THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
Mathematics learning is a complex and dynamic process (Luitel, 2002).
Mathematics educators always hope that students can understand what is being
taught and not just memorize facts or merely apply procedures for solutions
(Kazemi, 1998). In this endeavor, the student not only learns to solve problems
but thinks more deeply about why the method gives the solution.
However, determinants of students' performance have been the subject of
ongoing debate among educators, academics, and policy makers. There have
been many studies that sought to examine this issue and the findings of these
studies point out to hard work and discipline, previous schooling, parents‟
education, family income and selfmotivation as factors that can explain
differences in students' grades.
Education stakeholders believe that students should have opportunities to
explore calculus concepts in various forms. Student should be able to experience
calculus concepts symbolically, numerically, and graphically (Ganter, 2001). In
addition, students should have the ability to communicate such concepts both
orally and in writing (ibid).
2
Nevertheless, the fact remains that many students have difficulties with learning
calculus. Some of the difficulties stem from not thoroughly learning algebra, lack
of problem solving skills, or lack of study skills. In fact, Marcoff (1985) stated that
calculus cannot be learned passively – that is, as the subject builds, the student
must continually master ideas and techniques in order to profitably continue. He
further asserts that calculus plays an important role in learning and degree
completion requirements for other courses. It is a higher, more complex
mathematics subject. It needs foundation on subjects like Algebra, Trigonometry,
and Analytic Geometry. In taking this subject, students are confronted with the
limit concept involving calculations that are no longer performed by simple
arithmetic and algebra.
According to Blackwell and Henkin,(1989), it is not possible to teach all
people all of the mathematics skills that could be taught. The same is true with
students taking up Differential Calculus, a subfield of mathematics. It provides
the foundation for understanding higherlevel science, mathematics, and
engineering courses.
Further, Sorby and Hamlin (2001) have pointed out that Differential
Calculus is the starting point in mathematics instruction. Due to poor
performance of students in calculus in the last ten years, the undergraduate
calculus course has attracted an unprecedented level of national interest.
According to Thorndike, poor performance in Calculus may be attributed
to weak foundation in the topic and failure to master the basic concept.
3
Studies on attitudes toward calculus are scarce. This research was
designed to provide quantitative data to help determine attitudes toward
calculus among students and the extent by which some factors influence their
performance in the said subject. Researchers, faculty and administrators may
gain a better understanding of their students as a result and put resources and
programs in place to better serve students to successfully assist them through
their calculus classes.
In our elementary grade we usually have positive attitudes towards
mathematics until we reach high school. However, as we progress our attitude
became less positive when difficulty in mathematics started. It is the time when
we enrolled the subject Differential Calculus. And it is not only true to us but to
all who enrolled in the said subject either you are education students,
engineering students or information technology students and many others.
Statement of the Problem
This study determined the relationship between the attitude and factors
affecting performance in differential calculus of students in the College of
Education and College of Engineering, Samar State University, Catbalogan City,
during the school year 20122013.
Specifically, this study seeks answers to the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the studentrespondents in terms of the following:
1.1sex;
4
1.2 course; and
1.3 academic performance in Differential Calculus?
2. What is the studentrespondents‟ performance in Differential Calculus
based on the result of the achievement test?
3. To what extent are the following factors influence the performance of
studentrespondents in Differential Calculus:
3.1 attitude towards Differential Calculus;
3.2 instructional materials;
3.3 teaching strategies?
4. Is there a significant relationship between factors and profile of student
respondents in terms of academic performance in Differential Calculus?
5. Is there a significant relationship between achievement test and factors
influencing academic performance in Differential Calculus?
6. Is there a significant difference between the attitude towards
Differential Calculus between Education and Engineering Students?
Hypotheses
On the bases of the specific problems, the following hypotheses were
tested:
1. There is no significant relationship between factors and profile of
studentrespondents in terms of academic performance in Differential Calculus?
5
2. There is no significant relationship between achievement test and
factors influencing academic performance in Differential Calculus?
3. There is no difference in attitude towards Differential Calculus between
Education Students and Engineering Students?
Theoretical Framework
The present study finds theoretical basis in the Theory of Behaviorism
espoused by Watson, as cited by Gregorio (1988). The said theory maintains that
learning is any change in behavior of an organism. Such change may range from
the acquisition of knowledge, simple skill, specific attitude and opinions. It may
also include innovation, elimination or modification of response.
The theorist emphasizes that the response most frequently associated with
stimulus will be elicited by that same stimulus. To him, the unit of stimulus and
response become the basic building blocks of behavior. As such, the teacher
chooses the pattern according to which he is going to mold the learners and then
goes to work. He sets up situation in which the learners can successfully
accomplish the task. A student‟s success provides a particular situation which
offers constancy of stimulation sufficient to form bonds and habits and provides
adequate practice of them. Thus, the student‟s success is mirrored in his
performance in certain learning areas such as Calculus.
The present study also finds basis on the FunctionalStructural Theory by
Solomon(www.logic.Stanford.edu). The said theory stresses out that the role of
6
education is to equip the individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge
that will make them functioning members of the society. In addition, this theory
emphasizes that it is the society‟s structure that makes it possible for members to
interact with one another and eventually gather as much knowledge and skills as
possible.
Based on the theory, the performance of a person in a particular field is
what he does in it. It is one of the determining factors of his being a person in
relation to the society as a whole. There are various factors that contribute to a
person‟s performance in any field. Generally, motivation, learning and socio
economic background are some of the factors that influence a person‟s
performance. The question then is that the performance of a person in a
particular field may be influenced by factors that he encounters in school.
This study finds theoretical basis in Festiger‟s Cognitive Dissonance
Theory. According to Leon Festiger (1957), there is a tendency for individuals to
seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an
inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must
change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between
attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to
accommodate the behavior. Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an
individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest
dissonance is created when the two alternatives are equally attractive.
Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less incentive since
7
this result in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is contradictory
to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with
increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).
The present study also finds theoretical basis in the theory of Vygotsky‟s
Sociocultural Theory. According to Vygotsky (1978), "Every function in the
child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on
the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside
the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to
logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions
originate as actual relationships between individuals." It focuses not only how
adults and peers influence individual learning, but also on how cultural beliefs
and attitudes impact how instruction and learning take place.
Based on the theories, the performance of a person in a particular field is
what he believed in. Attitude is one of the determining factors that affect his
academic performance. Attitude should be seen to be more positive. A positive
attitude towards Differential Calculus reflects a positive emotional disposition in
relation to the subject and, in a similar way, a negative attitude towards
mathematics relates to a negative emotional disposition. For an individual to
have a good performance he must have a positive attitude regards to the subject.
He must wants to perform better in the said subject and do some ways to achieve
it. As such, the teacher must develop a highly favorable attitude towards the
8
subject in order for the students to have a good performance. He must also use
instructional materials and teaching strategies to deliver the subject in its easiest
way so that students will enjoy and find it interesting rather than a complicated
one. Thus, the student‟s success is mirrored in his performance in certain
learning areas such as Calculus.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study. This illustrates
the process of how this research was conducted.
The base frame of the schema contains the respondents of this study from
the College of Education and College of Engineering of Samar State University,
Main Campus, Catbalogan City which is also the research environment as well as
the time frame during which this study was conducted during the school year
20132014. As it is shown, the respondents of this study are education and
engineering students of Samar State University, which serves as the research
environment. This study will be conducted during the school year 20122013.
The said base frame is connected to a bigger higher frame which contains
the research process. As it is seen in the schema, the research is descriptive co
relational, as indicated by the doubleedge arrow connecting the smaller frames.
The box on the right represents the factors affecting performance in Differential
Calculus such as attitude, teaching strategies, and instructional materials. This is
connected to the two boxes at the left side represents profile of student
9
respondents such as sex, course, and academic performance in Differential
Calculus and Achievement Test.
