Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Research problem
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Research problem

5,336
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

2 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
5,336
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
168
Comments
2
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. Laguna State Polytechnic University Siniloan (Host) Campus Siniloan, Laguna APPROVAL SHEET This research entitled, “LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHINGSTRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011” prepared and submitted byALELI M. ARIOLA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofBACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Major in Mathematics has been examinedand 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 ofSecondary Education. CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph.D. Dean, College of EducationRESEARCH CONTRIBUTION NO.:_____ROMMEL OCTAVIUS R. NUESTRO NESTOR T. MENDOZA Director for Research Registrar
  • 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The researcher would like to extend her deepest gratitude and gratefulappreciation for the help rendered by the following persons in the fulfillment ofthis study: Dr. Corazon N. San Agustin, the technical editor and Dean of theCollege of Education, for checking and editing the forms and style used in writingthe manuscript; Engr. Rommel Octavius R. Nuestro and Mrs. Delia F. Mercado, herstatisticians and subject specialist, for giving time, their concern and for helpingthe researcher analyze the statistical tools and computations; Prof. Mercy Grace I. Saliendra and Elaine G. Nachon, her EnglishCritics that made herself available in checking the manuscript and for giving theresearcher valuable suggestions and lessons; Mrs. Arlene G. Advento, her research adviser, for her valuable advices,suggestions, encouragement, motivation and untiring support that made thisresearch possible; The principals and teachers of the selected schools namely MabitacNational High School, Paagahan National High School, Paagahan National HighSchool (Matalatala Extension) and Blessed James Cusmano Academy, for theirwarm acceptance to conduct this study. And to the fourth year high schoolstudents who participated, gave time and helped the researcher to come up withthe results of this study;
  • 4. Her friends and classmates for the laughter they’ve shared to take awaythe pressure; Her parents, brothers and sister, who gave their unconditional love andunderstanding, 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, herconstant source of strength, wisdom and inspiration to carry on to the realizationof her dreams. The Author
  • 5. DEDICATION The author would like to dedicate this piece of work, first andforemost, to all the persons whocontributed much in the success of this research paper… A.M.A.
  • 6. ABSTRACT This study was designed to determine the learners’ preferences andteaching 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 whichconsisted of one hundred fifty-seven (157) students and five (5) MathematicsTeachers from all secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna namely: MabitacNational High School (MNHS), Paagahan National High School (PNHS),Paagahan National High School (Matalatala Extension) and Blessed JamesCusmano Academy (BJCA). The data were collected, tabulated and interpreted using the appropriatestatistical tools. Frequency, percentage, rank, weighted mean, Pearson r/t-test,and probability were the statistical tools used to determine and interpret thedata.The results of this study are summed up as follows: Most of the students were 16-year-old female from Mabitac National HighSchool. The average age of teachers is 31.40 years. Most of them are singles whohold a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education with 1-5 years teachingexperience 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
  • 7. 3.43, respectively. The analytic way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.83while the global way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.56. The teachers’ actualities observed by the students with theirMathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’ perception of their ownactualities 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 perceptionof students and their perception of themselves with an average weighted mean of3.87 and 4.08, respectively. There is a highly significant relationship between the students’ profile interms of age and school and their learning preferences of students andconsidering that all of them obtained the computed p-values of 0.000 which isless than the threshold value at 0.05. Likewise, a highly significant relationshipbetween the auditory preferences of students and their gender was observedsince 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 significantrelationship between the visual and kinesthetic preferences of students and interms of gender it was observed in computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139respectively which are greater than the threshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the nullhypothesis is accepted. There is a highly significant relationship between the way analytic thinkerslearn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, gender and school. It was
  • 8. observed in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and 0.001, respectivelywhich are all less than the threshold p–value at 0.05. Therefore, the nullhypothesis is rejected. Similarly, the way global thinkers learn Mathematics and their profile interms of age and school have highly significant relationship since the computedp-values of 0.000 and 0.0003, respectively are both less than the threshold valueof 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected. In contrast, there is no significant relationship between the global thinkerslearn the subject and their gender since its computed p–value of 0.283 is greaterthan 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 theiractualities 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 nosignificant relationship with their actualities while teaching Mathematicsconsidering their computed p–values of 0.666 and 0.123 are both greater thanthe threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. The teachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminarsattended and their strategies in teaching Mathematics have highly significantrelationships 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
  • 9. hypothesis is rejected. On the contrary, no significant relationship was observedbetween the teachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teachingMathematics 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 andteaching strategies given that their computed p–values of 0.311, 0.062 and0.061, respectively are all greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Hence, thenull is accepted. The following conclusions were drawn: The highly significant differencesbetween the students’ learning preferences – visual, auditory and kinesthetic -may be due to the homogenous grouping of students in private schools who mayhave the same interests and the heterogeneous grouping of students in publicschools who may have varied interests. In addition, the auditory preferences ofboth male and female students do not vary significantly in the sense that bothgender are observed to have similar interests when comes to sounds/musicwhich the Mathematics teacher use at a large extent. The actualities and the teaching strategies used by male and female aswell as single and married Mathematics teacher do not tend to differ.Consequently, Mathematics teachers who are older, have higher educationalattainment, longer experiences in the field of teaching and those who havegreater number of seminars are observed to have more varied actualities andhave greater propensity in the use of different teaching strategies.
  • 10. The learning preferences of students – visual or auditory, auditory orkinesthetic and kinesthetic or visual – do not show significant relationship withthe teaching strategies used by the Mathematics teacher which means that anystudent who has his/her own learning preference can thrive in a Mathematicsclass where the teacher uses wide-range of strategies. Based on the summary of findings, the following recommendations areoffered: To promote more effective teaching-learning, professional developmentactivities should be provided among the teachers to help them address thediversity 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 thanthe lesson. As teachers model these problem-solving strategies daily, theyshould also monitor the students as they use them, and they encourage studentsto use the strategies in a variety of ways. Students should learn to generalizethese strategies into other areas to become independent learners for life. Seminars should be conducted by school administrators and principals toimprove the teaching strategies used by the teachers in their respective schools. Further study on the learning preferences of students and teachingstrategies of Mathematics teachers considering other variables is recommended.
  • 11. TABLE OF CONTENTS PageTITLE PAGE iAPPROVAL SHEET iiACKNOWLEDGMENT iiiDEDICATION vABSTRACT viTABLE OF CONTENTS ixLIST OF TABLES xiLIST OF FIGURES xiiChapter 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 12CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 15 Review of Related Literature 15 Review of Related Studies 17CHAPTER 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 25CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 28 OF DATACHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 48 Summary of findings 48 Conclusions 51 Recommendations 52
  • 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY 53APPENDICES Appendix A Approval Letter Appendix B Research Instrument Appendix C Data and ComputationsCURRICULUM VITAE
  • 13. LIST OF TABLESTable 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
  • 14. Figure Page 1 The Conceptual Model showing the relationship among the 8 Independent Variable, Dependent Variable and Moderating Variable of the Study Chapter 1
  • 15. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUNDIntroduction Mathematics deals with solving problems. Such problems are similar to allother problems everyone is confronted with. It consists of defining the problem,entertaining a tentative guess as the solution, testing the guess, and deriving at asolution. Mathematics is definite, logical and objective. The rules for determiningthe 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 inan empirical science. Under the guidance of a teacher the student can be shownhow to “discover knowledge knew to them” and how to convince themselves thatwhat they have discovered is correct. This process of learning mathematics is ofgreat value to them especially in future studies and investigations they willundertake. Student has their own learning style in learning mathematics. A learningstyle is a student’ consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the contextof learning. Keefe (1979) defines learning style as the “composite ofcharacteristics cognitive, affective, and psychological factors that serve asrelatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, andresponds to the learning environment.’ Stewart and Felicetti (1992) definelearning as those “education conditions under which a student is most likely tolearn.” Thus, learning style is not really concerned with “what” learners learn, butrather “how’ they prefer to learn.
