MathDali Evaluation: A Report Prepared for the Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc.

MathDali Evaluation
A REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE KNOWLEDGE CHANNEL FOUNDATION INC.
By Elena E. Pernia, PhD and Jeannica Rosario
UP College of Mass Communication Foundation • June 22, 2017
UP College of Mass Communication Foundation • email: elenapernia@gmail.com •

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction & Rationale 5
Background of the Study 5
Study Framework 8
Research Objectives 8
General objective 8
Specific objectives 8
Methodology 9
Research design and methods 9
MathDali Evaluation "2

Research participants 9
Data gathering instruments 10
Results & Discussion 13
Who comprised the student evaluation sample? 13
Did MathDali contribute to Math learning? 14
Comparisons of pre- and post-test scores 14
Evidence from test score comparisons: graphical representations 14
Evidence from test score comparisons: numeric evidence 15
Evidence using transmutation of post-test scores 16
Mathdali effects on learning specific math skills 19
Skills in measurement 20
Skills in geometry 21
Predictor variables affecting students’ learning: Regression results 22
Did MathDali improve attitudes toward Math? 24
Comparisons of Mathitudes scores 24
Student Mathitudes 24
What do teachers, parents, and students say about MathDali as
learning interventions? 26
Opinions and insights on MathDali videos 26
Regarding creative execution of MathDali videos. 26
Regarding difficulty level of the MathDali video lessons 27
Regarding quality of the videos 27
Regarding integration and alignment of MathDali episodes with Math
curriculum 27

Opinions about teacher- and parent-Trainings 28
Opinions about the use of games for learning math 30
On the positive side 30
MathDali video games 30
Traditional games in the classroom 30
On the negative side 30
MathDali video games 30
What other insights did teachers and students offer regarding
mathDali? 31
MathDali’s positive effects 31
Advantages and disadvantages of MathDali performance tasks 31
Difficulty level of MathDali lessons 32
Conclusion 34
Recommendations 35
References 36
Appendices 37
Instruments 38
Third Quarter Test 39
Fourth Quarter Test 46
Mathitude survey questionnaire 53
FGD and Interview guides 55
Quantitative Tables 62

INTRODUCTION & RATIONALE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
THE COUNTRY'S PROBLEM WITH MATH & THE AMBITIOUS RESPONSE OF KCFI
Figure 1. MathDali Title Slide from http://kchonline.ph/index.php/press-room/149-mathdali
Consistent with its belief that “a country’s economic progress relies heavily on …
engineering and science which demands a strong foundation in Mathematics” , the
1
Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc. launched the MathDali educational series on 14 June
2016. News reports on the launch of MathDali said that “(a)s a new school year opens and
the country embraces the K to 12 curriculum, the (MathDali) programs aim(s) to make
students rethink their impression on Math … overcome their fear of numbers, learn to love
math and master the subject in fun adventures.”2
MathDali presents “math concepts through real-life situations … so that students (develop)
a positive mindset in learning math in new and exciting ways”. KCFI considers MathDali its
contribution to “K to 12’s aim of providing mastery of concepts and skills in Mathematics
leading to better Math learning outcomes.” Importantly, the MathDali series, like the other
educational programs on Knowledge Channel (KCh), presents educational content in an
edutainment context.
From KCFI’s MathDali Project Presentation (no date)
1
From “Agriculture and Math have never been this attractive” in Malaya Business Insight, 9 June 2016.
2

As stated in its MathDali Project Brief, KCFI saw the issue as “low mathematics scores and
learning that starts at the lower grades and increasingly deteriorates in higher grade levels”
which are caused by:
1. “Mindset that math is hard and for nerds,
2. “Lack of teacher professional development in math and technology,
3. “Lack of learning resources,
4. “Lack of parent and community support for Math learning.”3
And towards correcting those causes, KCFI saw that Project MathDali posed a solution, in
particular in the delivery of its components:
From KCFI’s MathDali Project Presentation (no date)
3
Figure 2. Poor math proficiency deteriorating at higher grade levels (from KCFI’s MathDali Project Document, no date)
Figure 3. Project MathDali components (from KCFI’s MathDali Project Document, no date)

Seeing the dismal state of mathematics proficiency of Filipino students at grades 4, 5, and
6 (i.e., that most are far below grade level compared to the very small minority that are on
grade level), MathDali producers aimed to be a significant factor to reverse the situation:
To achieve this ambition, KCFI plotted an implementation plan for Project MathDali, along
with an experimental design to measure if and, by how much, the educational series was
contributing to improving math proficiencies of grade school pupils. 
Figure 4. MathDali as the bridge to improved math proficiency (from KCFI’s MathDali Project Document, no date)
Figure 5. MathDali Implementation plan and experimental design (from KCFI’s MathDali Project Document, no date)

STUDY FRAMEWORK
OBJECTIVES, VARIABLES AND MEASURES
At the request of the Knowledge Channel
Foundation, Inc. (KCFI), the UP CMCFI took on the
MathDali evaluation midstream into the
implementation of the experimental-control design
in selected grade 4 classes from public elementary
schools in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
These schools were: San Jose Del Monte Central,
Bagong Buhay E, Bagong Buhay I, and Bagong
Buhay F.
This assessment of the MathDali project is in keeping with the KCFI’s efforts to determine
positive contributions of the program and its components. As process evaluation, this study
provides data necessary for program improvement. By looking into the effects of the
various MathDali components, the study contributes initial measures of math-related effects
on individual and school performances of Grades 4 to 6 students. Importantly, the data also
reveal whether students’ mindsets related to mathematics have changed.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To define changes in students’ Math performance resulting from the integration of MathDali
components in classroom instruction in selected grade four classes in San Jose del Monte
during SY 2016-17.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
• To compare pre- and post-test score differences between experimental
and control classes, and across experimental classes,
• To compare attitudes towards math (i.e, Mathitudes) at the start and end
of MathDali implementation
• To cull opinions and insights of the usefulness of MathDali videos and
interventions from teachers, parents, and students.  
Figure 6. General location of schools,
from Google maps

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
A combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods were used to gather
data for this assessment.
QUANTITATIVE: Structured self-administered pre- and post-test questionnaires were
conducted at appropriate points during the start and end of the first, second, third, and
fourth quarters of SY 2016-17. The contents of these tests were the math topics covered
during each academic quarter. A math attitude (Mathitudes) survey among students was
administered at the start and towards the end of the school year.
It should be noted that the test questionnaires implemented during the first
through the third quarters were developed by the KCFI team. Similarly, the
Mathitude survey instrument was also the product of the KCFI team. Only the
fourth quarter test instrument, along with the qualitative interview and discussion
guides, were developed by the UPCMCFI evaluation team.
QUALITATIVE: Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with
select teachers, parents, and students, based on the participants’ availability. The teachers
were interviewed individually while the students were asked in focus groups. Data from
parents, which were supposed to be generated through FGDs, came from both group and
individual interviews due to constraints in organizing data gathering.
All quantitative data were encoded and analyzed using SPSS software, while qualitative
data generated by the interviews and group discussions were summarized and synthesized
to provide clarification and aid quantitive data interpretation.
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
As stated earlier, select grade 4 classes in four schools in San Jose del Monte participated
as either experimental and control groups:
Figure 7. MathDali Assessment Participants

DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS
Quarterly tests comprised of 25 to 30 items were administered to the student-participants
in the study to track possible changes in the students’ knowledge and Math skills. Each
test was administered at the start (pre-test) and towards the end (post-test) of each quarter
and comprised of math topics taken up in class and in MathDali episodes for the quarter.
The first and second quarter tests, formulated by the KCFI team, contained 25 and 30
items, respectively, on number and number sense e.g., GCF, LCM, fractions, decimals).
Figure 8 presents sample items from the second quarter test.
Figure 8. Sample items in 2nd quarter test questionnaire
Meanwhile, the third and fourth quarter tests both which contained 30 items, where the
third quarter test focused on geometry, patterns, and algebra while the fourth quarter test
was on measurement, statistics and probability. (Please see Figures 9 and 10 for sample
items from each test.)
The third quarter test, like the first and second quarter tests, was constructed by KCFI
while the fourth quarter assessment test was designed by the CMCFI evaluation team.