This large frame is then connected upward to a smaller box representing
the findings and recommendations. The smaller box representing the findings
and recommendations is also connected downward to the bottom box which
represents the feedback mechanism of the study, then to the next upper box
representing the goal of study which is improved performance in Differential
Calculus.
This study will correlate the studentrespondents‟ profile in terms of their
and sex, course academic performance in Differential Calculus as shown in the
box at the left of the bigger frame, and their attitude towards Differential
Calculus, shown at the uppermost portion in the right of the bigger frame. In
addition, the same studentrespondents‟ profile will also be correlated with the
factors that affect their performance in Differential Calculus relative to
instructional materials and teaching methods, shown at the lowermost box at the
right of the bigger frame.
The results of this study will serve as recommendations for the
improvement of the studentrespondents‟ attitude towards Differential Calculus
and their academic performance in the subjects, as shown in the uppermost
frame.
10
IMPROVED ATTITUDE TOWARDS CALCULUS AND
IMPROVED PERFORMANCE IN CALCULUS
Findings/Recommendations
.
Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study
Second Year Students (CoEd and CoEng)
Samar State University
Catbalogan City
S.Y. 20122013
StudentsRespondents Profile
Sex
Course
Academic Performance
in Differential Calculus
Factors Affecting Performance
in Differential Calculus
Attitude
Teaching Strategies
Instructional Materials
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
Achievement Test in
Differential Calculus
11
Significance of the Study
This study provides benefits to the students, teachers, education
stakeholders, and future researchers.
Students. The students would essentially acquire insights relative to their
attitude towards Differential Calculus and their academic performance in the
same subjects. They would likewise acquire knowledge relative to the factors
which affect their academic performance in Differential Calculus. With the
acquisition on these concerns, they would be able to develop more favorable
attitudes towards the same subjects, and develop ways by which some factors
affecting their performance will be offset.
Teachers. The teachers would indirectly benefit from the results of this
study in terms of having baseline information regarding their students‟ attitude
towards Differential Calculus, their performance in same subjects and the factors
which influence their performance in Differential Calculus. With such baseline
information, they would be able to develop instructional materials appropriate to
their students‟ level of academic performance and attitude towards Differential
Calculus. They would also be able to devise teaching methods which are
applicable to their students‟ level of academic performance and attitude towards
Differential Calculus.
Education Stakeholders. The stakeholders would benefit from this study
in terms of gaining inspiration to lobby for policies to reassess the syllabi on
Differential Calculus especially as regard their contents, instructional materials
12
and teaching strategies used. After such reassessment, they would be able to
lobby for support to revise the syllabi on said subjects.
Future Researchers. The future researchers would able to get ample
literature to validate the results of this study involving other respondents in
other colleges.
Scope and Delimitation
Using a descriptive research design with correlation analyses, this study
determined the factors affecting performance in differential calculus of students
in the College of Education and College of Engineering. Moreover, this study
determined the relationship between the studentrespondents‟ attitude in
Differential Calculus and their academic performance in the same subjects.
Likewise, this study determined the relationship between the factors that affect
the studentrespondents‟ performance in Differential Calculus and their
performance in the same subjects.
Meantime, a questionnaire and documents in terms of the student
respondents final grades in Differential Calculus was used as data gathering
instruments. This study involved education students and engineering students of
Samar State University, Catbalogan City, who took up Differential Calculus
during the school year 20122013.Descriptive as well as inferential statistical tools
such as frequency count, percentage, mean, weighted mean, standard deviation,
13
Pearson r and Fisher‟s ttest were used to compute, analyze and interpret the
data.
Finally, this study was conducted during the school year 20132014.
Definition of Terms
To have a better understanding of this study, the terms herein used will be
defined conceptually and operationally.
Attitude. An organized predisposition to respond in a favorable or
unfavorable manner toward a specified class of objects (Breckler and Wiggins,
1992). In this study, the term will refer to the favorable or unfavorable
predisposition towards Differential and Integral Calculus measured by the
studentrespondents‟ responses in Part II of the questionnaire.
Differential Calculus. It is a subfield of calculus concerned with the study
of the rates at which quantities change; the object of this subject is the derivative
of a function, related notions such as the differential, and their applications
(en.wikipedia.org).It will be used in this study in the same manner as it is
defined in the foregoing statement.
Performance. It refers to how students deal with their studies and how
they cope with or accomplish different tasks given to them by their teachers
(http://wiki.answers.com). In this study, this term will refer to the student
respondents‟ performance in Differential Calculus based on their final grades in
the said subjects.
14
Teaching Strategies. These comprise the principles and methods used for
instruction, including class participation, demonstration, recitation,
memorization, or combinations of these (Lieberman, 2004). In this study, the
term will be used operationally in the same context as it is defined conceptually,
except that it will refer specifically to the methods used for instruction in
Calculus which may have influence on their performance in the same subjects
based on the studentrespondents‟ responses in Part III of the questionnaire.
Instructional Materials. It is used to help transfer information and skills
to others. These are used in teaching at places like schools, colleges and
universities. These can include textbooks, films, audio, and more.
Academic Performance. It refers to the status of the pupils with respect to
attained skills or knowledge as compared with other students or of school
adopted standard (Good, 1959). Final grade obtained by students in Differential
Calculus.
15
Chapter 2
RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature
Schools are important agents for the education of individual members of
society. It is undeniable that a major role of schools is to prepare students for
their future careers. It is so insofar as the level of success students achieve in
college has farreaching implications for students‟ personal and professional
lives. Student success has an immediate influence on academic selfesteem,
persistence in elected majors, and perseverance in tertiary education. More
importantly, success in college also ultimately impacts on career choice, personal
income and degree and nature of participation in community life.
Despite the importance of college education, it is the least enjoyed in a
student‟s postsecondary academic career. Disaffection with and low
performance in college classes is a serious problem at colleges and universities
across countries around the world (Horn,Peter, Rooney,2002). Subsequently,
determinants of student performance have attracted the attention of academic
researchers from many areas. They have tried to determine which variables
impact student performance in positive and negative direction.
Hence, research studies have been conducted by various academicians in
various countries and areas (Cheung and Kan, 2002).The emphasis given to the
16
identification and understanding of determinants of student success in school
stems from the fact that institutions and lecturers have to find out ways to
motivate students for better performance. In order to do this, firstthey need to
determine which factors play significant role in student performance.
Forexample, if attendance increases student performance, lecturers can do
somethingto increase students‟ attendance rate such as integrating attendance
rate into gradingpolicy. Secondly, graduating from different high schools may
also play a significantrole in performance(Alfan and Othman, 2005). For
example, graduates of private high schools that haveprior and stronger baseline
knowledge may outperform graduates of ordinary high schools.
One of the most commonly studied learning areas is mathematics because
the quality of teaching and learning said subject has been a major challenge and
concern of educators. Knowing the factors affecting math achievement is
particularly important for making the best instructional design decisions. This
overemphasis in mathematics stems from the inherent difficulty of mathematics.
Students have continuously struggled with mathematics courses which often
lead to an overall weak background in said subject and may contribute to
performance difficulties among students.
In a study presented at the 11
th
National Convention on Statistics in 2010,
Ogena, Laña and Sasota (2010) disclosed the performance of Philippine Science
High Schools with Special Science Curriculum in the 2008 Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study – Advanced (TIMSSAdvanced). In said study,
17
results of the TIMSSAdvanced showed that among the ten (10) countries that
participated in the study, Russian Federation, got the highest average scale score
at 561, while the Philippines ranked 10
th
with an average scale score of 355. This
study also presented average percent correct responses in the three content areas
of the advanced mathematics framework, namely, algebra, calculus, and
geometry, compared by SHS types in the Philippines and with other countries.