  • 16. Since learners have their own learning style in learning mathematics, theresearcher wonders to determine the relationship among the learners’preferences and teaching strategy in teaching mathematics. There are factors tobe considered like the students’ performance which is based on how they preferto learn and what they learn from their mathematics teachers using a variety ofteaching strategies. If a teacher is well-equipped with the best teachingstrategies, then his teaching can be considered as an effective one. But this onlyhappens when his students learn from the teaching-learning process, and if theycan 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 thathas 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 nationalstruggle to meet the needs of society. In 1992, the DECS which governs bothpublic and private education in all levels stated that its mission was “to providequality basic education that is equitably accessible to all by the foundation forlifelong learning and service for the common good.” The department alsostipulated its vision to “develop a highly competent, civic spirited, life-skilled, andGod-loving Filipino youth who actively participate in and contribute towards thebuilding of a humane, healthy and productive society.” All these ambitions wereembodied in the department strategy called Philippines 2000.
  • 17. (http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1199philippines-education-system-an-overview-html) In the Philippines the education system aims to provide a broad generaleducation that will assist each individual in society to attain his/her potential as ahuman 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 theessential educational foundation for his/her development into a productive andversatile citizen, train the nation’s manpower in the middle-level skills required fornational development, develop the high-level professions that will provideleadership for the nation, advance knowledge through research, and apply newknowledge for improving the quality of human life, respond effectively tochanging needs and conditions through a system of educational planning andevaluation.(http://www.seameoinnotech.org/resources/seameo_country/educ_data/philippines/philippines_ibe.htm). A school is an institution for the teaching of children and it is a group ofteachers and students pursuing knowledge together. School should educate aninstitution of learning, and teach or drill in a specific knowledge or skill. The schools where the researcher was conducted her research study arethe four schools found in the town of Mabitac, Laguna. The first one is theMabitac National High School (MNHS), the school of the researcher took up herhigh school education. It is located at Barangay Libis ng Nayon Mabitac, Laguna.
  • 18. MNHS is formerly called Alas-as National High School. Students studying in thisschool come from the different barangay in Mabitac, Laguna which they havedifferent behavior based on their environment and social background. They havetheir own preferences or styles on how they learn. And because of that, theteacher 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 beable his/her students arouse their attention and interest in learning. Paagahan National High School (PNHS) and its extension, the PaagahanNational High School (Matalatala Extension) would be another school where thestudy 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. Theclassroom sectioning of these schools are continuous, the first and secondsections of each year level are in the PNHS and the third and fourth sections arein 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 AntonioMabitac, Laguna. This school was developed by the help of all fathers in thebarangay chapel and the Missionary Servants of the Poor. They providescholarship for those students who want to help and serve in the chapel, andespecially, students who have dedication in learning. BJCA has a target behaviorto be developed every month, but still, students have their own learning styles
  • 19. and in this case, they need the supervision of teachers and the Priest-director ofthe school. Teaching style or strategies is viewed as a broad dimension or personalitytype that encloses teacher stance, pattern of behavior, mode of performance,and attitude toward self and others. Penelope Peterson defines teacher style interms of how teachers utilize space in the classroom, their choice of instructionalactivities and materials, and their method of student grouping. Studentcharacteristics will influence sometimes greatly how a particular teaching strategyis employed and how successful it will be. Student characteristics will also enterinto the selection of a teaching strategy. The teacher needs to arouse the student’ interest and attention duringclassroom 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 concentratesprocesses and retains new and difficult information in many different ways andthey respond according to their perceptual strengths or learning modality. Students are highly mobile. Generally, teachers need to let the studentsfeel physiologically comfortable before asking them to study, learn or concentratethe lessons. When the students feel comfortable, they can think and focus better. Individuals capture and remember information best when it presented in astep-by-step, methodical, sequential structure, one fact after another, little bylittle, leading toward an understanding of the concepts or lesson presented.
  • 20. Students at all levels have individualized learning preferences that greatlyaffect the way they concentrates on, process, internalize and retain new anddifficult academic information. Thus, the researcher would conduct this study to determine the learners’preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics. This would bedesigned to verify how the students perform with respect to the strategies used inteaching.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 howindividuals develop habitual ways of responding to experience. Learning/ThinkingStyles refers to the preferred way individual processes information. Theydescribe 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 sensorypreferences, individuals tend to gravitate toward one or two types of severalinputs and maintain dominance in visual, auditory and tactile/kinesthetic learners.Analytic thinkers tend toward the linear, step-by-step processes of learning whilethe global thinkers lean towards non-linear thought and tend to the whole patternrather than particles elements.
  • 21. The theory of multiple intelligences was first described by Howard Gardnerin Frame of Mind (1983). Gardner defines intelligences as “an ability or set ofabilities that allows a person to solve a problem or fashion a product that isvalued in one or more cultures.” Gardner believes that different intelligences maybe independent abilities ─ a person can be low in one domain area but high inanother. All of us possess the intelligences but in varying degrees of strength andskills. It is important for teachers to use their knowledge about thinking/learningstyle and multiple intelligences in planning activities to help their students toeffectively learn. The above theories was helped the researcher to gather the necessaryinformation needed in evaluating the relationship among the learners’preferences and teaching strategies in teaching mathematics to the fourth yearhigh 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.
  • 22. The box at the center contains the moderating variables which include thestudents and teachers’ profile. The line that connects the independent variable and the dependentvariable indicates the relationship between them.
  • 23. Independent Variable Dependent Variable Teachers’ ActualitiesLearners’ Preferences AndVisual Learners Teaching StrategiesAuditory Learners Lecture DiscussionKinesthetic Learners Problem SolvingWay of Students’ Learning Cooperative LearningAnalytic Thinkers Deductive MethodGlobal 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
  • 24. Statement of the Problem This study aimed to determine the relationship among learners’preferences and teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics of fourth year highschool 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; and1.3 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; and3.3 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:
  • 25. 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; and6.5 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.
  • 26. 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 learningMathematics. They will understand and identify the teaching strategies employedby their teachers that may affect their performance. Teachers. They will be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses inemploying the strategies in teaching mathematics. This will serve as a guide todevise better methods that can be used in the learning process to have betterquality of teaching. Parents. The parents who are greatly concerned in the education of theirchildren will be aware of the styles on how their child learns. DepEd. This study will help them to improve the current situation inteaching Mathematics. Through this study, they will be able to establish theimplements new programs had can support the improvement of different teachingstrategies of Mathematics teachers and the improvement of the students’performance. School Administrators. This study will help them to be aware of studentslearning and thinking styles in Mathematics even in other subjects, it will alsoserve as a guide to provide training and seminars for mathematics teachersregarding teaching strategies.
