
2. p ↔ (∼r ∨ 𝑞)
3. r → q
4. ∼q ∧ r
5. p ∨ r
6. ∼p ∨ (𝑞 →r)
7. ∼(p ∧ r)
8. (q ↔ r) ∨ p
9. p → q
10. p ↔ r
60
Module 2
Logical Fallacies, Tautologies, Contradiction and Contingency
Validity of Categorical Syllogisms
Logic is the study of reasoning in general, and in the first place, the concern is the
difference between good reasoning and bad reasoning.
This second module discusses logical fallacies, tautologies, contradiction and
contingency, also includes validity of categorical syllogisms. The focus of this is on
reasoning about certain arguments. We understand an argument to be something that
provides reasons to believe some claim. An argument is a list of statements, one of which
is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. To give
an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion.
Learning Outcome(s): At the end of the lesson, the learner is able to:
• illustrate different types of tautologies and fallacies;
• determine the validity of categorical syllogisms; and
• establish the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using logical propositions,
syllogisms, and fallacies.
61
Code: M11GM-Iii-1 - M11GM-Iih-3
Lesson Outline:
1. Logical Fallacies
2. Tautologies, Contradiction and Contingency
3. Validity of categorical syllogisms.
Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning in logic of an argument. It is
advantageous to know logical fallacies in order to avoid them in an argument. There are
different types of fallacies that we might use to present our position. The following are
the common types of fallacies with their corresponding examples.
1. Ad hominem
A personal attack which is a Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good
sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with attack-language
unrelated to the truth of the matter. An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It is an
insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally
attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims.
Example: You can’t believe that a presidential candidate is going to lower taxes. He’s
a liar.
2. Strawman Fallacy
It is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. It is an argument based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
62
Example: A mandatory helmet law for motorcycle drivers could never be enforced.
You can’t issue tickets to dead people.
3. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or argumentum ex silentio)
It is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it is liable to be a fallacious
appeal to ignorance. It is an argument supporting a claim merely because there is no
proof that it is wrong.
Example: If you can’t say that there aren’t Martians living in Mars, so it’s safe for me
to accept there are.
4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,”
“false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting
the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from.
Example: If you don’t vote for this candidate you must be anti-Christ.
5. Slippery Slope (or snowball/domino theory)
An argument which claims a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some extreme
and often ludicrous outcomes will happen, but there is really not enough evidence for
such assumption.
Example: If I fail Logic, I won’t be able to graduate. If don’t graduate, I probably
won’t be able to get a job, and may very well end up like a beggar.
6. Circular Argument (petitio principii)
A premise of an argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion; meaning the
argument takes for granted what it’s supposed to prove.
63
Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial
[thing]“ (commonly mistranslated as "begging the question"). You can recognize a
circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the
argument.
Example: God exists because the Holy Bible says so. The Holy Bible is true.
Therefore, God exists.
7. Hasty Generalization
It is an argument that a general conclusion on a certain condition is always true based
on insufficient or biased evidence.
Example: My friend says that Mathematics is hard, and the one I’m enrolled in is
hard, too. All Mathematics classes must be hard.
8. Red Herring
An argument which introduces a topic related to the subject at a hand. It is
diversionary tactic to avoid key issues, often a way of avoiding opposing argument
rather than addressing them.
Example: I know I forget to clean the toilet yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
9. Fallacy of division
Argument assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of
its parts.
Example: The University of the Philippines is the best university in the country.
Therefore, every student from the UP is better than a student of any other university
in the country.
64
10. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
An argument that occurs when we accept or reject a claim merely because of the
sources or authorities who made their positions on a certain argument.
Example: The government should not impose death penalty. Many respected people
such as the former Secretary of Justice, have publicly stated her opposition to it.
11. Equivocation
This argument comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a
single word can say two different things. It happens when a word, phrase, or sentence
is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one
thing but actually saying something else.
Example: Some real numbers is less than any number. Therefore, some real number is
less than itself.
12. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for “argument to compassion". Like the ad
hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance. Personal attacks, and emotional
appeals aren’t strictly relevant to whether something is true or false.
Example: The City Engineer is a vital part of this city. If he is sent to prison, the city
and his family will suffer. Therefore, you must find in your heart to forgive him.
13. Bandwagon Fallacy
It assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A
couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often
indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the
populous/popularity") is when something is accepted because it is popular.
65
The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is
accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. The status appeal
fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the
reputation of lending status, making you look "popular,” "important," or “successful.”
Example: Most Filipinos like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
14. Appeal to Force ( or Argumentum Ad Baculum)
This argument attempts to establish a conclusion by threat or intimidation. Example:
If you don’t believe in God, you won’t go to heaven.
Let’s Warm Up!
Vocabulary and Concepts
Directions: Explain the following types of fallacies based on your own understanding,
through an example which is different from the above examples.
1. Ad hominem
2. Strawman Fallacy
3. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or argumentum ex silentio)
4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
5. Slippery Slope (or snowball/domino theory)
6. Circular Argument (petitio principii)
7. Hasty Generalization
8. Red Herring
9. Fallacy of division
66
10. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
11. Equivocation
12. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
13. Bandwagon Fallacy
14. Appeal to Force (or Argumentum Ad Baculum)
Let’s Do This!
Directions: Indicate the type of fallacy in the following arguments/passages.
1. We have no evidence that Greek gods do not exist. Therefore, they must exist.
2. If the president will allow death penalty, then eventually there would be no cases
of rape.
3. You’ve been told by an elder not to go outside while it’s raining because you will
get sick.
4. Lorna is worried about her sister who is about to get married. She investigated the
past of the groom-to-be and found out that he had five girlfriends in the past
where he cheated on three of them. Lorna told her sister that her groom-to-be will
do it again.
5. If one loves algebra, then he loves mathematics.
6. Practice makes perfect but nobody’s perfect, so why practice?
7. All movie actresses are rude. I asked a movie star at Star Magic studio for her
autograph, and she told me to get lost.
8. Sexual assault is immoral because it is just plain wrong.
67
9. Water extinguishes fire. Hydrogen is part of water. Therefore, a hydrogen bomb
will extinguish fire.
10. People know that evolution is false because humans did not evolve from
monkeys.
11. Of course, God answers prayers! After all, sometimes the answer may be “no” or
“wait awhile” so you can’t prove he doesn’t answer them.
12. Abortion is murder, since killing of a baby is an act of murder.
13. Every Siamese cat I’ve met has been temperamental and so they all are.
14. Allowing parents to use vouchers that enable their children to attend private
instead of public schools would improve the quality of education. After all,
vouchers would promote competition, and competition is what makes businesses
excel.
15. If I were you, I’d rethink your criticisms of this class before I need to turn in final
grades. Just some friendly advice.”
Let’s Act it Out!
(Group Activity with 5 members)
1. Look for advertisements, blogs, post, tweets, news articles which you think
are fallacious arguments. Make a booklet of them.
2. Make a blog or an advertisement that has a fallacious arguments/passage.
68
Tautology
The famous saying 'I cannot tell a lie' may come to mind when studying
tautologies. A tautology is a formula which is "always true" --- that is, it is true for every
assignment of truth value to its simple components. You can think of a tautology as a rule
of logic.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a formula which is "always false".
In other words, a contradiction is false for every assignment of truth values to its simple
components.
Example: Show that (p → q) ˅ (q → p) is a tautology.
p q p→q q→p (p → q) ˅ (q → p)
T T T T T
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T T
The last column contains only T's. Therefore, the formula is a tautology.
If you construct a truth table for a statement and all of the column values for the
statement are true (T), then the statement is a tautology because it is always true!
The statement 'I will either get paid or not get paid' is a tautology since it is
always true. Most of the time the logic statements or arguments that we are trying to
analyze are more complicated than this, or we are only given the symbolic representation
of the statement and not the statement itself.
69
If you are given a statement and want to determine if it is a tautology, then all you
need to do is construct a truth table for the statement and look at the truth values in the
final column. If all of the values are T (for true), then the statement is a tautology.
Let's look at an example.
'I will either get paid or not get paid', use p to represent the statement 'I will get paid' and
not p (written ~p) to represent 'I will not get paid.'
p: I will get paid
~p: I will not get paid
So, p ˅ ~p: I will either get paid or not get paid.
A truth table for the statement would look like:
Truth Table for p ˅ ~p