Meanwhile, Filipino students performed relatively better in geometry than
they did overall and relatively less well in calculus. This achievement pattern is
true and consistent across all types of secondary high schools (SHS). In the
cognitive domains, Philippines, in general, demonstrated relative strength in
knowing and relative weakness in applying. Weak performance in Applying is
consistent to all types of SHS. Strong performance, however, could be noted
among students both in Philippine Science High School (PSHS) and Regional
Science High School which did relatively better in Reasoning than they did
overall, whereas students from S&T Oriented HS and University Rural and
Laboratory HS did relatively better in Knowing than they did overall. Students
from Other Public SHS and Other Private HS did better not only in the Knowing
domain but also in the Reasoning domain.
Compared to other countries, performance of students from the
Philippines in general is relatively less well, be it in general or in specific content
area or domain. However, looking at the types of Philippine HS visavis other
participating countries, PSHS seems to be competitive internationally,
18
demonstrating higher achievement rating in terms of average percent correct
responses than other countries, namely, Armenia, Iran, Italy, Norway, Slovenia,
and Sweden in overall advanced mathematics rating. PSHS had consistent
performance across content areas. In the cognitive domains, PSHS also seemingly
outperformed other countries particularly in the Applying and Reasoning
domains, in which its performance rating surpasses almost all countries except
Russian Federation and the Netherlands.
In general, very few students in the Philippines reached the international
benchmarks compared to other participating countries like Russian Federation
and Islamic Republic of Iran. Only 1 percent or 15 out of 4091 students reached
the advanced benchmark; 4 percent made it to high benchmark; and only 13%
got it at least to intermediate benchmark.
Among the types of HS, PSHS got the highest percent (6%) reaching the
advanced international benchmarks. More than half of the students (68%) from
PSHS made it at least at the intermediate benchmark. Interestingly, PSHS can
compete internationally having higher percentage (28%) of students reaching
high international benchmarks than 5 participating countries, namely, Armenia,
Italy, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden. On the other hand, students from
University Rural HS & Laboratory Schools demonstrated weak performance
with only 2 percent reaching at least the intermediate benchmark. For Calculus
released items, the question with the lowest correct responses from the
Philippines is on Limits and Continuity with specific topic about
19
Function/Where Not Differentiable, while the highest percent correct response
item is in Applying Derivatives to Graphs of Functions. Only 2.5% of Filipino
students got the correct answer in Limits and Continuity, with the performance
of students from S&T Oriented HS lower (1.5%) than this. The PSHS students got
a bit higher percent correct (9%) in same question. Nevertheless, PSHS
performance is still quite distant from that of Islamic Republic of Iran (36.7%) as
well as of Russian Federation (15.9%). In Applying Derivatives, the question was
correctly answered by a significant number (38.8%) of Filipino students in
general. Remarkably, PSHS had the highest percent correct (76.3%) surpassing
not only other SHS type but also all the other participating countries.
Filipino students are capable of performing better in mathematics if only
content in said subject is intensified and improved as shown in the
aforementioned results of the 2008 TIMSSAdvanced. It could also be that most
students today still believe that mathematics is all about computation. However,
computation, for mathematicians, is merely a tool for comprehending structures,
relationships and patterns of mathematical concepts, and therefore producing
solutions for complex real life problems (Libienski and Gutierrez, 2008). It has
become necessity for students to reach, analyze, and apply the mathematical
knowledge effectively and efficiently to be successful academically in school.
Hence, the quality of teaching and learning in mathematics is a major
challenge for educators. The current debate among scholars is what students
should learn to be successful in mathematics. The discussion emphasizes new
20
instructional design techniques to produce individuals who can understand and
apply fundamental mathematics concepts. A central and persisting issue is how
to provide instructional environments, conditions, methods, and solutions that
achieve learning goals for students with different skill and ability levels (Dursun
and Dede, 2004). It is thus important for educators to adopt instructional design
techniques to attain higher achievement rates in mathematics (Rasmussen and
Marrongelle, 2006). Considering students‟ needs and comprehension of
mathematical knowledge, instructional design provides a systematic process and
a framework for analytically planning, developing, and adapting mathematics
instruction (Saritas, 2004).
In an effort to understand the factors associated with mathematics
achievement, researchers have focused on many factors (Beaton and Dwyer,
2002). The impact of various demographic, social, economic and educational
factors on students‟ math achievement continues to be of great interest to the
educators and researchers. For instance, Israel, et al. (2001) concluded that
parents‟ socioeconomic status is correlated with a child‟s educational
achievement. Another study by Jensen and Seltzer (2000) showed that factors
such as individual study, parents‟ role, and social environment had a significant
influence on “further education” decisions and achievements of young students.
A growing body of research provides additional factors which could have
an impact on students‟ achievement. Of these factors, the students‟ attitudes
toward the subject have been studied (Campbell, et al. 2000). Attitudes can be
21
seen as more or less positive. A positive attitude towards mathematics reflects a
positive emotional disposition in relation to the subject and, in a similar way, a
negative attitude towards mathematics relates to a negative emotional
disposition (Zan and Martino, 2008). These emotional dispositions have an
impact on an individual‟s behavior, as one is likely to achieve better in a subject
that one enjoys, has confidence in or finds useful (Eshun, 2004). For this reason,
positive attitudes towards mathematics are desirable since they may influence
one‟s willingness to learn and also the benefits one can derive from mathematics
instruction.
Nicolaidou and Philippou(2006) showed that negative attitudes are the
result of frequent and repeated failures or problems when dealing with
mathematical tasks and these negative attitudes may become relatively
permanent. According to these authors, when children first go to school they
usually have positive attitudes towards mathematics. However, as they progress
their attitudes become less positive and frequently become negative at high
school. Likewise, Köğce,et. al. (2009) found significant differences between
younger and older students‟ attitudes towards mathematics with 8th graders
having lower attitudes than 6th graders.There are a number of factors which can
explain why attitudes towards mathematics become more negative with the
school grade, such as the pressure to perform well, over demanding tasks,
uninteresting lessons and less than positive attitudes on the part of teachers.
22
Moreover, students' opinions and beliefs regarding mathematics, how
much they like and value it, and what they forecast for their own future
education can all be understood as different facets of students' attitudes toward
mathematics(Aiken, 2002). The study of attitudes toward mathematics is justified
from at least three standpoints. First, the development of positive attitudes is a
goal for many educational systems; they are seen as a requisite for students'
academic engagement and to boost learning. Second, attitudes are learned
predispositions that reflect the school ethos and the wider social context in which
mathematics instruction occurs. As such, attitudes can be influenced by policy
interventions. Third, the literature has suggested that there is a positive
relationship between attitudes toward mathematics and academic competence.
The study of attitudes in the school setting has several complications.
Because of the different facets of the attitude construct, what is meant by
attitudes toward mathematics varies from one study to the other. Moreover, it is
common to find studies that do not use the term attitudes, but whose focus lay in
one or more of its facets such as academic selfperception and locus of control.
Relationships that may hold true at the student level may not be of the same
nature and strength at the school or classroom level.
For instance, from the 1995 Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) there is evidence that the majority of 8
th
graders around
the world liked mathematics, thought it was important for them to do well in this
subject, thought it was not boring, and did not find it easy (Kifer, 2002). In school
23
effectiveness studies, expectations for further education had been reported as a
strong predictor of school mean achievement across the countries (Martin,
Mullis, Gregory, Hoyle, and Shen, 2000).
The question then is whether students‟ attitude will also have the same
impact in their academic performance in Calculus. The said subject provides the
foundation for understanding higherlevel science, mathematics, and
engineering courses (Gainenand Willemsen, 2005). Further, ,Sorby and Hamlin
(2001) have pointed out that calculus is the starting point in mathematics
instruction for many academic programs. Success in calculus is therefore
imperative for students in that it provides the mathematical background and
foundation.
An abundance of research has been performed to identify predictors of
student performance in Calculus. Both cognitive and noncognitive factors have
been considered, because numerous studies have shown both types of variables
to be useful predictors. Some studies have shown that noncognitive variables
are more useful than cognitive variables in predicting the academic success of
nontraditional students (Sedlacek, 2002). The students‟ attitudes are included in
the category of noncognitive variables.