  • 27. Researchers. The results of this study will serve as a guide for futurestudies pertaining to teaching-learning process, learners’ preferences andteaching 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’ preferencesand teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics. A questionnaire-checklistdetermines the learner’s preferences and teaching strategies would be used togather the needed information in this research. This study was limited only to five (5) Mathematics teachers and onehundred fifty-seven (157) selected students of fourth year high school studentsfrom all secondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna during the academic year2010-2011. 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 JamesCusmano Academy.Definition of Terms For clarification and understanding of the terms related to this study, thefollowing terms are defined conceptually and operationally. Analytic Thinkers refer to learners who tend toward the linear, step-by-step processes of learning.
  • 28. Auditory Thinkers refer to learners who learn best through verballectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have tosay. Cooperative Learning refers to a group helping each other learn butkeeping each individual member accountable for his/her learning. Deductive Method refers to the teaching strategies begins with theabstract rule, generalization, principles, and ends with specific examples, andconcrete details. Global Thinkers refers to learners who lean towards non-linear thoughtand tend to see the whole pattern rather than particle elements. Inductive Method refers to teaching strategies begins with the specificdetails, concrete data and ends with an abstract generalization rule, or principle. Kinesthetic Learners refer to person who benefits much more from ahands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them. Learners’ Preferences refers to learners’ prepared learning style inlearning Mathematics. They have their own learning style according to how theycan easily learn. Learning Style refers to patterns of how individual develop habitual waysof responding to experience. Lecture Discussion refers to teaching strategy which presentsinformation in ways that it can be attended to, easily processed, andremembered.
  • 29. Problem Solving refers to teaching strategy that employs the specificmethod 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 actionsand facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson.
  • 30. 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 highschool students at Mabitac, Laguna as reviewed by the researcher. The followingliterature and studies related to this study were presented below.Related Literature Learning styles as described by Litzinger and Ozif (1992) refer to thedifferent ways in which children and adults think and learn. Ellis (1985) describeda 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) hasdescribed some of the varied learning preferences. Learning preferences canhelp an individual begin to understand and choose strategies which work best forhim. 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 thatteachers also have their own approaches to the classroom. While this may havebecome habitual and while he teacher may define the classroom according totheirs and not the students’ preferences, teachers have to acknowledge that theirstyles will not necessarily suit cluster of students in their classroom. As teachers
  • 31. attempt to modify their classrooms, they need it begin by exploring their ownstyles (http://web.instate.edu/ctl/style//learning.htm). The book of Sims (1995) emphasized, among other things, the extremeimportance of understanding individual differences, learning principles, factorsthat affect motivation of students and trainees in learning situations, and thevariety of individual learning style models that instructors and trainers canconsider in their efforts. It should be evident to those responsible for teachingand training that an increased understanding and use of learning style data canprovide them with important information. Most importantly, each teaching ortraining endeavor will have learners with disparate learning style preferences anda variety of learning strengths and weaknesses that have been developedthrough earlier learning experiences, analytical abilities, and a host of otherexperiences they bring with them. To enhance learning, instructors and trainersmust recognize that individuals learn and teach differently, and what may be anoptimal learning or training method for one may discourage another. Indeed,instructors and trainers should make sure that a variety of training or learningopportunities are presented to students and trainees to increase the likelihood ofadvancing learning. The book of Brophy (2004) describes key features of classroommanagement, curriculum, instruction, and teacher–student relationships thatcreate a social context that prepares the way for successful use of themotivational strategies. Those strategies are meant to be subsumed within anoverall pattern of effective teaching that includes compatible approaches to
  • 32. managing the classroom and teaching the curriculum. Students will not respondwell to motivational attempts if they are fearful, resentful, or otherwise focused onnegative emotions. To create conditions that favor your motivational efforts, youwill need to establish and maintain your classroom as a learning community—aplace where students come primarily to learn, and succeed in doing so throughcollaboration with you and their classmates. You also will need to focus yourcurriculum on things that are worth learning and to develop this content in waysthat help students to appreciate its significance and application potential. According to Gordon (2003) as cited by Credo (2010), if teaching-learningprocesses are working effectively, a unique kind of relationship must existbetween those two separate parties-some kind of a connection, link or bridgebetween the teacher and the learner. Nismed (2002) as cited by Credo (2010) stated that there are severalstages in the teaching-learning process. The choice of teaching strategy for eachstage depends in the leaning objectives, the concept to be learned and the depthof 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 inteaching mathematics of fourth year high school students was conducted andthere studies was reviewed by the researcher. Those studies would be usefulfindings in determining the relationship of learners’ preferences in teaching
  • 33. Mathematics. The study of Villamor (2008) as cited by Palino (2010) found out that therewas a significant functional relationship between gender, interest towardsmathematics, teaching competencies, teaching strategies and techniques andlibrary setting that there is no significant functional relationship betweenclassroom setting and the students’ performance in mathematics. The study of Sieddentop as cited by Bacha (2010) revealed that for ateacher to be effective in instructional strategies that will help the studentsunderstand the concepts: the teachers must provide the student with diverse,creative and dynamic teaching techniques for the children to become interestedin their own health conditions. Gordula (2005) as cited by Credo (2010) study found out that teachers dohave an effect on the students’ accomplishment and that teachers differs in theability to get results in highest IQ level have the best achievement in English. Delos Santos (2004) revealed that the faculty members are outstanding ininstructing competence although there is still room for improvement especiallyalong utilization of instructional materials and aides, varying teachingmethodology and technique and providing up to date materials and information. A study conducted by Palino (2010) found out that the instructionalmaterials 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), theteacher variables such as age, sex, length of service, Civil status and educational
  • 34. attainment significantly affect the performance of the students and it wassuggested that there variables by given attention in assigning teaching loads.She found out that the teacher competencies have significant influence on theperformance of the students. Aguirre (2001) as cited by Calalo (2011) stated that learning styles ofpupils differed significantly in terms of structure, responsibility and intake andlevel of mental age accounted for the significant difference; learning styles –physical, personal and physiological elements were proven to be thedeterminants of academic performance. According to the study of Sainz (2000) as cited by Calalo (2011) show thatsex or gender is not significant or determinant for better performance inMathematics. It implies that sex has nothing to do with the capability of thestudents when it comes to mathematical aspects like analysis, computation andreasoning. According to Villainea (2000) as cited by Palino (2010), the studentperformance better in subject that require the use of technical and manipulativeskill and were handicapped in subject that demands more of mental abilities. Shealso stated that differences in academic performance cannot always be based onmental abilities but emotional and attitudinal can also influence. Effective teachers engage student actively in learning. This implies thatteachers must know that students should be brought to the learning experienceand to know what they need to learn (Travers and Rebore 1995).
  • 35. The above mentioned studies and literatures are helpful to this studybecause they provide the researcher with the background information that helpedthe development of the problem under study.
