Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study derived from

the treatment of the data gathered. The researcher also tested the null hypotheses

formulated in the study.

Level of (Put your IV here)

Shown in Table 1 are the mean score for the indicators of instructional

strategies of the teacher with an overall mean of 4.10 describe as high with a

standard deviation of 0.653. The high level could be attributed to the high rating given

by the respondents in all indicators. This means that the respondents’ response to

instructional strategies of the teacher are positive in majority of the cases in the items

of cognitive strategies, peer-mediated instruction, concrete-representational abstract,

schema-based instruction, scaffolding, and mnemonics.

The cited overall mean score was the result gathered from the following

computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.35 or high for cognitive strategies

with a standard deviation of 0.709; 4.18 or high for peer-mediated instruction with a

standard deviation of 0.760 and schema-based instruction with a standard deviation

of 0.769; 4.03 or high for mnemonics with standard deviation of 0.818; 4.00 or high

for scaffolding with standard deviation of0.792; and 3.85 or high for concrete-

representational abstract with a standard deviation of 0.890.

The respondents’ level on the instructional strategies of the teacher is high.

This means that the different instructional strategies were positive in junior high

school of UM Tagum College. This further means that the teachers of junior high

school students of UM Tagum College oftentimes manifest all the instructional

strategies used is effective as to be cognitive strategies which means they can use

mind to solve problems; peer-mediated instructions that is the involvement of one or

more peers giving assistance to their classmates; concrete-representational abstract

using of intervention for mathematics instruction where it improves the performance

of the students; schema-based instruction manifesting the teacher uses visual

representations in teaching the structure of the problem; scaffolding which means

they can continue give assistance to the students to improve their level of

understanding; and mnemonics that is manifesting that it is effective in using different

verbal content and is helpful in teaching the students.

This result is in relation to the theory of Joyce & Marsha (2000) who viewed

that instructional strategies have a purpose of achieving the expected behavior of the

learners where it includes special instructions with the objectives of the subjects. This

is due to the fact that instructional strategies include activities which can help to

create the environment of the classroom to have a good quality of learning. This

corresponds to the theory of Silver, et al (1996) that instructional strategies are

teaching methods that includes specialized instructional phase in the line with

specific topic objectives and the content area features so that students can get the

target behavior.

The main instructional strategies that was positive to the respondents is on

Cognitive Strategies, being the indicator with the highest mean, in which it is a useful

tool to assist students in learning, thus, it provides a structure for learning if a given

task cannot be done in a series of steps. Hence, it involved deliberate manipulation

of language to improve learning.

In terms of cognitive strategies in the level of instructional strategies used by

the teachers is high. This indicates that the cognitive strategies of the teachers were

positive. This connotes that it is a useful tool in giving assistance to the students in

learning. It is more on using minds to solve problems or do a task. It is the highest of

the standard deviations computed which means that the distribution is more closely

distributed than other data for instructional strategies. The viewpoint of Jordan (2016)

seemingly conforms to this study. He revealed that cognitive strategies provide a

structure for learning if a given task cannot be done in a series of steps. Learning the
steps can help answer the problem completely. It supports the student develop

procedures which allow him/her to perform complex task. These consist of organizing

new language, guessing meaning from the context, repetition, summarizing meaning

and using imagery in memorizing information. It includes purposeful manipulation of

language to progress learning. In line with this concept, Montague et al (2014)

expressed that cognitive strategies were shown to improve the mathematical

proficiency of the students. It shows the effectiveness of the intervention could be

imitated by the younger students.

With regards to Peer-mediated Instructions Strategy that is positive also to

the respondents, the respondents display a favorable response in learning with the

involvement of one or more peers giving them assistance in order to for them to learn

better. Moreover, a student or group of students will serve as a peer tutor. And also,

with regards to the Schema-based instructions Strategy that is also positive, that has

an equal mean score with peer-mediated instruction, the respondents display a good

response when the teacher teach to read the world problem and choose what

schema diagram will be used, thus, students can now start solving mathematical

problems.

