Research problem

LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN
TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA

A Research
Presented to the
Faculty of the College of Teacher Education
LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Siniloan, Laguna

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Mathematics

ALELI M. ARIOLA

March 2012

Laguna State Polytechnic University
Siniloan (Host) Campus
Siniloan, Laguna

APPROVAL SHEET

This research entitled, “LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHING
STRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011” prepared and submitted by
ALELI M. ARIOLA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Major in Mathematics has been examined
and hereby recommended for approval and acceptance.

ARLENE G. ADVENTO
Adviser
______________________________________________________________________

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Approved by the COMMITTEE ON ORAL EXAMINATION with the grade of
______.

SANDRA P. MESINA
Chairman of Research Implementing Unit, COEd

MERCY GRACE I. SALIENDRA ELAINE ROSE G. NACHON, Ph.D.
English Critic English Critic

DELIA F. MERCADO ROMMEL OCTAVIUS R. NUESTRO
Subject Specialist Statistician

CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph.D.
Technical Editor

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of
Secondary Education.

CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Education
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION NO.:_____

ROMMEL OCTAVIUS R. NUESTRO NESTOR T. MENDOZA
Director for Research Registrar

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher would like to extend her deepest gratitude and grateful

appreciation for the help rendered by the following persons in the fulfillment of

this study:

Dr. Corazon N. San Agustin, the technical editor and Dean of the

College of Education, for checking and editing the forms and style used in writing

the manuscript;

Engr. Rommel Octavius R. Nuestro and Mrs. Delia F. Mercado, her

statisticians and subject specialist, for giving time, their concern and for helping

the researcher analyze the statistical tools and computations;

Prof. Mercy Grace I. Saliendra and Elaine G. Nachon, her English

Critics that made herself available in checking the manuscript and for giving the

researcher valuable suggestions and lessons;

Mrs. Arlene G. Advento, her research adviser, for her valuable advices,

suggestions, encouragement, motivation and untiring support that made this

research possible;

The principals and teachers of the selected schools namely Mabitac

National High School, Paagahan National High School, Paagahan National High

School (Matalatala Extension) and Blessed James Cusmano Academy, for their

warm acceptance to conduct this study. And to the fourth year high school

students who participated, gave time and helped the researcher to come up with

the results of this study;

Her friends and classmates for the laughter they’ve shared to take away

the pressure;

Her parents, brothers and sister, who gave their unconditional love and

understanding, for their support in all aspects and for being her inspirations;

And above all, to our Almighty God who is behind of all of these, her

constant source of strength, wisdom and inspiration to carry on to the realization

of her dreams.

The Author

DEDICATION

The author

would like to dedicate

this piece of work, first and

foremost, to all the persons who

contributed much in the success

of this research paper…

A.M.A.

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to determine the learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics at Mabitac, Laguna.

The descriptive method of research was applied in this study. A research-

questionnaire was utilized in gathering data from the respondents which

consisted of one hundred fifty-seven (157) students and five (5) Mathematics

Teachers from all secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna namely: Mabitac

National High School (MNHS), Paagahan National High School (PNHS),

Paagahan National High School (Matalatala Extension) and Blessed James

Cusmano Academy (BJCA).

The data were collected, tabulated and interpreted using the appropriate

statistical tools. Frequency, percentage, rank, weighted mean, Pearson r/t-test,

and probability were the statistical tools used to determine and interpret the

data.

The results of this study are summed up as follows:

Most of the students were 16-year-old female from Mabitac National High

School.

The average age of teachers is 31.40 years. Most of them are singles who

hold a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education with 1-5 years teaching

experience and who have 4-6 seminars.

The three kinds of learning preferences of students which are visual,

auditory and kinesthetic obtained an average weighted means of 3.80, 3.47 and

3.43, respectively.

The analytic way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.83

while the global way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.56.

The teachers’ actualities observed by the students with their

Mathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’ perception of their own

actualities in the classroom with an average weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.96,

respectively.

The teachers often use varied teaching strategies based on the perception

of students and their perception of themselves with an average weighted mean of

3.87 and 4.08, respectively.

There is a highly significant relationship between the students’ profile in

terms of age and school and their learning preferences of students and

considering that all of them obtained the computed p-values of 0.000 which is

less than the threshold value at 0.05. Likewise, a highly significant relationship

between the auditory preferences of students and their gender was observed

since the computed p–value of 0.000 is less than the threshold value at 0.05.

Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, no significant

relationship between the visual and kinesthetic preferences of students and in

terms of gender it was observed in computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139

respectively which are greater than the threshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the null

hypothesis is accepted.

There is a highly significant relationship between the way analytic thinkers

learn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, gender and school. It was

observed in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively

which are all less than the threshold p–value at 0.05. Therefore, the null

hypothesis is rejected.

Similarly, the way global thinkers learn Mathematics and their profile in

terms of age and school have highly significant relationship since the computed

p-values of 0.000 and 0.0003, respectively are both less than the threshold value

of 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected.

In contrast, there is no significant relationship between the global thinkers

learn the subject and their gender since its computed p–value of 0.283 is greater

than the threshold value at 0.05. Consequently, the null hypothesis is accepted.

There is a highly significant relationship between the teachers’ age,

educational attainment, length of service and seminars attended and their

actualities while teaching Mathematics since its computed p–values of 0.003,

0.049, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively are less than the threshold value at 0.05.

Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

On the other hand, the teachers’ gender and civil status have no

significant relationship with their actualities while teaching Mathematics

considering their computed p–values of 0.666 and 0.123 are both greater than

the threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.

The teachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminars

attended and their strategies in teaching Mathematics have highly significant

relationships since their computed p–values of 0.003, 0.042, 0.000 and 0.000,

respectively are all less than the threshold value at 0.05. Thus, the null

hypothesis is rejected. On the contrary, no significant relationship was observed

between the teachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teaching

Mathematics considering the computed p–values of 0.642 and 0.214,

respectively which are both greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Therefore,

the null hypothesis is accepted.

There is no significant relationship between learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies given that their computed p–values of 0.311, 0.062 and

0.061, respectively are all greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Hence, the

null is accepted.

The following conclusions were drawn: The highly significant differences

between the students’ learning preferences – visual, auditory and kinesthetic -

may be due to the homogenous grouping of students in private schools who may

have the same interests and the heterogeneous grouping of students in public

schools who may have varied interests. In addition, the auditory preferences of

both male and female students do not vary significantly in the sense that both

gender are observed to have similar interests when comes to sounds/music

which the Mathematics teacher use at a large extent.

The actualities and the teaching strategies used by male and female as

well as single and married Mathematics teacher do not tend to differ.

Consequently, Mathematics teachers who are older, have higher educational

attainment, longer experiences in the field of teaching and those who have

greater number of seminars are observed to have more varied actualities and

have greater propensity in the use of different teaching strategies.

The learning preferences of students – visual or auditory, auditory or

kinesthetic and kinesthetic or visual – do not show significant relationship with

the teaching strategies used by the Mathematics teacher which means that any

student who has his/her own learning preference can thrive in a Mathematics

class where the teacher uses wide-range of strategies.

Based on the summary of findings, the following recommendations are

offered:

To promote more effective teaching-learning, professional development

activities should be provided among the teachers to help them address the

diversity of learning styles of students through worthwhile curricular and co-

curricular experiences that focus on helping them learn how to learn.

Learning strategies should be part of every lesson, but they are more than

the lesson. As teachers model these problem-solving strategies daily, they

should also monitor the students as they use them, and they encourage students

to use the strategies in a variety of ways. Students should learn to generalize

these strategies into other areas to become independent learners for life.