  • 36. 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 todetermine the relationship of the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies inteaching mathematics. Gay 2000 defines descriptive research as involving collection of data inorder to test hypotheses or to answer questions concerning the current status ofthe subject of the study. A descriptive study determines and reports the waythings are. Descriptive research includes all of those studies that purportpresents facts concerning the nature and status of anything. It is concerned withconditions of relationships that exist.Subjects of the Study Respondents in this study were five (5) Mathematics teachers and onehundred fifty-seven (157) selected fourth year high school students of allsecondary schools at Mabitac, Laguna, school year 2010-2011 using the Slovin’sformula and stratified random sampling.
  • 37. 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 157Determination of Sampling Techniques The Stratified random sampling technique was used to determine thenumber of the student-respondents involved in this study. Not all fourth year highschool students at Mabitac, Laguna would serve as respondents in this study.However, the samples to be taken are expected to possess characteristicsidentical to those of the population.Research Instrument The main tool used in the study was a questionnaire-checklist. Thequestionnaire-checklist was constructed for the teacher and student respondents.Part I of the questionnaire-checklist for the teacher-respondents is the teachers’
  • 38. profile such as gender, age, civil status, educational attainments, number ofyears in service, and seminars attended. Part II-A and B pertains to the teachers’ actualities and teaching strategiesin teaching Mathematics. Another questionnaire-checklist was constructed for the students’respondents were adopted from the book of Maria Rita D. Lucas, Ph.D. andBrenda B. Corpuz, Ph.D. (2007) entitled “Facilitating Learning”. While the otherparts of it were developed by the researcher with the assistance of the adviser ingathering 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 theteaching strategies they observe from their mathematics teacher. The other setquestionnaire-checklist is the students’ profile such as age, gender, section, andschool. Part I of the questionnaire-checklist contains the personal informationabout the student-respondents which includes the age, gender, section, andschool. Part II pertains to the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies thestudent observe from their Mathematics teacher. This part is subdivided into two: Part II-A contains several situational statements in order to ascertain thestudents’ preferences in learning mathematics. Part II-B and C consists of teachers’ actualities and teaching strategies
  • 39. observed by the students. The indicators in Part II of each set of questionnaires were rated using thefollowing 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 ExtentResearch 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 thesubject of research. A questionnaire-checklist that aimed to draw out proper responses to theobjectives of this study will be constructed. This questionnaire-checklist waspresented, analyzed and checked by the researcher’s adviser and experts ondifferent fields of specialization to ensure the validity of responses it would elicit. The permit to conduct the research and study on the subject school wassecured from the Dean of the College of Teacher Education which was attachedto another letter request was sent to the school administrators and advisers ofthe selected students to obtain their learners’ preferences in Mathematics. Theresearcher administered the questionnaire and with the help of some friends,retrieved the accomplished questionnaire.
  • 40. The data gathered were checked, tabulated and analyzed using thestatistical tools described in this chapter. The significant findings of the study were presented to the experts in thefield of Mathematics and to the school authorities.Statistical Treatment of Data The data gathered were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using thefollowing 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 7. Significant relationship between the Pearson r / t-test, teachers’ actualities, the teaching Chi – square, Probability strategies, and the teachers’ profile
  • 41. 8. Significant relationship between the Pearson r / t-test, learners’ preferences and teaching Chi – square, Probability strategies in teaching mathematics
  • 42. Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the data gathered todetermine the learners’ preferences and teaching strategies in teachingMathematics 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, civilstatus, 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 4months. There were all-female respondents in which 3 or 60 percent are singleand 2 or 40 percent are married. In terms of educational attainments of teachers, 3 or 60 percent amongthem held a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education, Major in Mathematics; 1or 20 percent finished the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching; and another 1 or20 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 havebeen in the field of teaching in the last years. Also, 1 or 20 percent have taughtfrom 11 to 15 years and another 1 or 20 percent have taught for 20 years ormore. On the last part of the table, it can be seen that 2 or 40 percent of the
  • 43. teachers have attended 4–6 seminars from 2001 to date. Others have attended7–9, 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 eAge Average Age. = 31.4 23 2 40 1 28 1 20 3 41 1 20 3 42 1 20 3 Total 5 100Gender Female 5 100 1 Male 0 0 2 Total 5 100Civil Status Single 3 60 1 Married 2 40 2 Total 5 100Educational Attainment BSEd 3 60 1 MAT 1 20 2.5 MAED 1 20 2.5 Total 5 100No. 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 100Seminars 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
  • 44. The Profile of the Student-Respondents Table 3 presents the frequency, percentage distribution and rank of theprofile of the student-respondents in terms of age, gender, and school. The table reveals that out of one hundred fifty-seven (157) students, 79 or50.32 percent are female and 78 or 49.68 percent are male. The students whoare age 16 obtained a frequency of 74 or 47.13 percent. The oldest among themis 22 years old with a frequency of 1 or 0.64 percent. The table further shows the distribution of the respondents by school. Itcan be gleaned that 70 or 44.59 percent were from MNHS; 40 or 25.48 percentwere 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 100Learning Preferences of Students
  • 45. Table 4 shows the visual preferences of students on how they learnMathematics.Table 4 Computed Weighted Mean of the Visual Preferences of Students Weighted Statements VI Rank MeanThe 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
  • 46. It can be observed that the visual preferences of students which obtainedan average weighted mean of 3.80. Based on the results, the following activitiesof the students are at a large extent: when they are unsure of how to spell aword, they write it in order to determine if it is looks right; solving problem inwriting or drawing diagrams to see it; and gives written instructions on how tobuild something in reading silently and try to visualize how the parts will fittogether obtained the same weighted mean of 4.00. On the other hand, the students verbally describe something to anotherperson in brief only at a moderate extent because he/she does not like to talk atlength as revealed by the computed weighted mean of 3.30. As a whole, the visual preferences of students are at a large extent withthe average weighted mean of 3.80. Table 5 on the next page shows that the auditory preference of students isat 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 todetermine if it sounds right and often say the letters and words to themselveswhich 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 intogreat detail because they like to talk; and enjoy listening but want to interruptwhich are at a moderate extent since they both obtained a weighted mean of3.00.
  • 47. Table 5 Computed Weighted Mean of the Extent of Auditory Preferences of Students Weighted Statements VI Rank MeanThe 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. Extent3. asked to give directions, they have no Moderate 3.34 9 difficulty in giving it verbally. Extent4. 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. Extent9. 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. Extent11. 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. Extent14. were verbally describing to someone, he/she would enjoy listening but want to 3.67 Large Extent 4 interrupt and talk themselves. Average Weighted Mean 3.47 Large Extent
  • 48. It can be noticed from table 6 that the kinesthetic preference of thestudents 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 MeanThe 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 33. 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. Extent8. solving a problem, they use his/her entire body or 3.00 Moderate 14 move objects to help him/her think. Extent9. 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 312. 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. Average Weighted Mean 3.43 Large Extent Table 6 also revealed that students’ learning on how to do something andlearning when they try to do it themselves is at large extent which obtained aweighted mean of 3.90. Also, their ability to solve problems using their entire
  • 49. body or move objects to help them think is at a moderate extent which obtained aweighted mean of 3.00. Table 7 shows the composite table of the learning preferences ofstudents. 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 preferencesis at a low extent with the computed weighted mean of 3.80, 3.47 and 3.43respectively. It implies that teachers should prepare varied visual materials in order tohelp 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 analyticthinkers than global thinkers as revealed by the computed weighted mean of 3.83and 3.56, respectively. Analytic thinkers to respond to word meaning at a very large extent whichobtained a weighted mean of 4.10. Learning is at a low extent when they studyin a well-lighted room with the weighted mean of 3.64.