Figure 9. Items in 3rd quarter test questionnaire
The fourth quarter test covered two topics: measurement (e.g., area and volume) and
statistics & probability (e.g., interpreting charts and graphs, probability/possible outcomes).
There were equal test items (15 items) for each of these topics.
Figure 10. Sample items in 4th quarter test questionnaire

Meanwhile, the Mathitude survey focused on the cognitions and attitudes of the students
towards Math. Math attitude comprised of three concepts, i.e., self-efficacy (5 items),
perseverance (4 items) and practical importance (3 items). Altogether, there were 12
statements regarding the students' attitude in Math which were all rated using a four-point
Likert-scale. Since the instrument was answered by Grade 4 students, the categories were
signified by an emoticon which shows disagreement or agreement with the statement.
(Please see Figure 11 for sample items from the Mathitude survey.)
The Mathitude survey was first distributed at the start of the school year and was answered
again by the end of the fourth quarter.
Figure 11. Sample items in Students’ Mathitudes questionnaire
Instruments used to collect qualitative data comprised of focus interview and group
discussion guides. In the conduct of focus interviews with teachers in the experimental
classes, questions centered on their assessment of the usefulness of the MathDali
program, Math performance of their students, as well as their performance as educators.
Meanwhile in the interview with the teacher from the control class, more general questions
were asked regarding perceptions and attitude regarding the use of ICT in teaching, their
teaching performance, and perceived student learning in Math.
During focus group discussions with students and parents, questions culled perceptions
and attitudes towards Math, the MathDali program (for the experimental classes) or use of
ICTs for educational use (for control class.
Instruments appended to this report are: third and fourth quarter tests, Mathitudes survey,
FGD and focus interview guides.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION
WHO COMPRISED THE STUDENT EVALUATION SAMPLE?
A total of 362 grade four students made up the sample for this evaluation. Please refer to
Figure 12 for data on the distribution of the sample, according to control and experimental
groups.
Age and Sex. These students were, on average, 9 years old. Boys (51%) slightly
outnumbered girls (49%).
Math proficiency, as rated by their teachers. In terms of math proficiency, the teachers
of these students rated more of them to be on grade level, rather than below grade (see
Figure 12).
Figure 12. On and Below Grade Level Status of Students, by control and experimental groups
Figure 13. Math grades from 1st to 4th quarters, by control and experimental groups

With specific reference to Math, the students appear to have performed satisfactorily,
i.e., average grades in this subject ranged from 81 to 85 and even increased from 1st to
4th quarters (see Table1), a pattern evidenced in control and experimental classes (see
Figure 13). In all cases, on-level students’ grades were higher than those rated as
below grade level.
Table 1. Math 4 Grade Averages, All Students vs. On-Level Students*
* NOTE: The definition of on-level students varied per teacher. For some, on-level students were
those who had an average of 80 and above during their 3rd grade or during the 1st quarter of their
4th grade. For other teachers, on-level students were those who scored an average of at least 85
during the same period.
DID MATHDALI CONTRIBUTE TO MATH LEARNING?
COMPARISONS OF PRE- AND POST-TEST SCORES
Evidence from test score comparisons: graphical representations
To ascertain the possible contribution of specific MathDali interventions, the post-test
scores and pre- to post-test score increases of each school for every quarter were
compared (see Figures 14 and 15). Data indicate that MathDali may have had positive
contributions to Math performance of students, specifically when MathDali videos are used
in combination with teacher-training.
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
All Students 81.17 82.31 83.62 84.15
On-Level Only 82.52 83.82 85.4 85.95
Figure 14. Post-test scores from 1st to 4th quarter, by control and experimental groups

BBE students (yellow line in Figures 9 and 10) who were exposed to the intervention
combining MathDali videos and teacher-training consistently had the highest posttest
average scores (i.e., 14.33, 13.15, 23.23, 21.52, from the first to fourth quarters,
respectively) and score increases (i.e., 5, 6, 11, 6, again from the first to fourth quarters,
respectively) across all quarters.
Likewise, students from the Central school (orange line in the graphs) where the
intervention combined MathDali videos with teacher-training, parent-training, and games
showed the second-highest gains in post-test scores (i.e., 14.07, 8.23, 21.52, 16.63) and
score increases (i.e., 2, 1, 9, 5) from the first to the fourth quarters.
Performance by students in the BBI school which had the MathDali videos only intervention
(green line in Figures 14 and 15) was almost the same, and in some instances even lower,
than the students in the control group (blue line in Figures 14 and 15).
Evidence from test score comparisons: numeric evidence
Data presented in the Appendices give the numeric evidence for these graphic
representations.
In general, experimental classes evidenced significant differences with the control group
(see Appendix Table 1). More specifically, each experimental intervention (i.e., MathDali
videos only, MathDali with teacher training, and MathDali videos plus games, teacher- and
parent-trainings) evidenced positive differences over control class in all test quarters (see
Appendix Tables 2-4).
Figure 15. Pre- Post-test score increases from 1st to 4th quarter, by control and experimental groups

Noteworthy are data showing that BBE (MathDali with teacher training) and Central
(MathDali videos plus games, teacher- and parent-trainings) classes showed the largest
and significant post-test score differences over the control class, especially in the third and
fourth quarters (see Appendix Tables 3 and 4). These findings substantiate the effectiveness
of the MathDali video+teacher training intervention in improving students’ Math
performance.
Moreover, among all the three interventions, only BBE, which had the MathDali videos with
teacher-training, was able to show significant differences against the control group for all
four quarters (see Table 2), further indicating that the video plus teacher training
combination consistently helped the students improve their scores, whatever the math
topic for the quarter.
Table 2. Comparison of pretest and posttest scores of BBE (Experimental intervention:
MathDali plus teacher-training) and BBF (Control)
Evidence using transmutation of post-test scores
Using the DepEd transmutation of grades which considers scores/grades at 60% as
passing (see equivalences in Table 3), the researchers compared students’ post-test
performance over the four quarters.

Table 3. Score equivalences, using DepEd transmutation*
*NOTE: For the first quarter, the highest possible score was 25, while HPS for the second to fourth
quarter tests was 30.
Again, similar data trends were revealed, i.e., interventions combining MathDali with teacher
training produced more students who had outstanding and very satisfactory scores (i.e.,
BBE in orange and Central in yellow lines in Figures 16 and 17).
Classification Score Range
1st quarter (HPS=25) 2nd-4th quarter (HPS=30)
Outstanding 21 and above 25 and above
Very Satisfactory 19-20 23-24
Satisfactory 17-18 21-22
Fairly Satisfactory 15-16 18-20
Did not meet expectations Below 15 Below 18
Figure 16. Comparison of students with outstanding post-test
scores, by school and quarter
Figure 17. Comparison of students with very satisfactory
post-test scores, by school and quarter

Conversely, the larger numbers of students whose scores did not meet expectation were in
the control (BBF) and the MathDali video-only (BBI) classes (see Figure 18). Large majorities
of the students from BBI (65%-95%) and BBF (70%-100%) still failed the posttest exam.
These data even further reinforce how the combination of videos plus teacher training is
the most efficient combination for improving students’ Math performance. Video lessons
alone appear to have limited effects on student math performance unless combined with
teacher training.
A study by Quimbo (2003) supports these findings: “(T)eachers play an important role in
improving math and science performance of public elementary school children in the
Philippines (p.71).” Moreover, teachers who have access to learning materials, such as
educational videos, also help improve the students’ skills and knowledge in Math and
Science (Quimbo, 2003) as these materials also help them (the teachers) prepare their
lessons. This is verified by a teacher who said that the MathDali episodes guided them in
facilitating the discussion in class and thinking outside of the box.
“So pinapasok yung videos sa presentation ng lesson. Pagkapresentation
na sasabihin ko sa mga bata let’s watch this then pagkatapos non
iaanalyze na yung nasa video and yun na yung tinatawag na
magkakaroon ka na ng mga follow-up questions kumbaga yun yung
Figure 18. Comparison of students whose post-test scores did not meet expectation, by school
and quarter

ididiscuss mo na. Lagi ngang sinasabi ng mga bata, kahit nga akong
teacher e natututo din ako kasi minsan diba bago yung lesson ngayon
lang ie-air. Ngayon ko lang din siya mapapanood. Ah ganon pala.

“So merong mga words na nadidiscuss yung mathdali na minsan wala don
sa lesson namin. Kumbaga may mga additional information na
nadadagdag. Ganon din yung nacocomment ng estudyante ko na meron
silang bagong nalalaman na hindi ko naitututro kasi nga wala don sa
aming piankalesson pero naiaadd ng mathdali.” – Teacher B

It should be noted that adding other interventions such as games and parent trainings did
not really reflect in the performance of the students.
A possible explanation for this is the “crowding” of interventions that could have affected
the effectiveness of the materials. One teacher noted that discipline is necessary when
allowing students to use gadgets for educational purposes since these can be abused.
Gadgets (i.e., tablets) have acknowledged as useful learning devices; however, there
remains the possibility of their becoming distractions as children’s attention may have been
diverted from the lesson.
Another possible reason is the lack of funding and resources from these schools to sustain
such interventions. Since regular use of the games was feared to intervene with the regular
schedule of the class, access to the games was only limited to once or twice a week. As
cited by one teacher:
“Once a week like for example minsan yung tablet so yung tablet is kahit
paanong pwersa gawin namin is hindi namin maipasok siya ng twice a
week dahil depende nga siya sa flow ng nagigiging lesson so hindi naman
pupwedeng yung isang section nagtatablet yung isang section hindi. Kasi
baka isipin na noong bata unfair diba so yun yung iiwasan namin and
hanggang siguro maari once a week.” – Teacher A

Mathdali effects on learning specific math skills
This section provides further evidence that the intervention combining MathDali video and
teacher-training is most effective in improving math learning.
To identify which episodes significantly influenced the student performance, the scores for
each skill was ascertained. The skills considered were topics of the episodes shown,
namely: (1) Numbers and number sense (1st and 2nd quarter), (2) Geometry (3rd quarter),
(3) Pattern and algebra (3rd quarter), (4) Measurement (3rd and 4th quarter), and (5)
Statistics and probability (4th quarter).