p ~p p ˅ ~p
T F T
F T T
Looking at the final column in the truth table, you can see that all the truth values
are T (for true). Whenever all of the truth values in the final column are true, the
statement is a tautology. So, our statement 'I will either get paid or not get paid' is always
a true statement, a tautology.
List of Tautologies
1. p ˅ ~p Law of the excluded middle

2. ~ (p ˄ ~ p) Contradiction
3. [(p → q) ˄ ~q]→~p Modus tollens
4. ~~p ↔ p Double Negation
70
5. [(p→q) ˅ (q → r) → (p→r) Law of syllogism

6. (p ˄ q) → p Decomposing a conjunction
(p ˄ q) → q Decomposing a conjunction
7. p → (p ˅ q) Constructing a disjunction
q → (p ˅ q) Constructing a disjunction
8. (p ↔ q) ↔ [(p→q) ˄ (q →p)] Definition of the biconditional
9. (p ˄ q) ↔ (q ˄ p) Commutative law for conjunction
10. (p ˅ q) ↔ (q ˅ p) Commutative law for disjunction
11. [(p ˄ q) ˄ r] ↔ [p ˄ (q ˄ r)] Associative law for conjunction
12. [(p ˅ q) ˅ r] ↔ [p ˅ (q ˅ r)] Associative law for disjunction
13. ~ (p ˅ q) ↔ (~p ˄ ~q) DeMorgan’s law
14. ~ (p ˄ q) ↔ (~p ˅ ~q) DeMorgan’s law
15. [p ˄ (q ˅ r)] ↔ [(p ˄ q) ˅ (p ˄ r)] Distributivity
16. [p ˅ (q ˄ r)] ↔ [(p ˅ q) ˄ (p ˅ r)] Distributivity
17. (p → q) ↔ (~q → ~p) Contrapositive
18. (p → q) ↔ (~p ˅ q) Conditional disjunction
19. [(p ˅ q) ˄ ~p] → q Disjunctive syllogism
20. (p ˅ p) ↔ p Simplification
21. (p ˄ p) ↔ p Simplification
Let’s Warm Up!
Is [(p q) p] p a tautology?
p q p q (p q) p [(p q) p] p
T T
T F
F T
F F
71
Let’s Do This!
Directions: Complete the truth table for the given statement. Indicate whether the
statement is a tautology.
1.
p q pq (p  q) → p
T T
T F
F T
F F
2.
p q pq (p  q) → p
T T
T F
F T
F F
3.
p q p→q p  (p → q)
T T
T F
F T
F F
72
4. p q q→p p  (q → p)
T T
T F
F T
F F
5.
p q ~q p→q ~ q → (p → q)
T T
T F
F T
F F
Let’s Write Up!
1. Extract twenty (20) examples of tautology from famous speeches, literary
pieces, and popular music/songs.
2. Write a literary piece or a song or a speech consisting of an example of a
tautology to be shared in the class.
73
Categorical Syllogisms
A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two
premises. A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical
propositions that contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the
constituent propositions. The major premise is the premise that contains the major term,
while the minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term. The conclusion is
the third proposition whose meaning and truth are implied in the premises.
The subject of the conclusion is the minor term while the predicate will be the
major term. Middle term is the remaining term which does not (and cannot) appear in the
conclusion.
Example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Major term is “mortal” since it is the predicate of the conclusion.
Minor term is “Socrates” for it is the subject of the conclusion.
Middle term is “man” or “men” for it does not appear in the conclusion and the only
remaining term.
Rules of Syllogism
In determining the validity of categorical syllogisms, the following rules must be
followed. It is important to remember that all of the eight rules of syllogism must be met
or satisfied for the argument or syllogism to be valid. If at least one of the eight rules of
syllogism is violated, then the argument or syllogism is considered invalid.
74
The eight rules of syllogism are as follow:
1. There should only be three terms in the syllogism, namely: the major term, the
minor term, and the middle term. The meaning of the middle term in the first
premise should not be changed in the second premise; otherwise, the syllogism
will have four terms.
2. The major and the minor terms should only be universal in the conclusion if they
are universal in the premises. In other words, if the major and the minor terms are
universal in the conclusion, then they must also be universal in the premises for
the argument to be valid. Hence, if the major and minor terms are particular in the
conclusion, then rule #2 is not applicable.
3. The middle term must be universal at least once. Or, at least one of the middle
terms must be universal.
4. If the premises are affirmative, then the conclusion must be affirmative.
5. If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, then the conclusion must be
negative.
6. The argument is invalid whenever the premises are both negative. This is because
we cannot draw a valid conclusion from two negative premises.
7. One premise at least must be universal.
8. If one premise is particular, then the conclusion must be particular.
75
9. Let’s Warm Up!
Directions: Identify the major, minor and middle term of the given syllogism. Determine
its validity.
All who completely pay taxes are honest.
No Politician is honest.
Therefore, no politician pays taxes completely.
Let’s Do This!
A. Directions: Explain by giving what rule is violated by the following invalid

arguments.
1. All parts of a living organism are inside the human body.

