Master of Arts in Education major in Mathematics
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://dspace.uc-bcf.edu.ph/handle/123456789/117
Browse
1 results
Search Results
Item Computer assisted instruction on the performance of selected CITCS students in problem solving(2017-05) Aquisio, Charlie Menzi.The problem solving in mathematics is a multi-tasked activity that requires competencies in different cognitive domain. Thus, every mathematical instruction should optimize the opportunity for the students to grasp the necessary concepts for them to be prepared for problem solving. Researchers have shown that Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) supports both audio and visual learning which can be interactive and self-paced at the same time. In such view, CAI can be a viable teaching support for teachers to promote students' learning performance along problem solving. This study seeks to determine the effect of CAI on the performance of selected students in problem solving through the consideration of the generalized rudimentary problem- solving categories which are: comprehension of the given sentence problem, translation of the worded problem to mathematical sentences, and numerical analysis which involves both computational skills and abstract thinking. By giving light to any further advantages and disadvantages of CAI along problem solving, the study hopes to further contribute towards the better understanding on teaching problem solving. The study sought to define a more comprehensive difference between the CAI method and the lecture method. It intended to answer the following queries: 1. What is difference on the performances of the lecture method group and the CAI group in the pretest and posttest? Hypothesis: There is a significant difference on the performances of the lecture method group and the CAI group in the pretest and posttest. 2. What is the difference on the pretest of CAI and the lecture method group in algebra considering the following performance foci in problem solving: a) Comprehension Skills on Problem Solving? b) Semantic Structure of Worded Problems? c) Numerical Analysis of Worded Problems? Hypothesis: There is a significant difference on the pretest of CAI and the lecture method group in algebra considering the following performance foci in problem solving: a) Comprehension Skills on Problem Solving; b) Semantic Structure of Worded Problems; and c) Numerical Analysis of Worded Problems. 3. What is the difference on the posttest of CAI and the lecture method group in algebra considering the following performance foci in problem solving: a) Comprehension Skills on Problem Solving? b) Semantic Structure of Worded Problems? c) Numerical Analysis of Worded Problems? Hypothesis: There is a significant difference on the posttest of CAI and the lecture method group in algebra considering the following performance foci in problem solving: a) Comprehension Skills on Problem Solving; b) Semantic Structure of Worded Problems; and c) Numerical Analysis of Worded Problems. The researcher made use of the experimental method of research with a quantitative type of approach. Pretest-posttest design was utilized as the type of experimental design. The samples for the study are Information Technology students who enrolled in two Algebra classes for the school year 2006-2007, 2nd Trimester. One of the classes was identified for the control group (Lecture Method Group) and the other as the experimental group (CAI Method Group). The same teacher facilitated both classes and both were of morning schedule in order to minimize, if not negate, any effects of teacher and time factors. The scope of the study along problem solving was delimited to the applications of linear equations with one unknown. Both groups underwent the pretest prior to the conducting the problem-solving lesson. The respective teaching methods were conducted to the two groups after the pretest and the posttest was taken thereafter. The number of students who represented each group on the pretest and the posttest were gathered considering the balance of the mean IQ scores and pretest scores for both groups. The following statistical tools were utilized in order to meet the objectives of the study: The mean, as validated by the within-range computation of the standard kurtosis and standard skewness, was used in order to determine the performance interpretation of the lecture method group and CAI through the Descriptive Equivalent Rating Scale. The t-test for uncorrelated data was used in order to test the hypotheses which state that there is no significant difference on the pretest performance of the lecture method group and CAI group; there is a presence of significant difference between the said groups along the posttest, and that there is a significant difference between the groups per performance foci on both pretest and posttest. The t-test for correlated data was used in order to test the hypothesis that the posttest scores of both the lecture method group and CAI are higher than their respective pretest scores. The comparison also included any significant differences under comprehension, semantic structure and numerical analysis categories per teaching method along pretest and posttest. Lastly, the single factor - Analysis of Variance was used as a supplementary formula for testing the hypothesis that there is a significant difference between the groups per performance foci on both pretest and posttest. The identified formula was used for the comparison between different performance foci under a teaching method. The following were the major findings of the study: 1. The pretest performance of the lecture method group CAI are poor (mean= 8.778) and fair (mean= 14.458), respectively. The t-test results showed that the computed t- value is equivalent to 3.732 which larger than the tabular value of t (2.021) under the significance level 0.05 thus there is a significant difference between the CAI and the lecture method group at 0.05 level of significance in their pretest scores. 2. The posttest performance of the lecture method group and CAI group are poor (mean= 10.611) and good (mean= 19.833, respectively. The t-test results showed that the computed t-value (5.647) is larger than the tabular value of t (2.021) at 0.05 significance level. Thus, there is a significant difference between the CAI and the lecture method group. 3. In the lecture method group, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest comparison along semantic structure while results along the CAI group revealed that there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest for all the three performance foci. 4. The t-test and ANOVA results of the pretest determined that the CAI group performed better than the lecture method group at 0.05 level of significance. 5. The t-test and ANOVA posttest results revealed that the CAI group performed better than the lecture method group at 0.05 level of significance. In addition, the CAI group displayed a more profound performance on all the three foci as compared to the lecture method group. In light of the findings of the study, the following are the conclusions: 1. The performances of the lecture method group and the CAI group differ in both the pretest and posttest. 2. The performances on the pretest of the lecture method group differ along semantic structure while the performances on the pretest of the CAI group differ for all the three performance foci. 3. The performances on the posttest of the lecture method group differ along semantic structure while the performances on the posttest of the CAI group differ for all the three performance foci. In relation with the findings and conclusions of this research study, the following are recommended: 1. The homogeneity of the pretest results of both the control group and experimental group have to be prioritized in order to establish the idea that the respective groups used in the study started at the same footing. 2. A wider scope of the study regarding the effect of Computer Aided Instruction along the cognitive domain has to be given emphasis. 3. Universities have to observe the integration of CAI within the classroom due to the observed positive academic improvement among students. In addition, further focus has to be emphasized on how to translate any given math information into mathematical sentences and then how should it be translated in linear equations. 4. Computer Aided Instruction has to be a suitable tool to develop the cognitive abilities of the students whether on the lower order skills (comprehension) and the higher order skills (application, analysis, etc.).