  • 50. 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 verylarge extent which obtained a weighted mean of 3.83. On the contrary, students learn at a low extent when they study withsound/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 bythe students with their Mathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’
  • 51. perception of their own actualities in the classroom with an average weightedmean of 3.88 and 3.96, respectively. It can be viewed that based on the observation of students that theteachers 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 ofmovement and noise in the room and they tend to sit for a length of time whichobtained a weighted mean of 3.61. On the other hand, the teachers confirmed that they always teach hestudents on how to do something that show, tell and allow them to do it withthemselves; they verbally describe or move their body in giving directions; theywrite or draw diagrams, talk and move objects to help them think on how to solveproblem; and they talk with a lot of expressions and use hands-on activitieswhich 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 timetrying to concentrate which both obtained a weighted mean of 3.60. According to Gordon (2003), if teaching-learning processes are workingeffectively, a unique kind of relationship must exist between those two separateparties-some kind of a connection, link or bridge between the teacher and thelearner. In connection, the nearly similar perceptions of both the students andthe teachers on the teachers’ actualities justify what can really be observed in theclassroom.
  • 52. 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 OftenTeachers’ Teaching Strategies in Teaching Mathematics Table 11 presents the teaching strategies used by Mathematics Teacher.
  • 53. As a whole, the teachers often use varied teaching strategies based onthe perception of students and their perception of themselves with an averageweighted mean of 3.87 and 4.08, respectively. Specifically, they have observed that the most used teaching strategy oftheir Mathematics Teachers is the lecture method which obtained a weightedmean 4.50 which ranked first; while Inductive Method ranked last with a weightedmean of 3.61. According to the teachers, Cooperative Learning is what they always usein teaching Mathematics which obtained a weighted mean of 4.40 which rankfirst. Whereas, it appeared that they seldom use the Deductive Method whichobtained 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 aremanagement, curriculum, instruction, and teacher–student relationships thatcreate a social context which prepares the way for the successful use of
  • 54. motivational strategies. Those strategies are meant to be subsumed within anoverall pattern of effective teaching that includes compatible approaches tomanaging the classroom and teaching thes curriculum.Relationship between the Profile of the Students and Their Preferences inLearning 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 betweenstudents’ profile in terms of age and school and the three kinds of learningpreferences 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 auditorypreferences 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 hypothesisis rejected. The foregoing findings are supported by the study of Aguirre (2001) whoaffirmed that learning styles of pupils differed significantly in terms of structure,responsibility and intake and level of mental age accounted for the significantdifference; learning styles – physical, personal and physiological elements wereproven to be the determinants of academic performance. On the other hand, no significant relationship between the visual andkinesthetic preferences of students and in terms of gender it was observed in
  • 55. computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139 respectively which are greater than thethreshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. The findings supported by the study of Sainz (2000) which states that sexor 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 itcomes to mathematical aspects like analysis, computation and reasoning. The results convey that age and type or status of the schools hassomething to do with the learning capability of students although their age has aminimal 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 StatVisual Pearson r/Age 129.710 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant t-testGender Chi - Square 5.682 12 0.224 Accept Ho Not SignificantSchool Chi - Square 31.215 12 0.000 Reject Ho Highly SignificantAuditory Pearson r/Age 143.29 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant t-testGender Chi - Square 188.309 12 0.000 Reject Ho Highly SignificantSchool Chi - Square 38.378 12 0.0001 Reject Ho Highly SignificantKinesthetic Pearson r/Age 133.462 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant t-testGender Chi - Square 6.938 12 0.139 Accept Ho Not SignificantSchool Chi - Square 31.215 12 0.002 Reject Ho Highly Significantp–value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significantp–value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant
  • 56. Relationship between the Profile of the Students and Their Ways ofLearning Mathematics Table 13 shows the relationship between the profile of students and theirways of learning Mathematics. It can be seen that there is a highly significant relationship between theway analytic thinkers learn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, genderand school. It was observed in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and0.001, 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 interms of age and school have highly significant relationship since the computedp-values of 0.000 and 0.0003, respectively are both less than the threshold valueof 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected. In contrast, there is no significant relationship between the global thinkerslearn the subject and their gender since its computed p–value of 0.283 is greaterthan the threshold value at 0.05. Consequently, the null hypothesis is accepted. The idea of Sims (1995) which emphasized that among other things, theextreme importance of understanding individual differences, learning principles,factors that affect motivation of students and trainees in learning situations, andthe variety of individual learning style models that instructors and trainers canconsider in their efforts. It should be evident to those responsible for teachingand training that an increased understanding and use of learning style data canprovide them with important information.
  • 57. Table 13 Relationship between analytic and global thinkers and students’ profile Value of Variables Tools df p–value Decision Interpretation Test Stat Analytic Pearson Age 119.189 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant 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 Age 127.744 156 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant Correlation Chi - Gender 18.237 8 0.283 Accept Ho Not Significant Square Chi - School 35.838 8 0.0003 Reject Ho Highly Significant Squarep–value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significantp–value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not SignificantRelationship between Teachers’ Profile and Their Actualities Table 14 shows the relationship between teachers’ profile of the teachersand their actualities. It can be noticed that there is a highly significant relationship between theteachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminars attendedand their actualities while teaching Mathematics since its computed p–values of0.003, 0.049, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively are less than the threshold value at0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, the teachers’ gender and civil status have nosignificant relationship with their actualities while teaching Mathematicsconsidering their computed p–values of 0.666 and 0.123 are both greater thanthe threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
  • 58. Table 14. Relationship between Teachers’ Actualities and Teachers’ Profile Value of Variables Tools df p-value Decision Interpretation Test Stat Pearson HighlyAge Correlation 6.594 4 0.003 Reject Ho Significant Unpaired NotGender t-test -0.580 1 0.666 Accept Ho Significant Unpaired NotCivil Status t-test -2.583 2 0.123 Accept Ho SignificantEducational Unpaired Highly t-test -3.199 3 0.049 Reject HoAttainment SignificantLength of Unpaired Highly t-test 8.277 7 0.000 Reject HoService SignificantSeminars Unpaired Highly t-test 8.277 7 0.000 Reject HoAttended Significantp – value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significantp – value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant The results are supported by the citation of Bacha (2010) which states thatfor a teacher to be effective in instructional strategies that will help the studentsunderstand the concepts: the teachers must provide the students with diverse,creative and dynamic teaching techniques for the students to become interestedin 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, lengthof service and seminars attended and their strategies in teaching Mathematicshave 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.