The fetus is inside the (mother’s) human body.
Therefore, the fetus is a part of the living organism (mother’s body).
2. Nothing easy is worthwhile.
Nothing good is easy.
Therefore, nothing good is worthwhile.
3. Mathematicians know what mathematics is.
No philosopher is a mathematician.
No philosopher knows what mathematics is.
4. No idiot is rational.
Kurt is not an idiot.
Therefore, Kurt is rational.
5. Some students are lazy.
But some Filipinos are students.
Therefore, some Filipinos are not lazy.
76
B. Directions: Indicate the validity of each argument. Justify your answer.
1. All patriots are voters.
Some citizens are not voters.
Therefore, some citizens are not patriots.
2. All human action is conditioned by circumstances.
All human action involves morality.
Therefore, all that involves morality is conditioned by circumstances.
3. All men are cheater.
Kakai is not a man.
Therefore, Kakai is not a cheater.
4. No man is perfect.
Some men are presidents.
Therefore, some presidents are not perfect.
5. Some lawyers are professionals.
But no criminals is professional.
Therefore, some criminals are lawyers.
Let’s Explore!
Directions: In a one-week time, observe people and things around you. List down
all the syllogisms you have heard and seen. Make a diary about your observation
starting from the first up to the last day.
77
Module 3
Methods of Proof and Disproof
Module 3 includes the different methods of proof and disproof. In giving or
stating proofs, one must be knowledgeable of the different basic concepts of all branches
of mathematics like geometry.
This module discusses another method to establish the validity of an argument by
creating what mathematicians call a proof. In addition, we are also going to look at how
to use proof in order to show that a mathematical proposition is true.
Learning Outcome(s): At the end of the lesson, the learner is able to:
• illustrate different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof (indirect
and counterexample); and
• justify mathematical and real-life statements using the different methods of proof
and disproof.
Code: M11GM-Iij-1 – M11GM-Ij-2
Lesson Outline:
1. Methods of Proof (Direct and Indirect)
2. Methods of Disproof (Indirect and Counterexample)
78
3. Proving Mathematical and real-life statements using the different methods of
proof and disproof.
A. Direct Proof
A direct proof is a way of showing that a given statement is true or false by a
straightforward combination of facts, axioms, theorems, and existing lemmas. It
assumes that a hypothesis is true, and then uses a series of logical inferences from
previous statements to prove that its conclusion is true.
Follow these steps in performing a direct proof:
1. Assume the hypothesis to be true.
2. Use definitions, properties, axioms, theorems, and postulates to make a series of
inferences that eventually prove the conclusion to be true.
3. State that by direct proof, the conclusion of the statement must be true.
Example: Prove that “If n is an odd integer, then n² is also an odd integer”.
Proof: If n is an odd integer, then n = 2k + 1 for some integer k.
Showing that n² is an odd integer,
n² = (2k + 1)²
= 4k² + 4k + 1
= 2(2k² + 2k) + 1
Since n² is one more than twice 2k² + 2k, therefore it is an odd integer.
79
B. Indirect Proof
An indirect proof (Latin, reductio ad absurdum) uses a contradiction to prove a
hypothesis. It first assumes that the hypothesis is not true, and then using logical
inferences to arrive at a contradiction, proving that the hypothesis must be true.
There are two methods of indirect proof: proof of the contrapositive and proof by
contradiction where both methods start by assuming the denial of the conclusion.
Example: If a quadrilateral has three right angles, then it is a rectangle. In quadrilateral
ABCD, m∠A = 90°, m∠B = 90° and m∠C = 85°. Then, ABCD is not a rectangle.
Assume that ABCD is a rectangle. Then it has three right angles. But since ∠C is not a
right angle, then the three right angles must be ∠A, ∠B, and ∠D.
Solving for m∠C in the equation m∠A + m∠B + m∠C + m∠D = 360° (given m∠A = 90°,
m∠B = 90° and m∠D = 90°), we find that m∠C = 90°. This contradicts the fact that m∠C
= 85°, which is the given. Therefore, ABCD is not a rectangle.
Proof by Contradiction
This is done by assuming the opposite of the hypothesis (the one that is trying to
prove) and using logical inferences to show that this leads to a contradiction.
Example: The sum of two even numbers is always even.
Proof: The opposite is “The sum of two even numbers is not always even”.
Assume that a and b are even numbers and c is odd, hence, 2a + 2b = c.
2(a + b) = c
a + b = c/2
80
Even and odd numbers are always integers, and the sum of two integers is always
an integer. Both a and b are even and c is odd, which is not evenly divisible by 2.
Hence, c/2 is not an integer.
Therefore, the original proposition is true, the sum of two even numbers is always
even.
Proof of the Contrapositive
Any statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent, but it is usually
easier to prove the contrapositive of a statement. In a proof of the contrapositive, we
assume that the conclusion is false and try to prove that the hypothesis is false.
Example: If mn is even, then neither m or n is even.
Proof: Assume m and n are both odd.
Since the product of two odd numbers is odd, therefore mn is odd.
Disproof
Disproof by Counterexample
This is a method of proving that a given statement is NOT true.
Method: We find one example where the statement does not hold and we have done
enough to show that it is not always true.
Example: Show that the statement: a > b ⇒ a² > b² is not true.
Any pair of negative numbers with a > b will do, so our counterexample could
be a = -1, b = -2 (so a > b), then a² = 1 and b² = 4, so a² < b².
81
Let’s Warm Up!
Directions: For each of the statements below, determine the method of proof or disproof.
Fully explain your answer.
Statements Answer
1. 12 + 18 = 32
2. Which day is the Chinese New Year this year?
3. Today is a sunny day.
4. 4x + 2y = 5
5. Roses are red.
Let’s Do This!
Directions: Prove the following by the given method of proof.
1. Prove by contradiction: “The difference of any rational number and any irrational
number is irrational.”
2. Prove by counterexample: If n is an integer and n 2 is divisible by 4, then n is divisible
by 4.
82
Let’s Think and Compare!
Directions: In the table below, write your answer. Find a partner and compare your
answers.
1. Show that “if x and y are sum of two integer squares, then xy is also a sum of two
integer squares.”
Your Answer:
2. Prove or disprove by mathematical induction.
6 divides n³ - n for n ≥ 2.
Your Answer:
3. Prove or disprove by counterexample:
“For any real numbers a and b, If a = a² = b² then a = b.”
Your Answer:
83
Let’s Write Up!
Directions: Read the list of claims below. Write a journal by giving your ideas whether
these claims are valid? How would you disprove them by counterexample? Reflect.
Note: The counterexample is at least one and should be a “well-known” entity as well.
1. Engineers are good in math.
2. Not intelligent people do not succeed.
3. Doing mathematics is difficult.
Reflect Upon!
After doing all the activities, how would you rate/grade yourself
in a scale of 1 – 10, 10 as the highest. Explain your answer.
References for the Module
Albay, E. M., Batisan, R., & Caraan, A. (2016). DIWA Senior High School Series:
General Mathematics . Makati City, Philippines: Diwa Learning Systems Inc.
Oronce, O. (2016). General Mathematics First Edition. Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book
Store, Inc.
Sirug, W. S. (2016). General Mathematics for Senior High School A Comprehensive

