Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CARCELLER, GEORGIE R.
Abstract
National High School, Division of Bukidnon during the school year 2017
research design. Out of ten sections of grade 9 junior high school, two
intact groups were selected at random. In the same manner, one section
was randomly assigned as the control group and the other section the
was taught with POGIL approach; while the control group was taught
The first research instrument used in this study was the 30-item
achievement test. This was used in the pretest and posttest of the two
groups. The second research instrument was the 25-item attitude scale.
learners’ taught with POGIL approach and those without the POGIL
approach.
between the experimental and the control group. The learners taught
Introduction
learning, where the teacher delivers content in a way that students can
spokesperson, or reflector.
in schools, but some strategies are more appropriate and effective than
skills for POGIL include both cognitive and affective processes. There
as well as, the medians of the trapezoids are difficult for them to absorb.
effective, learners will have difficulties with the basic concepts even if
they are already in the higher grades. To address this problem teachers
Mathematics instruction.
of the knowledge that they are provided and move forward in construct
learning takes place as children are interacting with each other and
connection.
6
greetings to train values to the learners. Then, the main activity follows.
given to the students. The closing activity comes in the form of tests and
performance activities.
7
the variables in the study. The first box contains the two learning
group). The first box is connected with an arrow pointing to the second
Teaching Approaches
Mathematics
A. Teaching
Mathematics using Achievement of
Lear
POGIL Grade 9 Learners
1. Orientation
2. Learning Cycle
Exploration Phase
Concept Invention
Phase
Application Phase
3. Closure Attitude of
B. Teaching Learners towards
Mathematics Mathematics
Without Using
POGIL
What to know?
What to process,
to reflect on and
understand?
What to transfer?
Study
8
the learning cycle, the model can be a figure, an equation, a table, text
answer some critical thinking questions, which are crafted to lead the
application phase.
this phase, the students are given some exercises designed to give
textbook.
the material that they learned. The learners will be trained to believe in
material learned for the day. They make a reflection on their learning.
to apply.”
Bukidnon. This was conducted during the third grading period of the
POGIL approach?
Methodology
group, and the control group. The experimental group was taught using
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning while the control group was
taught without the POGIL approach. The two groups were given the
achievement test and attitude scale before and after the conduct of
lessons in Quadrilaterals.
of 2,016 where 936 are males, and 1080 are females for the Junior High
These teachers were able to attend the regional mass training for
12
Lantapan National High School who are enrolled for the school year
2017 – 2018. Two heterogeneous and intact classes were used in the
study. The two sections were randomly taken from the ten
selecting the experimental group and control group. In this study, the
The students from the control group were matched with the
There were 30 students from the experimental group, and each student
was matched with 30 students from the control group. The participants
Inquiry Learning approach used three phases: Phase I, Phase II, and
includes the choice of topics, constructing the task analysis matrix and
Phase III is the validation and revision stage covered by the evaluation
Mathematics.
experts. The criteria for the evaluation were on the acceptability, clarity,
of their evaluation was used as the basis for improving, revising, and
The instruments used in the study were the achievement test, the
attitude scale test and the prompts for Experience. A variety of tools will
answer problems 1 and 2, the mean and standard deviation were used
mathematics of the learners who were taught with the use of the POGIL
approach and those that were taught without the POGIL approach. One
POGIL approach and those that taught without the POGIL approach.
POGIL approach and those taught without the use of POGIL approach,
the means obtained from their scores were used. The data showing the
mean and standard deviation of the two groups in their pretest and
both groups did not meet the expectations. This shows that the students
struggle with their understanding and have not yet acquired the skills
means values between the two groups reveals that the experimental
skills and core understanding but needs help throughout the authentic
task while the control group struggles with understanding the pre-
Table 2
and Kowalski, (2010) disclosed that when students are actively involved
achievement as they interact with each other and create their meaning
of new ideas. This was supported by Hussain (2013), who upheld that
Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) and those taught without the
The result shows that the p-value is less than the 0.05 level of
significance. Hence the finding reveals that the hypothesis which states
group performed better than the students in the control group. Thus,
17
During the conduct of the study, the researcher observed that the
than those students who were taught with the conventional method.