Skills in measurement
The results indicate that the videos were most effective in improving skills in Measurement.
Regardless of the interventions received, the scores of the students in the experimental
group were significantly higher than the control group during the posttest, indicating that
exposure to the MathDali interventions did help improve their scores in Measurement.
Specifically, exposure to the MathDali videos-only created a 2 to 3-point increase in the
grades of the students (see Table 4). On the other hand, interventions which integrated
teacher trainings with MathDali videos generated an increase of 5 to 6 points in their
Measurement scores in both the 3rd and 4th Quarters (Tables 5 and 6).
Table 4. Measurement skill scores of BBI (MathDali videos only) vs BBF (control)
NOTES: 3rd quarter- Significant score increase difference (BBI: 3 pts vs. BBF: 2)
4th quarter- Significant score increase difference (BBI: 2 vs BBF: 0.2)
Table 5. Measurement skill scores of BBE (MathDali videos + teacher-training) vs. BBF
(control)
NOTES: 3rd quarter- Significant score increase difference (BBE: 6 pts. vs. BBF: 2 pts)
4th quarter- Significant score increase difference (BBE: 3 pts. vs. BBF: 0.2 pts)

Table 6. Measurement skill scores of Central (MathDali videos+ games+trainings) vs. BBF
(control)
NOTES: 3rd quarter- Significant score increase difference (Central: 5 pts vs. BBF: 2 pts)
4th quarter- Significant score increase difference (Central 3 vs. BBF: 0.2)
Skills in geometry
On the other hand, none of the MathDali interventions reflected any changes in the
scores of the students when it comes to Geometry skills, indicating that there is a need
to improve on the MathDali interventions, particularly the videos, in improving geometry
skills of the students.
Although there were significant differences in the pre- and posttest scores of the
experimental and control groups, these did not translate to significant score increases
(see Tables 7-9). BBI had a non-significant less than one-point increase in geometry
score over the control group BBF. And while BBE and Central classes had four and
three-point increases over the control class in BBF, these were non-significant.
Table 7. Geometry skill scores of BBI (MathDali videos only) vs BBF (control)*

*Score increase significantly different, favoring control
Table 8. Geometry skill scores of BBE (MathDali videos + teacher-training) vs. BBF
(control)*
*However, score increase was not significantly different.
Table 9. Geometry skill scores of Central (MathDali videos+ games+trainings) vs. BBF
(control)*
* However, score increase was not significantly different.
Predictor variables affecting students’ learning: Regression results
To determine the effects of certain student, teacher, and parent factors vis-à-vis the
MathDali interventions, a regression test was performed. This was also done to identify
which of the variables greatly contributed to the posttest skill scores of each student.

The following variables were considered: (1) MathDali intervention: School; (2) Student
factors: grade in previous quarter, attitude towards Math; (3) Parent factor: employment
(employed or unemployed); and (4) Teacher factor: rank, highest educational
attainment, years of teaching (in general and in Math), and performance based on a
standardized Math exam.
The results of the regression test revealed that student (i.e., post-test attitude and 2nd
quarter math grade) and teacher (i.e., highest educational attainment) factors produce
significant effects in Math performance across all skills (see highlighted sections in
Table 10).
(NOTE: Table 10 below shows the Beta coefficients of each factor. Constants and
variables that do not greatly contribute to the measurement scores of the students
were removed from the model. All in all, the variables below were able to account
for around 69% of the variance/differences in measurement scores.)
Table 10. Beta coefficient scores of student, teacher, parent, and MathDali variables which
significantly contributed to measurement skill scores of students

DID MATHDALI IMPROVE ATTITUDES TOWARD MATH?
COMPARISONS OF MATHITUDES SCORES
Without a doubt, it is important for a teacher to show his/her own interest and love in Math
to make the students feel that Math is not that intimidating. It is generally accepted that
attitude and disposition towards the subject are as important as teaching skills of the
teacher that is important. This sentiment is mentioned by one teacher who said,
“Pinapakita ko yung interest ng teacher sa Mathematics, yung
pagmamahal ng teacher, pinapakita ng teacher na parang ang dali lang
pala, kayang kaya nila. Ay Math ay nagiging madali kung nakikita sa
teacher na madali rin yung paraan ng pagsosolve.” – Teacher B

Student Mathitudes
Students’ Mathitudes, or their math cognition and attitudes, were measured at the start
and end of the school year. On the whole, students - whether in experimental or control
classes - manifested higher scores (more positive attitudes) during the posttest, in both
general and specific attitudes (see Table 11).
Table 11. Mathitude pre- and post-test scores
The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group (see Table 12),
indicating that they have better overall attitude for Math, greater self-efficacy or confidence,
and perseverance to study Math than the control students.
Table 12. Mathitude pre- and post-test scores

Across experimental schools, students from Central exhibited the largest increases in
overall Math attitude, as well as in self-efficacy and perseverance. Meanwhile BBE students
had significant increase in overall attitude, and BBI showed significant improvement in
terms of perseverance (see Table 13).
Table 13. Comparison of Mathitude pre- and post-test scores, experimental schools only
In terms of self-efficacy, experimental students reported having higher self-confidence
in answering questions about Math. They were not afraid to make mistakes. Despite
challenges, these students said they gained a deeper value for learning and learning
itself was viewed as an achievement.

“Mas nadadagdagan po yung kaalaman ko. Kapag hindi ko alam yung
isang bagay, kapag napanood ko na yung episodes, mas nadadagdagan po.
Kasi po sa mga test po, mas madali ko nang nalalaman kung anong sagot
dito.” – Student from Central

Moreover, many of the students in the experimental classes viewed Math as challenging
but fun and enjoyable. They began to see themselves as capable of understanding the
subject and finding the right answers for Math problems as enjoyable. As a result, the
students mentioned that a lot of them had higher grades after using MathDali materials
in class.

“Gusto ko po kasi gusto kong machallenge sa mga math problems” –
Student from Central

While quantitative data did not show significant difference in the practical importance
scores between groups, qualitative data show that experimental students expressed
positive opinions regarding the practical importance of Math. Students exposed to MathDali
perceived Math positively not just as an academic subject but also as necessary and
practical for present and future “survival”.

Among the practical uses of math mentioned were: daily existence (e.g., giving change in
sari-sari stores, budgeting money, and paying in jeepney fare), for finding a good job, and
for assurance that one is not cheated on financially. These student opinions are consistent
with those cited by Department of Education (in Capate & Lapinid, 2015).
“Pwede po nating gamitin sa pang-araw-araw. Pag nagbabayad po sa
jeep. Halimbawa po, nagbayad ka ng isandaan, 50 pesos, alam mo po kung
sobra o hindi sobra yung sinukli sa inyo; Sa pang-araw-araw din po. Kahit
saan po, may Math.” – Student from BBE

WHAT DO TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND STUDENTS SAY ABOUT MATHDALI
AS LEARNING INTERVENTIONS?
OPINIONS AND INSIGHTS ON MATHDALI VIDEOS
Regarding creative execution of MathDali videos.
While the teachers commend MathDali’s creativity in presenting math topics, one of
them mentioned that a sense of realism must still be instilled in the objects and settings
used in the video. The teacher notes that this is important to make the students feel that
Math is not just a fantasy.
“May English part din naman, hindi naman puro Tagalog. Siguro i-improve na
lang ‘yung ginagamit nilang objects, materials medyo i-realistic pa. More
realistic pa. ‘Yung mga settings para mas nakaka-relate kasi unang reaksyon ng
bata, ‘Ay hindi naman totoo ‘yan larawan lang ‘yan eh.’ Dun naman sa mga
gumaganap naman, okay naman siguro.” – Teacher C
Another component that aided students in understanding the lessons was the narrative,
or the story behind each math problem. They find inspiration in the stories as well as
entertainment from the actors and actresses who act out each segment. The use of
celebrities also increased their recall of the topic.
“Sina ate Joj at ate Jai po, nung naglaban po sila. Napunta po yung labanan
nila sa trapezoids. Kung ilang squares po yung pwedeng bilangin. Alam ko na po
yung technique kung paano po sa mga trapezoids, Tapos po, dun sa mga
challenges nila. Halimbawa po, yung tinuturo po sa quadrilaterals ng MathDali,
yun din po yung nasasagot ko sa klase.; Pati po yung mga quadrilaterals, yun
po yung pinakagusto kong episode kasi po una po, di ko pa po alam ano yun.
Tapos, nung nilabas na yun, “Ah, yun pala yung quadrilaterals.” Gaya po ng
kapag nakakakita na ng isang bagay, malalaman ko na kung anong
quadrilateral”