Hence, this study which aims to determine the relationship between the
students‟ attitude towards calculus and their academic performance in the same
subject.
24
Related Studies
The following are discussions of researches reviewed to provide insights
to this study.
In a study of Reinholz (2009) entitled “An Analysis of Factors Affecting
Student Success in Math 160 (Calculus) for Physical Scientists I”, Assessment and
Learning in Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) Preparation for Calculus and Exam 1
scores were significant predictors of Final Exam scores. It also found out that
although the ALEKS initial assessment does have some predictive value, Exam1
scores are much more useful in predicting a student‟s outcome in the course.
The said study concluded that despite instructor impressions that the
inclusion of ALEKS reduced the number of mechanical precalculus questions
asked in class, the inclusion of ALEKS as required component of MATH 160
failed to elicit any improvement in student success. ACT Math scores were not a
significant predictor of success. A student‟s ACT Math scores are largely
indicative of the students‟ mechanical precalculus skills. The inclusion of ALEKS
did not improve success in MATH 160 and mechanical precalculus skills are not
as important to success in MATH160.
The similarity is on the subject under study – that is, the previous study
dealt with Calculus in much the same way that the present study will also deal
with the same subject. They differ, however, in terms of other variates used and
methodologies employed.
25
Depaolo (2005) conducted a study entitled “The Relationship between
Attitudes and Performance in Business Calculus”. This study examined
undergraduate business students' attitudes toward and performance in both
business statistics and calculus, and determines that after controlling for ability,
attitudes play a significant role in performance. Although selfreported attitudes
become more positive over the course of the semester, attitudes toward calculus
are less positive than those toward statistics, and negative attitudes are related to
lower exam scores. For students with no prior calculus background, this
relationship between negative attitudes and poor exam performance appears to
be particularly strong.
In the study of Bulan (2005) entitled “Correlates of Study Habits of Grades
VI Pupils inputs to Enhancement Strategies”, study habits of the pupils were
correlated to their parents attitude towards education: attitude towards
schooling, reading ability and teachers attitude towards teaching, performance
rating and their strategies to develop pupils study habits.
It is similar to the recent study conducted since both focused on the study
habits of the learners and included attitude towards schooling. It differs in a lot
of ways. In the previous study the main study are the Grade VI pupils while the
recent study focused on the college student. In the recent study, attitude and
study habits are variants to be considered and also to be correlated, unlike the
previous study that the study habits is only the major variates while the attitude
26
is only the one of the correlates. In the scope and the delimitation of the previous
study three variables were considered – pupils, parents and teachers, the present
study was centered on students‟ mathematics attitudes, their study habits, which
might affect their success in the study of calculus.
27
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study utilized descriptive correlational research design with
correlation analysis in determining the factors affecting performance in
differential calculus of students in the College of Education, and College of
Engineering, Samar State University, Catbalogan City, during the school year
20122013
The descriptive research correlation design was used in describing the
personal profile of the studentrespondents in terms of their sex, course, and
academic performance in Differential Calculus based on the result of the
achievement test, and factors affecting performance in Differential Calculus of
the studentrespondents as regard the following: attitudes, instructional
materials, and teaching methods.
Correlation analyses was conducted in order to determine the
relationship between: (1) the studentrespondents‟ perception of the factors
affecting performance in Differential Calculus and each of their profile varieties:
sex, course, and academic performance in Differential Calculus and factors
affecting performance in Differential Calculus of the studentrespondents as
regard the following: attitudes, instructional materials, and teaching methods.
28
Instrumentation
A questionnaire was used in order to gather the needed data of this study.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire served as the sole data gathering instrument.
This consisted of four major parts.
The first part supplied type wherein which the studentrespondents was
required to fill in the needed information on the blank spaces provided and/or to
check the appropriate boxes of their responses. This part contains items on their
personal profile as to sex, course, and academic performance in differential
calculus.
The second part of the questionnaire is an attitude checklist reflecting the
studentrespondents‟ attitude toward Differential Calculus. This contains 10
statements with the following fivepoint scale to quantify the student
respondents responses: (5) –Strongly Agree; (4) –Agree; (3) –Undecided
(Neutral); (2) –Disagree; and (1) –Strongly disagree.
The third part of the questionnaire is a checklist reflecting the instructional
materials and teaching methods used in Differential Calculus. The responses of
the studentrespondents were quantified using the following fivepoint scale: (5)
–Extremely Influential; (4) –Very Influential: (3) –Moderately Influential; (2) –
Slightly Influential; (1) –Not Influential.
29
Achievement Test.
The Achievement in Differential Calculus consisted of 15 multiple choice
items downloaded from the ACT multiple items in Differential Calculus. It has 5
options from which the respondents choose the best answer from the lettered
choices. The Achievement Test is a prevalidated items but it will undergo
another validation to determine its validity with the kinds of respondents.
Validation of Instrument
Since the questionnaire is researchermade, this was validated through
expert validation for content validity. A draft of the questionnaire was submitted
for revision and/or modification to Math Teachers, and Research Adviser. After
their suggestions have been incorporated, the questionnaire was finalized and
prepared for pilot testing.
Sampling Procedure
The respondents of this study are the students who have finished
Differential Calculus from the two colleges of Samar State UniversityMain
Campus, namely, College of Education, College of Engineering. In determining
the respondents of this study, the researchers used random sampling technique
using the college affiliation as the stratum. We have drawn 20 respondents from
college of engineering and 30 respondents from college of education.
30
Data Gathering Procedure
A letter requesting permission to conduct the study of Samar State
UniversityMain Campus was secured from the Dean of the College of
Education. Said letter, upon approval, will be attached to the letters requesting
permission from the deans of the different colleges in the same university. Upon
their approval, the survey was conducted using the questionnaire of this study.
After all the data shall have been collected, the tabulation, computation,
analyses and interpretation of data will proceed.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data that will be gathered from the respondents was carefully tallied,
analyzed, and interpreted qualitative and quantitatively using both descriptive
as well as inferential statistical tools. The descriptive statistical tools which were
used include frequency count, percentage, mean, and weighted mean. The
inferential statistical tools like the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of
Correlation (Pearson r), and Fisher‟s ttest for independent sample will be used.
Frequency count. This statistical tool was resorted to determine the
number of respondents, who are of the same sex, course, academic performance,
and attitude towards Differential Calculus.
Percentage.This descriptive statistical tool was used to present the data on
sex, course, and academic performance in Differential Calculus and factors
31
affecting performance in Differential Calculus of the studentrespondents as
regard the following: attitudes, instructional materials, and teaching methods.
Mean. This statistical measure was used to determine the quantitative
characteristics or profile of the respondents.
Weighted Mean (WM). This was used to express the collective
perceptions of the respondents.
In interpreting the foregoing data, the following scale will be used.
4.515.00Strongly Agree (SA)/Extremely Influential (EI)/Always Practiced (AP)
3.514.50 Agree (A)/ Very Influential (VI)/Often Practiced (OP)
2.513.50Undecided (U)/ Moderately Influential (MI)/ Sometimes practiced (SP)
1.512.50  Disagree (D)/Slightly Influential (SI)/ Rarely Practiced (RP)
1.001.50 – Strongly Disagree (SD)/ Not Influential (NI)/ Never Practice (NP)
Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation. This statistical tool
was used to determine the relationships between dependent and independent
variables.
The degree of relationship will be determined by the size of the obtained r.
Interpretations of the obtained r will be as follows:
r from + .01 to + .19: negligible correlation
32
r from + .20 to + .39: low correlation
r from + .40 to + .59: moderate correlation
r from +.60 to + .79: moderately higher correlation
r from + .80 to +.1.0: high correlation
Fisher’s ttest. To reject or accept the hypothesis that there is no significant
relationship of the computed coefficient of correlation of each of the variables,
the Fisher‟s ttest was used. The hypothesis was accepted and/or rejected at 0.05
level of significance, twotailed.