In terms with peer-mediated instructional strategy, the level was high. This

indicates that the peer-mediated instructions of the teachers were positive. This

means that the assistance given by the peers, like their classmates, is effective.

Peers take part in the acquisition of skills and the increasing participation of the

students in school. The teacher may choose the top candidate and select the peer

tutor base on the school attendance, language skills and behavior in the classroom.

The selected peer must be trained and understand which method will be used before

the peer tutorial starts. This is in line with the views of Davis (2016) that this strategy

serves as the catalyst in upgrading academic content instruction particularly in

solving mathematics problem because of the classroom dynamic. It is essential to

know the effectiveness of the strategy which is feasible for peers to use so that they

can provide instruction in mathematical problem to one another.

And also, with regards to schema-based instruction, the level was also high.

This indicates that the schema-based instructions of the teacher were positive. This

means that the students able to solve the problems easily and learn to recognize

specific schema related to the different problem types. Cited by Nioholcon & Hopper,

(2011)students were taught on how to use the problem schemata when the teacher

gives story situations and diagrams to them. Then the students are taught how to

make critical elements on to a diagram and locate the missing element with a

question mark. This can help them to choose the appropriate operation. With the use

of this strategy, it can enhance the conceptual understanding of the students. This is

in line with the views of Jitendra & Star (2011) that teacher uses visual

representations in teaching the underlying structure of the word problems to

students. When the students are able to understand structure, they will understand

the relationship between numbers in a problem and help them solve it.

This is followed by Mnemonics which can be viewed in the instructional

strategies of the teacher as an indicator in which it obtained the third highest mean

score. The respondents display a favorable response of the strategy that connects

new information to previous knowledge using visual and acoustic hints. As well as,

teaching order of operations, math facts and other mathematical areas.

It was followed by mnemonics indicator which was on high level. This

indicates that the mnemonics instructional strategy of the teachers was positive. It

means that students made to develop the skills of students in different subject areas

especially in mathematics. As mentioned by Kelly (2017) the uses of the mnemonics

by the teacher in the classroom helps the students to remember the facts and

principle that are important. It works in students by using easy-to-remember clues

data that is unfamiliar. The teacher must encourage the students to use mnemonics

when they give tasks that need memorizing of information rather than understanding
the concept. As mentioned by Gunther et al., 2006 that it is effective using different

verbal content and is helpful in teaching the students with different intelligences. In

mathematics, it is used in teaching order of operations, teaching mathematical facts

and any other math areas. It is made to help the students in learning math remember

information about numbers particularly in sequence.

Then followed by Scaffolding which obtained the fourth highest mean score

among other indicators of the instructional strategies. The respondents display a

good response of the strategy that supports the convergent development areas of the

students. Consequently, an assistance given or offered by the knowledgeable adult in

order to improve the cognitive difficulty experienced by a students to solve the

problems by the used of their development level.

This was followed by scaffolding indicator which was on high level. This

indicates that the assistance given by the teacher as the knowledgeable adult helps

the student to improve the cognitive difficulty experienced by a student when they

cannot solve the problem using their level of development. The teacher must not

always give support to the students, but it should only be temporary. As mentioned by

Bruner & Sherwood (1976) the concept of scaffolding originates from research on

how a mother help a child plays games and learn their language. This assistance

given by the mother can be removed once they child keep the knowledge in their

mind. In other interpretation the temporary scaffolding structure can help student as

well as adult do things, they cannot do without the support structure.

Finally, the instructional strategy that is evident during teacher’s discussion is

Concrete-representational Abstract, being the indicator with the lowest mean, which

is an intervention for mathematics instruction that improves the performance of the

students in Math. Hence, it is important in promoting students learning and focusing

on the conceptual knowledge.