However, teachers reported that students get bored with the videos over time, as they
are looking for “new characters” in the episodes. Thus, while the narrative and the
characters can be considered as strengths of the videos, there is still a need to improve
them by constantly making the episodes new and interesting for the students. As one
teacher mentioned,
“Minsan nagsasawa rin sila sa mga character. Sabi, ‘Si ano na naman.’ Parang
nag-aabang sila ng bagong character. Pero syempre dahil siya yung endorser,
wala ng pagbabago yan. – Teacher D
Regarding difficulty level of the MathDali video lessons
Some of the episodes were also deemed as challenging both for the student and the
teacher. Specifically, episodes requiring students to create their own math problems
were considered quite advanced for Grade 4 students. A teacher said,
“Yung videos yung pinakahindi nagiging interesado ung mga bata yung creating
a problem kasi nahihirapan sila. Yung edad ng mga bata parang hindi pa sila
ready sa pagccreate ng problem. Medyo yun lang, hindi ko rin yon tinuro kasi
alam kong hindi pa kaya ng level ng mga bata.” – Teacher B
Regarding quality of the videos
One teacher from the experimental classes noted that they received only have draft
copies of the episodes. Suggestions were made regarding increasing the font size of
the subtitles to help readability. As mentioned by some of the teachers:
“Okay naman siya kaso yung iba naming nakuhang video ay hindi pa yata final
copy.”– Teacher A

“Yung sa challenge lang at the end of airing medyo maliliit lang yung sulat at
di namin mabasa kumbaga ang nangyayari din hindi din namin nagagawa yung
mga estudyante ko. Dapat siguro sa mga teacher yun ang assignment namin
pero talagang challenge talaga, kasi minsan mahirap e kasi mahirap nga talaga
kaya challenging talaga.” – Teacher B

Regarding integration and alignment of MathDali episodes with Math
curriculum
Teachers also had a hard time dividing their lessons since some of the episodes had
more than one topic. They suggested to align the episodes with their syllabus and
lessons for the day so that viewing could be seamlessly integrated during classes.
“Okay naman pero may episode dun na 3 topics. Sa lesson plan kasi namin
subdivided yun. Yung sa quadrilaterals and triangles. Kaya nagtriangles muna

kami then kinds of triangles bago nag quadilaterals then kinds of
quadrilaterals bago namin pinanood yung episode na yun.” – Teacher D

“Hindi kami nagkakasabay. Minsan lang, ang nagyayari nauuna ang turo namin
tapos yung airing delayed na kumbaga magkaiba kami ng lesson ganun lang
ang nangyayaring problema kasi nga matagal ang airing eh paglipat pa ng
isang linggo. Ang isang lesson one to two days lang, eh yun one week kaya
medyo matagal ang pagitan.” – Teacher B

“Medyo nawawala yung interes nung bata lalo na kapag tinigil mo yung video
kasi ‘hanggang dyan muna yung lesson natin’. Medyo nawawala pa yung interes
ng bata, masama pa yung loob sa’yo. Kasi syempre, ‘killjoy naman’. Syempre,
napag-usapan namin ni Anne na dapat pala di nila pinagsama sa isang episode.
Kasi kung pinaghiwalay nila eto at least mabubuo nila saka makakapagbigay
sila ng more examples. Nakalimutan ko lang yung topic na pinagsama-sama.” –
Teacher A

OPINIONS ABOUT TEACHER- AND PARENT-TRAININGS
Evaluation of the teacher training was positive. Math teachers said that they learned
techniques on gauging students’ learning capacity and adjusting to students’ needs.
“Dahil favorite ko ang Math… natututo ako sa materials na nakikita ko don ang
ginagawa kasi lalo pag nagseseminar. Mga natutunan ko sa seminar, inaapply ko
sa kanila. Yung mga materials na ginagamit sa seminar, yun yung inaapply ko sa
pagtuturo. … Mainam pala talaga ang nagseseminar, natutulungan sa maraming
paraan, sa theory, concepts, strategies at materials. Paano mo gagawin yung
materials.” – Teacher B
The seminars also boosted the teaching confidence of Math teachers as they were
introduced to new strategies.
“Yung sa trainings at seminars sa mga teachers, sana meron ulit kasi mas
nagiging confident yung teacher sa pagtuturo. Kasi yung akala naming okay na
yun, meron pa palang mas madaling way para maituro sa bata. … Sana yung
seminar lang tuluy-tuloy kasi hindi lang namin kami yung nagbebenefit.” –
Teacher A
Given the positive feedback and its great help to the students, the teachers suggested
that the seminars for teachers and parents be continued. They also mentioned
exploring opening the seminar to other schools so that the knowledge can be
propagated to more public school teachers and parents, especially with the
implementation of the K-12 program.

According to local studies (De Guzman et al., 2007; Cajilig et al., 2007 as cited in DOST
2011), support by parents at home, both in teaching the lesson and improving attitudes
toward Math are essential in developing the students’ Math skills. Specifically, DOST
(2011) mentioned that “families should project positive attitudes and beliefs towards
mathematics and the learning of it. Community support for mathematics learning is also
as valuable (p.4).”
More than the skills, parental attitude towards Math should be further developed by
emphasizing the need for the subject even outside of the classroom. Teachers shared
the same sentiment, emphasizing that parents at home need to follow-up on the lessons
taught at school.
“Mas natututunan nila kaso syempre kailangan pa din may follow-up sa bahay
kahit gaano kaganda yung video, kahit gaano kagaling yung teacher kung
walang follow-up sa bahay..walang mangyayari. Walang retention sa utak ng
bata pero yung iba… mas marami ng magaling sa math compare noong june
noong pumasok sila sa amin.” – Teacher A
Although some parents mentioned that they help their children with their homework,
there were those who admitted that they failed to do so due to lack of time/busy
schedules, and their own limited knowledge on the subject. More often than not, they
would refer their children to older siblings or other family members. However, there were
parents who, despite being busy or having perceived limited knowledge and/or
disinterest in Math, still persevered to help their children in whatever way they can. They
usually let their children do things on their own, serving as checkers to point out what is
right and wrong.
“Ganun pa rin. Kaya lang iba-iba ang mga bata. Hayaan mo siyang matuto at
titingnan mo kung tama yung ginagawa niya after kasi hindi mo rin naman siya
matutukan kasi may ginagawa ka rin. Kumbaga, ‘Gawin mo ito’ tapos
papatingnan niya, ‘Mama, tingnan mo kung tama.’ Saka ko lang ichecheck. Kung
mali, ulitin mo yan.” – Experimental Parent D

Thus, parents perceived their children have the capability to work independently since
they usually work on their own homework without asking for help. In addition, parents
who were able to attend the MathDali parent training would share with their children the
Math strategies they had learned. There were parents who - because they had difficultly
helping their children in Math - would even research on different ways to help their
children solve their Math problems.
“Di ba may mga tinuturong shortcuts? Ayun shinashare ko sa kanya yun. Tapos,
ganun nga naggoogoogle ako para maituro ko sa kanya ng maayos. Yung ganun,
isisimplify mo para mas madali niyang maintindihan kasi parang hirap din sila

eh. Taun-taon parang yun yung tinuturo, di ba? Nakakalimutan din nila. Kaya
mahirap kung sa mahirap pero kailangan.” – Experimental Parent B

OPINIONS ABOUT THE USE OF GAMES FOR LEARNING MATH
On the positive side
MathDali video games
In addition to gaining new Math knowledge, the students reported that they learned
alternative ways of finding solutions to problems through the MathDali materials,
including the video games. Lessons perceived as difficult were simplified through
games, although understanding and ease of use of the games varied per student.
Some students said that they found it easy to operate the tablets, while others needed
help from the teacher before fully understanding how to use it. In light of this, it is
recommended that instructions for the games be provided to improve understandability,
ease of use, and enjoyment.
Traditional games in the classroom
Meanwhile, the students reported that they have an enjoyable time playing traditional
games and games that involved movement in class. Some of these games were
sungka, snakes and ladders, sudoku, damath, and hulahoop. Creating and measuring
materials using popsicle sticks, adventure games, and quiz bees were also some of the
games that the students enjoyed playing.
The students reported that these games - whether the video games or the traditional
ones - helped them gain a deeper appreciation of their lessons. They also shared that it
helped in reinforcing learning, understanding, and remembering. The application of
theoretical knowledge to games also helped in enhancing their attentiveness during
class. Hence, adding educationally entertaining reinforcements - whether in the form of
electronic games or more conventional/traditional movement activities in the classroom
- show to be beneficial to student learning.
“Mas naintindihan ko itong lesson na ito dahil sa larong ito kasi ang saya po e.
Nakakatuto at nakakasolve.”
On the negative side
MathDali video games
On the other hand, students reported that some games confuse and bombard them
with information. It was found that some students were overwhelmed by the inclusion of
the electronic game as an educational intervention, asking for more straightforward and
simple information regarding the point of the game (i.e., what they would learn). Hence,
it is recommended that, to decrease information clutter, students be provide ample time
for students to study the lessons before being allowed to play the games.
Furthermore, it was also pointed that some games still had errors. One teacher noted
that the limited number of questions during the 1st and 2nd quarter games did not

promote analytical thinking among students. Students simply memorized the answers
and did not bother to compute for the solution.
Considering that a lot of students these days were said to own a tablet, it is
recommended that the games become available online for downloading.
“Sana madagdagan yung questions ng 1st to 2nd grading. Yun 3rd and 4th,
okay naman. Na-enjoy nila, pati yung teachers na-enjoy eh. Na-enjoy namin ni
Anne. Sinasagutan namin. … Mas maganda sana kung madodownload na ng bata
kasi halos lahat naman sila may tablet. Siguro para mapraktisan pero mas
maganda na sana madagdagan yung questions. At least 50 questions per game
kasi kung around 10-20 questions, ang dali nilang kabisaduhin lalo na yung
matalas yung memory.” – Teacher A