33
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Profile of Student Respondents
The profile variates of student respondents such as sex, grade and course
are discussed here.
Sex. Table 1 provides the sex distribution of the studentrespondents.
Table 1
Sex distributions of student respondents
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 26 52
Female 24 48
Total 50 100
There are 26 or 52 % male respondents and 24 or 48% female respondents.
Course. Table 2 shows the distributions of studentrespondents according
to course.
Table 2
Distribution of studentrespondents according to course
Course Frequency Percentage
COED 30 60
COENG 20 40
Total 50 100
There are 30 or 60% COED respondents and 20 or 40% COEng respondents.
34
Academic Performance in Differential Calculus. Table 3 shows the
distributions f studentrespondents according their grades in differential
calculus.
Table 3
Distribution of studentrespondents according to academic performance in
Differential Calculus
GRADE INTERPRETATION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
1.0 Excellent 0 0
1.1 – 1.5 Superior 0 0
1.6 2.0 Very Good 7 14
2.1 2.5 Good 26 52
2.6 – 3.0 Fair / Passing 17 34
5.0 Failure 0 0
TOTAL 50 100
MEAN 2.4
SD 0.05
As reflected in the table, 7 or 14% of the studentrespondents have very
good performance in Differential Calculus with grades between 1.6  2.0. About
26 or 52% have good performance with grades between 2.12.5 and 17 or 34%
have fair performance with grades between 2.6  3.0.
The mean grade is 2.4 interpreted as good performance with a standard
deviation of 0.05.
Performance in Achievement Test. Table 4 shows the distribution of
studentsrespondents performance in the Achievement Test.
35
Table 4
Distribution of studentrespondents performance in the Achievement Test
Scores College of Education College of Engineering
1315 6 12
1012 19 8
79 5 0
46 0 0
13 0 0
Total 30 20
Mean 11.1 12.8
SD 1.84 1.51
Legend: 1315Outstanding; 46 Fair;
1012 Very Good; 13 Poor
79 Good;
As reflected in the table there 19 studentrespondents have very good
performance from the College of Education and 12 studentrespondents have
outstanding performance from the College of Engineering in Achievement Test.
The mean score is 11.1 and standard deviation of 1.84 for the College of
Education and for the College of Engineering the mean score is 12.8 and standard
deviation of 1.51.
Attitude towards Differential Calculus. Table 5 shows the distribution of
studentrespondents according to their attitudes towards Differential Calculus.
36
Table 5
Distribution of studentrespondents according to their attitudes towards
Differential Calculus
STATEMENT
COED COENG
WM
INTERPRE
TATION
WM
INTERPRE
TATION
1. I find the Differential Calculus an interesting
subject.
3.93 HFA 3.95 HFA
2. I wish I could take more Differential Calculus
subjects other than those offered in my course.
3.23 MFA 3.15 MFA
3. Differential Calculus makes me feel relaxed,
happy and comfortable.
2.83 MFA 3.00 MFA
4. I like that my Differential Calculus teacher
gives me several examples before giving
individual exercises, seatwork and board work.
3.73 HFA 3.85 HFA
5. I give special attention to the accuracy of my
answer to Differential Calculus problemsolving
exercises.
3.93 HFA 3.85 HFA
6. When I have doubt about the correct answer
to Differential Calculus exercises, I refer to my
Differential Calculus books for references.
3.67 HFA 3.80 HFA
7. I search internet for new ideas, concepts and
innovations related to Differential Calculus.
3.13 MFA 2.5 LFA
8.I like to recite and participate in class activities
in my Differential Calculus class.
3.33 MFA 3.35 MFA
9. I believe that Differential Calculus is needed
in daily life.
3.27 MFA 2.85 MFA
10. I love Differential Calculus as it gives me
superiority.
3.37 MFA 3.25 MFA
GRAND MEAN 3.44 MFA 3.36 MFA
Legend: 4.51 – 5.00 VHFA (Very High Favorable Attitude)
3.51 – 4.50 HFA (High Favorable Attitude)
2.51 – 3.50 MFA (Moderately Favorable Attitude)
1.51  2.50 LFA (Low Favorable Attitude)
1.00  1.50 UA (Unfavorable Attitude)
Four of the statements obtained weighted mean ratings between 3.514.50
interpreted as highly favorable attitude from and six statements obtained
37
weighted mean ratings between 2.51 3.50 interpreted as moderately favorable
attitude from the College of Education with grand mean of 3.44 interpreted as
moderately favorable attitude and four of the statements obtained weighted
mean ratings between 3.514.50 interpreted as highly favorable attitude from and
five statements obtained weighted mean ratings between 2.51 3.50 interpreted as
moderately favorable attitude and one statement obtained weighted mean 2.5
interpreted as low favorable attitude, from the College of Engineering with
grand mean of 3.36 interpreted as moderately favorable attitude.
Instructional Materials. Table 6 shows the extent of influence of the
instructional materials used in the College of Education and College of
Engineering.
38
Table 6
Extent of Influence of the Instructional Materials on students’
performance in Differential Calculus
Instructional
Materials Used
COED COENG
Weighted
Mean
Interpretation
Weighted
Mean
Interpretation
1.Power Point
Presentation
3.9 VI 2.9 MI
2. OHP and Acetate 2.7 MI 1.9 SI
3. Xerox Copy
(Handouts)
4.3 VI 4.2 VI
4. Cartolina and Manila
Paper
3.03 MI 2.15 SI
5. Whiteboard and
Marker
4.3 VI 4.05 VI
6.Blackboard and Chalk 3.8 VI 4.5 VI
7.Books 4.6 EI 4.4 VI
8.News Paper, Journals,
Periodicals
2.8 MI 2.2 SI
9.InternetBased 3.4 MI 3.8 VI
10.Web Site 3.3 MI 3.85 VI
Grand Mean 3.61 VI 3.395 MI
Legend: 4.51 – 5.00 Extremely Influential
3.51 – 4.50 Very Influential
2.51 – 3.50 Moderately Influential
1.51  2.50 Slightly Influential
1.00  1.50 Not Influential
From College of Education one of the instructional materials obtained
weighted mean 4.60 interpreted as extremely influential. This is IM‟s no. 7
(books). Having a grand mean 3.61 interpreted as very influential. From the
College of Engineering six of the instructional materials obtained weighted mean
ratings between 3.51 – 4.50, interpreted as very influential. These are IM‟s
3(Xerox copy) at a value of 4.2, IM‟s 5(whiteboard & marker) at a value of 4.05,
39
IM‟s 6 (Blackboard & chalk) at a value 4.5, IM‟s7(books) at a value 4.4, IM‟s
9(internetbased) at a value of 3.8 and IM‟s 10( web site) at value 3.85.
The grand mean is 3.395 interpreted as moderately influential.
Teaching Strategies. Table 7 shows the extent of influence of the teaching
strategies.
Table 7
Extent of Influence of Teaching Strategies on students’ performance in
Differential Calculus
Teaching Strategies
COED COENG
Weighted
Mean
Interpretation
Weighted
Mean
Interpretation
1.Reporting 3.87 VI 2.15 SI
2. Lecture And
Discussion
4.37 VI 4.65 VI
3. Board Work and
Seat Work
4.47 VI 4.30 VI
4. Problem Solving 4.37 VI 4.25 VI
5. Recitation 4.17 VI 3.60 VI
6.Problem Set 4.33 VI 4.05 VI
7.Demonstration 4.23 VI 4.15 VI
8.Inquiry Approach 3.77 VI 3.40 VI
9.Group Work 4.03 VI 3.20 MI
10. Project Method 3.03 MI 3.05 MI
Grand Mean 4.06 VI 3.68 VI
Legend: 4.51 – 5.00 Extremely Influential
3.51 – 4.50 Very Influential
2.51 – 3.50 Moderately Influential
1.51  2.50 Slightly Influential
1.00  1.50 Not Influential
40
From the College of Education nine of the strategies obtained weighted
mean rating between 3.514.50 interpreted as very influential and one of the
strategies obtained weighted mean rating between 2.513.50 interpreted as
moderately influential this is method 10(project method) at a value 3.03. The
grand mean is 4.06 interpreted as very influential. From the College of
Engineering seven of the strategies obtained weighted mean rating between 3.51
4.50 interpreted as very influential and two of the strategies obtained weighted
mean rating between 2.513.50 interpreted as moderately influential. The grand
mean is 3.68 interpreted as very influential.