  • 59. The findings imply that some of the teachers’ profile affects their choice ofstrategies in teaching Mathematics. New graduates who are just starting in theirteaching jobs should gain more knowledge in selecting appropriate teachingstrategies that can be used for teaching different kinds of students. On the contrary, no significant relationship was observed between theteachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teaching Mathematicsconsidering the computed p–values of 0.642 and 0.214, respectively which areboth greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis isaccepted. The results imply that gender and civil status has nothing to do with thestrategies used by the teachers in teaching Mathematics. There is no particularteaching strategy for particular gender and civil status; any teacher can use anystrategy that they think will help their students learn easily.Table 15 Relationship between teaching strategies and teachers’ profile Value of Variables Tools df p-value Decision Interpretation 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 Significantp – value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significantp – value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant
  • 60. 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 ofteaching strategy for each stage depends in the leaning objectives, the conceptto be learned and the depth of understanding required by the situation – classsize, time, availability of resources, the nature of the learners and the teacherbackground.Relationship between the Learners’ Preferences and the TeachingStrategies in Mathematics Table 16 shows the relationship between the learners’ preferences andthe strategies in teaching Mathematics. It can be seen from the table that there is no significant relationshipbetween learners’ preferences and teaching strategies given that their computedp–values of 0.311, 0.062 and 0.061, respectively are all greater than thethreshold value at 0.05. Hence, the null is accepted.Table 16. Relationship between the Learners’ Preferences and Teaching Strategies in teaching Mathematics Value ofVariables Tools df p-value Decision Interpretation Test StatLearners’ Preferences UnpairedVisual 1.158 4 0.311 Accept Ho Not Significant t-test UnpairedAuditory 2.564 4 0.062 Accept Ho Not Significant t-test UnpairedKinesthetic 2.586 4 0.061 Accept Ho Not Significant t-testp–value < 0.05 Reject Ho Significantp–value > 0.05 Accept Ho Not Significant
  • 61. The results proved that one consequence of studying learning styles is therecognition that teachers also have their own approaches to the classroom.While this may have become habitual and while the teacher may define theclassroom according to theirs and not the students’ preferences, teachers haveto acknowledge that their styles will not necessarily suit cluster of students intheir classroom. As teachers attempt to modify their classrooms, they need itbegin by exploring their own styles (http://web.instate.edu/ctl/style//learning.htm).
  • 62. Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter summarizes the findings, concludes and presentsrecommendation 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 HighSchool. The average age of teachers is 31.40 years. Most of them are singles whohold a degree of Bachelor in Secondary Education with 1-5 years teachingexperience 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 and3.43, respectively. The analytic way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.83while the global way of learning obtained an average weighted mean of 3.56. The teachers’ actualities observed by the students with theirMathematics teachers and the Mathematics teachers’ perception of their ownactualities in the classroom with an average weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.96,respectively.
  • 63. The teachers often use varied teaching strategies based on the perceptionof students and their perception of themselves with an average weighted mean of3.87 and 4.08, respectively. There is a highly significant relationship between the students’ profile interms of age and school and their learning preferences of students andconsidering that all of them obtained the computed p-values of 0.000 which isless than the threshold value at 0.05. Likewise, a highly significant relationshipbetween the auditory preferences of students and their gender was observedsince 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 significantrelationship between the visual and kinesthetic preferences of students and interms of gender it was observed in computed p–values of 0.224 and 0.139respectively which are greater than the threshold p–value of 0.05.Hence, the nullhypothesis is accepted. There is a highly significant relationship between the way analytic thinkerslearn Mathematics and their profile in terms of age, gender and school. It wasobserved in their computed p–values of 0.000, 0.001 and 0.001, respectivelywhich are all less than the threshold p–value at 0.05. Therefore, the nullhypothesis is rejected. Similarly, the way global thinkers learn Mathematics and their profile interms of age and school have highly significant relationship since the computedp-values of 0.000 and 0.0003, respectively are both less than the threshold valueof 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected.
  • 64. In contrast, there is no significant relationship between the global thinkerslearn the subject and their gender since its computed p–value of 0.283 is greaterthan 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 theiractualities 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 nosignificant relationship with their actualities while teaching Mathematicsconsidering their computed p–values of 0.666 and 0.123 are both greater thanthe threshold value at 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. The teachers’ age, educational attainment, length of service and seminarsattended and their strategies in teaching Mathematics have highly significantrelationships 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 nullhypothesis is rejected. On the contrary, no significant relationship was observedbetween the teachers’ gender and civil status and their strategies in teachingMathematics 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 andteaching strategies given that their computed p–values of 0.311, 0.062 and
  • 65. 0.061, respectively are all greater than the threshold value at 0.05. Hence, thenull is accepted.Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn: The highly significant differences between the students’ learningpreferences – visual, auditory and kinesthetic - may be due to the homogenousgrouping of students in private schools who may have the same interests and theheterogeneous grouping of students in public schools who may have variedinterests. In addition, the auditory preferences of both male and female studentsdo not vary significantly in the sense that both gender are observed to havesimilar interests when comes to sounds/music which the Mathematics teacheruse at a large extent. The actualities and the teaching strategies used by male and female aswell as single and married Mathematics teacher do not tend to differ.Consequently, Mathematics teachers who are older, have higher educationalattainment, longer experiences in the field of teaching and those who havegreater number of seminars are observed to have more varied actualities andhave greater propensity in the use of different teaching strategies. The learning preferences of students – visual or auditory, auditory orkinesthetic and kinesthetic or visual – do not show significant relationship withthe teaching strategies used by the Mathematics teacher which means that any
  • 66. student who has his/her own learning preference can thrive in a Mathematicsclass where the teacher uses wide-range of strategies.Recommendations Based on the summary of findings, the following recommendations areoffered: To promote more effective teaching-learning, professional developmentactivities should be provided among the teachers to help them address thediversity 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 thanthe lesson. As teachers model these problem-solving strategies daily, theyshould also monitor the students as they use them, and they encourage studentsto use the strategies in a variety of ways. Students should learn to generalizethese strategies into other areas to become independent learners for life. Seminars should be conducted by school administrators and principals toimprove the teaching strategies used by the teachers in their respective schools. Further study on the learning preferences of students and teachingstrategies of Mathematics teachers considering other variables is recommended.