WHAT OTHER INSIGHTS DID TEACHERS AND STUDENTS OFFER
REGARDING MATHDALI?
MATHDALI’S POSITIVE EFFECTS
Qualitative expressions show that math lessons that were deemed as hard were simplified
by the videos and games. The students shared that use of videos and games helped them
in understanding and remembering their lessons better. The application of theoretical
learning to games also helped enhance their attentiveness and memory of the lesson.
The students also reported having higher self-confidence in answering questions about
Math, a finding that is supported by their Mathitude scores. They were not afraid to make
mistakes. Despite the challenges, the students gained a deeper value for learning and
learning itself was viewed as an achievement. As a result, the students mentioned that a lot
of them had higher grades after using MathDali materials in class.
“Mas napapadali po yung mga mahihirap na lesson kasi po sa mga
episodes sina Kuya Robi po pinapaliwanag po nila ng mas maayos kaya
napapadali. Tas sa games naman po parang nabibigyan po kami ng clue
ng mga alam na namin.” – Student from BBE

“Mas nadadagdagan po yung kaalaman ko. Kapag hindi ko alam yung
isang bagay, kapag napanood ko na yung episodes, mas nadadagdagan
po. Kasi po sa mga test po, mas madali ko nang nalalaman kung anong
sagot dito.” – Student from Central

Advantages and disadvantages of MathDali performance tasks
In the experimental groups, MathDali lessons were already integrated in teacher’s daily
lessons such that some of their performance tasks (e.g., individual and group seat

work, group work, board work, projects, recitation, and assignments) were already
4
aligned with the examples provided in the videos or during the trainings.
While most teachers welcome this, i.e., using MathDali’s performance tasks, these
could either be done outside class hours or be given during a different schedule. This is
because their teaching system, including the showing of videos consume their whole
Math period.
“Pwede naman ang kaso kung kayo ang gagawa parang makukulong si
titser. Gaya ng sinabi ko kanina, depende yun sa sitwasyon na umiikot
sa loob ng room. Kasi di natin masasabi kung anong pwedeng mangyari,
in 50 minutes. Although ang lesson namin ay nakaprepare for 50
minutes, di natin masasabi kung may emergency, ganito, ganyan. So,
kung makakagawa kayo, mas okay pero wag sana isingit sa episode ng
MathDali dahil may previewing saka post viewing pa kami. Tapos,
minsan after ng viewing may activity pa kami. Baka masyado na kaming
masakal. Okay lang sana kung maghapunan din kami nagtuturo.” –
Teacher A
Hence, MathDali program designers need to be more considerate of the limited class
time teachers have to integrate these performance tasks.
Difficulty level of MathDali lessons
The teachers’ responses varied regarding the lessons which was most difficult for
students. Second quarter lessons were considered by some as most difficult as topics
included fractions. There were others who regarded third and/or fourth quarter math
topics loaded with more confusing problems. One teacher said that, regardless of the
quarter, students found problem analysis/solving most difficult.
“Analyzing problems. Lahat may problems talagang kasama. Ang
ginagawa ko ngayon, daily akong may problems.” – Teacher E

Teachers noted the time allotted for Math lessons depended on level of difficulty and
the students’ learning capabilities. If the students had a hard time with one topic,
teachers would usually stick with this lesson for two to three days, until most of the
students (if not all) developed a better understanding of it. Time was usually not enough
in teaching those with learning difficulties, even if they appeared eager to learn.
Seat work - and oftentimes, board work - are recorded but are not part of their final grade. Projects are designed as
4
hands-on applications of their lessons, usually done at school to avoid the parents or other older family members
doing the project instead of the student. Assignments are rarely given these days due to lack of time as well as due to
the policy prohibiting assignments during the end of the week. While teachers assign group activities, they would
still prefer to use this as a chance to improve on an individual’s level of learning so that the students will not always
rely on their more advanced peers.

“Ang allotted time namin ay 50 minutes. Actually hindi kasya yun kung
talagang tututukan mo yung bata. Para don sa mga masisipag mag aral
sa math kulang ang time na 50 minutes pero sa mga batang tamad
mag aral ng math napakatagal na ng 50 minutes. Gusto na nila agad
matapos.” – Teacher B
Pacing the lessons was generally up to the teachers. Some consideration was made
for slow-learners, i.e., typically by reviewing them at other times. Good planning on the
part of the teacher, i.e., using only the necessary activities, can also help in efficient
use of the time allotted for Math. Adjusting one’s teaching style or even having a one-
on-one sessions can be helpful for the student.
“Yung pabulusok yung ano niya, nakakaawa kasi pag binagsak mo siya.
Kasi feeling ng mga magulang, burden ka sa kanila kapag binagsak mo
yung anak nila. Pero, namimihasa din sila. Kasi usually ang inaadjust
namin, yung pabagsak, hindi yung pataaas. Pero usually sa recitation
namin inaadjust pero yung periodical nila, hindi na pwede yun.” –
Teacher D

Nonetheless, some teachers pointed out that, for some of the students who performed
dismally on the MathDali tests, there was not enough time to attend to their individual
learning needs. It was also possible that these students simply did not exert any effort.

CONCLUSION
Data in this assessment show that MathDali contributes to learning when the video lessons
are supported by teacher-training. Findings consistently pointed to the key role of teacher
training in math learning, as exposure to videos alone barely created any impact on the
students’ math performance.
This finding is consistent with research literature on teacher guidance at young ages
(e.g., the earlier-cited Quimbo study, see p. 14). The teacher’s guidance in the
classroom is important in facilitating child learning. The teacher provides inspiration
and motivation for students in pursuing subjects perceived as difficult such as Math.
The teacher also sets an example such that perspectives of the teacher on the subject
matter influences the way the students view the subject.
Moreover, improved student performance was noted in classes with teachers who had
lesser absences and had more access to learning materials.
“Madali lang ito [Math] kasi naiintindihan po. ‘Pag tinuro po ng teacher nage-
gets agad. Maganda po siya magturo... Madali lang nagegets yung lesson. Hindi
siya napakahirap. Madali lang siyang intindihin.” - student from Central

“[Kapag nagtuturo po si Ma’am] Ipapaliwanag po. Kokopyahin po namin muna.
Kapag may hindi po nakagets tinatanong nya tapos isa pa pong example
hanggang sa magets po ng lahat... Pinapaliwanagpo ni teacher ng mabuti. Iniisa
isa niya po. Wala naman pong nahihiyang magtanong... Maayos po at madetalye
magturo si Ma’am.” - student from BBF

RECOMMENDATIONS
MathDali’s contribution is not and should not only be focused on improving student
performance, but also on improving teacher performance. For optimal results, KCFI
should consider helping teachers teach rather than focusing only on helping students
learn.
Since data show that videos alone are not that effective in improving student test scores
in Math, there is a need for teachers to be taught or trained how to integrate the video
content into their classroom instruction. Such training will result in better assurance that
the students are really watching the episodes and can connect it to in-class lessons.
There needs to be continuous development in MathDali. Assessment results as
reported here do not reveal large and significant differences between experimental and
control groups primarily because:
• First, the selection and size of the sample are not optimum for
measuring the comparative effects of three experimental
interventions vs control. (Please note that when the evaluation
team came on-board, KCFI was already in the second quarter of
implementation and decisions on experimental and control classes
had been made and revised. Moreover, test instruments for the
first through third quarters as well the Mathitudes survey
questionnaire had already been developed and implemented by
KCFI.)
• Second, it is also possible due to effects of K-12 implementation.
The current batch of Grade 4 students are those caught mid-
stream in the implementation of the K-12 curriculum. Since the
K-12 program is only in its 2nd year of implementation, the Grade
4 students in this study began their basic education following the
older program. As such, these Grade 4 students are
disadvantaged as they did not gain full benefits of the new K to
Grade 2 curricula.
To correct the first (i.e., sample size issues), it is recommended that KCFI decide on a
minimum level of acceptable learning that makes production costs of MathDali videos
and related interventions worth the investment. With KCFI’s specification of its minimum
acceptable learning increase, decisions can be on important evaluation design
concerns, primarily sample size and statistical significance levels. By so doing,
quantitative analysis can avoid false positives and negatives.