Relationship between studentrespondents
academic performance and the Factors
Affecting Students’ Performance
Table 8 shows the relationship between studentrespondents academic
performance in Differential Calculus and the Factors Affecting Students
performance.
Table 8
Relationship between studentrespondents academic performance and the
factors affecting students’ performance
rxy Fisher’s ttest Evaluation Decision
Attitude 0.07226 0.5194 NS Accept Ho
Instructional
Materials
0.2279 1.62161 NS Accept Ho
Teaching
Strategies
0.0859 0.5951 NS Accept Ho
Level of significance = 0.05; df = 48; CV=2.0106 SSignificant; NSNot Significant
41
Attitude. As reflected in table 8, the computed r = 0.07226 and the
computed Fisher‟s tvalue was 0.5194 which tvalue was lesser than the critical
value of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df=48. This
meant that the attitude is not significantly related to students‟ academic
performance.
Instructional Materials. As to instructional materials, the same table
shows the computed r = 0.2279 and the computed Fisher‟s tvalue was 1.62161
which tvalue was lesser than the critical value of 2.0106 with level of
significance set at .05 (two tailed). This meant that the instructional materials are
not significantly related to students‟ academic performance.
Teaching Strategies. Relative to teaching strategies, the table shows that r
= 0.0859 was obtained with a computed tvalue of 0.5951 which was lesser than
the critical tvalue of 2.0106, with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and
df=48. This led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states “there is no
significant relationship between studentrespondents academic performance and
the Factors Affecting Students‟ Performance.”
Relationship between studentrespondents
performance in the achievement test
and the Factors Affecting Students’ Performance
Table 9 shows the Relationship between studentrespondents performance
in the achievement test and the Factors Affecting Students‟ Performance.
42
Table 9
Relationship between studentrespondents performance in the achievement
test and the Factors Affecting Students’ Performance
rxy Fisher’s ttest Evaluation Decision
Attitude 0.134084 .93743 NS Accept Ho
Instructional
Materials
0.37580 0.2605 NS Accept Ho
Teaching
Strategies
0.24509 1.7515 NS Accept Ho
Level of significance = 0.05; df = 48;CV=2.0106 SSignificant; NS Not Significant
Attitude. As reflected in table 9, the computed r = 0.134084 and the
computed Fisher‟s tvalue was .93743which tvalue was lesser than the critical
value of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df=48. This
means that the attitude is not significantly related to students‟ performance in the
achievement test.
Instructional Materials. As to instructional materials, the same table
shows the computed r = 0.37580 and the computed Fisher‟s tvalue was which t
value 0.2605 was lesser than the critical value of 2.0106 with level of significance
set at .05 (two tailed). This meant that the instructional materials are not
significantly related to students‟ performance in the achievement test.
Teaching Strategies Relative to strategies, the table shows that r = 0.24509
was obtained with a computed tvalue of 1.7515 which was lesser than the critical
tvalue of 2.0106, with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df= 48. This
led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states “there is no significant
43
relationship between studentrespondents performance in the achievement test
and the Factors Affecting Students‟ Performance.”
Relationship between studentrespondents
attitude towards Differential
Calculus and Course
Table 10 shows the Relationship between studentrespondents attitude
towards Differential Calculus and Course
Table 10
Relationship between studentrespondents attitude towards Differential
Calculus and Course
rxy
Fisher’s
ttest
Evaluation Decision
CoEd & CoEng 0.868201 0.308927 NS Accept Ho
Level of significance = 0.05; df = 48; CV=2.0106 SSignificant; NS Not Significant
Studentrespondents performance in the achievement test and
Courses obtained the Pearson r, rxy = 0.868201and tvalue = 0.308927. So, the null
hypothesis “there is no significant difference between studentrespondents
attitude towards Differential Calculus and Courses” is rejected.
44
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
The following are the salient findings of the study:
1. There are 26 or 52 % male respondents and 24 or 48% female respondents.
2. There are 30 or 60% COED respondents and 20 or 40% COEng
respondents.
3. There are 7 or 14% of the studentrespondents have very good
performance in Differential Calculus with grades between 1.6  2.0. About
26 or 52% have good performance with grades between 2.12.5 and 17 or
34% have fair performance with grades between 2.63.0.The mean grade is
2.4 interpreted as good performance with a standard deviation of 0.05.
4. There are 19 studentrespondents having very good performance from the
College of Education and 12 studentrespondents have outstanding
performance from the College of Engineering in Achievement Test. The
mean score is 11.1 and standard deviation of 1.84 for the College of
Education and for the College of Engineering the mean score is 12.8 and
standard deviation of 1.51.
5. There are 15 male studentrespondents having outstanding performance
and 12 studentrespondents have very good performance in the
Achievement Test. The mean score is 12.73 and standard deviation of 1.51
for the male respondents and the mean score is 12.8 and standard
deviation of 2.17.
6. Four of the statements obtained weighted mean ratings between 3.514.50
interpreted as highly favorable attitude from and six statements obtained
45
weighted mean ratings between 2.51 3.50 interpreted as moderately
favorable attitude from the College of Education with grand mean of 3.44
interpreted as moderately favorable attitude and four of the statements
obtained weighted mean ratings between 3.514.50 interpreted as highly
favorable attitude from and five statements obtained weighted mean
ratings between 2.51 3.50 interpreted as moderately favorable attitude
and one statement obtained weighted mean 2.5 interpreted as low
favorable attitude, from the College of Engineering with grand mean of
3.36 interpreted as moderately favorable attitude.
7. From College of Education one of the instructional materials obtained
weighted mean 4.60 interpreted as extremely influential. This is IM‟s no. 7
(books). Having a grand mean 3.61 interpreted as very influential.
8. From the College of Engineering six of the instructional materials obtained
weighted mean ratings between 3.51 – 4.50,interpreted as very influential.
These are IM‟s 3(Xerox copy) at a value of 4.2, IM‟s 5(whiteboard &
marker) at a value of 4.05, IM‟s 6 (Blackboard & chalk) at a value 4.5, IM‟s7
(books) at a value 4.4, IM‟s 9(internetbased) at a value of 3.8 and IM‟s
10(web site) at value 3.85. The grand mean is 3.395 interpreted as
moderately influential.
9. From the College of Education nine of the strategies obtained weighted
mean rating between 3.514.50 interpreted as very influential and one of
the strategies obtained weighted mean rating between 2.513.50
46
interpreted as moderately influential this is method 10(project method) at
a value 3.03. The grand mean is 4.06 interpreted as very influential.
10. From the College of Engineering seven of the strategies obtained weighted
mean rating between 3.51 4.50 interpreted as very influential and two of
the strategies obtained weighted mean rating between 2.513.50
interpreted as moderately influential. The grand mean is 3.68 interpreted
as very influential.
11. As reflected in table 8, the computed r = 0.07226 and the computed
Fisher‟s tvalue was 0.5194 which tvalue was lesser than the critical value
of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df=48. This
meant that the attitude is not significantly related to students‟ academic
performance.
12. As to instructional materials, the same table shows the computed r =
0.2279 and the computed Fisher‟s tvalue was 1.62161 which tvalue was
lesser than the critical value of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05
(two tailed). This meant that the instructional materials are not
significantly related to students‟ academic performance.