Seminars should be conducted by school administrators and principals to

improve the teaching strategies used by the teachers in their respective schools.

Further study on the learning preferences of students and teaching

strategies of Mathematics teachers considering other variables is recommended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
DEDICATION v
ABSTRACT vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii

Chapter I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND 1

Introduction 1
Background of the Study 2
Theoretical Framework 6
Conceptual Framework 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Hypotheses 10
Significance of the study 11
Scope and limitation of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 12

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 15

Review of Related Literature 15
Review of Related Studies 17

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design 21
Subject of the Study 21
Determination of Sampling Techniques 22
Research Instrument 22
Research Procedure 24
Statistical Treatment of Data 25

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 28
OF DATA

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 48

Summary of findings 48
Conclusions 51
Recommendations 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

APPENDICES

Appendix A Approval Letter
Appendix B Research Instrument
Appendix C Data and Computations

CURRICULUM VITAE

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Distribution of the Respondents by School 22
2 Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the 28
Teachers’ Profile
3 Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the 30
Profile of the Students-Respondents
4 Computed Weighted Mean of the Visual Preferences of 31
Students
5 Computed Weighted Mean of the Extent of Auditory 33
Preferences of Students
6 Computed Weighted Mean of the Kinesthetic Preferences 34
of Students
7 Computed Weighted Mean of the Analytic Thinkers 35
8 Computed Weighted Mean of the Global Thinkers 36
9 Composite Table of the Learning Preferences of Students 36
10 Extent of the Actualities of Teachers in Teaching 38
Mathematics
11 Extent of the Teaching Strategies in Teaching 39
Mathematics
12 Relationship between Students’ Preferences in Learning 41
Mathematics and Students’ Profile
13 Relationship between Analytic/Global Thinkers in Learning 43
Mathematics and Students’ Profile
14 Relationship between Teachers’ Actualities and Teachers’ 44
Profile
15 Relationship between Teaching Strategies and Teachers’ 45
Profile
16 Relationship between the Learners’ Preferences and 46
Teaching Strategies in Teaching Mathematics

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Page

1 The Conceptual Model showing the relationship among the 8
Independent Variable, Dependent Variable and
Moderating Variable of the Study

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Mathematics deals with solving problems. Such problems are similar to all

other problems everyone is confronted with. It consists of defining the problem,

entertaining a tentative guess as the solution, testing the guess, and deriving at a

solution. Mathematics is definite, logical and objective. The rules for determining

the truth or falsity of a statement are accepted by all. If there are disagreements,

it can be readily tested.

Mathematical knowledge by its distinctive nature differs from knowledge in

an empirical science. Under the guidance of a teacher the student can be shown

how to “discover knowledge knew to them” and how to convince themselves that

what they have discovered is correct. This process of learning mathematics is of

great value to them especially in future studies and investigations they will

undertake.

Student has their own learning style in learning mathematics. A learning

style is a student’ consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the context

of learning. Keefe (1979) defines learning style as the “composite of

characteristics cognitive, affective, and psychological factors that serve as

relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and

responds to the learning environment.’ Stewart and Felicetti (1992) define

learning as those “education conditions under which a student is most likely to

learn.” Thus, learning style is not really concerned with “what” learners learn, but

rather “how’ they prefer to learn.

Since learners have their own learning style in learning mathematics, the

researcher wonders to determine the relationship among the learners’

preferences and teaching strategy in teaching mathematics. There are factors to

be considered like the students’ performance which is based on how they prefer

to learn and what they learn from their mathematics teachers using a variety of

teaching strategies. If a teacher is well-equipped with the best teaching

strategies, then his teaching can be considered as an effective one. But this only

happens when his students learn from the teaching-learning process, and if they

can use their knowledge that they have learned in their own lives.

Background of the Study

Education is one of the foundations of success. It is an experience that

has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual.

Education has been one of the emphases of the government in the national

struggle to meet the needs of society. In 1992, the DECS which governs both

public and private education in all levels stated that its mission was “to provide

quality basic education that is equitably accessible to all by the foundation for

lifelong learning and service for the common good.” The department also

stipulated its vision to “develop a highly competent, civic spirited, life-skilled, and

God-loving Filipino youth who actively participate in and contribute towards the

building of a humane, healthy and productive society.” All these ambitions were

embodied in the department strategy called Philippines 2000.

(http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1199philippines-education-system-

an-overview-html)

In the Philippines the education system aims to provide a broad general

education that will assist each individual in society to attain his/her potential as a

human being, and enhance the range and quality of the individual and the group,

help the individual participate in the basic functions of society and acquire the

essential educational foundation for his/her development into a productive and

versatile citizen, train the nation’s manpower in the middle-level skills required for

national development, develop the high-level professions that will provide

leadership for the nation, advance knowledge through research, and apply new

knowledge for improving the quality of human life, respond effectively to

changing needs and conditions through a system of educational planning and

evaluation.

(http://www.seameoinnotech.org/resources/seameo_country/educ_data/philippin

es/philippines_ibe.htm).

A school is an institution for the teaching of children and it is a group of

teachers and students pursuing knowledge together. School should educate an

institution of learning, and teach or drill in a specific knowledge or skill.

The schools where the researcher was conducted her research study are

the four schools found in the town of Mabitac, Laguna. The first one is the

Mabitac National High School (MNHS), the school of the researcher took up her

high school education. It is located at Barangay Libis ng Nayon Mabitac, Laguna.

MNHS is formerly called Alas-as National High School. Students studying in this

school come from the different barangay in Mabitac, Laguna which they have

different behavior based on their environment and social background. They have

their own preferences or styles on how they learn. And because of that, the

teacher should be the one to adjust for them to have understanding in the class.

The teacher should be used appropriate teaching strategies or techniques to be

able his/her students arouse their attention and interest in learning.

Paagahan National High School (PNHS) and its extension, the Paagahan

National High School (Matalatala Extension) would be another school where the

study was conducted. PNHS is located at Barangay Paagahan Mabitac, Laguna,

and its extension is at the Barangay Matalatala Mabitac, Laguna. Obviously,

these schools have the same principal, Mrs. Socorro R. Fundivilla. The

classroom sectioning of these schools are continuous, the first and second

sections of each year level are in the PNHS and the third and fourth sections are

in the PNHS (Matalatala Extension).

Blessed James Cusmano Academy is the only private school in Mabitac,

Laguna. It is located near the researcher’s residence, Barangay San Antonio

Mabitac, Laguna. This school was developed by the help of all fathers in the

barangay chapel and the Missionary Servants of the Poor. They provide

scholarship for those students who want to help and serve in the chapel, and

especially, students who have dedication in learning. BJCA has a target behavior

to be developed every month, but still, students have their own learning styles

and in this case, they need the supervision of teachers and the Priest-director of

the school.

Teaching style or strategies is viewed as a broad dimension or personality

type that encloses teacher stance, pattern of behavior, mode of performance,

and attitude toward self and others. Penelope Peterson defines teacher style in

terms of how teachers utilize space in the classroom, their choice of instructional

activities and materials, and their method of student grouping. Student

characteristics will influence sometimes greatly how a particular teaching strategy

is employed and how successful it will be. Student characteristics will also enter

into the selection of a teaching strategy.

The teacher needs to arouse the student’ interest and attention during

classroom discussion for better understanding of the lessons being discussed.

Because there are students who want to work independently or alone, in pairs,

with peers or with a team. Most students can learn, but each child concentrates

processes and retains new and difficult information in many different ways and

they respond according to their perceptual strengths or learning modality.