REFERENCES
Brown, P. (2008). The importance of teacher-child relationships in head start. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/
hslc/standards/pdf/PDF_IMs/IM2008/ACF-IM-HS-08-21.pdf
Capate, R. & Lapinid, M. (2015). Assessing the Mathematics Performance of Grade 8
Students as Basis for Enhancing Instruction and Aligning with K to 12 Curriculum. De La
Salle University Research Congress, 3. Retrieved from www.dlsu.edu.ph/
conferences/dlsu_research_congress/2015/proceedings/LLI/020LLI_Capate_R N.pdf
Copple, C. & Heroman, C. (n.d.). Teaching and learning in the kindergarten year. KToday.
Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/Play/Ktodayplay.pdf
Department of Science and Technology (2011). Mathematics framework for Philippine
Basic Education. Retrieved from http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads/publ/
sei_mathbasic.pdf
Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early Teacher-Child Relationships and the Trajectory of
Children's School Outcomes through Eighth Grade. Child Development, 72(2),
625-638.
Quimbo, S. (2003). Explaining math and science achievement of public school children in
the Philippines. Philippines Review of Economics, 15(2)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2012). ‘Problems and
challenges in Mathematics education’. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0019/001917/191776e.pdf

APPENDICES

INSTRUMENTS

THIRD QUARTER TEST

FOURTH QUARTER TEST

Page 1 of 6
Name: ______________________________________ Date: ___________ Score: ________________
LRN: _________________ Section: _____________ School: __________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS: Circle the option that corresponds to your answer
1. What is the estimated area of the
shaded figure? (The side of each
square on the grid is 1 cm long.)
A. 14 cm2
B. 15 cm2
C. 16 cm2
D. 17 cm2
2. Which term refers to the number of
square units contained in a plane
figure?
A. area
B. base
C. perimeter
D. volume
3. Estimate the area of the enclosed
region. (1 square = 1 m2)
A. 12.5 m2
B. 13 m2
C. 13.5 m2
D. 14 m2
4. Which term refers to the number of
cubic units contained in a solid figure?
A. area
B. base
C. perimeter
D. volume
5. Find the area of the triangle.
A. 38 sq cm
B. 45 sq cm
C. 90 sq cm
D. 180 sq cm
MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT TEST (MAT) PRETEST
Fourth Quarter Period

Page 2 of 6
6. Find the area occupied by the arrow if
each square measures 1 m2.
A. 9 m2
B. 10 m2
C. 11 m2
D. 12 m2
7. In a subdivision, if a square lot has a side
of 12 meters, what is its area?
A. 24 sq m
B. 48 sq m
C. 72 sq m
D. 144 sq m
8. Find the area of the figure below.
A. 12 m2
B. 13 m2
C. 15 m2
D. 16 m2
9. A plywood is in the shape of a
parallelogram. How long is its base of its
area is 18 m2 and its height is 6 meters?
A. 3 meters
B. 24 meters
C. 48 meters
D. 54 meters
10. Your classroom floor measures 7 m by 5
m. It is to be covered with 1 m2 tiles.
Each tile costs Php 200. How much is the
total cost of tiles needed to cover the
whole floor?
A. Php 7000
B. Php 4800
C. Php 3500
D. Php 2400
11. A rectangular carpet has an area of 15
square meters. Find its length if the
width is 3 meters.
A. 5 meters
B. 8 meters
C. 12 meters
D. 45 meters
6 m
A = 18 m²
3 m
?
A = 15 m²

Page 3 of 6
12. The perimeter of a square piece of
cardboard is 20 cm. What is its area?
A. 4 sq m
B. 5 sq m
C. 16 sq m
D. 25 sq m
13. Find the amount of space occupied
by the shoebox.
A. 300 cu cm
B. 600 cu cm
C. 3000 cu cm
D. 6000 cu cm
14. An aquarium measures 30 cm by 15
cm by 20 cm. How many cubic
centimeters of water can it hold?
A. 9000
B. 4500
C. 375
D. 65
15. The area of the base of a rectangular
prism is 25 sq cm. What is its volume if its
height is 10 cm?
A. 15 cu cm
B. 35 cu cm
C. 125 cu cm
D. 250 cu cm

Page 4 of 6
16. Which graph corresponds to the table
below?
Favorite Snack
Donut 9
Pizza 6
Hamburger 12
Cake 8
A.
B.
C.
D.
For numbers 17 – 19 refer to the table
below the showing the favorite fruit of a
group of students:
17. What is the least favorite fruit?
A.Apple
B. Banana
C.Grapes
D.Mango
18. How many more students chose
mango as their favorite fruit rather than
banana?
A.3
B. 4
C.5
D.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Donut Pizza Hamburger Cake
Favorite Snack
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Favorite Snack
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Favorite Snack
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Favorite Snack

Page 5 of 6
19. How many students were in the group?
A. 17
B. 24
C. 28
D. 32
For numbers 20 to 21, refer to the next
graph showing the number of students
who have computers at home:
20. If there were a total of 200 grade 4
students, how many DO NOT have
computers at home?
A. 196
B. 124
C. 76
D. 50
21. If the school is preparing for a project
that involves the use of computers, to
which section should the teacher
assign the task?
A. Section A
B. Section B
C. Section C
D. Section D
For numbers 22 to 24, refer to the graph
below showing the number of chocolate
and cookie boxes sold by 4 children:
22. How many boxes of cookies in all were
sold by the four children?
A. 26
B. 27
C. 28
D. 29

Page 6 of 6
23. How many boxes of chocolates were
sold by Faith and Harold combined?
A. 5
B. 6
C. 9
D. 10
24. What can be inferred from the graph?
A. Jane is the best seller among the 4
children.
B. Faith is better at selling chocolates
than cookies.
C. Danny is better than Jane in selling
chocolates.
D. Harold sells almost equal amounts of
cookies and chocolates.
For numbers 25 to 26:
25. How many possible outcomes are there
in spinning the color spinner?
A. 1
B. 6
C. 8
D. 10
26. What are the chances that the spinner
above will land on red?
A. ½
B. ¼
C. 1/5
D. 1/10
A die has the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Each number is equally likely to occur.
27. When the die is rolled, which of these
events is more likely to occur?
A. Rolling number 1
B. Rolling number 2
C. Rolling a number lower than 6
D. Rolling a number higher than 5
28. Miko is guessing Bea’s birth month.
How many possible choices are there if
he knows that Bea was not born during
summer (April and May)?
A. 1
B. 7
C. 10
D. 12
29. Kenji wants to know Leslie’s age. The
clue she gave him was that her age is
an even number between 9 and 19.
How many possible ages must Ken
consider?
A. 1
B. 4
C. 5
D. 6
30. What is the probability of an event that
is sure to happen?
A. 0
B. ½
C. 1/10
D. 1

MATHITUDE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

STUDENTS’ MATHTITUDES
Name: ______________________________________________________ Date: ___________________
LRN: __________________ School: ____________________________ Section: _________________
Panuto: Kulayan ang mukha na nagpapakita ng iyong damdamin ukol sa bawat pangungusap.
1 = Lubos na hindi sang-ayon 2 = Hindi Sang-ayon 3 = Sang-ayon 4 = Lubos na Sang-ayon
Mga Pahayag 1 2 3 4
1. Mga matatalino lamang ang nakakaintindi ng Math.
2. Tumataas ang antas ng katalinuhan kapag nagsusumikap ang isang tao
sa math.
3. Mas magagaling ang mga lalaki sa Math kaysa sa mga babae.
4. Maraming natututunan ang isang tao mula sa kanyang mga
pagkakamali sa pag-solve ng math.
5. Di ako titigil sa pag-solve ng isang math problem hanggat ‘di ko
nakukuha ang sagot.
6. Kapag hindi ko ma-solve ang math problem, susuko na lang ako.
7. Kapag sinasauli ng guro ko ang mga test paper, tinitingnan ko kung saan
ako nagkamali at aaralin ko kung bakit mali ang pag-solve ko.
8. Kapag sinasauli ng guro ko ang mga test paper, ang gusto kong unang
malaman ay kung pumasa ako o bumagsak.
9. Habang natututo ng math, napapahiya ako kapag ako’y nagkakamali.
10. Natataranta ako kapag nakakakita ng math problem na mukhang
mahirap.
11. May kumpiyansa ako sa aking sarili kapag sumasagot sa math.
12. Pakiramdam kong malikhain ako sa paghahanap ng iba’t ibang paraan
para mag-solve sa math.

FGD AND INTERVIEW GUIDES

GRADE 4 STUDENTS FGD
PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET
School: Date:
NAME OF STUDENT AGE GENDER ADDRESS SECTION

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
WITH GRADE 4 STUDENTS
Attitude in and perception of Math
1.) Ano ang una ninyong naiisip kapag narinig niyo ang subject na Math?
2.) Gusto niyo ba ang Math? Madali lang ba ito para sayo? Bakit o bakit hindi?
3.) Bakit kaya kailangan nating pag-aralan ang Math sa eskwelahan?
MathDali materials
4.) Ano ang mga nagustuhan ninyo sa paggamit ng MathDali (e.g., episodes at
games) sa klase? May mga hindi ba kayo nagustuhan sa mga episodes o mga
laro?
5.) Madali bang gamitin o intindihin ang episodes at mga laro? Bakit?
6.) Mas naintindihan niyo ba ang Math dahil sa napanood o nalaro ninyo? Bakit?
7.) Sa tingin ninyo, paano mas magiging maganda o masaya ang mga MathDali
episodes at games?