13. Relative to teaching strategies, the table shows that r = 0.0859 was
obtained with a computed tvalue of 0.5951 which was lesser than the
critical tvalue of 2.0106, with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed)
and df=48. This led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states
47
“there is no significant relationship between studentrespondents
academic performance and the Factors Affecting Students‟ Performance.
14. As reflected in table 9, the computed r = 0.134084 and the computed
Fisher‟s tvalue was .93743which tvalue was lesser than the critical value
of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df=48. This
means that the attitude is not significantly related to students‟
performance in the achievement test.
15. As to instructional materials, the same table shows the computed r =
0.37580 and the computed Fisher‟s tvalue was which tvalue 0.2605 was
lesser than the critical value of 2.0106 with level of significance set at .05
(two tailed). This meant that the instructional materials are not
significantly related to students‟ performance in the achievement test.
16. Relative to strategies, the table shows that r = 0.24509 was obtained with a
computed tvalue of 1.7515 which was lesser than the critical tvalue of
2.0106, with level of significance set at .05 (two tailed) and df= 48. This
led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states “there is no
significant relationship between studentrespondents performance in the
achievement test and the Factors Affecting Students‟ Performance.”
17. Studentrespondents performance in the achievement test and Courses
obtained the Pearson r, rxy = 0.868201and tvalue = 0.308927. So, the null
hypothesis “there is no significant relationship between student
48
respondents attitude towards Differential Calculus and Courses” is
rejected.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were drawn based on the findings of the study:
1. There is no significant relationship between studentrespondents
academic performance and the factors affecting students‟ performance.
2. There is no significant relationship between studentrespondents
performance in the achievement test and factors affecting students‟
performance.
3. There is no significant relationship between studentrespondents attitude
towards Differential Calculus and Courses.
4. Power Point Presentation, OHP and Acetate, News Paper, Journals,
Periodicals are not effective instructional materials in the College of
Engineering.
5. OHP and Acetate, News Paper, Journals, Periodicals are not influential; in
the College of Education.
6. Most of the teaching strategies are influential in the College of Education.
7. Students‟ attitude towards Differential Calculus is classified as moderately
favorable as reflected in the grand mean.
8. There 19 studentrespondents have very good performance from the
College of Education and 12 studentrespondents have outstanding
performance from the College of Engineering in Achievement Test.
49
9. There 7 or 14% of the studentrespondents have very good performance in
Differential Calculus with grades between 1.6  2.0. About 26 or 52% have
good performance with grades between 2.12.5 and 17 or 34% have fair
performance with grades between 2.6  3.0.
Recommendations
As resulted from the study it is recommended to teachers and students to:
1. Develop highly favorable attitude towards Differential Calculus.
2. Implement the most effective teaching strategies that can help the students
to easily understand the subject.
3. Use instructional materials that are fitted to the subject matter and needs
of the students.
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Aiken, L. R. (2002). Attitude and related psychological constructs: Theory, assessment,
and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Alfan, E. and Othman, M. N. (2005). “Undergraduate Students‟ performance: The
Case of University of Malaya”.Quality assurance in Education, 13(4), pp.
329343.
Breckler,S. J., &Wiggins, E. C. (1992). O Ogena, Laňa and Sasota (2010) in
defining attitude and Attitudetheory: Once more with feeling. In A.
R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. C. Greenwald (Eds.),Attitude
structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 407427.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., &Mazzeo, J. (2000).NAEP 1999 trends in
academic
progress: Three decades of student performance. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Cheung, L. L. W. and Kan, A. C. N. 2002.“Evaluation of Factors Related to
StudentPerformance in a Distance Learning Business Communication
Course”.Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), pp. 257263.
Festinger, L. &Carlsmith, J.M. (1959).Cognitive Consquences of Forced
Compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203210.
[available at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger}
52
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gregorio, Herman C., Principles and methods of Teaching. Quezon City:
Garotech Publishing Co., 1988.
Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. 2002.Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.
Lieberman, Ann. Teacher Leadership. California: JoseyBass, 2004
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A., E., Gonzales, E., J., Kelly, D., L.,
&Smith, T. A. (1997).Mathematics achievement in the primary school
years: IEAs Third International and Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut
Hill,MA: Boston College.
Postsecondary Institutions: 19992000 (NCES 2002168). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Saritas, M .( 2004). Instructional Design in Distance Education (IDDE):
Understanding the Strategies, Application, and Implications. In C.
Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceeding of Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 681688).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Sedlacek, W.E. 2002. Employing noncognitive variables in the admission and
53
retention of nontraditional students. Unpublished technical report:
Counseling Center, University of Maryland College Park.
Stangl, Werner; Robinson, Francis Pleasant (1970). Effective Study. New York:
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Zan, R. And P. Martino, “ Attitude toward mathematics: overcoming the
positive/ negative dichotomy”, in Beliefs and Mathemetics,
B.Sriraman, Ed., The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast: Monograph
Series in Mathematics Education, pp. 197214, Age Publishing &
The Montana. Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Charlotte, NC,
USA, 2008.
B. MAGAZINE, JOURNAL, NEWSPAPER, PERIODICALS
Bell, D.L. (2008). With an eye on the mathematics horizon: Delimmas of teaching
elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal 9, p. 373
397.
Dursun, S.&Dede, Y. (2004). The Factors Affecting Students Success in
Mathematics: Mathematics Teachers Perspectives. Journal of Gazi
Educational Faculty 24(2), 217230
Eshun, B. “Sexdifferences in attitude of students towards Mathematics in
Secondary school,” Mathematics Connection, vol.4, pp.113, 2004.
54
Israel, G.D., Beaulieu, L.J., &Hartless, G. (2001).The Influence of Family and
Community Social Capital on Educational Achievement.Rural
Sociology, 66 (1), 4368.
Köğce, D., C. Yıldız, M. Aydin, and R. Altındağ, “Examining elementary school
students‟ attitudes towards mathematics in terms of some
variables,” Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 291295, 2009.
Libienski, S. T. & Gutierrez, R. (2008). Bridging the Gaps in persectives on Equity
in Mathematics Educaton. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 39(4), 365371.
Nicolaidou, M. And G. Philippou, “Attitudes towards mathematics, selfefficacy
and achievement in problem solving,” in European Research in
Mathematics Education III, M.A. Mariotti, Ed., pp. 111, University
of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, 2003
Rasmussen, C. &Marrongelle, K. (2006).Pedagogical Content Tools: Integrating
Student Reasoning and Mathematics in Instruction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 37 (5), 388420.
C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Bejar, Elvie T. “Correlates of Achievement in College Algebra: A Basis for
Instructional Redirection”, Unublished Master‟s Thesis, Samar State
Polytechnic College, Catbalogan, Samar, 2007.
55
Bongalon.“Intelectual and Nonintelctual Prediction of Mathematics
Achievement of Snior High School Students”. (2002)
Delabajan, Rowena R. “Mathematical Performance of Grade six Pupils in
SolvingWord Problem”, Unpublished Master‟s Thesis,
TiburcioTancinco Memorial Institute of Science and Technology,
Calbayog City, 2001
Reinholz. “An Analysis of Factors Affecting Student Success in Math 160
(Calculus) for Physical Scientists I”(2005)
Garpeza, Norbeto C. “Predictors of the Performance of Students in
CollegeAlgebra”, Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, TTIMST, Calbayog
City, 2005.
Reyes, Angelo D. “Academic Performance and SelfEfficacy of Filipino
ScienceHigh School Students on Mathematics and English
Subjects” Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Central Luzon State
University (CLSU), Cabanatuan City, Philippines, 2010.
Depaolo. “The Relationship between Attitudes and Performance in Business
Calculus”
Saritas, Tuncay and OmurAkdemir. “Identifying Factors Affecting
theMathematics Achievements of Students for Better Instructional
Design” Unpublished technical reort, Turkey, 2004.
Sorby, S.A., & Hamlin, A.J. 2001, August).The implementation of first
56
yearengineering program and its impact on calculus performance. Paper
presented at the meeting of International Conference on
Engineering Education, Oslo,Norway.