Students are highly mobile. Generally, teachers need to let the students

feel physiologically comfortable before asking them to study, learn or concentrate

the lessons. When the students feel comfortable, they can think and focus better.

Individuals capture and remember information best when it presented in a

step-by-step, methodical, sequential structure, one fact after another, little by

little, leading toward an understanding of the concepts or lesson presented.

Students at all levels have individualized learning preferences that greatly

affect the way they concentrates on, process, internalize and retain new and

difficult academic information.

Thus, the researcher would conduct this study to determine the learners’

preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics. This would be

designed to verify how the students perform with respect to the strategies used in

teaching.

Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by the different theories: Learning/Thinking Style,

and Multiple Intelligences.

Hilliard describes “learning style” as the sum of the patterns of how

individuals develop habitual ways of responding to experience. Learning/Thinking

Styles refers to the preferred way individual processes information. They

describe a person’s typical mode of thinking, remembering or problem solving.

According to Hilliard, there are several perspectives about learning-

thinking style, the sensory perspective and global-analytic continuum. In sensory

preferences, individuals tend to gravitate toward one or two types of several

inputs and maintain dominance in visual, auditory and tactile/kinesthetic learners.

Analytic thinkers tend toward the linear, step-by-step processes of learning while

the global thinkers lean towards non-linear thought and tend to the whole pattern

rather than particles elements.

The theory of multiple intelligences was first described by Howard Gardner

in Frame of Mind (1983). Gardner defines intelligences as “an ability or set of

abilities that allows a person to solve a problem or fashion a product that is

valued in one or more cultures.” Gardner believes that different intelligences may

be independent abilities ─ a person can be low in one domain area but high in

another. All of us possess the intelligences but in varying degrees of strength and

skills.

It is important for teachers to use their knowledge about thinking/learning

style and multiple intelligences in planning activities to help their students to

effectively learn.

The above theories was helped the researcher to gather the necessary

information needed in evaluating the relationship among the learners’

preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics to the fourth year

high school students.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual model as shown in Figure 1 consists of three boxes.

The left box shows the independent variable which includes the learners’

preferences such as visual learners, auditory learners, kinesthetic learners,

analytic thinkers and global thinkers.

The box in the right shows the dependent variable which is the teachers ‘

actualities and teaching strategies such as lecture discussion, problem solving,

cooperative learning, direct teaching and indirect teaching.

The box at the center contains the moderating variables which include the

students and teachers’ profile.

The line that connects the independent variable and the dependent

variable indicates the relationship between them.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Teachers’ Actualities
Learners’ Preferences And
Visual Learners Teaching Strategies
Auditory Learners Lecture Discussion
Kinesthetic Learners Problem Solving
Way of Students’ Learning Cooperative Learning
Analytic Thinkers Deductive Method
Global Thinkers Inductive Method

Moderating Variable

Students’ Profile
Age
Gender
Schools
Teachers’ Profile
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Educational Attainments
Length in service
Seminars attended

Figure 1. The Conceptual Model showing the relationship among the
Independent Variable, Dependent Variable and
Moderating Variables of the Study

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the relationship among learners’

preferences and teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics of fourth year high

school students at Mabitac, Laguna.

Specifically, the study sought seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the student-respondents in terms of their :

1.1 age;

1.2 gender; and

1.3 schools?

2. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of their:

2.1 age;

2.2 gender;

2.3 civil status;

2.4 educational attainments;

2.5 number of years in service; and

2.6 seminars attended?

3. What is the extent of the learners’ preferences that are related to the

teaching strategies employed by the teacher in terms of:

3.1 visual learners;

3.2 auditory learners; and

3.3 kinesthetic learners?

4. What is the extent of the students’ way of learning that are related to the

teaching strategies employed by the teacher in terms of:

4.1 analytic thinkers; and

4.2 global thinkers?

5. What are the teachers’ actualities that the students observed and the

teachers prepared?

6. What is the extent the teaching strategies observed by the students in

their Mathematics teacher with respect to:

6.1 lecture discussion;

6.2 problem solving;

6.3 cooperative learning;

6.4 deductive method; and

6.5 inductive method?

7. Is there significant relationship between the students’ profile and their

preferences in learning Mathematics?

8. Is there significant relationship between the teachers’ profile and the

actualities and teaching strategies?

9. Is there significant relationship between the learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies used by teachers in teaching Mathematics?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested.

1. There is no significant relationship between the students’ profile and their

preferences in learning Mathematics

2. There is no significant relationship between the teachers’ profile and the

actualities and teaching strategies.

3. There is no significant relationship between the learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies used by teachers in teaching Mathematics.

Significance of the Study

The result of the study would help the following:

Students. This will help them to be aware of their preferences in learning

Mathematics. They will understand and identify the teaching strategies employed

by their teachers that may affect their performance.

Teachers. They will be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses in

employing the strategies in teaching mathematics. This will serve as a guide to

devise better methods that can be used in the learning process to have better

quality of teaching.

Parents. The parents who are greatly concerned in the education of their

children will be aware of the styles on how their child learns.

DepEd. This study will help them to improve the current situation in

teaching Mathematics. Through this study, they will be able to establish the

implements new programs had can support the improvement of different teaching

strategies of Mathematics teachers and the improvement of the students’

performance.

School Administrators. This study will help them to be aware of students

learning and thinking styles in Mathematics even in other subjects, it will also

serve as a guide to provide training and seminars for mathematics teachers

regarding teaching strategies.

Researchers. The results of this study will serve as a guide for future

studies pertaining to teaching-learning process, learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies in mathematics or for other parallel researches.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The main concern of this study is to determine the learners’ preferences

and teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics. A questionnaire-checklist

determines the learner’s preferences and teaching strategies would be used to

gather the needed information in this research.

This study was limited only to five (5) Mathematics teachers and one

hundred fifty-seven (157) selected students of fourth year high school students

from all secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna during the academic year

2010-2011. This study was conducted in all secondary schools at Mabitac,

Laguna such as Mabitac National High School, Paagahan National High School,

Paagahan National High School (Matalatala Extension), and Blessed James

Cusmano Academy.

Definition of Terms

For clarification and understanding of the terms related to this study, the

following terms are defined conceptually and operationally.

Analytic Thinkers refer to learners who tend toward the linear, step-by-

step processes of learning.

Auditory Thinkers refer to learners who learn best through verbal

lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have to

say.

Cooperative Learning refers to a group helping each other learn but

keeping each individual member accountable for his/her learning.

Deductive Method refers to the teaching strategies begins with the

abstract rule, generalization, principles, and ends with specific examples, and

concrete details.

Global Thinkers refers to learners who lean towards non-linear thought

and tend to see the whole pattern rather than particle elements.

Inductive Method refers to teaching strategies begins with the specific

details, concrete data and ends with an abstract generalization rule, or principle.

Kinesthetic Learners refer to person who benefits much more from a

hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them.

Learners’ Preferences refers to learners’ prepared learning style in

learning Mathematics. They have their own learning style according to how they

can easily learn.

Learning Style refers to patterns of how individual develop habitual ways

of responding to experience.

Lecture Discussion refers to teaching strategy which presents

information in ways that it can be attended to, easily processed, and

remembered.

Problem Solving refers to teaching strategy that employs the specific

method in searching information.

Teaching Strategy refers to personality type that enclose teacher stance,

pattern of behavior, mode of performance, and attitude toward self and others.

Visual Learners refers to learners who must see their teacher’s actions

and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter shows the related literature and studies on the learners’

preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics of fourth year high

school students at Mabitac, Laguna as reviewed by the researcher. The following

literature and studies related to this study were presented below.