  • 67. BIBLIOGRAPHYA. Books Brophy, Jere. “Motivating Students to Learn.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2004) pg. 26 Lucas, Maria Rita D. Ph.D. Corpuz, Brenda B. Ph.D. “Facilitating Learning.” Manila: Lorimar Publishing Inc. (2007) pg. 75-79. Sims, Ronald R. Sims, Serbrenia J. “The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning, Course Design, and Education.” Greenwood Press. (1995) pg. 193.B. Unpublished Books Bacha, Erwin M. “The Effectiveness of Mathematics Games as a Strategy in Teaching Mathematics to First Year High School Students,” 2010, Calalo, John Wilson m. “Mathematics Performance as affected by English Proficiency of Laboratory High School Students at Laguna State Polytechnic University, S.Y. 2009-2010.” Siniloan, Laguna. 2011. Credo, Edison R.“Determinants of English Performance of High School Students in Famy – Mabitac District S.Y. 2008 – 2009”. Laguna State Polytechnic University, Siniloan Laguna. .2010. Delos Santos, Cecilla B. “The Teaching of Science and the Students Performance in Publc School.” Master Thesis. 2004. Gordula, Elaine Rose V. “The Teaching of English and the Students Performance Input, the Faculty and Student Development.” Master Thesis. 2004. Palino, Carolyn R. “Effectiveness of Teaching Mathematics as Perceived by the Students of Balian National High School A.Y. 2008-2009.” 2010.C. Internet Sources Clark, Donald. “Learning Styles & Preferences.” 2000. http://www.nwlink.com/ ~donclark/hrd/styles.html Claxton, Charles S. “Learning Styles.” 2003 http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/bib/88dig.htm
  • 68. Ellis, Robert, “What is a learning style?” 1985http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/learning-styles-teachingFelder, Richard. “Learning Styles” 2012.http://www.mindtools.com/mnemlsty.html “Identify Your Learning Preference.”http://www.bcps.org/students/online_learning/learning_preference.htmlLitzinger, M. E., & Osif, B. 1993. “Accommodating diverse learning styles”http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/ehd/journal/Fall2003/novin.html“Philippines - Educational System—an Overview.” 2010.http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1199/Philippines-EDUCATIONAL-SYSTEM-AN-OVERVIEW.html“Principles and general objectives of education.” 2003.http://www.seameoinnotech.org/resources/seameo_country/educ_data/philippines/philippines_ibe.htmTenedero, Henry S. “Elements of a learner’s preferences.” 2009.http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/230164/elements-a-learner-s-preferencesTravers, Paul & Rebore, Ronald W. “Foundations of education: Becoming ateacher” 1995.http://www.getcited.org/pub/103188225
  • 69. Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY Siniloan, Laguna COLLEGE OF EDUCATION November 19, 2010Dr. CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTINDean, College of EducationMadam:I have the honor to request for the assistance/supervision of MRS. ARLENE G.ADVENTO as my Thesis adviser during the preparation, conduct and final oral defenseof my research entitled, “LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHINGSTRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011.”Hoping for your kind attention and approval.Very respectfully yours,ALELI M. ARIOLA ResearcherNoted by:ENGR. ROMMEL OCTAVIUS R. NUESTRODirector, Research and Development Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY Siniloan, Laguna COLLEGE OF EDUCATION November 19, 2010MRS. ARLENE G. ADVENTOYou are hereby requested by ALELI M. ARIOLA to assist and supervise her in herresearch under the BSED curriculum.Accepted:________________________(Signature over Printed Name) Research Adviser Conforme: CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN Ph.D. Dean, College of Education
  • 70. Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY College of Education Siniloan, Laguna November 28, 2010MRS. MILAGROS B. PUONPrincipal, Mabitac National High SchoolMabitac, LagunaMadamme: Good day! The undersigned student is conducting a study entitled “LEARNERS’PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHINGMATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ATMABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011”. In connection with this, I would like to ask permission to conduct my datagathering in your institution. I hope for your kind consideration and most valued support on this matter, Thank you and more power! Respectfully yours, ALELI M. ARIOLANoted by:ARLENE G. ADVENTO CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph. D. Research Adviser Dean, College of Education Approved by: MIGLAGROS B. PUON Principal, Mabitac National High School Mabitac, Laguna
  • 71. Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY College of Education Siniloan, Laguna November 28, 2010PROF. ELSIE M. PRINCIPEPrincipal, Blessed James Cusmano AcademyMabitac, LagunaMadamme: Good day! The undersigned student is conducting a study entitled “LEARNERS’PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHINGMATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ATMABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011”. In connection with this, I would like to ask permission to conduct my datagathering in your institution. I hope for your kind consideration and most valued support on this matter, Thank you and more power! Respectfully yours, ALELI M. ARIOLANoted:ARLENE G. ADVENTO CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph. D. Research Adviser Dean, College of Education Approved by: ELSIE M. PRINCIPE Principal, Blessed James Cusmano Academy Mabitac, Laguna
  • 72. Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY College of Education Siniloan, Laguna November 28, 2010MRS. SOCORRO R. FUNDIVILLAPrincipal, Paagahan National High SchoolMabitac, LagunaMadamme: Good day! The undersigned student is conducting a study entitled “LEARNERS’PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHINGMATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ATMABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011”. In connection with this, I would like to ask permission to conduct my datagathering in your institution. I hope for your kind consideration and most valued support on this matter, Thank you and more power! Respectfully yours, ALELI M. ARIOLANoted by:ARLENE G. ADVENTO CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph. D. Research Adviser Dean, College of Education Approved by: SOCORRO R. FUNDIVILLA Principal, Paagahan National High School Mabitac, Laguna
  • 73. Republic of the Philippines LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY College of Education Siniloan, Laguna November 28, 2010MRS. SOCORRO R. FUNDIVILLAPrincipal, Paagahan National High School(Matalatala Extension)Mabitac, LagunaMadamme: Good day! The undersigned student is conducting a study entitled “LEARNERS’PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHINGMATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ATMABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011”. In connection with this, I would like to ask permission to conduct my datagathering in your institution. I hope for your kind consideration and most valued support on this matter, Thank you and more power! Respectfully yours, ALELI M. ARIOLANoted by:ARLENE G. ADVENTO CORAZON N. SAN AGUSTIN, Ph. D. Research Adviser Dean, College of Education Approved by: SOCORRO R. FUNDIVILLA Principal, Paagahan National High School (Matalatala Extension) Mabitac, Laguna
  • 74. LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011 Dear Student, Greetings! The following questions pertain to the students’ learning preferences, teachers’actualities and teachers’ strategies in teaching Mathematics. Please answer thequestions as best as you can. Thank you for your cooperation and may the Lord bless us all! The Researcher A.M.A.I. PERSONAL INFORMATION Name: ________________________________ Age: _______ Gender: _____Male _____Female Section: _____1 _____2 _____3 School: ______________________________________________II. LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES Direction: Please indicate your response in the following items by putting a check( / ) in the appropriate column. A. Learners’ Preferences Please rate the learners’ preferences in learning mathematics based on what you actually perform using the following scale: 5 – Strongly Agree 4 – Agree 3 – Moderately Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree The first table is according to your sensory preferences such as: V – Visual (sight) A – Auditory (hearing) K – Kinesthetic (action) Sensory Preferences 5 4 3 2 11.If I have to learn how to do something, I learn best when I: (V) watch someone shows me how. (A) hear someone tells me how. (K) try to do it myself.2. When I read, I often find that I: (V) visualize what I am reading in my mind’s eye. (A) read out loud or hear the words inside my head. (K) fidget and try to “feel” the content.