Approach K to 12 Curriculum Compliant. Recoletos St. Intramuros, Manila:
Mindshapers Co., Inc.
84
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the teaching competency of teachers
in logic on the General Mathematics of Grade 11. Its main objectives were (1) to describe
the Senior High School Mathematics teachers in terms of their content knowledge,
confidence in teaching logic, difficulties encountered in teaching logic, factors that limit
their competence and strategies in teaching the different learning competencies; (2)
determine the relationship of number of years in teaching logic with teacher’s content
knowledge and teacher’s confidence in teaching: and (3) to propose supplementary
activities needed for teaching logic. The study involved 17 teachers in nine (9) national
and comprehensive high schools in the Division of Quirino. The study made use of a
descriptive-correlational design.
Findings
1. a. Content Knowledge
The teacher respondents have very satisfactory level of content knowledge on
distinguishing simple and compound propositions and on performing different types of
operations on propositions; satisfactory on determining the truth value and illustrating
different forms of conditional propositions; fair on illustrating propositions; and poor in
symbolizing propositions, illustrating different types of tautologies and fallacies,
determining the validity of categorical syllogisms, establishing the validity and falsity of
real-life arguments using logical propositions, syllogisms, and fallacies, illustrating the
85
different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof (indirect and
counterexample) and in justifying mathematical and real-life statements using the
different methods of proof and disproof. Overall, the performance of the respondents is
poor in terms of content knowledge.
b. Level of Confidence in Teaching Logic
The overall level of confidence of the senior high school Mathematics teachers in
teaching the learning competencies included in the content standard of logic in the
general mathematics subject is moderate. In terms of the specific learning competencies,
they are confident in teaching propositions, symbolizing propositions, distinguishing
simple and compound propositions, performing different types of operations in
propositions and determining truth values of a given proposition; moderately confident on
teaching how to illustrate different forms of conditional propositions, illustrating different
forms of conditional propositions, different types of tautologies and fallacies and
determining the validity of categorical syllogisms; slightly confident in teaching how to
establish the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using logical propositions,
syllogisms, and fallacies; lastly, they are not confident in teaching how to illustrate the
different methods of proof and disproof and on how to justify mathematical and real-life
statements using the different methods of proof and disproof.
c. Difficulties Encountered in Teaching Logic
More than half of the respondents listed that they did not have time to discuss the
topic logic at all, the others indicated that there is no plenty of time to further discuss the
different learning competencies, their difficulty arises from the lack of time due to many
86
seminars they have attended and, one teacher expressed that she found it difficult to
teach the last competency which is to justify mathematical and real life statements using
different methods of proof and disproof.
d. Limit in Competence
There are some factors that affect the teacher respondents’ competence in
teaching logic. Too much paper works, poor ability in managing time, shortage of other
instructional materials for students’ use, inadequate library facilities, inadequate time to
perform lesson plans and teaching aids, high student/teacher ratio, heavy teaching load
limit their competence to a large extent; while difficulty in disciplining students,
difficulty in explaining and communicating to students, inability to engage students in
class activities, assessing students’ needs, interest and difficulties, unreasonable demands
from school administrators/ coordinators, dealing with parents of students, students who
come from a wide range of backgrounds limit the respondents’ competence to a moderate
extent; and lastly, deficiency in knowledge of logic, inability to motivate students,
limited teaching strategies, no knowledgeable co-teacher to seek help, inability to relate
with other co-teachers in school limit their competency to some extent.
e. Strategies in Teaching the Different Learning Competencies
Lecture method is the strategy used by three-fourths of the teachers’ respondents
in teaching the different learning competencies in logic. Other strategies used are active
learning, think-pair-share, number heads, collaborative/cooperative learning, board
work, problem solving, games/drills, lecture with drills, show and tell, case method,
watch and learn, the use of flash cards, pick, read and tell, and think and write the form.
87
2. a. The number of years in teaching logic and the teachers’ content knowledge on
logic have a positive but non-significant correlation.
b. The number of years in teaching and the respondents’ confidence in teaching
logic have a positive but non-significant correlation.
3. The proposed supplementary activities in this study focused on symbolizing
propositions, logical fallacies, tautologies, contradiction and contingency, validity of
categorical syllogisms, and methods of proofs.
Conclusions
Based on the aforementioned findings, the following conclusions are derived:
1. The overall performance of the teachers indicates lack of competencies in terms
of content knowledge. They know the basic concepts in logic but they find it hard
to prove some mathematical and real-life statements using proof and disproof.
The teachers have yet to develop full confidence in teaching logic. Lack of time
was the main reason why logic is not usually discussed in class. Lecture was the
primary strategy used in teaching logic. Varied factors affecting the teaching
competence of the teachers include as too much paper works, heavy teaching
load, inadequate time to perform lesson plans and teaching aids, poor ability in
managing time, shortage of other instructional materials for students’ use,
inadequate library facilities, and high student/teacher ratio.
2. The teacher’s content knowledge on logic and teacher’s confidence in teaching
logic are not correlated to the number of years of teaching logic.
88
3. The proposed supplementary material on symbolizing propositions, fallacies,
tautology, syllogisms and methods of proof is seen as relevant to improve the
teaching competency of the teachers.
Recommendations
On the basis of the key findings and established conclusions of the study, the
following recommendations are advanced:
1. For curriculum planners to consider logic in the middle part of the semester and
not in the last part.
2. For the developed supplementary activities on logic to be tried out.
3. For mathematics teachers to attend seminars and lectures to enhance the content
knowledge in logic or to undertake further studies.
4. For future researchers to conduct the study in other schools, consider specific
logic competencies.
89
REFERENCES
Abao, E. (2014). Teachers’ instructional competence on students’ comprehension skills