Related Literature

Learning styles as described by Litzinger and Ozif (1992) refer to the

different ways in which children and adults think and learn. Ellis (1985) described

a learning style as the more or less consistent way in which a person perceives,

conceptualizes, organizers, and recalls information.

Professor Richard Felder of North Carolina State University (1994) has

described some of the varied learning preferences. Learning preferences can

help an individual begin to understand and choose strategies which work best for

him. Some learning inventors include preferences for learning visually, auditory,

or kinesthetically when working in groups or individually.

One consequence of studying learning styles is the recognition that

teachers also have their own approaches to the classroom. While this may have

become habitual and while he teacher may define the classroom according to

theirs and not the students’ preferences, teachers have to acknowledge that their

styles will not necessarily suit cluster of students in their classroom. As teachers

attempt to modify their classrooms, they need it begin by exploring their own

styles (http://web.instate.edu/ctl/style//learning.htm).

The book of Sims (1995) emphasized, among other things, the extreme

importance of understanding individual differences, learning principles, factors

that affect motivation of students and trainees in learning situations, and the

variety of individual learning style models that instructors and trainers can

consider in their efforts. It should be evident to those responsible for teaching

and training that an increased understanding and use of learning style data can

provide them with important information. Most importantly, each teaching or

training endeavor will have learners with disparate learning style preferences and

a variety of learning strengths and weaknesses that have been developed

through earlier learning experiences, analytical abilities, and a host of other

experiences they bring with them. To enhance learning, instructors and trainers

must recognize that individuals learn and teach differently, and what may be an

optimal learning or training method for one may discourage another. Indeed,

instructors and trainers should make sure that a variety of training or learning

opportunities are presented to students and trainees to increase the likelihood of

advancing learning.

The book of Brophy (2004) describes key features of classroom

management, curriculum, instruction, and teacher–student relationships that

create a social context that prepares the way for successful use of the

motivational strategies. Those strategies are meant to be subsumed within an

overall pattern of effective teaching that includes compatible approaches to

managing the classroom and teaching the curriculum. Students will not respond

well to motivational attempts if they are fearful, resentful, or otherwise focused on

negative emotions. To create conditions that favor your motivational efforts, you

will need to establish and maintain your classroom as a learning community—a

place where students come primarily to learn, and succeed in doing so through

collaboration with you and their classmates. You also will need to focus your

curriculum on things that are worth learning and to develop this content in ways

that help students to appreciate its significance and application potential.

According to Gordon (2003) as cited by Credo (2010), if teaching-learning

processes are working effectively, a unique kind of relationship must exist

between those two separate parties-some kind of a connection, link or bridge

between the teacher and the learner.

Nismed (2002) as cited by Credo (2010) stated that there are several

stages in the teaching-learning process. The choice of teaching strategy for each

stage depends in the leaning objectives, the concept to be learned and the depth

of understanding required situation – class size, time, availability of resources,

the nature of the learners and the teacher background.

Related Studies

Related studies on the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies in

teaching mathematics of fourth year high school students was conducted and

there studies was reviewed by the researcher. Those studies would be useful

findings in determining the relationship of learners’ preferences in teaching

Mathematics.

The study of Villamor (2008) as cited by Palino (2010) found out that there

was a significant functional relationship between gender, interest towards

mathematics, teaching competencies, teaching strategies and techniques and

library setting that there is no significant functional relationship between

classroom setting and the students’ performance in mathematics.

The study of Sieddentop as cited by Bacha (2010) revealed that for a

teacher to be effective in instructional strategies that will help the students

understand the concepts: the teachers must provide the student with diverse,

creative and dynamic teaching techniques for the children to become interested

in their own health conditions.

Gordula (2005) as cited by Credo (2010) study found out that teachers do

have an effect on the students’ accomplishment and that teachers differs in the

ability to get results in highest IQ level have the best achievement in English.

Delos Santos (2004) revealed that the faculty members are outstanding in

instructing competence although there is still room for improvement especially

along utilization of instructional materials and aides, varying teaching

methodology and technique and providing up to date materials and information.

A study conducted by Palino (2010) found out that the instructional

materials and facilities have no significant difference in terms of students gender,

age and year level.

According to the study made by Curacho as cited by Credo (2010), the

teacher variables such as age, sex, length of service, Civil status and educational

attainment significantly affect the performance of the students and it was

suggested that there variables by given attention in assigning teaching loads.

She found out that the teacher competencies have significant influence on the

performance of the students.

Aguirre (2001) as cited by Calalo (2011) stated that learning styles of

pupils differed significantly in terms of structure, responsibility and intake and

level of mental age accounted for the significant difference; learning styles –

physical, personal and physiological elements were proven to be the

determinants of academic performance.

According to the study of Sainz (2000) as cited by Calalo (2011) show that

sex or gender is not significant or determinant for better performance in

Mathematics. It implies that sex has nothing to do with the capability of the

students when it comes to mathematical aspects like analysis, computation and

reasoning.

According to Villainea (2000) as cited by Palino (2010), the student

performance better in subject that require the use of technical and manipulative

skill and were handicapped in subject that demands more of mental abilities. She

also stated that differences in academic performance cannot always be based on

mental abilities but emotional and attitudinal can also influence.

Effective teachers engage student actively in learning. This implies that

teachers must know that students should be brought to the learning experience

and to know what they need to learn (Travers and Rebore 1995).

The above mentioned studies and literatures are helpful to this study

because they provide the researcher with the background information that helped

the development of the problem under study.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, subjects of the study,

determination of sampling techniques, research instrument, research procedure,

and statistical treatment that would be used to analyze the data gathered.

Research Design

The descriptive method is appropriate in this study. It is necessary to

determine the relationship of the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies in

teaching mathematics.

Gay 2000 defines descriptive research as involving collection of data in

order to test hypotheses or to answer questions concerning the current status of

the subject of the study. A descriptive study determines and reports the way

things are. Descriptive research includes all of those studies that purport

presents facts concerning the nature and status of anything. It is concerned with

conditions of relationships that exist.

Subjects of the Study

Respondents in this study were five (5) Mathematics teachers and one

hundred fifty-seven (157) selected fourth year high school students of all

secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna, school year 2010-2011 using the Slovin’s

formula and stratified random sampling.

Table 1 Distribution of the Respondents by School
No. of Proportiona
Schools Section Percentage
Students l Allocation
Blessed James Cusmano
1 14 5.5 9
Academy
1 32 12.5 20
Paagahan National High
School
2 33 12.9 20

Paagahan National High 3 32 12.5 20
School (Matalatala
Extension) 4 30 11.7 18

1 43 16.8 26
Mabitac National High
2 40 15.6 24
School
3 32 12.5 20

Total 256 100 157

Determination of Sampling Techniques

The Stratified random sampling technique was used to determine the

number of the student-respondents involved in this study. Not all fourth year high

school students at Mabitac, Laguna would serve as respondents in this study.

However, the samples to be taken are expected to possess characteristics

identical to those of the population.

Research Instrument

The main tool used in the study was a questionnaire-checklist. The

questionnaire-checklist was constructed for the teacher and student respondents.

Part I of the questionnaire-checklist for the teacher-respondents is the teachers’

profile such as gender, age, civil status, educational attainments, number of

years in service, and seminars attended.

Part II-A and B pertains to the teachers’ actualities and teaching strategies

in teaching Mathematics.