A high level of instructional strategies in terms of concrete-representational

abstract strategy was also evident among the respondents denoting that concrete-
representational abstract strategy of the teacher was positive. It means that the

intervention for mathematics instruction where it improves the performance of the

students in mathematics. This indicates that although the data are not widely

distributed, it is the least homogeneous among the instructional strategies. Wolf

(2017) mentioned that concrete-representational abstract has three stages; the

concrete, the representational and the abstract. Concrete stage is where the

instruction begins by introducing each mathematical concept with concrete materials

to the students; Representational is where the concrete model transforms into a

representational level, where it includes drawing pictures and Abstract is introducing

the mathematical concepts at a symbolic level with the use of numbers, mathematical

symbols and notation to represent the different terms and concepts. Concrete-

representational Abstract promotes understanding to the mathematical concepts

before learning “rules”, which is making concrete model to an abstract

representation.

Table [Link] of (Put your IV here)

Indicator Mean SD Descriptive

Level
Cognitive Strategies 4.35 0.709 High

Peer-mediated Instruction 4.18 0.760 High

Concrete-representational Abstract 3.85 0.890 High

Schema-based Instruction 4.18 0.769 High

Scaffolding 4.00 0.792 High

Mnemonics 4.03 0.818 High

Overall 4.10 0.653 High

Level of (Put your DV here)

Shown in Table 2 are the mean score for the indicators of mathematical

proficiency of the students with an overall mean of 67.44 described as it did not meet

expectations with a standard deviation of 14.295. The result of the proficiency level
could be attributed to the low score given by the respondents in all indicators. This

means that the respondents did not meet the expectations to the mathematical

proficiency were not good in majority of the cases in the items of conceptual

understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, and adaptive reasoning.

The cited overall mean score was the result gathered from the following

computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 63.76 or did not meet expectations for

conceptual understanding with a standard deviation of 20.500; 66.92 or did not meet

expectations for procedural fluency with the standard deviation of 19.872; 66.95 or

did not meet expectations for strategic competence with a standard deviation of

18.216; and 71.88 of did not meet expectations for adaptive reasoning with a

standard deviation of 16.768.

The students’ responses on their level of mathematical proficiency appear

that it did not meet expectations. This means that all measures described in

mathematical proficiency of the student items were low. This result is associated with

Aka (2012) who emphasized that the mathematics is a product of great sophistication

and beauty that summarizes the power of deductive reasoning. For individuals,

especially the students who participated in the society, they must know the basic

mathematics. Innumeracy deprives them not only of opportunity but also of

competence in their daily tasks and in school. Individuals who cannot reason

mathematically are cut off from the whole realms of individual efforts.

The main mathematical proficiency that was good in the students is on

Conceptual Understanding, being the indicator with the highest mean among the low-

level indicators, which principal goal is for teacher to teach more than facts and

procedure. Hence, students will be aware of the connections between mathematical

ideas.

The level for the conceptual understanding falls under level of proficiency that

did not meet the expectations and it indicate that the level of the mathematical

proficiency was low. This means that the students at this level struggle with his/her
understanding. This contradicts to the views of Soyke (2016) who explained that

conceptual understanding refers to the notion that a teacher does not only teach

student on how to perform math but also the reason behind it. Students with a strong

conceptual understanding learn how to think and reason, and yes, they are motivated

to learn and make math as an interesting. And not only will they be more competent

in their computational skills, but they also develop trust in their ability to solve

problems of increasing complexity. Students are encouraged to see a larger outline

based on all mathematical topics and think creatively so they can apply their math

skills to different problems, instead of trying to explain this philosophical idea. Since

students have struggles in conceptual understanding and in learning to think and

reason out, they are not motivated to learn and make math as an interesting subject.

They develop insecurities in solving mathematical problems. They lack

encouragement to think logically and creatively for they have struggles with their

math skills.

With regards to Procedural Fluency that is somehow observed on the

student’s mathematical proficiency, the most critical component of mathematical

proficiency. The main goal is to integrate procedures and concepts and building

familiar procedures as they create their own informal procedures and strategies.