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
WITH GRADE 4 MATH TEACHERS
Teaching materials and assessment used in class
1.) How do you usually teach your students? What teaching materials, strategies, and
assessment tools do you use?
Use of ICT
2.) Do you use any form of ICT materials (aside from Mathdali) in preparing your
lessons?
a. If yes, what are these materials? Why, how and how often do you use them?
(Let them explain in detail)
b. If no, why not?
3.) What do you think are the advantages/disadvantages of using ICTs in teaching?
Use of MathDali materials
4.) In a week, how often do you use the MathDali materials?
5.) Describe your experience in using the MathDali materials for teaching.
6.) Did you encounter any problems while using it?
7.) How did the MathDali materials help you in planning and teaching your lessons in
class?
8.) How compatible or consistent were the MathDali materials to your own teaching
strategy?
9.) In your opinion, did the MathDali materials help the students in learning the subject
matter? Was there any difference in the way the students learned or participated in
the lesson when you used the materials? (Probe)
10.) How can the delivery of lessons using Mathdali videos be improved?
11.) Would you use the MathDali materials in the future? Would you suggest your
colleagues to use the materials? (Probe)
Attendance in teacher trainings
12.) How many teacher trainings organized by the KCFI have you attended?
13.) Describe your experience during the teacher trainings.
14.) What did you like most about the training? Liked least?
15.) What do you think can be included or changed in the training to improve its
implementation?
16.) How did the trainings help you in your teaching?


KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (Follow-up)
WITH GRADE 4 MATH TEACHERS


Teaching materials and assessment used in class
1.) How do you usually teach your students? What teaching materials, strategies, and assessment tools do you use?
2.) Tell us about the performance tasks done by the students. What kinds of tasks fall under this category? If MathDali were to do some
similar type of assessment, will it be okay if they would pattern it according to the performance tasks you’ve been using? Why or
why not?
Use of ICT
3.) Were you able to watch the MathDali materials in class?

Use of MathDali materials
4.) How did the MathDali materials help you in planning and teaching your lessons in class? Can you discuss the usual flow of discussion
in class?
5.) Can you estimate how many videos you were able to watch? How did the videos help the students in learning the subject matter?
6.) Can you identify significant parts of the MathDali videos that helped you in discussing the lesson with the children? Are there
specific topics that are best learned through videos? through traditional mode of teaching?
7.) In your opinion, what can you say about the quality of the MathDali videos? Do you think the number of videos is sufficient in order
for the students to fully understand the concepts?
8.) How did you find the use of games suggested by MathDali in class? Were the students able to play the games? If yes, how many of
them were able to play the games?
9.) How did the MathDali materials help the students in learning the subject matter? Was there any difference in the way the students
learned or participated in the lesson when you used the materials? (Probe)
10.) Do you have any comments or suggestions on how to improve the MathDali materials? (Probe)

Additional Questions:
In your opinion, which Math lessons are quite difficult for the children? Which quarter do you think they’re having a hard (or the
hardest) time in Math? Why is this so?
Do you think you’re able to utilize well the allotted time given for Math? (Probe)

PARENTS FGD
PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET
School: Date:
NAME OF PARENT NAME OF STUDENT AGE GENDER ADDRESS OCCUPATION EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
WITH PARENTS OF GRADE 4 STUDENTS
Attitude in and perception of Math
1.) Ano ang una ninyong naiisip kapag narinig niyo ang subject na Math?
2.) Gusto niyo ba ang Math? Madali lang ba ito para sayo? Bakit o bakit hindi?
3.) Bakit kaya kailangan pag-aralan ang Math sa eskwelahan? Paano ito magagamit
sa pang-araw-araw na buhay ng tao?
Perception of child’s performance in Math
4.) Sa iyong palagay, madali ba para sa iyong anak ang Math? Bakit mo ito nasabi?
5.) Ano ang inyong mga ginagawa upang tulungan ang inyong anak sa pag-aaral ng
Math?
Awareness of MathDali materials
6.) Pamilyar ba kayo sa programang MathDali?
a. Kung oo,
Paano ninyo nalaman ang nasabing programa?
Ano ang inyong opinion ukol sa nasabing palabas?
Kasama niyo ba ang inyong anak sa panonood ng programa?
May iba pa ba kayong alam na proyektong konektado sa MathDali? Anu-
ano ang mga ito?
b. Kung hindi,
Kung magkakaroon ng programang tutulong sa mga elementary students
sa Math, ano sa tingin ninyo ang dapat laman nito?
Maliban sa nasabing palabas, may iba pa kayang pwedeng gawing
proyekto upang mas matulungan ang mga bata sa Math?
Evaluation of MathDali parent trainings
7.) Pwede niyo bang ikwento ang inyong karanasan nang kayo ay sumama sa
training ng MathDali?
8.) Anu-ano ang mga nagustuhan ninyo sa training? Bakit niyo iyo nagustuhan?
9.) May mga bagay ba kayong nais idagdag, baguhin, o tanggalin sa training? Anu-
ano ang mga ito at bakit?
10.) Pagkatapos ng training, may nabago ba sa pananaw niyo sa Math o kaya’y sa
pakikitungo niyo sa inyong anak? Anu-ano ang mga ito?
11.) For control group: Kung magkakaroon ng training ukol sa Math at kung paano
matutulungan ang mga bata dito, ano kaya ang mga pwedeng pag-usapan at
isama sa programa?

QUANTITATIVE TABLES
 

Quantitative Data
Table 1. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences, first to fourth
quarter, all experimental vs. control classes*
* For this and for subsequent tables, highlighted cells indicate statistical
significance.
quarter, BBI (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos only) vs BBF (Control)
All
experimental
vs. control
First Second Third Fourth
Pretest score
difference
Exp= 10.2
Con= 10.4
0.2 favoring
control
(p=.649)
Exp=7.24
Con=7.15
0.1 favoring
experimental
(p=.814)
Exp=11.89
Con=8.33
3.56 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Exp=11.5
Con=9.11
2.39 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Post test score
difference
Exp= 13.5
Con=12.4
1.1 favoring
experimental
(p=.078)
Exp=10.67
Con=8.0
2.67 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Exp=20.42
Con= 13.47
6.95 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Exp=16.46
Con=10.11
6.35 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
BBI vs. BBF First Second Third Fourth
Pretest score
difference
BBI= 7.65
BBF= 10.39
2.74 favoring
control
(p=.003)
BBI=7.80
BBF=7.15
0.65 favoring
experimental
(p=.516)
BBI=10.82
BBF=8.33
2.49 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
BBI=10.62
BBF=9.11
1.51 favoring
experimental
(p=.234)
Post test score
difference
BBI=10.0
BBF=12.43
2.43 favoring
control
(p=.03)
BBI= 8.98
BBF= 8.00
0.98 favoring
experimental
(p=.426)
BBI= 15.64
BBF= 13.47
2.17 favoring
experimental
(p=.091)
BBI= 13.9
BBF=10.11
3.79 favoring
experimental
(p=.001)

quarter, BBE (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos plus teacher-training) vs BBF
(Control)
quarter, Central (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos plus teacher-training,
parents-training, games) vs BBF (Control)
BBE vs. BBF First Second Third Fourth
Pretest score
difference
BBE=9.77
BBF=10.39
0.62 favoring
control
(p=.688)
BBE=6.81
BBF=7.15
0.34 favoring
control
(p=.883)
BBE=12.57
BBF=8.33
4.24 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
BBE=12.14
BBF=9.11
3.03 favoring
experimental
(p=.001)
Post test score
difference
BBE=14.33
BBF=12.43
1.9 favoring
experimental
(p=.019)
BBE=13.15
BBF=8.0
5.15 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
BBE=23.23
BBF=13.47
9.76 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
BBE= 18.53
BBF=10.11
8.42 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF First Second Third Fourth
Pretest score
difference
Central=11.93
BBF=10.39
1.54 favoring
experimental
(p=.064)
Central= 7.15
BBF=7.15
no difference
(p=1.0)
Central=12.09
BBF= 13.47
3.76 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Central= 11.63
BBF=9.11
2.52 favoring
experimental
(p=.006)
Post test score
difference
Central=14.07
BBF=12.43
1.64 favoring
experimental
(p=.094)
Central= 8.23
BBF=8.0
0.23 favoring
experimental
(p=.991)
Central=21.52
BBF=13.47
8.05 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)
Central= 16.63
BBF=10.11
6.52 favoring
experimental
(p<.0001)