  • 75. 3. When asked to give directions, I: (V) see the actual places in my mind as I say them or preferto draw them. (A) have no difficulty in giving them verbally. (K) have to point or move my body as I give them.4. If I am unsure how to spell a word , I: (V) write it I order to determine if it is looks right. (A) spell it out loud in order to determine if it sounds right. (K) write it in order to determine if it feels right.5. When I write, I: (V) am concerned how neat and well spaced my letters andwords appear. (A) often say the letters and words to myself. (K) push hard on my pen or pencil and can feel the flow ofthe words or letters as I form them.6. If I had to remember a list of items, I would remember it bestif I: (V) wrote them down. (A) said them over and over to myself. (K) moved around and used my fingers to name eachitems.7. When trying to concentrate, I have a difficult time when: (V) there is a lot of clutter or movement in the room. (A) there is a lot of noise in the room. (K) I have to sit still for any length of time.8. When solving a problem, I: (V) write or draw diagrams to see it. (A) talk myself through it. (K) use my entire body or move objects to help me think.9. If I have to verbally describe something to another person, Iwould: (V) be brief because I do not like to talk at length. (A) go into great detail because I like to talk. (K) gesture and move around while talking.10. When trying to recall names, I remember: (V) faces but forget names. (A) names but forget faces. (K) the situation that I met the person’s name or face.11. I prefer teacher who; (V) use the board or overhead projector while they lecture. (A) talk with a lot of expression. (K) use hands-on activities.12. When given written instructions on how to build something,I; (V) read them silently and try to visualize how the parts willfit together. (A) read them out loud and to myself as I put the parts together. (K) try to put the parts together first and read later.13. To keep occupied while waiting, I; (V) look around, stare, or read. (A) talk or listen to others. (K) walk around, manipulate things with my hands, ormove/shake my feet as I sit.
  • 76. 14. If someone were verbally describing to me, I would; (V) try to visualize what he/she was saying. (A) enjoy listening but want to interrupt and talk myself. (K) become bored if his/her description gets too long anddetailed. The second table pertains to the Analytic-Global Thinkers. 5 4 3 2 1Analytic Thinkers I learn best through…….1. responding to word meaning.2. linearly information processing.3. responding to logic.4. formal study design.5. well-lighted room while studying.Global Thinkers I learn best through……1. responding to tone of voice.2. information processing in varied order .3. responding to emotions.4. sound/music background while studying.5. frequent mobility while studying. B. Teachers’ Actualities Please rate your Mathematics teacher based on what he/she actually perform using the following scale: 5 – Always 4 – Often 3 – Sometimes 2 – Seldom 1 – Never Teachers Actualities 5 4 3 2 11. If my teacher teaches me how to do something, he/sheshow and tells me how to do it, and allows me to do it withmyself.2. When my teacher reads, he/she often stops and tried todescribe to us what he/she is reading, reads it out loud andmove restlessly.3. When my teacher gives directions, he/she verballydescribes and draws out or moves his/her body as he/shegives them.4. If my teacher spells a word, he/she spell it out loud or writeit on the board.5. When my teacher is writing something on the board, he/sheis concerned on how neat and well-spaced his/her letters andwords appear and often say the letters and words whilewriting.6. If my teacher has to remind us a list of items, he/she writesor says them over and over to everyone and move around andused his/her fingers to name each items.7. When my teacher is trying to concentrate, he/she has a
  • 77. difficult time when there is a lot of movement and noise in theroom or he/she sits still for any length of time.8. When solving a problem, my teacher writes or drawsdiagrams and talks about it, or uses his/her entire body ormoves objects to help him/her think.9. If my teacher has to verbally describe something to anotherperson, he/she prefers to be brief, uses gestures while talking.10. When my teacher is trying to recall names, he/sheremembers faces or sometimes names or the situation thathe/she met the person.11. My teacher prefers to use the board, talk with a lot ofexpression and use hands-on activities.12. When my teacher gives written instructions on how to buildsomething, he/she read them out loud and describes to ushow the parts fit together, and later put the parts together.13. To keep occupied while my teacher waiting, he/she lookaround, talk or listen to others, or manipulate things withhis/her hands as sitting.14. If someone were verbally describing to my teacher, myteacher would enjoy listening and he/she visualize what theperson was saying and id the persons description gets toolong and detailed my teacher become bored. C. Teaching Strategies Please rate the extent by which your teacher in mathematics has used the following strategies in teaching the subject using the following scale: 5 – Always 4 – Often 3 – Sometimes 2 – Seldom 1 – Never 5 4 3 2 11. Lecture Discussion2. By giving word problem activity3. Cooperative Learning (by groupings)4. Deductive Method (general-specific details)5. Inductive Method (specific-general details) ________________________ Signature of respondent Thank you very much for your cooperation.ALELI M. ARIOLAResearcher
  • 78. BSEd III - A LEARNERS’ PREFERENCES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS OF FOURTH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AT MABITAC, LAGUNA S.Y. 2010-2011 Direction: Please indicate your responses on the following items by putting acheck ( / ) in the line blank.A. PERSONAL INFORMATION Name: ______________________________________ 1. Gender _____Female _____Male 2. Age: _____ 3. Civil Status _____Single _____Married _____ No. of children 4. Educational Attainment _____ Bachelor of Elementary Education _____ Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Mathematics _____ Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics _____ Others (pls. specify) 5. Number of years in service _____ One year and below _____ 11 – 15 years _____ 2 – 5 years _____ 16 – 20 years _____ 6 – 10 years _____ 21 years and above 6. Seminars Attended (From 2000 – present) Year ___________________________________ ______ ______ ___________________________________ ______ ______ ___________________________________ ______ ______ ___________________________________ ______ ______ ___________________________________ ______ ______ ___________________ Signature of respondent Thank you very much for your cooperation. ALELI M. ARIOLA BSEd III - A Researcher
  • 79. B. TEACHERS’ ACTUALITIES Direction: Please indicate your responses on the following items by putting acheck ( / ) in the line blank. Please rate your actualities you performed using the following scale: 5 – Always 4 – Often 3 – Sometimes 2 – Seldom 1 – NeverAs a teacher 5 4 3 2 11. I have to teach my students how to do something throughshowing and telling to them how to do it, and I do it withmyself.2. I describe the context to my students, read it out loud andmove restlessly when reading.3. I give directions to my students through verbally describingand drawing out the actual places.4. I write or spell the words out loud in order to determine if itis correct.5. I am concerned on how neat and well-spaced my lettersand words appear, and often say it to myself while writing onthe board.6. I had to remember a list of items so I wrote it down, said itover and over to myself, and moved around and used myfingers to name each items.7. I try to concentrate when I have a difficult time in casesthere are lots of movements and noise in the room, or I sit stillfor any length of time.8. I draw diagrams and we talk it in my discussions, or use myentire body to help me think when solving a problem.9. I would be brief, go into details and gestures in verballydescribing something to my students.10. I remember the faces or names, and the situations whereI met the person I am trying to recall the names.11. I use the board and hands-on activities, and I talk with alot of expressions.12. I give written instructions on how to build something byreading them silently and visualize the parts and later put theparts together.13. I look around, talk to others and manipulate things withmy hands while waiting to keep occupied.14. I visualize and enjoy listening when ever my studentsverbally describe something to me.
  • 80. C. TEACHING STRATEGIES Please rate your prepared teaching strategies in teaching Mathematics subject using the following scale: 5 – Always 4 – Often 3 – Sometimes 2 – Seldom 1 – Never 5 4 3 2 11. Lecture Discussion2. By giving word problem activity3. Cooperative Learning (by groupings)4. Deductive Method (general-specific details)5. Inductive Method (specific-general details)