Another questionnaire-checklist was constructed for the students’

respondents were adopted from the book of Maria Rita D. Lucas, Ph.D. and

Brenda B. Corpuz, Ph.D. (2007) entitled “Facilitating Learning”. While the other

parts of it were developed by the researcher with the assistance of the adviser in

gathering the data needed in determining the relationship of the learners’

preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics.

One set of questionnaire-checklist was constructed for the student-

respondents in terms of their preferences prepared in the classroom and the

teaching strategies they observe from their mathematics teacher. The other set

questionnaire-checklist is the students’ profile such as age, gender, section, and

school.

Part I of the questionnaire-checklist contains the personal information

about the student-respondents which includes the age, gender, section, and

school.

Part II pertains to the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies the

student observe from their Mathematics teacher. This part is subdivided into two:

Part II-A contains several situational statements in order to ascertain the

students’ preferences in learning mathematics.

Part II-B and C consists of teachers’ actualities and teaching strategies

observed by the students.

The indicators in Part II of each set of questionnaires were rated using the

following rating scale with the corresponding verbal interpretation:

4.21 – 5.00 - Always / Strongly Agree / Very Large Extent

3.41 – 4.20 - Often / Agree / Large Extent

2.61 – 3.40 - Sometimes / Moderately Agree / Moderate Extent

1.81 – 2.60 - Seldom / Disagree / Limited Extent

1.00 – 1.80 - Never / Strongly Disagree / Low Extent

Research Procedure

The original title of this study proposed by the researcher was checked,

revised and re-checked by the research adviser to maintain conformity on the

subject of research.

A questionnaire-checklist that aimed to draw out proper responses to the

objectives of this study will be constructed. This questionnaire-checklist was

presented, analyzed and checked by the researcher’s adviser and experts on

different fields of specialization to ensure the validity of responses it would elicit.

The permit to conduct the research and study on the subject school was

secured from the Dean of the College of Teacher Education which was attached

to another letter request was sent to the school administrators and advisers of

the selected students to obtain their learners’ preferences in Mathematics. The

researcher administered the questionnaire and with the help of some friends,

retrieved the accomplished questionnaire.

The data gathered were checked, tabulated and analyzed using the

statistical tools described in this chapter.

The significant findings of the study were presented to the experts in the

field of Mathematics and to the school authorities.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using the

following statistical tools.

Analysis Statistical Tools
1. Profile of student-respondents Frequency, Percentage and Rank
Distribution

2. Profile of teacher-respondents Frequency, Percentage and Rank
Distribution

3. Extent of the learners’ preferences Weighted Mean
related to the teaching strategies
employed by the teacher

4. The teachers’ actualities and Weighted Mean
teaching strategies observed by the
students

5. The actualities and teaching Weighted Mean
strategies of Mathematics teacher in
teaching Mathematics

6. Significant relationship between the Pearson r / t-test,
students preferences in learning Chi - square, Probability
mathematics and the students’ profile

teachers’ actualities, the teaching Chi – square, Probability
strategies, and the teachers’ profile

learners’ preferences and teaching Chi – square, Probability
strategies in teaching mathematics

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the data gathered to

determine the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies in teaching

Mathematics of all secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna.

The Profile of the Teacher-Respondents

Table 2 presents the profile of the teachers in terms of age, gender, civil

status, educational attainment, the number of years in service and the seminars/

workshops attended.

It reveals that the average age of Mathematics Teachers is 31 years and 4

months. There were all-female respondents in which 3 or 60 percent are single

and 2 or 40 percent are married.

In terms of educational attainments of teachers, 3 or 60 percent among

them held a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education, Major in Mathematics; 1

or 20 percent finished the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching; and another 1 or

20 percent graduated with the degree of Master of Arts in Education.

It can also be observed that 3 or 60 percent of the teachers obtained have

been in the field of teaching in the last years. Also, 1 or 20 percent have taught

from 11 to 15 years and another 1 or 20 percent have taught for 20 years or

more.

On the last part of the table, it can be seen that 2 or 40 percent of the

teachers have attended 4–6 seminars from 2001 to date. Others have attended

7–9, 10-12 and 13–15 seminars in the last 10 years.

Table 2. Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Profile of the
Teacher-Respondents
Profile Frequenc Percentag Rank
y e
Age
Average Age. = 31.4
23 2 40 1
28 1 20 3
41 1 20 3
42 1 20 3
Total 5 100
Gender
Female 5 100 1
Male 0 0 2
Total 5 100
Civil Status
Single 3 60 1
Married 2 40 2
Total 5 100
Educational Attainment
BSEd 3 60 1
MAT 1 20 2.5
MAED 1 20 2.5
Total 5 100
No. of years in service
Below 1 0 0 5
1–5 3 60 1
6 – 10 0 0 5
11 - 15 1 20 2.5
16 – 20 0 0 5
21 - above 1 20 2.5
Total 5 100
Seminars Attended from 2000 to date
1–3 0
4–6 2 40 1
7–9 1 20 3
10 – 12 1 20 3
13 - 15 1 20 3
Total 5 100

The Profile of the Student-Respondents

Table 3 presents the frequency, percentage distribution and rank of the

profile of the student-respondents in terms of age, gender, and school.

The table reveals that out of one hundred fifty-seven (157) students, 79 or

50.32 percent are female and 78 or 49.68 percent are male. The students who

are age 16 obtained a frequency of 74 or 47.13 percent. The oldest among them

is 22 years old with a frequency of 1 or 0.64 percent.

The table further shows the distribution of the respondents by school. It

can be gleaned that 70 or 44.59 percent were from MNHS; 40 or 25.48 percent

were from PNHS; 38 or 24.20 percent were from PNHS (Matalatala Extension);

and 9 or 5.73 percent were from BJCA.

Table 3. Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of the Profile of the
Students-Respondents
Profile Frequency Percentage Rank
Age
14 4 2.55 5
15 50 31.85 2
16 74 47.13 1
17 21 13.38 3
18 5 3.18 4
19 2 1.27 6
22 1 0.64 7
Total 157 100
Gender
Female 79 50.32 1
Male 78 49.68 2
Total 157 100
School
MNHS 70 44.59 1
PNHS 40 25.48 2
PNHS (Ext.) 38 24.20 3
BJCA 9 5.73 4
Total 157 100
Learning Preferences of Students

Table 4 shows the visual preferences of students on how they learn

Mathematics.

Table 4 Computed Weighted Mean of the Visual Preferences of Students
Weighted
Statements VI Rank
Mean
The students ….
1. learn how to do something, they learn best 3.80 Large Extent 7
when someone shows them how.
2. read, they often find to visualize what they are 3.90 Large Extent 7
reading in their mind’s eye.
3. asked to give directions, they see the actual 3.80 Large Extent 7
places in their mind as they say them or prefer
to draw them.
4. are unsure how to spell a word, they write it in 4.00 Large Extent 2
order to determine if it is looks right.
5. are concerned how neat and well spaced the 3.80 Large Extent 7
letters and words appear when they are writing.
6. had to remember a list of items, they remember 3.90 Large Extent 7
it best if they wrote them down.
7. trying to concentrate, they have a difficult time 3.50 Large Extent 13
when there is a lot of clutter or movement in the
room.
8. solving a problem, they write or draw diagrams 4.00 Large Extent 2
to see it.
9. have to verbally describe something to another 3.30 Moderate 14
person, they would be brief because he/she do Extent
not like to talk at length.
10. trying to recall names, he/she remember faces 3.70 Large Extent 11.5
but forget names.
11. prefer teacher who use the board or overhead 3.90 Large Extent 7
projector while they lecture.
12. gives written instructions on how to build 4.00 Large Extent 2
something, he/she read them silently and try to
visualize how the parts will fit together.
13. keeps to occupied while waiting, he/she look 3.70 Large Extent 11.5
around, stare, or read.
14. were verbally describing to someone, he/she 3.90 Large Extent 7
would try to visualize what he/she was saying.