and critical thinking ability. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 334-339.
American Psychological Association (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles:
A framework for school redesign and reform. Eric Document ED 411493
Ashraf, I. (2015). Reasons for low performance of teachers: A study of government
schools operating in Bahawalpur City, Pakistan. International Journal of
Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, (4), 2.
Attard, C. (2011). If you like the teacher, you’ll “get” maths more: Student talk about
good mathematics teachers. Curriculum Leadership: An Electronic Journal for
Leaders in Education, 9(6), 5-23.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What
makes it special? Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022487108324554
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M., (2006). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional
competence. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278710737_The_COACTIV_model_of
_teachers'_professional_competence
Bakhru, K., Sanghi, S., & Medury, Y. (2013). A Principal Component Analysis of
teaching competencies required for management education. Arth Prabhand: A
Journal of Economics and Mangement, 2, 2278-0629.
Bayot, K. & Damayon, S. (2010). Philosophy 1: Logic and critical thinking (5th Edition).
ISBN: 978-971-0449-05-7. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya: SMU Publishing
House.
Berinderjeet, K. (2010). Towards excellence in mathematics education – Singapore’s
experience. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 28–34.
Bernardo, A. (1998). The Learning Process: The Neglected Phenomenon in Science and
Mathematics Education Reform in the Philippines. In EB Ogena and FG Brawner,
Eds. Science Education in the Philippines: Challenges for Development.
Technical Papers presented at the National Science Education Congress, p. 79-
107.
Campo, C. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge in exponents and logarithms of high

school mathematics teachers in the catholic schools of the Diocese of San Jose.
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya.
90
Cancino, O. (2016). Knowledge dimensions, beliefs and teaching efficacy among Filipino
junior high school mathematics teachers: A basis for an enhanced teacher
bridging program. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saint Mary’s University,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Cerinsek, G. & Dolinsek, S. (2009). Identifying employees' innovation competency in
organisations. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(2).
DOI: 10.1504/IJIL.2009.022811.
Chick, H. L. (2007). Teaching and learning by example. Mathematics: Essential
research, essential practice, 1.
Chick, H.L., Baker, M. & Pham, T. & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge for decimals. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 297-
304.
Commission on Higher Education (2010). Republic Act 7722: Higher education act of
1993. Retrieved from
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/1994/05may/19940518-RA-07722-
FVR.pdf
Crisologo L., Hao, L., Miro, E., Ocampo, S., Palomo E., & Tresvalles, M. (2016). The
general mathematics teaching guide. Diliman, Quezon City: Commission on
Higher Education.
Darwin High School (2016). General mathematics. Retrieved from
https://darwinhigh.nt.edu.au/subjects/stage-1/general-mathematics/
Department of Education. (2013). Curriculum guide for General mathematics. Retrieved

from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SHS-Core_General-
Math-CG.pdf /
Department of Education. (2013). DepEd Order No.39, s.2012. Policy guidelines on

addressing learning gaps and implementing a reading and writing program in
secondary schools effective school year (SY) 2012-2013. Retrieved from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/05/11/do-39-s-2012
Department of Education (2017). DepEd Order, s.2017. School calendar for school year
2017-2018. Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph.
Dullas, L. (2003). Subjective theories, knowledge competence and teaching efficacy in
mathematics of cooperating and student teachers at the laboratory high school of
Saint Mary’s University. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
91
Farah S. (2001). A comparative study of teaching competences of the teachers trained

through the formal system of education and those through the distance education
system. Collections of PF Jamia Millia Islamic Extention Education. Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/2009/1159
Fieman N.S (1983), Learning to teach. In L.S Schulman & G. Sykes (Eds) Handbook
of teaching and policy. New York: Longman.
Fund for Assistance to Private Education (1998). Proceedings of the conference on the
Participation of Private Schools in the Secondary Education Development
Project.
Glossary of the Education Reform (2014). Content knowledge. Retrieved from
https://www.edglossary.org/content-knowledge/
Grossman, P.L. (1995), A Psychological view of teacher’s knowledge. In the
International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education (2nd Edition).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Guiaoan, C. (2010). Personal-professional profile, pedagogical practices and
instruction-related problems and difficulties of primary school mathematics
teachers of Kasibu West District, Nueva Vizcaya. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Gupta, R.C. (1976). Predication of teacher effectiveness through personality tests. M.B.
Buch (Ed) second survey of research in education. Baroda, Society for
educational research and development.
Hasan, M. (2004). Excellence of teaching. New Delhi. India: Ashiash Publishing House.
Herrera, C. & Dio, R. (2016). Extent of readiness of Grade 10 students for general
mathematics of senior high school in Sorsogon City, Philippines. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 3(4), 1-8.
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
42(2), 371-406.
Howie. S. and Plomp, T. (Eds.) (2005). Evaluating students’ achievements within
different contexts. Prospects. XXX VCD Pans: International Bureau of
Education. UNESCO.
Iornem, D. (2016). Methodology of teaching and learning: Lecture, discussion
methods & individualized instruction. Retrieved from
https://thenewtimespress.com/archives/5164
92
Jalbani, L. (2014), The impact of effective teaching strategies on the students’ academic
performance and learning style. Retrieved from https://m.grin.com/document
Jayaramana, K. (2001). A study of teacher effectivenessin relation to work orientation