Marcroff, Gene, I. (1985). Class size is key to campus Success. New York Times.
February 26th, 17 – 18.
Luitel, B. C. (2002). Developing and probing understanding in mathematics. [Online
serial] Available at http://au.geocities.com/bcluitel/vijaya
57
APPENDICES
58
Appendix A
Samar State University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Catbalogan, Samar
COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Date: _____________
Dear Respondents,
We, the undersigned fourth year Bachelor of Secondary Education
students major in mathematics undertaking a research entitled “FACTORS
AFFECTING STUDENTSPERFORMANCE IN DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS”.
In this connection we have chosen you to be our respondents. Your
cooperation to answer the attached questionnaire is highly solicited.
This survey questionnaire is designed only for this study. Please do not
leave any question unanswered. All the details and results will be treated
confidentially.
Please feel free in answering the questionnaire. Thank you!
Truly yours,
ANITO B. FABILLOREN
GERLIE L. GOSOSO
IAN FRANCIS G.OJEDA
JUNA T. TEJONES
LEMUEL C. MONTALLANA
59
Appendix B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Direction: This questionnaire contains five major parts. Please read each
item of the questionnaire and answer as truthfully as possible. Do not
leave an item unanswered.
Part I. STUDENT RESPONDENTS PROFILE
Direction: This section contains items that relate to your personal
background. Supply the needed information by filling in the appropriate
blank spaces and putting a check mark on the space provided before each
item.
Name
(Optional):____________________________________________________
Sex: ( ) Male ( ) Female Course: ___________ Grade in D.C:__________
Part II STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS
Directions: Beside each statements presented below, please indicate whether
you strongly agree (SA) or very high favorable attitude (VHFA) agree (A) or
have highly favorable attitude (HFA), neutral (N) or have moderately favorable
attitude (MFA), disagree (D) or have less favorable attitude (LFA), or strongly
disagree (SD) or have unfavorable attitude (UA) towards Differential Calculus.
60
Attitude Statements
Responses
SA/ A/ N/ D/ SD/
VHFA HFA MFA LFA UA
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
1. I find the Differential Calculus an
interesting subject.
2. I wish I could take more Differential
Calculus subjects other than those
offered in my course.
3. Differential Calculus makes me feel
relaxed, happy and comfortable.
4. I like that my Differential Calculus
teacher gives me several examples
before giving individual exercises,
seatwork and board work.
5. I give special attention to the
accuracy of my answer to Differential
Calculus problemsolving exercises.
6. When I have doubt about the correct
answer to Differential Calculus
exercises, I refer to my Differential
Calculus books for references.
7. I search internet for new ideas,
concepts and innovations related to
Differential Calculus.
8.I like to recite and participate in class
activities in my Differential Calculus
class.
9. I believe that Differential Calculus is
needed in daily life.
10. I love Differential Calculus as it
gives me superiority.
61
Part III TEACHING METHODS
Directions: Beside each of the statements presented below, please indicate
whether you are (5) –Extreme Influential (EI); (4) – Very Influential (VI); (3) –
Moderately Influential (MI); (2) –Slightly Influential (SI); and 1 – Not Influential
(NI)
A. Instructional Materials Used in Differential Calculus
Instructional Materials Used
Responses
EI VI MI SI NI
5 4 3 2 1
1.Power Point Presentation
2. OHP and Acetate
3. Xerox Copy (Handouts)
4. Cartolina and Manila Paper
5. Whiteboard and Marker
6.Blackboard and Chalk
7.Books
8.News Paper, Journals, and
Periodicals
9.InternetBased
10.Web Site
62
B. Teaching Strategies Used in Teaching by the teachers
Teaching Strategies
Responses
EI VI MI SI NI
5 4 3 2 1
1.Reporting
2. Lecture And Discussion
3. Board Work and Seat Work
4. Problem Solving
5. Recitation
6.Problem Set
7.Demonstration
8.Inquiry Approach
9.Group Work
10.Project Method
63
APPENDIX C
ACHIEVEMENT TEST IN CALCULUS
Directions: Solve each problem and encircle the letter of the correct answer.
1. If y = (x
3
+ 1)
2
, then
a.( 3x
2
)
2
b. 2 ( x
3
+ 1) c. ( 6x
2
) ( x
3
+ 1)
d. 2 ( 3x
3
+ 1) e. ( 3x
3
) ( x
3
+ 1)
2. If y =
, then
a.
( )
b. .
( )
c.
( )
d.
( )
e.
( )
3. Find the first derivative of y=√
a.
√
b.
√
c.
√
d.
√
e.
√
4. The graph of a function f is concave when f ‟(x) is:
a. f „(x) 0 b .f „(x) c .f „(x)
d. f „(x) = 0 e. f „(x)
64
5. Evaluate the
=
a. 0 b. 1 c. 8
d. 16 e. not existent
6. The critical number/s of the function y =
– 3x is / are:
a. 2, 2 b. 2, 0 c. 2, 0
d. 3, 2 e. 3, 2
7.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. 1
8. Find the second derivative of y = (2x 3) (3x  2)
a. 11 b. 12 c. 13
d. 14 e. 15
9. Find two nonnegative numbers so that their sum is 100 and the sum of their
squares is maximum.
a. 30 & 70 b. 50 & 50 c. 60 & 40
d. 20 & e. 75 & 25
65
10. A function is increasing on interval ( a , b ) if :
a. f ‟( x ) 0 for every x in ( a , b)
b. f ‟( x ) 0 for every x in ( a , b)
c. f ‟( x ) 0 for every x in ( a , b)
d. f ‟( x )0 for every x in ( a , b)
e. f ‟( x ) 0 for every x in ( a , b)
11. What is the derivative with respect to xof ( x + 1)
3
 x
3
?
a. 3x + 6 b. 3x – 3 c. 6x – 3
d. 6x + 3 e. 3x – 6
12. Find the derivative of
()
a.
()

()
b.
()

()
c.
()

()
d.
()

()
e.
()

()
13. Find the slope of x
2
y=8 at the point (2, 2).
a. 2 b. 1 c. 
d. 2 e. 1
14. The sum of two positive numbers is 50. What are the numbers if their product
is to be the largest possible.
66
a. 24 & 26 b. 28 & 22 c. 25 & 25
d. 20 & 30 e. 29 & 21
15. A farmer has enough money to build only 100 meters of fence. What are the
dimensions of the field he can enclose the maximum area?
a. 25 m x 25 m b. 15 m x 35 m c. 20 m x 30 m
d. 22.5 m x27.5 m e. 15 m x 25 m
67
CURRICULUM VITAE
68
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name : Gerlie L. Gososo
Address : Brgy. Astorga, Daram Samar
Age : 20
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Course : BSED – MATH
Educational Background
Elementary : Brgy. Astorga Elementary School
Secondary : Daram National High School
Tertiary : Samar State University
69
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name : Juna T. Tejones
Address : Poblacion 3, Daram Samar
Age : 21
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Course : BSED – MATH
Educational Background
Elementary : Daram Elementary School
Secondary : Daram National High School
Tertiary : Samar State University
70
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name : Ian Francis G. Ojeda
Address : Brgy. Parina, Jiabong Samar
Age : 20
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Course : BSED – MATH
Educational Background
Elementary : Parina Elementary School
Secondary : Samar National School
Tertiary : Samar State University
71
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name : Rhald Lemuel C. Montallana
Address : Oras, Eastern Samar
Age : 22
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Course : BSED – MATH
Educational Background
Elementary : Cagpile Elementary School
Secondary : Oras National High School
Tertiary : Samar State University
72
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name : Anito B. Fabilloren
Address : Brgy. Solupan, Paranas Samar
Age : 28
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Course : BSED – MATH
Educational Background
Elementary : Pequit Elementary School
Secondary : Wright Vocational School
Tertiary : Samar State University