Moreover, the abilities of the students to apply procedures accurately, efficiently, and

flexibly is being developed.

In the same manner the respondents had a low score on mathematical

proficiency about procedural fluency described as it did not meet expectations which

specified that the items indicated were low on the students. This means that the

students have struggles in integrating procedures and concepts familiar to them to

create their own informal procedures and strategies. It contradicts to the viewpoint of

Reston (2014) that procedural fluency supports students' analysis of their own and

others' calculation and algebraic methods, such as mental methods for the four

arithmetic operations and written processes, solving equations using different ways,
as well as their own way of solving problems and use of tools like manipulative

materials, computers, and calculators. It extends students' computational fluency and

applies in all strands of mathematical proficiency. Furthermore, practice is essential

for building fluency; however, it should be purposeful, engaging, distributed and brief.

And for effective teaching practices students provide with opportunities to rehearse or

practice strategies and to justify the steps in their reasoning and solutions and

provide experiences that help students to connect problem-solving processes with

the underlying concepts. Even though practice is essential for building procedural

fluency it was also affected by the kind of foundation the student have during his/her

basic education. The students who were not given equal opportunity in solving

informal strategies and commonly used procedures in mathematics will weaken their

understanding and skill in applying procedures accurately, flexibly, and efficiently.

This is followed by Strategic Competence that is observable on the

mathematical proficiency of the students, which aim is teach the students through

engaging them with the different strategies to solve problems. Moreover, it does

require conceptual understanding.

Data indicated that the respondents displayed a not so favorable belief

towards strategic competence can be stated that respondents assigned that it did not

meet expectations. This implies strategic competence indicator in mathematical

proficiency of students is negatively observed. This means that students have

difficulty in formulating, representing, and solving mathematical problems. These

findings are congruent with the views of the Kilpatrick (2001) strategic competence

requires one’s conceptual and procedural knowledge to solve and analyzed

problems. Supported by Figgins (2011) a concept or procedure is not useful unless

students recognize when and where to use it (as well as when and where not to use

it). For the students to be positive in strategic competence they should acquire

conceptual and procedural knowledge that is useful in solving mathematical

problems.
 The mathematical proficiency that is observable by the students is Adaptive

Reasoning, being the indicator with the lowest mean, which objective is to get the

students attention to be engage in the mathematical discussions and to create a

friendly environment. Hence, this would result to a student that thinks logically that

helps them to understand math problems easily.

Lastly, the respondents also displayed a low level of adaptive reasoning. The

low score means that the adaptive reasoning indicator in mathematical proficiency of

the students is negatively observed. This implies that students have difficulty in

thinking logically among concepts, situation, and addressing a problem. The above

finding contradicts to Wibowo (2016) who stated that Adaptive reasoning interacts

with the process of understanding the other, especially in dealing problem solving

process. Adaptive reasoning is the ability to think logically about the connections

between situations and concepts, ability for reflective thinking, the ability to provide

justification, and the ability to explain. Students are capable of adaptive reasoning

when they can think logically about the existing problems, estimating the problem

until they can conclude, and they are also required to give reason for what they have

done. Adaptive reasoning included deductive reasoning conclusion withdrawal ways

is based on concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true

and also includes inductive reasoning based on observation generalization of some

cases. Students without adaptive reasoning have a difficulty in thinking logically in

understanding math problems easily and they cannot explain and justify what they

are doing.

Table [Link] of Mathematical Proficiency

Indicators Mean SD Descriptive Level

Conceptual
77 20.500 Fairly Satisfactory
Understanding
 Procedural Fluency 79 19.872 Fairly Satisfactory

Strategic Competence 79 18.215 Fairly Satisfactory

Adaptive Reasoning 82 16.789 Satisfactory

Overall 79 14.295 Fairly

Satisfactory

Significant Relationship between (put your IV here)

and (put your DV here)

One of the important purposes of this study is to determine whether or not the

instructional strategies have correlate with mathematical proficiency of the students.