Average Weighted Mean 3.80 Large Extent

It can be observed that the visual preferences of students which obtained

an average weighted mean of 3.80. Based on the results, the following activities

of the students are at a large extent: when they are unsure of how to spell a

word, they write it in order to determine if it is looks right; solving problem in

writing or drawing diagrams to see it; and gives written instructions on how to

build something in reading silently and try to visualize how the parts will fit

together obtained the same weighted mean of 4.00.

On the other hand, the students verbally describe something to another

person in brief only at a moderate extent because he/she does not like to talk at

length as revealed by the computed weighted mean of 3.30.

As a whole, the visual preferences of students are at a large extent with

the average weighted mean of 3.80.

Table 5 on the next page shows that the auditory preference of students is

at a large extent with an average weighted mean of 3.47.

It can be noticed that the following students’ activities are at a large extent:

when they are unsure on how to spell a word, they spell it out loud in order to

determine if it sounds right and often say the letters and words to themselves

which both obtained a weighted mean of 4.00. Least in the rank of students’

activities is when they have to verbally describe something to another person into

great detail because they like to talk; and enjoy listening but want to interrupt

which are at a moderate extent since they both obtained a weighted mean of

3.00.

Table 5 Computed Weighted Mean of the Extent of Auditory Preferences of
Students
Weighted
Statements VI Rank
Mean
The students ….
1. have to learn how to do something, I learn
best when they hear someone tells them 3.60 Large Extent 5
how.
2. read, they often read it out loud or hear the Moderate
3.30 10.5
words inside my head. Extent

3. asked to give directions, they have no Moderate
3.34 9
difficulty in giving it verbally. Extent
4. are unsure how to spell a word, he/she spell
it out loud in order to determine if it sounds 4.00 Large Extent 1.5
right.
5. writes, he/she often say the letters and
4.00 Large Extent 1.5
words to herself/himself.
6. had to remember a list of items, they
Moderate
remember it best if they said them over and 3.40 7.5
Extent
over to themselves.
7. trying to concentrate, they have a difficult
Moderate
time when there is a lot of noise in the 3.40 7.5
Extent
room.
8. solving a problem, they talk themselves Moderate
3.30 10.5
through it. Extent
9. have to verbally describe something to
Moderate
another person, they would go into great 3.00 13.5
Extent
detail because they like to talk.
10. trying to recall names, they remember Moderate
3.20 12
names but forget faces. Extent

11. prefer teacher who talk with a lot of
3.80 Large Extent 3
expression.
12. gives written instructions on how to build
Large Extent
something, they read them out loud and to 3.50 6
their self as they put the parts together.
13. keeps too occupied while waiting, he/she Moderate
3.00 13.5
talk or listen to others. Extent
14. were verbally describing to someone,
he/she would enjoy listening but want to 3.67 Large Extent 4
interrupt and talk themselves.

It can be noticed from table 6 that the kinesthetic preference of the

students is at the large extent with an average weighted mean of 3.43.

Table 6 Computed Weighted Mean of the Kinesthetic Preferences of
Students
Statements Weighted VI Rank
Mean
The students …
1. have to learn how to do something; they learn best 3.90 Large Extent 1
when they try to do it them selves.
2. read, they often fidget and try to “feel” the content. 3.60 Large Extent 3
3. ask to give directions, he/she have to point or move 3.60 Large Extent 3
her/his body as he/she give them.
4. are unsure how to spell a word, they write it in order 3.50 Large Extent 6.5
to determine if it feels right.
5. write; they push hard his/her pen or pencil and feel 3.50 Large Extent 6.5
the flow of the words or letters as he/she form them.
6. had to remember a list of items, he/she remember it 3.40 Moderate 6.5
best if he/she moved around and used her/his fingers Extent
to name each items.
7. trying to concentrate, they have a difficult time when 3.20 Moderate 11.5
he/she have to sit still for any length of time. Extent
8. solving a problem, they use his/her entire body or 3.00 Moderate 14
move objects to help him/her think. Extent
9. have to verbally describe something to another 3.50 Large Extent 6.5
person, he/she would gesture and move around while
talking.
10. trying to recall names, they remember the situation 3.50 Large Extent 6.5
that he/she met the person’s name or face.
11. prefer teacher who use hands-on activities. 3.60 Large Extent 3
12. gives written instructions on how to build something, 3.20 Moderate 11.5
he/she try to put the parts together first and read Extent
later.
13. keeps to occupied while waiting, he/she walk 3.40 Moderate 6.5
around, manipulate things with my hands, or Extent
move/shake my feet as he/she sit.
14. were verbally describing to someone, he/she would 3.13 Moderate 13
become bored if his/her description gets too long Extent
and detailed.

Table 6 also revealed that students’ learning on how to do something and

learning when they try to do it themselves is at large extent which obtained a

weighted mean of 3.90. Also, their ability to solve problems using their entire

body or move objects to help them think is at a moderate extent which obtained a

weighted mean of 3.00.

Table 7 shows the composite table of the learning preferences of

students.

It can be gleaned that the students’ visual preferences is at a large extent;

their auditory preferences is at a limited extent and their kinesthetic preferences

is at a low extent with the computed weighted mean of 3.80, 3.47 and 3.43

respectively.

It implies that teachers should prepare varied visual materials in order to

help students increase their level of performance.

Table 7 Composite Table of the Learning Preferences of Students
Variables Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank

Visual Preferences 3.80 Large Extent 2

Auditory Preferences 3.47 Limited Extent 4

Kinesthetic Preferences 3.46 Low Extent 5

Table 8 on the next page shows that students are more of being analytic

thinkers than global thinkers as revealed by the computed weighted mean of 3.83

and 3.56, respectively.

Analytic thinkers to respond to word meaning at a very large extent which

obtained a weighted mean of 4.10. Learning is at a low extent when they study

in a well-lighted room with the weighted mean of 3.64.

Table 8 Computed Weighted Mean of the Ways of Students’ Learning
Weighted Verbal
Statements Rank
Mean Interpretation
Analytic Thinkers learn best through…….
1. responding to word meaning. 4.10 Very Large extent 1
2. linearly information processing. 3.80 Moderate Extent 3
3. responding to logic. 3.74 Limited Extent 4
4. formal study design. 3.85 Large Extent 2
5. well-lighted room while studying. 3.64 Low Extent 5
TOTAL 3.83 Large Extent
Global Thinkers learn best through……
1. responding to tone of voice. 3.83 Very Large extent 1
2. information processing in varied
3.66 Large Extent 2
order .
3. responding to emotions. 3.63 Moderate Extent 3
4. sound/music background while
3.31 Low Extent 5
studying.
5. frequent mobility while studying. 3.38 Limited Extent 4
TOTAL 3.56 Moderate Extent

Whereas, global thinkers learn by responding to tone of voice at a very

large extent which obtained a weighted mean of 3.83.

On the contrary, students learn at a low extent when they study with

sound/music background which obtained a weighted mean of 3.31.

Teachers’ Actualities in Teaching Mathematics

Table 10 on the next page presents the teachers’ actualities observed by

the students with their Mathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’

perception of their own actualities in the classroom with an average weighted

mean of 3.88 and 3.96, respectively.

It can be viewed that based on the observation of students that the

teachers often teach them on how to do something, to show and tell how to do it,

and allow them to do it themselves with a weighted mean of 4.12 which rank first.