and achievement of students at primary level. Doctoral Dissertation. Andhra
University
Kaur, B. (2010). The EPMT Project: A harbinger for teachers' meaningful production
of pedagogical knowledge. In Shimizu, Y., Sekiguchi, Y. & Hino, K. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 5th east Asia regional conference on mathematics
education (pp. 739-746). Tokyo: Japan Society of Mathematical Education.
Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing pre-service primary teachers to teach primary science:

A partnership-based approach. International Journal of Science Education,
32(10), 1267-1288.
Kind, V. (2009). A conflict in your head: An exploration of trainee science

teachers’ subject matter knowledge development and its impact on teacher self-
confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1529-1562.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology (Ed.). Handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 3-31. New York: Routledge.
Koundinya, U. (1999). A study of professional competency as a determinant factor is
enhancing school effectiveness. Research paper presented at Regional seminar
R.I.E Mysore (NCERT).
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M. (Eds.)
(2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional
competence of teachers. Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, DOI 10.1007/978-1-
4614-5149-5_2.
Kunter, M., Kleickmann, T., Klusmann, U., & Richter, D. (2013). The development of
teachers’ professional competence. Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics
Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers: Results from the
COACTIV Project. 63–77. 10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_4.
Lazaro, J. (2013). INFOGRAPHIC: 10 things about K to 12. Retrieved from
http://www.rappler.com/.
93
Lazaro, L. (2017). Appraising the implementation of the spiral progression approach in

teaching junior high school mathematics. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint
Mary’s University, Bayombong Nueva Vizcaya.
Lopez. O.S (1995). The effect of the relationship between classroom student diversity
and teacher capacity on student performance. US: Texas ERIC Document
Reproduction Reports – Research.
Mangawil, L. (2007). Pedagogical content knowledge and praxis in subject matter,
curriculum and teaching of pre-service high school biology teachers.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya.
Mann, S.S. (1980). Some correlates of success in teaching of secondary school teachers.
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Punjab University, Punjab, Pakistan..
Mateo, S. (2000). Pedagogical practices and competencies of secondary chemistry
teachers in Cagayan Valley. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saint Mary’s
University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Nair, P. (2017). A study on identifying teaching competencies and factors affecting
teaching competencies with special reference to MBA institutes in Gujarat.
(Published Thesis). Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad. India.
Neville Bennett (1988), The effective primary school teacher: The search for a theory of
pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 19-30.
Official Gazette (2015). K-12 Philippines. Retrieved from
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/k-12
Orines, F. (2016). Next century mathematics, general mathematics. ISBN: 978-971-06-
3889-5. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. Quezon City.
Pascua, L. (1993). Secondary Mathematics Education in the Philippines Today. Bell, G
(Ed). Asian Perspectives on Mathematics Education. The University of New
England, Australia.
Pascua, G. (2017). Interactions of learning styles, attitude, and cooperative learning in
improving students’ mastery on polynomial functions. (Unpublished masteral
thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Quizlet, Inc. (2016). Content standards and performance standards. Retrieved from
https://quizlet.com/55310020/content-standards-and-performance-standards-flash-
cards/
Ramos, A. (2015). Methods and teaching strategies used by teacher education faculty
members in Pangasinan State University of the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal
of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5), 36-44.
94
Raudenbush, S.W., (1993). On the job improvement in teacher competence: Policy

opinions and their effects on teaching and learning in Thailand. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3) Fall, 279-297.
Roxas, D. A. (2015). Teaching competencies of mathematics professors in higher
education institutions in the province of Capiz: Basis for instructional
enhancement program. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science,
3(6), 25 – 32.
Sabia, B. (2005). Evaluation study of competence of secondary school teachers in Punjab
University. Institute of Education and Research, Pakistan
Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach in higher
education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 157-
166, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2012.760777
SEI-DOST & MATHTED (2011). Mathematics framework for Philippine basic
education. Manila: SEI-DOST & MATHTED.
Sharma R.D (1984), Student teachers and teaching experiment in education. In Indian
Educational Review, 26, NCERT.
Shulman, L. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Sibuyi, C., (2012). Effective teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in teaching
quadratic functions in mathematics. University of Pretoria, South Africa
Sirug, W. (2016). General mathematics for senior high school (A comprehensive
approach: K to 12 Curriculum Compliant). ISBN: 978-621-406-064-1.
Manila: Mindshapers Co., Inc.
Solis, A. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge - what matters most in the professional
learning of content teachers in classrooms with diverse student populations.
Intercultural Development Research Association Newsletter. August 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/resource-center/pedagogical-content-
knowledge
Spilkova, V. (2001). Professional development for teachers and student teacher through
reflection of practice. The New Hampshire Journal of Education, 4, 9 – 14.
Steyn, G.M (1999), Professional development a key to school improvement. South
Africa Journal of Education, 19(1), 206-213.
95
Syahputra, E. & Suhartini I. (2014). Increasing of students’ achievement in polynomial