Pearson r was used to determine the correlation between two variables. Results of

the computations are shown in Table 3.

The results revealed that instructional strategies versus mathematical

strategies yields an r-value of .238** which is significant. The result is due to the p-

value of .006 which is lower than 0.05 level of significance. This led to the decision

that the null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant relationship between

instructional strategies and mathematical proficiency level of the Junior High School

students of UM Tagum College is rejected.

This further means that there is a relationship between two variables

correlated. On the basis of the research done on the relationship between

instructional strategies and mathematical proficiency, it has been evident that

instructional strategy used by the teacher has somehow had an effect to the

mathematical proficiency of the students. Therefore, the result of the correlation

exemplifies that the instructional strategies observed by the teachers is high, but the

mathematical proficiency of the students haven’t met the expectations.

Table [Link] between Instructional Strategies and Mathematical
Proficiency
Variables Mean SD r-value p-value

Instructional
4.10 0.653
Strategies
Mathematical
67.44 14.295
Proficiency
.238** .006

*Significant at 0.05 significance level.

The present study reveals a significant relationship between instructional

strategies and mathematical proficiency of the junior high school students. This

implies that instructional strategies influence the mathematical proficiency of the

junior high school students which can be seen on the data. This confirms with the

study of Dr. Gray (2014) which emphasizes that different types of instructional

strategies, both teacher-led and students-centered, have been shown to be effective

in helping students to build up an increased sense of mathematical proficiency. This

result also is in the relation to the proposition of Kunsch, et al. (2007) who viewed

that teaching mathematics to struggling learners, several strategies such as schema-

based instruction, cognitive strategies, scaffolding, peer-mediated instruction,

concrete-representational abstract and mnemonics are important for both general

and special education teachers on how to implement in the classroom. This is due to

the fact that instructional strategies were being given due importance.

The correlation between the overall instructional strategies and mathematical

proficiency is significant. This indicates that the mathematical proficiency is

dependent on the instructional strategies of the teacher. These findings affirmed the

study of Dr. Gray (2014) that teachers are left to choose the instructional strategies

that best meet the needs of their students. Some strategies may work better for

different types of learners, but research may provide some guidance for teachers in

choosing strategies that work for all students in learning. This conforms also to the
concept of Suurtamm et al. (2015) that a supportive and engaging classroom

environment is very important to help students develop their mathematical proficiency

and mathematical understanding. To have an engaging classroom teacher should

know what instructional strategies and teaching techniques they will use. The

classroom must be a place of investigation, where students can do meaningful

mathematics in a positive space.

 Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the study, the conclusion based on the

results, and the recommendations on the future study that could be done in

connection with this study.

Summary of Findings

The major findings of this study are the following:

1. The overall mean on the level of (put the overall mean of your IV here), with a

standard deviation of (put the SD of your IV here) with a descriptive

equivalent of (put the descriptive equivalent of your IV here).

2. The overall mean on the level of (put the overall mean of your DV here), with

a standard deviation of (put the SD of your DV here) with a descriptive

equivalent of (put the descriptive equivalent of your DV here).

3. The test of relationship of (put your IV here) and (put your DV here) is (put

the result here) which are significant, since the p-values is less than the 0.05

level of significance. Thus, null hypotheses were rejected.

Conclusions

Conclusions were drawn in this section based on findings of the study.

1. The level of (put your IV here) is (very high, high, or low-choose here based

on the result); therefore, (put your IV here) is much evident among the

students. (This may vary depending on the result of your study.)

2. The level of (put your DV here) is high; therefore, (put your DV here) is

oftentimes observed. (This may vary depending on the result of your study.)
 3. (Put your IV here) showed a significant but low positive correlation to (put

your DV here).

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing findings and conclusion, the following

recommendations are offered:

1. Base this part on your Significance of the Study. (Follow the order in your

SOTS)