Table 5. First quarter math score increases, by school
Table 6. Second quarter math score increases, by school
Table 7. Third quarter math score increases, by school
Table 8. Fourth quarter math score increases, by school
School Score increase
BBF (Control) 2.04
BBI (Experimental: MathDali videos only) 2.35
BBE (Experimental: MathDali videos and
teacher training)
4.56
Central (Experimental: MathDali videos,
teacher- and parents-training, games)
2.13
BBF (Control) 0.85
teacher training)
6.34
1.08
BBF (Control) 5.14
teacher training)
10.67
9.42
BBF (Control) 1.00
teacher training)
6.39
5.00

Table 9. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences in numbers
and numbers sense skill, first and second quarter, all experimental vs. control classes
and numbers sense skill, first and second quarter, BBI (Experimental intervention:
MathDali videos only) vs BBF (Control)
1st Qtr
(25 items)
2nd Qtr
(30 items)
Pretest Score Difference Mean Scores
Exp= 10.15
Con=10.39
0.2 favoring control
(p=.649)
Mean Scores
Exp=7.24
Con=7.15
0.1 favoring experimental
(p=.814)
Posttest Score Difference Mean Scores
Exp=13.49
Con=12.43
(p=.078)
Mean Scores
Exp= 10.67
Con= 8.0
(p<.0001)
BBI vs. BBF 1st Qtr
(25 items)
2nd Qtr
(30 items)
Pretest score difference Mean Scores
BBI= 7.65
BBF= 10.39
(p=.003)
Mean Scores
BBI=7.80
BBF=7.15
(p=.516)
Post test score difference Mean Scores
BBI=10.0
BBF=12.43
(p=.03)
Mean Scores
BBI= 8.98
BBF= 8.00
(p=.426)

and numbers sense skill, first and second quarter, BBE (Experimental intervention:
MathDali videos plus teacher-training) vs BBF (Control)
and numbers sense skill, first and second quarter, Central (Experimental
intervention: MathDali videos plus teacher-training, parents-training, games) vs
BBF (Control)
BBE vs. BBF 1st Qtr
(25 items)
2nd Qtr
(30 items)
BBE=9.77
BBF=10.39
(p=.688)
Mean Scores
BBE=6.81
BBF=7.15
(p=.883)
BBE=14.33
BBF=12.43
(p=.019)
Mean Scores
BBE=13.15
BBF=8.0
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF 1st Qtr
(25 items)
2nd Qtr
(30 items)
Central=11.93
BBF=10.39
(p=.064)
Mean Scores
Central= 7.15
BBF=7.15
no difference
(p=1.0)
Central=14.07
BBF=12.43
(p=.094)
Mean Scores
Central= 8.23
BBF=8.0
(p=.991)

Table 13. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences in geometry
skill, third quarter, all experimental vs. control classes*
*However, score increase was NOT significantly different
skill, third quarter, BBI (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos only) vs BBF
(Control)*
*Score increase significantly different, favoring control
3rd qtr
(14 items)
Exp= 6.89
Control=3.76
(p<.0001)
Posttest score difference Mean Scores
Exp=9.79
Control= 7.08
(p<.0001)
BBI vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(14 items)
BBI= 5.82
BBF= 3.76
(p<.0001)
BBI=7.5
BBF= 7.08
(p=.853)

skill, third quarter, BBE (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos plus teacher-
training) vs BBF (Control)
*However, score increase was NOT significantly different
skill, third quarter, Central (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos plus teacher-
training, parents-training, games) vs BBF (Control)
*However, score increase was NOT significant
BBE vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(14 items)
BBE=7.58
BBF=3.76
(p<.0001)
BBE=11.08
BBF=7.08
4 favoring experimental
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(14 items)
Central=7.09
BBF=3.76
(p<.0001)
Central=10.36
BBF=7.08
(p<.0001)

Table 17. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences in pattern
and algebra skill, third quarter, all experimental vs. control classes
*Score increase significantly different, favoring experimental
and algebra skill, third quarter, BBI (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos
only) vs BBF (Control)
*Score increase was NOT significantly different (0.4-0.5 point increase)
3rd qtr
(5 items)
Exp= 2.25
Control=2.14
(p=.541)
Exp=3.19
Control= 2.55
(p=.01)
BBI vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(5 items)
BBI= 2.02
BBF= 2.14
(p=.959)
BBI=2.58
BBF= 2.55
(p=.999)

and algebra skill, third quarter, BBE (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos
plus teacher-training) vs BBF (Control)
*Score increase was significantly different, favoring experimental
and algebra skill, third quarter, Central (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos
plus teacher-training, parents-training, games) vs BBF (Control)*
*However, score increase was NOT significant (0.3-0.8 point-increase)
BBE vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(5 items)
BBE=2.25
BBF=2.14
(p=.959)
BBE=3.62
BBF=2.55
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF 3rd qtr
(5 items)
Central=2.14
BBF=2.45
(p=.529)
Central=3.27
BBF=2.55
(p-.=.005)

Table 21. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences in
measurement skill, third and fourth quarters, all experimental vs. control classes*
*Significant difference score increase, 3rd quarter (5 pts vs. 2 pts). Significant difference
score increase, 4th quarter (3 pts vs. 0.2 pts)
measurement skill, third and fourth quarters, BBI (Experimental intervention:
MathDali videos only) vs BBF (Control)*
*Significant difference score increase, 3rd quarter (3 pts. vs. 2 pts.). Significant score
increase difference, 4th quarter (2 pts. vs 0.2 pts.)
3rd qtr
(11 items)
4th Qtr
(15 items)
Pretest Score Difference Mean Scores
Exp= 2.73
Con=2.45
(p=.216)
Mean Scores
Exp=4.92
Con=3.5
(p=.019)
Posttest Score Difference Mean Scores
Exp=7.44
Con=4.02
(p<.0001)
Mean Scores
Exp= 7.5
Con= 3.68
(p<.001)
BBI vs. BBF 3rd Qtr
(11 items)
4th Qtr
(15 items)
BBI= 2.78
BBF= 2.45
(p=.649)
Mean Scores
BBI=4.36
BBF=3.5
(p=.293)
Post test score difference 1Mean Scores
BBI=5.58
BBF=4.02
(p=.002)
Mean Scores
BBI= 6.32
BBF= 3.68
(p<.001)

measurement skill, third and fourth quarters, BBE (Experimental intervention:
MathDali videos plus teacher-training) vs BBF (Control)*
* Significant difference score increase, 3rd quarter (6 pts. vs. 2 pts.). Significant score
measurement skill, third and fourth quarters, Central (Experimental intervention:
MathDali videos plus teacher-training, parents-training, games) vs BBF (Control)*
* Significant difference score increase, 3rd quarter (5 pts. vs. 2 pts.). Significant score
BBE vs. BBF 3rd Qtr
(11 items)
4th Qtr
(15 items)
BBE=2.77
BBF=2.45
(p=.647)
Mean Scores
BBE=5.44
BBF=3.5
(p<.001)
BBE=8.43
BBF=4.02
(p<.0001)
Mean Scores
BBE=8.42
BBF=3.68
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF 3rd Qtr
(11 items)
4th Qtr
(15 items)
Central=2.66
BBF=2.45
(p=.867)
Mean Scores
Central= 4.89
BBF=3.5
(p=.017)
Central=7.97
BBF=4.02
(p<.001)
Mean Scores
Central= 7.60
BBF=3.68
(p<.001)

Table 25. Summary of pre-test post-test math scores and score differences in statistics
and probability skill, fourth quarter, all experimental vs. control classes*
*Score increase was significantly different (2 vs. 0.8)
and probability skill, fourth quarter, BBI (Experimental intervention: MathDali videos
only) vs BBF (Control)*
*Score increase NOT significantly different (roughly 1 point)
4th qtr
(15 items)
Exp= 6.59
Control=5.61
(p=.014)
Exp=8.96
Control= 6.43
(p<.0001)
BBI vs. BBF 4th qtr
(15 items)
BBI= 6.26
BBF= 5.61
(p=.531)
BBI=7.58
BBF= 6.43
(p=.174)

and probability skill, fourth quarter, BBE (Experimental intervention: MathDali
videos plus teacher-training) vs BBF (Control)*
*Significant difference score increase (3 vs. 0.8)
and probability skill, fourth quarter, Central (Experimental intervention: MathDali
videos plus teacher-training, parents-training, games) vs BBF (Control)*
*Significant difference score increase (2 vs. 0.8)
BBE vs. BBF 4th qtr
(15 items)
BBE=6.70
BBF=5.61
(p=.091)
BBE=10.11
BBF=6.43
(p<.0001)
Central vs. BBF 4th qtr
(15 items)
Central=6.74
BBF=5.61
(p=.067)
Central=9.03
BBF=6.43
(p<.0001)

MathDali Evaluation: A Report Prepared for the Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to MathDali Evaluation: A Report Prepared for the Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc.

Similar to MathDali Evaluation: A Report Prepared for the Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc. (20)

More from KnowledgeChannel5

More from KnowledgeChannel5 (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MathDali Evaluation: A Report Prepared for the Knowledge Channel Foundation Inc.