by using jigsaw method. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(5), 175-182.
Tanner, B. Bottoms, G., Feagin, C. & Bearman, A. (2003). Instructional strategies: How
teachers teach matters. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA.
Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC.; DeWitt
Wallace/Reader’s Digest Fund, Pleasantville, NY.
Tewari, R. (2010). Training Students in Soft Skills for the Liberalization, Privatization &
Globalization Era. ELTWeekly. Retrieved from http://eltweekly.com/2010/08/68
Thakker, RC and Bhavsar, SJ (1984). Study of effect of different microteaching skills

upon general teaching competency of primary teacher trainees. Retrieved from
http/hdl.handle.net/2009/5382
The Glossary of Education Reform (2017). Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/content-

knowledge/
Turnuklu, E.B. & Yesildere, S. (2007). The pedagogical content knowledge in

mathematics: pre-service primary teachers’ perspectives. IUMPST: The Journal,
1, 1 -13.
Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N. & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35(6), 673-695. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
Villaver, L.G. (2014). Experiential learning approach on mathematics performance and
attitude. (Unpublished thesis). Central Mindanao University.
Wang J. (2016). Teacher efficacy in the context of teaching low-achieving students in

Singapore. SingTeach Issue 56.
Way J., Bobis J., Anderson J., & Cameron L. (2006). Representations of concepts as a
catalyst for change in teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 106 (2013), 2248 – 2258.
Westera. W. (2001), Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of
curriculum studies, 33 (1), 75-88.
Witcher, H. & Onwnegbuzie, A.J. (2000), Characteristics of effective teachers.
Perception of Pre-service Teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction service No.
438246.
Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2014). Students’ attitude in mathematics education.
Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 572-577.
96

Novelyn Chapter1-5 (Body)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

Novelyn Chapter1-5 (Body)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Saint Mary’s University

School of Graduate Studies

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

job effectively by possessing professional skills and dispositions (Spilkova, 2001).

In all educational systems, the performance of teachers is one of a handful of

Teachers are encouraged to make their mathematics lessons more learner-centered

by encouraging learners to contribute to the lesson. To achieve this kind of approach to

engagement with mathematics (Attard, 2011). Such teachers, according to Tanner,

subject (Mateo, 2000).

competencies. The K-12 program accelerates mutual recognition of Filipino graduates

and professionals in other countries (Official Gazette, 2015).

Grade 11 to Grade 12 in the country (Herrera & Dio, 2016).

Mathematics, namely functions, rational functions, exponential, inverse and logarithmic

students were not yet ready.

Competencies of students depend much on competencies of teachers. This is the

reason why a study on the competencies of teachers on logic was necessary.

Something is systematized when it is orderly and well-organized and something is

Logic in Senior High School exposes learners to symbolic forms of propositions

arguments. The culminating lesson is an application of the rules of symbolic logic, as

statements (Department of Education, 2013).

Objectives of the Study

teachers relative to the content standards of logic in general mathematics. Specifically, it

variables in teaching logic:

(a) content knowledge

(d) factors that limit the competence

2. Determine the significant relationship between years of teaching and

(a) teachers’ content knowledge on logic

(b) teachers’ confidence in teaching logic

3. Propose supplementary activities in teaching logic

Statement of the Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant correlation between the teachers’ number of years in

teaching logic and their content knowledge.

2. There is no significant correlation between the teachers’ number of years in

teaching logic and their confidence in teaching logic.

Significance of the Study

specifically in their general mathematics subject.

Particularly, the findings of the study are useful to the following:

Educational Leaders or School Administrators. They will be provided with the

on teacher recruitment, retention and promotion.

equipping themselves to become more competent in teaching logic.

competency of their teachers. Their level of achievement in general mathematics

mathematical achievement level.

Scope and Delimitation

competencies included in the content standard of logic in the General Mathematics of

concepts of propositional logic, syllogisms and fallacies; and appropriate application of

Quirino in SY 2017-2018. The content knowledge was measured using a researcher-made

of modules on the supplementary activities on logic. Also, it determined if there is a

confidence in teaching logic.

Figure 1 shows the research paradigm of the study.

Supplementary Activities in Logic

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

The teaching competency of the teachers in the content-related standards included

described: content knowledge, confidence, difficulties, factors limiting the competence of

supplementary activities to be used in teaching logic. The content knowledge on logic

supplementary activities on logic.

The Science and Education Institute of the Department of Science and

Technology (DOST-SEI) together with the Philippine Council of Mathematics Teacher

to 12 curriculum specifically on mathematics program which are as follows: being

algorithms and mathematical procedures; the physical and social dimensions of a

mathematical environment contribute to one’s success in learning mathematics;

mathematics is best learned when students are actively engaged; a thorough

understanding of mathematics requires a variety of tools for learning; assessment in