Also, the teachers often find it difficult to concentrate when there is a lot of

movement and noise in the room and they tend to sit for a length of time which

obtained a weighted mean of 3.61.

On the other hand, the teachers confirmed that they always teach he

students on how to do something that show, tell and allow them to do it with

themselves; they verbally describe or move their body in giving directions; they

write or draw diagrams, talk and move objects to help them think on how to solve

problem; and they talk with a lot of expressions and use hands-on activities

which all obtained a weighted mean of 4.40.

Likewise, teachers often spell a word loudly and write it on the board; and,

have a difficult time when there is a lot of movement and sits for a length of time

trying to concentrate which both obtained a weighted mean of 3.60.

According to Gordon (2003), if teaching-learning processes are working

effectively, a unique kind of relationship must exist between those two separate

parties-some kind of a connection, link or bridge between the teacher and the

learner. In connection, the nearly similar perceptions of both the students and

the teachers on the teachers’ actualities justify what can really be observed in the

classroom.

Table 10 Actualities of Teachers in Teaching Mathematics
Student Teacher
Statements
W VI R W VI R
1. If my teacher teaches me how to do something, he/she 4.12 Often 1 4.40 Always 2.5
show and tell me how to do it, and allow me to do it
with myself.
2. When my teacher reads, he/she often stops and tried 4.01 Often 4 4.00 Often 7.5
to describe to us what he/she is reading, reads it out
loud and move restlessly.
3. When my teacher gives directions, he/she verbally 3.87 Often 8 4.40 Always 2.5
describes and draws out or moves his/her body as he/
she gives them.
4. If my teacher spells a word, he/she spell it out loud or 3.63 Often 13 3.60 Often 12.5
write it on the board.
5. When my teacher is writing something on the board, 3.83 Often 9 4.00 Often 7.5
he/she is concerned on how neat and well-spaced his/
her letters and words appear and often say the letters
and words while writing.
6. If my teacher has to remind us a list of items, he/she 3.91 Often 7 2.80 Some- 14
writes or says them over and over to everyone and times
move around and used his/her fingers to name each
items.
7. When my teacher is trying to concentrate, he/she has a 3.61 Often 14 3.60 Often 12.5
difficult time when there is a lot of movement and
noise in the room or he/she sits still for any length of
time.
8. When solving a problem, my teacher writes or draws 4.09 Often 2 4.40 Always 2.5
diagrams and talks about it, or uses his/her entire
body or moves objects to help him/her think.
9. If my teacher has to verbally describe something to 3.83 Often 10 4.20 Often 5
another person, he/she prefers to be brief, uses
gestures while talking.
10. When my teacher is trying to recall names, he/she 3.77 Often 11 3.80 Often 10.5
remembers faces or sometimes names or the situation
that he/she met the person.
11. My teacher prefers to use the board, talk with a lot of 4.04 Often 3 4.40 Always 2.5
expression and use hands-on activities.
12. When my teacher gives written instructions on how to 3.99 Often 5 3.80 Often 10.5
build something, he/she read them out loud and
describes to us how the parts fit together, and later put
the parts together.
13.To keep occupied while my teacher waiting, he/she look 3.65 Often 12 4.00 Often 7.5
around, talk or listen to others, or manipulate things
with his/her hands as sitting.
14.If someone were verbally describing to my teacher, my 3.94 Often 6 4.00 Often 7.5
teacher would enjoy listening and he/she visualize
what the person was saying and id the persons
description gets too long and detailed my teacher
become bored.
Average Weighted Mean 3.88 Often 3.96 Often

Teachers’ Teaching Strategies in Teaching Mathematics

Table 11 presents the teaching strategies used by Mathematics Teacher.

As a whole, the teachers often use varied teaching strategies based on

the perception of students and their perception of themselves with an average

weighted mean of 3.87 and 4.08, respectively.

Specifically, they have observed that the most used teaching strategy of

their Mathematics Teachers is the lecture method which obtained a weighted

mean 4.50 which ranked first; while Inductive Method ranked last with a weighted

mean of 3.61.

According to the teachers, Cooperative Learning is what they always use

in teaching Mathematics which obtained a weighted mean of 4.40 which rank

first. Whereas, it appeared that they seldom use the Deductive Method which

obtained a weighted mean of 1.20 and which ranked last.

Table 11 Teaching Strategies in Teaching Mathematics
Students Teachers
Statements
Weighted VI Rank Weighted VI Rank
Mean Mean
1. Lecture Discussion 4.50 Always 1 3.80 Often 4
2. By giving word problem 3.84 Often 2 4.00 Often 2.5
activity
3. Cooperative Learning (by 3.83 Often 3 4.40 Always 1
groupings)
4. Deductive Method (general- 3.62 Often 4 1.20 Seldom 5
specific details)
5. Inductive Method (specific- 3.54 Often 5 4.00 Often 2.5
general details)

Average Weighted Mean 3.87 Often 4.08 Often

According to Brophy (2004), the key features of classrooms are

management, curriculum, instruction, and teacher–student relationships that

create a social context which prepares the way for the successful use of

motivational strategies. Those strategies are meant to be subsumed within an

overall pattern of effective teaching that includes compatible approaches to

managing the classroom and teaching thes curriculum.

Relationship between the Profile of the Students and Their Preferences in
Learning Mathematics

Table 12 on the next page shows the relationship between the students’

profile and their preferences in learning Mathematics.

It can be gleaned that there is a highly significant relationship between

students’ profile in terms of age and school and the three kinds of learning

preferences of students and considering that all of them obtained a computed p-

values of 0.000 which is less than the threshold value at 0.05.

Likewise, a highly significant relationship between the auditory

preferences of students and their gender was observed since the computed p –

value of 0.000 is less than the threshold value at 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis

is rejected.

The foregoing findings are supported by the study of Aguirre (2001) who

affirmed that learning styles of pupils differed significantly in terms of structure,

responsibility and intake and level of mental age accounted for the significant

difference; learning styles – physical, personal and physiological elements were

proven to be the determinants of academic performance.

On the other hand, no significant relationship between the visual and

kinesthetic preferences of students and in terms of gender it was observed in

computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139 respectively which are greater than the

threshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

The findings supported by the study of Sainz (2000) which states that sex

or gender is not significant or determinant for better performance in Mathematics.

It implies that sex has nothing to do with the capability of the students when it

comes to mathematical aspects like analysis, computation and reasoning.

The results convey that age and type or status of the schools has

something to do with the learning capability of students although their age has a

minimal factor on their learning style and behavior.

Table 12. Relationship between the Profile of the Students and Their
Preferences in Learning Mathematics
Value of
Variables Tools df p–value Decision Interpretation
Test Stat
Visual
Pearson r/
Age 129.710 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant
t-test
Gender Chi - Square 5.682 12 0.224 Accept Ho Not Significant

School Chi - Square 31.215 12 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant

Auditory
Pearson r/
t-test
Gender Chi - Square 188.309 12 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant


Kinesthetic
Pearson r/
t-test
Gender Chi - Square 6.938 12 0.139 Accept Ho Not Significant

p–value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significant
p–value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant

Relationship between the Profile of the Students and Their Ways of
Learning Mathematics

Table 13 shows the relationship between the profile of students and their

ways of learning Mathematics.

It can be seen that there is a highly significant relationship between the

way analytic thinkers learn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, gender

and school. It was observed in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and

0.001, respectively which are all less than the threshold p–value at 0.05.

Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.