Table 3
utilize prior knowledge along with the acquired information from the
idea. Learners look back to the previous two stages if their concept is
in the present study. The study of Fishback and Daniel (2011) adopted
students taught using the POGIL strategy. This was also supported
given to them, the activities and experiences and the techniques drawn
the activities most were not doing anything and were dependent on their
member had their specific roles; some of the learners in the control
approach had a better effect than the method used without it. The
participating with their ideas and thoughts. POGIL has been a positive
2013).
approach before the conduct of the study. As seen in the table, the
learners from both the experimental and control group have the same
Table 4
The table also shows that before the conduct of the study the
experimental group had a higher mean value than the control group
with a very slight difference. The overall value shows that they were
Undecided with their attitude. This indicates that the learners in both
groups were not sure of their attitudes towards math. This indicates
further that both groups were Undecided since the teaching approach
was not yet introduced to the experimental group. However, the pre-
that they had mixed responses, though there are still statements where
they have similar responses. Varied responses can be shown from their
results.
Table 5
Learners’ Attitude towards Mathematics after the conduct of the study.
Experimental Control
Items
Mean Sd QD Mean Sd QD
1.Math is subject that I am afraid of* 4.23 .63 SD 3.27 1.26 U
2.When I work with Math problems my thinking 3.90 .76 A 3.67 1.02 A
and reasoning are sharpened
3. I am unable to think clearly when working with 3.90 .84 D 3.07 1.04 U
Math*
4. I feel excited learning about Math 4.23 .68 SA 3.57 0.94 A
5. Studying of Math is not important unless you 4.27 .83 SD 3.67 1.03 D
are an engineer*
6. Learning Math Makes feel bored* 4.20 .89 SD 3.27 .98 U
7. I feel bored listening to people talking about 3.93 .74 D 3.00 1.11 U
Math*
8. Math is a topic I greatly enjoy. 3.80 .85 A 3.27 .87 U
9. Of all my teachers , I like Mathematics teachers 3.27 .83 U 3.17 .75 U
least*
10.Being with people who are good in Math is 4.23 .63 SA 3.60 .89 A
enjoyable
11. No matter how hard I try , I cannot 3.97 .67 D 3.57 1.01 D
understand Math*
12.I feel happier in my Math class than any other 3.36 .81 U 3.07 .74 U
class
13. Math give me such satisfaction 3.77 .68 A 3.07 .91 U
14. Math is not necessary in our country* 4.17 .75 D 3.63 1.09 D
15. I find math useful for problems of everyday 4.30 .75 SA 3.43 1.10 U
life
16. I don’t enjoy going beyond assigned work on 3.90 .66 D 2.83 .83 U
Math*
17. I feel I have a good foundation on Math 3.67 .64 A 3.40 .89 A
18. I study Math just to pass the year level* 4.18 .86 D 3.57 .97 D
19. I feel nervous in math class* 3.97 .85 D 3.57 .97 D
20. I have a feeling I can get high grade in Math 3.83 .83 A 3.67 1.15 A
21. I feel uncomfortable listening to math* 3.77 .93 D 2.80 .96 U
22. I would not enjoy working with math* 3.90 .76 D 3.17 1.01 U
23. Learning math makes me feel great 3.87 .73 A 3.37 .96 U
24. Being with people who are good in Math is 4.37 .61 SD 3.47 1.01 D
boring*
25. I am confident when solving math 3.53 1.04 A 2.90 1.06 U
Overall 3.95 .25 A 3.32 .37 U
Legend: SA – Strongly Agree A – Agree U – Undecided D – Disagree
SD – Strongly Disagree *negative stated statements
24
One of the reasons behind this good outcome is the use of Process
subject. Moreover, the approach used in the teaching makes them more
mean value, still the attitude of the learners towards mathematics did
not change.
POGIL and those learners taught without POGIL was tested using
value is smaller than the significance level. This leads to the rejection
This finding shows that using POGIL in the lesson would help the
in the classroom. Fishback and Daniel (2011) found out that POGIL
and Marcus (2009) found out that learner in the POGIL group ended
25
Table 6
Summary Table comparing the attitude of grade 9 Learners
communication.
given activities. With this, learning becomes more effective because they
feel that they are part of the learning process. The rotation of roles in a
group also provided interest to the learners because these help them to
the different activities, they were very eager to present their answers. It
showed really that they understood the lessons given to them. The
departure from a routinary teacher talk and activities following the page
in the textbook did not have the same excitement as being involved in
the POGIL lesson. This means that the learners found POGIL to be an
enjoyable experience.
26
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
POGIL be conducted.
28
References
80
retrieved from:
https//pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6df4/19f58f5c2189dc0fb6267
f1fcbdb8dfdd6a70.pdf
Wilson, C.D, Taylor, J.A., Kowalski, S.M. & Carlson, J. (2010). The
Relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace
science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and
argumentation. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 47, 276
–
301