Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation

P L A T I N U M A W A R DSecond Place

MAKE OUT THE STATELINESS OF SDSSU

THE WORKFORCE OF SDSSU

TANDAG PROPER IN AN OCCASION

Edmundo Cabiltes Lopez, Ph. D.Surigao Del Sur State University

Tandag, Surigao Del Suredcalopez@yahoo.com

Constructivism In Teaching Elementary Algebra: Its Influence In Mathematics

Performance Of Students In Large Classes

Introduction Description of constructivism

Effects of Constructed knowledge

Role of mathematics Teachers

Reasons for Conducting the Study

Statement of the Problem

Influence of teaching methods:a. Constructivistb. Traditional?

Teaching methods’ effects in students’ achievement scores:

a. knowledge and comprehensionb. application and analysis types of questions?

Statement of the Null Hypotheses

No significant difference in the students’ mathematics achievement scores

No significant difference in the students’achievement scores in knowledge

and comprehension, application andanalysis

Research Method

Research Design

The pretest-posttest nonequivalent

quasi experimental design

Pretest Posttest O1 X O2

-------------------------------------------------

O1 O2

Research Method

Subjects of the Study Setting of the Study Sampling Procedure Data Gathering Procedure The Statistical Treatment

Results and Discussion

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Mathematics Achievement Scores

Experimental Group Control Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Mean 10.55 10.63 10.56 13.72

SD 2.97 3.05 3.03 4.38 F-ratio of the pretest variance: 1.04 

Sources Adjusted df Adjusted F F of Sum of Mean Computed CriticalVariation Squares Squares

Treatment 208.38 1 208.38 22.65* 3.92 Between

Error 1241.91 135 9.20Within

Total 1450.29 136

Table 2. Summary Table of ANCOVA on Mathematics Achievement Scores

*Significant at 0.05 level

Experimental Group Control Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Mean 2.62 2.32 2.71 3.22

SD 1.45 1.38 1.54 1.35

Table 3. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Achievement Scores in

Knowledge and Comprehension Questions

Sources Adjusted df Adjusted F F of Sum of Mean Computed CriticalVariation Squares Squares

Treatment 27.05 1 27.05 14.84* 3.92 Between

Error 246.13 135 1.823Within

Total 273.18 136

Table 4. Summary Table of ANCOVA on the Students’ Achievement Scores in Knowledge and Comprehension Questions

*Significant at 0.05 level

Experimental Group Control Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Mean 7.87 8.32 7.77 10.62

SD 2.35 2.54 2.54 3.70

Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Scores in Analysis and Application Questions

Sources Adjusted df Adjusted F F of Sum of Mean Computed CriticalVariation Squares Squares

Treatment 183.26 1 183.26 18.34* 3.92 Between

Error 1348.65 135 9.99 Within

Total 1531.91 136

Table 6. Summary Table of ANCOVA on the Students’ Scores in Analysis and

Application Questions

*Significant at 0.05 level

Table 7. Weighted mean of the Observers’ Rating in the Conduct of the Study

Observers 1 2 3 4 Grand Mean

Weighted Mean 3.17 3.75 3.67 3.08 3.42

Conclusions

Methods of teaching affects students’ academic performance

In this study, traditional approach is an effective method of teaching in large class

Constructivist approach can be used as an alternative method in motivating students’ learning interest

Recommendations

Verify first the effectiveness of the new method of teaching in large and small classes before massive implementation.

Introduce new method with preparedness on the intricacies of the method

Recommendations Be aware of the degrading effects

of large classes in students’ learning.

Use Constructivist approach as motivating agent for students to learn by demonstration.

The fruitfulness of our teaching endeavors is laid on the

students’ future achievements

in life.

GodBless

UsAll!!!!!