The idea of Sims (1995) which emphasized that among other things, the

extreme importance of understanding individual differences, learning principles,

factors that affect motivation of students and trainees in learning situations, and

the variety of individual learning style models that instructors and trainers can

consider in their efforts. It should be evident to those responsible for teaching

and training that an increased understanding and use of learning style data can

provide them with important information.

Table 13 Relationship between analytic and global thinkers and students’
profile
Value of
Variables Tools df p–value Decision Interpretation
Test Stat
Analytic
Pearson
Correlation
Chi -
Gender 5.041 8 0.001 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Square
Chi -
School 31.931 8 0.001 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Square
Global
Pearson
Correlation
Chi -
Gender 18.237 8 0.283 Accept Ho Not Significant
Square
Chi -
School 35.838 8 0.0003 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Square

Relationship between Teachers’ Profile and Their Actualities

Table 14 shows the relationship between teachers’ profile of the teachers

and their actualities.

It can be noticed that there is a highly significant relationship between the

teachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminars attended

and their actualities while teaching Mathematics since its computed p–values of

0.003, 0.049, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively are less than the threshold value at

0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.





Table 14. Relationship between Teachers’ Actualities and Teachers’ Profile
Value of
Variables Tools df p-value Decision Interpretation
Test Stat
Pearson Highly
Age Correlation 6.594 4 0.003 Reject Ho
Significant
Unpaired Not
Gender t-test -0.580 1 0.666 Accept Ho
Significant
Unpaired Not
Civil Status t-test -2.583 2 0.123 Accept Ho
Significant
Educational Unpaired Highly
t-test -3.199 3 0.049 Reject Ho
Attainment Significant
Length of Unpaired Highly
t-test 8.277 7 0.000 Reject Ho
Service Significant
Seminars Unpaired Highly
t-test 8.277 7 0.000 Reject Ho
Attended Significant
p – value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significant
p – value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant

The results are supported by the citation of Bacha (2010) which states that

for a teacher to be effective in instructional strategies that will help the students

understand the concepts: the teachers must provide the students with diverse,

creative and dynamic teaching techniques for the students to become interested

in their own health conditions.

Relationship between Teachers’ Profile and Their Teaching Strategies

Table 15 on the next page shows the relationship between the teachers’

profile and their teaching strategies.

It can be observed that the teachers’ age, educational attainment, length

of service and seminars attended and their strategies in teaching Mathematics

have highly significant relationships since their computed p–values of 0.003,

0.042, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively are all less than the threshold value at 0.05.


The findings imply that some of the teachers’ profile affects their choice of

strategies in teaching Mathematics. New graduates who are just starting in their

teaching jobs should gain more knowledge in selecting appropriate teaching

strategies that can be used for teaching different kinds of students.

On the contrary, no significant relationship was observed between the

teachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teaching Mathematics

considering the computed p–values of 0.642 and 0.214, respectively which are

both greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is

accepted.

The results imply that gender and civil status has nothing to do with the

strategies used by the teachers in teaching Mathematics. There is no particular

teaching strategy for particular gender and civil status; any teacher can use any

strategy that they think will help their students learn easily.

Table 15 Relationship between teaching strategies and teachers’ profile
Value of
Test Stat
Profile
Pearson r/ Highly
Age 6.609 4 0.003 Reject Ho
t- test Significant
Unpaired Accept Not
Gender -0.629 1 0.642
t-test Ho Significant
Unpaired Accept Not
Civil Status -2.864 1 0.214
t-test Ho Significant
Educational Unpaired Highly
-3.417 3 0.042 Reject Ho
Attainment t-test Significant
Length of Unpaired Highly
-8.277 7 0.000 Reject Ho
Service t-test Significant
Seminars Unpaired Highly
-8.277 7 0.000 Reject Ho
Attended t-test Significant
p – value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significant
p – value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant

The findings are confirmed by the results of the study of Nismed (2002)

who testified the several stages in the teaching-learning process. The choice of

teaching strategy for each stage depends in the leaning objectives, the concept

to be learned and the depth of understanding required by the situation – class

size, time, availability of resources, the nature of the learners and the teacher

background.

Relationship between the Learners’ Preferences and the Teaching
Strategies in Mathematics

Table 16 shows the relationship between the learners’ preferences and

the strategies in teaching Mathematics.

It can be seen from the table that there is no significant relationship

between learners’ preferences and teaching strategies given that their computed

p–values of 0.311, 0.062 and 0.061, respectively are all greater than the

threshold value at 0.05. Hence, the null is accepted.

Table 16. Relationship between the Learners’ Preferences and Teaching
Strategies in teaching Mathematics
Value of
Test Stat

Learners’ Preferences

Unpaired
Visual 1.158 4 0.311 Accept Ho Not Significant
t-test
Unpaired
Auditory 2.564 4 0.062 Accept Ho Not Significant
t-test
Unpaired
Kinesthetic 2.586 4 0.061 Accept Ho Not Significant
t-test

The results proved that one consequence of studying learning styles is the

recognition that teachers also have their own approaches to the classroom.

While this may have become habitual and while the teacher may define the

classroom according to theirs and not the students’ preferences, teachers have

to acknowledge that their styles will not necessarily suit cluster of students in

their classroom. As teachers attempt to modify their classrooms, they need it

begin by exploring their own styles (http://web.instate.edu/ctl/style//learning.htm).

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter summarizes the findings, concludes and presents

recommendation based on the findings of this study.

Summary of findings

The results of this study are summed up as follows:

Most of the students were 16-year-old female from Mabitac National High

School.

The average age of teachers is 31.40 years. Most of them are singles who

hold a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education with 1-5 years teaching

experience and who have 4-6 seminars.

The three kinds of learning preferences of students which are visual,

auditory and kinesthetic obtained an average weighted means of 3.80, 3.47 and

3.43, respectively.

The analytic way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.83

while the global way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.56.

The teachers’ actualities observed by the students with their

Mathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’ perception of their own

actualities in the classroom with an average weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.96,

respectively.

The teachers often use varied teaching strategies based on the perception

of students and their perception of themselves with an average weighted mean of

3.87 and 4.08, respectively.

There is a highly significant relationship between the students’ profile in

terms of age and school and their learning preferences of students and

considering that all of them obtained the computed p-values of 0.000 which is

less than the threshold value at 0.05. Likewise, a highly significant relationship

between the auditory preferences of students and their gender was observed

since the computed p–value of 0.000 is less than the threshold value at 0.05.

Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, no significant

relationship between the visual and kinesthetic preferences of students and in

terms of gender it was observed in computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139

respectively which are greater than the threshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the null

hypothesis is accepted.

There is a highly significant relationship between the way analytic thinkers

learn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, gender and school. It was

observed in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively

which are all less than the threshold p–value at 0.05. Therefore, the null

hypothesis is rejected.








There is a highly significant relationship between the teachers’ age,

educational attainment, length of service and seminars attended and their

actualities while teaching Mathematics since its computed p–values of 0.003,

0.049, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively are less than the threshold value at 0.05.






The teachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminars

attended and their strategies in teaching Mathematics have highly significant

relationships since their computed p–values of 0.003, 0.042, 0.000 and 0.000,

respectively are all less than the threshold value at 0.05. Thus, the null

hypothesis is rejected. On the contrary, no significant relationship was observed

between the teachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teaching

Mathematics considering the computed p–values of 0.642 and 0.214,

respectively which are both greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Therefore,

the null hypothesis is accepted.

There is no significant relationship between learners’ preferences and

teaching strategies given that their computed p–values of 0.311, 0.062 and

Research problem

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Research problem

Similar to Research problem (20)

More from aleli ariola

More from aleli ariola (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Research problem